Archive for the ‘Child Support’ Category
Does It Matter Who Baked the Pie, so Long as It’s Eaten? Well, That Depends on the Cook(s).
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:
|
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
|
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 GrantsThe 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 MarriageHealthy 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 ParentingInvolved 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 StabilityResources 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 SupportAbout 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. |
IncarcerationThe 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, & DataGood 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 DevelopmentThe 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 & EvaluationASPE 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 ResourcesFederal 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:
|
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.”
I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed, ex-wife of D.C. Sniper, “Scared Silent” ca. 2002/John Muhammad, a Devoted Dad?
Connecting the Sniper case to family court corruption and federal fatherhood program fraud. (Part 1)
by Cindy Ross © October 28, 2002), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups, plus trials that follow).
It is VITALLY important, in other words, that more people understand and protest the continued funding of a system of “evolving purposes” all labeled’ family” which are resulting in habitually increasing scenarios involving roadkill. This scenario claims that the family is the basic unit of society, anything that threatens “family” is itself (by definition) a threat to society, and women’s right to live alone versus live with constant domestic terrorism based on the fact that they’re female, or vulnerable and happen to get paid less per $$ then men overall — and are not represented even halfway proportionately in our primarily white male Congress & Senate. Sorry to put it that way, but one hellish marriage, and an equally long hell in the court system simply leads me rationally to acts of Congress designed to promote fatherhood. I didn’t promote or pass these at the time, and am simply reporting their existence, and in part, their costs. Plural.
This is the rationale which (if it’s bought & believed, or tolerated) which priorities “family” over Bill of Rights in EVERY case where there is a custody dispute. That philosophy then enables passage of programs in which we find fraud, and incentives — which have zero (NO) place in promoting justice. If courtrooms are not neutral — meaning, they are bribe-free — and they are “OUT-COME based” versus PROCESS-based” — they are kangaroo courtrooms. So we need to report honestly — Let’s get Honest — about this facet in particular. At the annual price tag of approximately $4 billions, and for the Jessica Gonzales’ the Dawn Axsoms, the Catalina Torres’, and the Officers shot in the line of duty during domestic dispute hostage situations, let’s defuse the need for the Federally Sponsored (with corporate help) “Special Interest Resource Centers” Publish, Design a Logo, Link to GroupThink, or We Perish industry.
It’s important. Look at the site (probably not most current, for general idea only):
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
[HHS/ACF — and ACF is one of the largest OpDivs [Operational Divisions] of HHS)
PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FY 2012
BUDGET PAGE APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 269
AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270
APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… 271
AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION ………………………………………………………………………… 273
OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 274
SUMMARY OF CHANGES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275
JUSTIFICATION:
GENERAL STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ……………………………………………………… 276
BUDGET REQUEST……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278
OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES TABLE ……………………………………………………………………………… 280
RESOURCE AND PROGRAM DATA ………………………………………………………………………………… 282
STATE TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 287
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here are selected states (fairly whimsical, but I tried to honor Republican Primary Candidates, and Kansas gets a mention because it so recently re-organized the SRS department (which gets the OCSE funding) and is recommending women marry their way out of poverty, too bad for domestic violence (see Topkea) and as advised behind closed doors by some ultra-conservative experts, i.e., Wade Horn, etc. Marriage & Fatherhood promotion are diversionary programs enabled under welfare law, and typically recruiting or program enrollment often happens at the child support level). Look at some of the program titles and which branch of government gets the funding (or most of it), which varies by state:
Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS | KS | 11IAKS4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 535,121 | |
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES | KS | 0904KS4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 698,875 | |
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES | KS | 1104KS4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 27,012,837 | |
Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services | KS | 90FD0145 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MONICA REMILLARD | $ 15,469 |
PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS | KS | 11IBKS4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 250,000 |
IOWA, TEXAS, UTAH
Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 0904IA4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 2,535,162 | |
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 1104IA4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 18,224,176 | |
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 90FD0183 | MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS | 1 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JOE FINNEGAN | $ 95,214 |
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services | IA | 90FD0144 | LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | HAROLD B COLEMAN | $ 50,000 |
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 0904TX4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 1,735,514 | |
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 1104TX4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 193,122,346 | |
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 0 |
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 50,000 |
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 90FD0169 | URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 75,000 |
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | UT | 0904UT4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 446,019 | |
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | UT | 1104UT4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 22,067,247 |
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.
|
MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA:
Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 0904IA4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 2,535,162 | |
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 1104IA4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 18,224,176 | |
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 90FD0183 | MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS | 1 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JOE FINNEGAN | $ 95,214 |
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services | IA | 90FD0144 | LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | HAROLD B COLEMAN | $ 50,000 |
LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE | MN | 11ICMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 143,405 | |
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE | MN | 07IDMN4004 | 2007 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 14,098 | |
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE | MN | 11IDMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 217,386 | |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 0904MN4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 490,616 | |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 1104MN4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 101,786,892 | |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0127 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | PATRICK W KRAUTH | $ 0 |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0127 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | PATRICK W KRAUTH | $ 0 |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0140 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JILL C ROBERTS | $ 0 |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0140 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JILL C ROBERTS | $ 69,684 |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0147 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | KAREN L SCHIRLE | $ 0 |
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0147 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | KAREN L SCHIRLE | $ 50,000 |
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR ** | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | $ 198,000 | |
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 0904OH4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 2,961,680 | |
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 1104OH4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 111,207,241 | |
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 90FD0142 | OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | ATHENA RILEY | $ 50,000 |
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 90FD0174 | OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | ATHENA RILEY | $ 75,000 |
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE | PA | 0904PA4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 4,560,291 | |
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE | PA | 1104PA4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 150,800,949 | |
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS | MN | 11IAMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 403,801 | |
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL | MN | 11BIMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 307,298 | |
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL | MN | 11IBMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 230,371 |
Results 1 to 25 of 25 matches.
|
**This “demonstrates” that at least browsing where money from the Dept. of HHS/OCSE is going from time to time, can be illuminating. When one sees an unexplained acronym, it may be worth a closer look. I figured “HMHR” had something to do with “Healthy Marriage” and was right. Here’s the rest of the Ohio “HMHR” grants (spent for What? Ohioans should look up) and found $198K per year for several years. I also figured this is going on in more than one state, i.e., it’s some federal policy — and was right:
OHIO only (see grant award number has “OH” in it)
Fiscal Year | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
2011 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
2009 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
2008 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
2007 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
2006 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
Results 1 to 5 of 5 matches.
|
![]() |
$1.194 million so for — hope it’s a good program!
From the web:
-
Chapter 2: Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids …
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/eval…/grand_ch2.htmlThe HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement … TheHMHR project proposes to reach at least 2500 people over 5 years with direct …*
-
More Specifically (and predictably):
-
Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids (HMHR) is a community-based initiative that delivers relationship skills-building services intended to encourage healthy relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, and to increase the financial well-being of children in a low-income urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver in October 2003. The Federal funding required a non-Federal match, and HMHR received a private grant from the Grand Rapids Community Foundation in November 2003. Community needs assessment, recruitment, and relationship building with partners and service delivery planning led to the delivery of relationship skills-building services starting in June 2004.
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 Turnprograms 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 GrantsThe 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)
|
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:
|
(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.
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.”
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.
Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
---|---|---|---|---|
200501110252 | 01/10/2005 | ACTIVE | AIMESTER PRODUCTIONS LLC | AIMEE GALICIA TORRES |

Main OfficeNew America Foundation |
California OfficeNew America Foundation |

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

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
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]
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:
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#
|
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
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.
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.
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
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 |
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!
And, tidbits such as (from 2008 — an election year. Worth a review this year?):
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:
What about Ben Franklin? (1706-1790)– was he adequately schooled? Methinks not:
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.
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?
Perhaps this lack of respect comes from someone who found something better to do with his time, working on self-assigned projects of interest.
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:
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.
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.
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
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!
And, tidbits such as (from 2008 — an election year. Worth a review this year?):
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:
What about Ben Franklin? (1706-1790)– was he adequately schooled? Methinks not:
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.
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?
Perhaps this lack of respect comes from someone who found something better to do with his time, working on self-assigned projects of interest.
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:
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
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 Access-Visitation, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, HHS-TAGGS grants database, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..