Archive for the ‘Domestic Violence vs Family Law’ Category
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 |
SHARE THIS POST on...
Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017)
Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017) (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-WN”
My practice of adding borders and listing the post title with shortlink is more recent.
Currently this post is NOT listed on any Table of Contents (my lists only go as far back as Sept. 2012)…I see that many of the logos will not display, and that this post as written was about 10,000 words long. This update made only because a basic search on the blog for an organization I’m writing about again brought it up. (Update this time is only minimal format changes for easier reading; is not in detail and doesn’t include fixing broken links/missing logos, or more recent information on the organizations referenced).//LGH Oct. 30, 2017.
INTRO:
Overall, I seriously doubt that it’s possible to clean up or straighten up the family law system — at all, and I am utterly serious in saying this. There is too much incentive for fraud, and too much need to “pay the mortgages” in the courthouses by ordering more services, and too little oversight and tracking of the funding. There are too many public employees forming nonprofit corporations to franchise for-profit curricula (marriage, parent education, etc.) — in the old NonProfit/ForProfit combo.
There are too few tools in many states to track WHO is repeatedly forming corporations that go belly-up, only to have a partner or other person formerly on one board just go forth and from another one — in another state. Many of these groups, as my last post showed, are membership organizations — membership is charged, conferences run, and we have some evidence from county payrolls or vouchers from court-connected professionals, that the public is billed to fund attendance at nonprofits whose ONE purpose is to expand their services. Child support is one of the worst of these, but they come in all flavors.
Despite the bleak outlook — I still report and I am going to finish reporting on this field of Parent Coordination until it is CLEAR what the AFCC professionals’ intent is in establishing this field and, if possible, having it legitimized at the state level by establishing standards, or by mandate.
The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts runs many task forces at a time, as part of its strategic plan to expand (itself) and transform the “old” language of criminal law into more friendly-to-its-practitioners concepts. One of them which they are taking VERY seriously in promoting — and I take VERY seriously in protesting — is Parenting Coordination.
Parents didn’t ask for this — it’s no grassroots movement, and from what I can tell how it’s been (1) advertised (2) pushed and (3) practiced — there’s no genuine NEED for it either. For that matter, I see no historical record that parents as a sector (both male and female) asked for the family law system, either.
Why I’m addressing it — again:
(1) AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS. NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS AS THEY DID.
The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too: Parenting Coordination: A Bad Idea
Here’s less than half the list — and so far I agree with ALL of them. Thank you, Liz (Kates, the FL Family Law attorney, not Richards, of NAFCJ.net)
© 1996-2011 argate.net frcp:
- Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
- Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
- Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
- Parenting coordination violates privacy
- The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
- Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
- Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
- No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
- No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.
- Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
- Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
- Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
- Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract
- There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
- Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
- It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
- Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
- Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
- Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds
- Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
- Parenting coordination is not confidential
- Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
- Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
- Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders
- Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights
- Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
- They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
- They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
- Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
- Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
- Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power
- Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
- They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”
- They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
- They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
- Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
- Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
- Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
- They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them
From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!
- DVLeap brief in 2010 case (Washington, DC) arguing some of the constitutional issues More from DVLeap
“The Court’s parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process… The Special Master Order’s requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy… The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy…”
AFCC could care less. They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.
- Even the brother of the Marriage Promotion President, the “Family” family, George Bush — as Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, FL (2004) had the sense to object based on sound principles. A newly formed (probably for this purpose) chapter of AFCC strategized, lobbied, publicized, practiced, and finally managed to ram it through, over his veto. It only slowed them down slightly.
June 18, 2004
Ms. Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State Florida Department of State
By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:
An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .
Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.
- He lists 5 objections, two of which clearly recognize that it in effect allows a parent coordinator to function as both judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights, and one of which is that it fails to protect victims of domestic violence. I also note from the language that it looks like a Committee (not the general legislature) attempted to have this substitute for an existing Senate Bill. . . . .
(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —
- The People fixed on training parent coordinators have a terrible track record when it comes to staying incorporated(I found another one today — Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals, or “SAIF.” Formed in 2006, it’s already behind in its filings, in the state of Indiana. And it appears that, again, a nonprofit/for-profit combo, originating not with litigants, but with the professionals, was set up to give (again) some family law attorneys the right to crow about their own parent coordination training seminars they helped run themselves. By and large, that seems to be the situation in Indiana — which it seems New Hampshire liked a lot, too. Termini/Boyan are Georgia/Pennsylvania — but same general idea.
(3) The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive.
Here’s an example, from a family law attorney, a bona-fide certified one (although the nonprofit membership she cites all over is anything but “bona-fide” when it comes to filing charitable returns in the home state!)
It’s even from an Amicus Brief (I THINK it got filed, although this isn’t the stamped version). Actually, this is where the title to my post came from:
CASE NO. C064475
SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
__________________
RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________
ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________
Face sheet as posted at CaliforniaParentingCoordinator.com (using link from this 12/14/2011 post).
[Three images, inside blue borders, added in 2017 update. See also their list Table of Authorities].
In the statute of authorities for this brief, bearing the name “Leslie Ellen Shear” and “Stephen Temko” (although the certificate of interested parties form bears the name Shear, and is dated 1/27/2011), after the legal and rules of court list, comes:
Table of Contents from Amicus Brief (source url shown on gray window-frame at top of image).
“Treatises, Law Reviews and Other Authorities” – and on reading it, I see it quotes, among others:
- The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)
- AFCC itself (at least twice)
- A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others. These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.
- Herself, like 3 times, in:
- Shear (2008) In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass-roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute 5 Journal of Child Custody 88…………………………………………..5, 18, 25 (cited on page 5, 18 & 25).
(I’m also adding this quote in 2017 update, from the Amicus Brief):
ACFLS’s purposes in appearing as amicus are to protect and perfect the parenting coordination service model in California family courts, discuss the implications of the issues raised in this case for the future of parent coordination in California, and address the implications of those issues for other family court appointed neutrals including but not limited to child custody evaluators4, minors’ counsel appointed per Fam. Code §3150 et seq., mediators, therapists, members of collaborative family law teams, and other court appointed or connected quasi-judicial dispute resolution professionals.
In other words, to protect her own kind….
Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination.
Another set of professionals tried to write “Kids Turn” into law around 2002, right? (see my “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch post.”) then-Governor Gray Davis (properly!) vetoed even the version of it put out which didn’t overtly say “Kids’ Turn” on its face.
So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:
On page 4, quoting AFCC person Greenberg (whose writing I also ran across) cites who came up with the idea, vaguely characterized as:
In 1994, the concept of parenting coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who realized that some high conflict families remained chronically mired in conflict and required something different. . . For these families, the traditional tried and true approaches to containing familial conflict such as litigation, mediation, forensics, and therapy had not worked. Thus, the concept of parenting coordination was conceived as a different and needed dispute resolution intervention.
(Tried and True? [is that really an appropriate phrase for use in an amicus brief?]
Try “Tried and found seriously wanting.” Don’t believe me? Look here. I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida. Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one: even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that murder) miss their Daddy. And they shouldn’t even be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc.
Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children. And the shooter was a retired police officer!
Dad accused of killing son wants custody rights to surviving kids; judge lets him have unsupervised contact (Orlando, Florida)
POSTED: 5:56 pm EST December 13, 2011
UPDATED: 6:45 pm EST December 13, 2011ORLANDO, Fla. — A former Orlando police officer accused of killing his son was back in court, arguing for custody rights to his other children.
Timothy Davis Sr. won a victory of sorts Tuesday when a judge granted him the ability to pick up his younger children from school, including his 9-year-old daughter who authorities said witnessed the killing.
The retired police officer is accused of shooting his son, 22-year-old Timothy Davis Jr., to death at their Apopka home in what he said was self-defense after his son attacked him, injuring his knee in October.
Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife.
Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper. I do not call this ‘tried and true.” This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps.
Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter. This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:
by KHOU.com staff
khou.com
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PMKATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.
According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.
Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children. Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.
Sorry to bring up this very unpleasant reality-check, but when in Amicus Brief a parent-coordinator pusher talks about previously tried methods that work — the definition of “works” or “tried and true” apparently / generally just means “tried, sometimes resulting in death, physical or sexual abuse of minors post-separation, or having minor children showing up in child pornography in father’s possession.” All of these were from December 2011 news articles, only.
Keep these incidents for a point of reference while I quote from p.12, a whole chapter on how parent coordinators have such difficult parents to deal with, “poor them”:
… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage.** These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Families 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252
**Difficult-to manage parents are the bread and butter of the family court. They are the income producers. Assigning them to parent coordination is yet one more source of income for the professionals, taken from either the parents, or (looks like there’s some effort to make even broke parents participate in this too — AFCC-CA has a workshop or presentation, on the 2012 hearing on this).
Perhaps the professionals in question should re-think the business of “managing parents” to start with.
So, the opening quote to this chapter is from two long-time AFCC professionals (Coates/Deutsch) in an AFCC publication?, although it’s only 2004, using an AFCC-originated concept and term, “high-conflict families” (although I hear Bill Eddy now says they are high-conflict individuals — see my post on “yet another AFCC wet dream.” and his High-conflict Institute….)
The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to re- turn to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs,* and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,
* perhaps this speaks to the quality of the co-parenting educational programs, more than the parents.
* or perhaps they are pissed at being forced to take co-parenting classes to start with, not mentioning affected if they also have to pay.
Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents.
A casual dismissal of whether it’s just one — or both — parents here. We KNOW that many of these cases — not just some — are in fact cases involving danger, abuse, and etc. These cases do NOT belong in family court at all — but they are there because of greed of professionals, and because of the fatherhood movement (backlash to feminism) that incentivizes and insists that single motherhood is bad for kids. For that matter, even if Mom remarries happily, it’s still supposedly bad for the world if biological father isn’t in his kids’ life.
In short — Ms. Shear and Mr. Temko (whoever drafted this) — are, with their colleagues — unable to literally distinguish between one parent and another when discussing “parents” in front of others who have some privilege (like a statutory justification) or grant to give them.
BUT — their own handbooks, and some appellate cases already involving parenting coordination, show clearly that they are QUITE able to distinguish one parent from another, and not only do, but literally plan how to, target mothers, specifically, for badmouthing and possible intervention in the form of getting the kids away from her. (I have two links to parent coordination handbooks on this post, you can check them out.).
The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997).
You can’t see it here, but on the pdf it shows: in this quote, we have a triple-layer AFCC site. I believe Johnston is probably Janet Johnston (AFCC Board, or was). Kelly, (below) who’s being quoted in the section, if it’s Joan B. Kelly, has been called the “grande dame” of AFCC and mediation promotion in the family law courts. She runs a Northern California Mediation Center, and obviously publishes too. And Shear is AFCC. So — if so — that represents:
AFCC Shear quotes AFCC Kelly quoting AFCC Johnston, as to parent coordination, which is an AFCC idea. (this is FAR more common than most people — who are less obsessive about looking things up than me — realize. I have labored through some pretty detailed writings (NYState) where when they ran out of ideas, they simply restated them, and I literally read ALL the footnotes too, most of which were “ibid.”
Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.
Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150
I don’t know how to state this clearly enough. The difficulty any professional has — who by definition holds an option to quit the profession (which they chose) in dealing with a ‘difficult client” is no comparison with the difficulty of dealing — year after year thanks to policies — with an “ex” who has threatened to kidnap or kill, who has beaten one before, or who may be and/or has molested children, possibly one’s own (dep. on the case) before. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot? Again, if professionals don’t like the difficulty they have an option — find another line of work.
But thanks to their insistence on THIS line of work, i.e., at public AND private expense, and explicit danger to the communities — almost no parent — and I’m going to say mother, specifically– can actually get free from real criminals they’ve had children with, even when he’s already in jail.
I know of one case where the person has already done time in an unbelievably severe situation, and this mother/daughter who already went through hell — is being stalked again. Until she’s safe, I’m not naming names, but once she is/they are, I will – because this case was high-profile and has been in the news.
One point of view is dealing with comfort, and potential burnout, in the performance of one’s duties that have internationally networked, federally-funded, county-judicial-level endorsed, and more — support groups. The other is of staying alive, housed, and after that, functional and employed at all.
If one continues to read the Amicus, it continues to complain and blame. The next quote by Shear is of Shear. Here’s a little further on in the Amicus:
Parenting coordination is a very intrusive model, inserting state authority into the daily family lives of parents and children. With those intrusive powers comes a duty to exercise restraint, discretion and wisdom.
This work often creates the perfect storm. Parenting coordinators struggle to avoid being triangulated into the family’s conflicts.
Well, they triangulated themselves in there to start with, intentionally! Which shows a lack of: “restraint, discretion, and wisdom” per se.
From page 18 (“just one more”!) – This chapter complains that California hasn’t legislated parenting coordination by stipulation (i.e., authorizing it by force) yet:
The only thing that is clear about appointment of parenting coordinators in California is that family courts are without jurisdiction to make them without a stipulation. Moreover, no published case has upheld orders resulting from a stipulated appointment of a parenting coordinator.
The quote from Greenberg in this Amicus acknowledges that professionals in California & Colorado (two hotspots of family law leadership; Center for Policy Research/Jessica Pearson et al. are in Denver) “spawned” the concept. Or rather, it “was spawned” — we can’t name an individual father, so perhaps it was a sort of psychological gang-rape that produced the idea (just kidding). Unlike “collaborative law” which actually names a father, “Stu Webb” out of MN. . .. And that this began in the 1990s.
We are now in 2011. Perhaps it’s time to admit that it’s a bad idea to start with; if even in California — where AFCC originated — they can’t get it into law!
The text continues — and understanding that I don’t know the underlying case, have not read the entire brief and am not an attorney, I’m to add a comment to the next section:
Of course, courts have no power to modify statutes. Statutes prescribe and proscribe what courts may do.
Damn right they do! On the other hand, has that really slowed down AFCC initiatives, has it? I think there’s been a track record of resounding success, if getting around constitutional and statutory limits pending changing the statutes to accommodate more income streams to court-connected (or formerly court-connected, like retired judges) professionals… is what’s intended.
The California Constitution (art. VI, § 22) prohibits the delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. A trial court lacks either statutory or inherent power to require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services, even where it may have the authority to make the appointment. (People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703)
The Court of Appeal reversed trial court orders delegating authority over the visitation schedule to a child custody evaluator, requiring one of the parents to participate in psychotherapy and requiring that all future custody mat- ters be heard before the same bench officer in In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 811, 816–817 because there was no statutory authority supporting such a delegation.
Just GUESSING here, but perhaps if over a 21-year period (in one state), it’s still being stated that there are Constitutional limits on delegating Judicial power, and three years later the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) brings it up in a reason for vetoing a parent coordination stipulation — there just MIGHT be a good reason! Parent Coordination is hardly an Occupy San Francisco (or anywhere else in California) grassroots protest or demand, is it, either?
We’re third generation fatherhood programs out here, we are also probably at least second-generation post-TANF (1996), post fatherhood (i.e., about 15-16 years since they passed), and perhaps– just perhaps — the last thing this state needs is more ideas originating from this nonprofit and all its collaborators in therapeutic jurisprudence great ideas.
Perhaps — just perhaps — it’s a good thing if constitutional and statutory limits on out-sourcing the judicial function mean something around here, for a change! Be content with what you got so far, as authorized by access/visitation (three categories of potential program fraud enabled) and all the marriage promotion money too, plus lots of the nonprofits — like ACFLS — not even bothering to report into the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG) anyhow!
(REASON 4)
(4)
Moreover — like most AFCC promotions — the language promoting parent coordination continues to refuse to think or talk in terms of legal rights to INDIVIDUALS as the Declaration of Independence asserted, which helped kickstart the USA, claims they are. The language of parent coordination is continually pluralized, or group-talk. It does not, really, acknowledge that a person could be a member of a family (like “parent” “father” or “mother”) and yet really have — and deserve — equal standing as an individual in any matter, before the law.
Here’s an example from ParentCoordinationCentral.com (Termini/Boyan site). These are the supposed GOALS OF PARENT COORDINATION:
-
Educate parents regarding the impact of their behaviors on their child(ren)’s development.
[supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers. They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.] -
Reduce parental conflict through anger management, communication and conflict resolutions skills.[increasing the expense of divorce, treating parents like kids, undermining judicial authority, & due process, and invading one’s privacy sure will “reduce parental conflict”!! . .. And I haven’t even got (this post anyhow) to the training manual which has an openly hostile attitude towards mothers, it’s unbelievable).
-
Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.[goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior. Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]
-
Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.[Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well. Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans. I mean — the concept is ridiculous! What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]
-
Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to adjust more effectively with the new family structure.[You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/ Again, go have your own and show it to us. Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]
-
Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.[that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]
-
Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the recommendations of the Court.[Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up. One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena. It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails. It entails respecting its laws. I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]
- The NH “Parent Coordinators” Association of 2009 “FAQs” suggest a benefit is:
- Q. What are the benefits of Parenting Coordination?
Parenting Coordination offers a much better way of resolving parenting plan issues than returning to court. And the resolution comes much faster than waiting for a court date and then the court decision. The Parenting Coordinator educates the parents about the harm to the children of hostility between parents, mediates issues as they arise, and if the parents are unable to resolve minor issues, makes the decision.
As ever, when selling their services, AFCC professionals see themselves as the mature adults on the scene, and the parents as a “plural,” and refuse to assign responsibility where it’s perhaps due. They seem to utterly lack curiosity in fact-finding as to that matter. This is understandable, because they deal in “psychology” more than law– which is the culture of the association. While two individual parents are often involved, in the marketing prose, it’s always “the parents” v. “the helping professionals”
However, once in the door, and in practice — then they are quick to blame ONE parent, often the mother, and recommend severe intervention, often removing of contact with the children to counter supposed “alienation.” In other words, they are hypocrites — professing neutrality and to be helping, but planning in advance (in this case) to do harm to one gender — the female, should she as a parent (mother) counter them.
I blogged this earlier, but again (from the same site) — here is their “sample” report from the handbook:
A handbook for the purpose and practice of parenting coordination prepared by PCANH.
Parts of this were credited (fn1 inside) to “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” in Indiana. This is a nonprofit formed in 2005, EIN# 432074631 with principal listed c/o “Gloria K. Mitchell.”
So of course I looked this person up — she is a Rising Star Super Attorney, member of National Association of Counsel for Children, and works in a four-woman firm. The nonprofit, however, is categorized as “exempt — earning under $25,000). website’s “Divorce and Parenting Research Links” is typical, plus a direct link to the Children’s Rights Council” (hover URL). CRC is pretty big in Indiana… Six years after passing the bar, Ms. Mitchell was on the Executive Committee of Family Law Section of Indiana Bar Assoc., and chaired it in 2005. The articles of incorporation show it’s a 501(c)4 (not “3”) and by address its place of business is another law firm in Noblesville, Indiana: Holt, Fleck & Romini. If the image (showing org.’s purpose) doesn’t show, it’s viewable for free on the site below.
| Entity Name | Type | Entity Type | City / State |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC. | Legal | Non-Profit Domestic Corporation | INDIANAPOLIS, IN |
Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum
3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute
and Family ICO Training Session July 28-29, 2005*
Amy concentrates her practice in matrimonial and family law matters. She was one of the first Indiana attorneys trained in collaborative law, and she has been instrumental in introducing the approach in Indiana. She has practiced collaborative law since 2007, has attended several conferences of the International Association of Collaborative Professionals,* and has been trained by collaborative law founder Stuart Webb. In addition, Amy also practices traditional litigation.
*Readers probably may not remember, so I’ll remind us. the “IACP” is another incarnation, membership association — out of many — formed by AFCC-type professionals, as you can see by the description:
ACP is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, an international community of legal, mental health and financial professionals working in concert to create client-centered processes for resolving conflict.
In May of 1999, the first annual AICP [=American Institute of Collaborative Professionals] networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.
The Collaborative Review has been published continuously since May, 1999. The work begun by initial editors Jennifer Jackson and Pauline Tesler. . .
Jennifer Jackson (FYI, I’ve never met, spoken to, or dealt with her in court) is kind of branded in my mind as having helped start up Kids’ Turn (SF):
FYI — here is another Super Lawyer, high-profile, longstanding success. Her “about” page lists many accomplishments. Notice which comes first; notice also the variety of terms which are basic to the field: I’ll bold them:
About Jennifer Jackson
Before becoming a family lawyer in 1985, Jennifer Jackson was an illustrator and photographer, raising three children.
A LITTLE LOCAL COMMENTARY relating to this Super-Productive/Super Attorney and her many Nonprofits:
I know artists, including photographers and illustrators. It’s not that easy to make a living at; this speaks of either a good prior divorce settlement, (or not marrying) or some substantial education somewhere along the line, undergrad plus law school. That’s quite a set of accomplishments, but I don’t think represents an indigence. See Resume:
- BA with Honors in 1966, became family lawyer (passed bar?)
- 1985, with Professor’s Assistanceships (in law school) on child-related and mediation topics. Maybe I can assume that almost 20 year gap is called “Mom” and “Wife” time.
- In 1987, she helped found Kids’ Turn and was simultaneously involved in PTA Board at “Campolindo High School” where her kids probably attended. Campolindo is — well, its site describes it well:
“Located in the hills east of the University of California, Berkeley, Campolindo serves the professionally-oriented and well-educated suburban communities of Moraga and Lafayette. Students, teachers and parents work together to provide a positive climate for learning where mutual respect, trust and esteem are valued. ” . . .”In statewide API (Academic Performance Index) ratings, for the fifth year in a row, both the Acalanes District and Campolindo are ranked in the very top percentiles of all public high schools in California with an API score of 919. Nationally, Campolindo is recognized regularly in Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best High Schools in America”. The Association of Californa School Administrators honored Campolindo’s Principal, Carol Kitchens, as the Secondary Principal of the Year in 2009
Blending this background of creativity, caring and flexibility with her legal training enhances her practice of family law and expands the options for her clients.
Jennifer believes that a lawyer must be actively involved in her professional community, and that life is about making a difference. Jennifer is one of the founders of Kids’ Turn, a program for separating families begun in San Francisco which has expanded exponentially in size and in quality of service to children and families.
(If you know my blog, you know EXACTLY why and how Kids’ Turn “expanded exponentially in size” — see family law attorneys, evaluators & judges on the board, see access/visitation funds “facilitating” parent education programs. . . . .As to the quality of service? That’s debatable, but as I haven’t sat through any of the classes — except to note they use the word “parental alienation” a lot in stating benefits, i.e., “reduces parental alienation” type claims. I’ll withhold judgment on this, as should others who haven’t !!)
She is one of the founders of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and served for eight years as co-editor of its journal, The Collaborative Review. She has had leadership roles in her professional organizations at local, state national and international levels, and is a past president of the Northern California chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
Within five years of passing the bar, she is serving as a judge pro tem– how common is that? Or this?
Standing Committee on Custody, North: Chair 1988-1990
San Francisco Bar Association
Executive Committee, Family Law Section: Chair, 1992; Member: 1987-present
Fee Arbitration Panel: 1988-1990
Barristers Club, Co-Chair, Family Law Committee: 1988-1990
BASF Delegate to the State Bar Convention: 1989, 1990
Volunteer Legal Services Program Volunteer Attorney: 1986-2000[[This is almost another topic — I’ve footnoted it [VLSP* at bottom of post, a section in itself….]
Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic
Jennifer has been given an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named one of the top 50 female lawyers (“Super Lawyers”) in Northern California in all areas of practice by Law and Politics Publications for the past five years in a row. Jennifer practices alternative dispute resolution exclusively; she has trained extensively in mediation and collaboration, and is committed to keeping clients out of court and at the negotiating table.
| The IACP has created Standards for practitioners, trainers and collaborative practice trainings. It has promulgated Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners, and continues to support excellence in collaborative practice through resources, training curriculum, practice tools, mentoring and a comprehensive website, allowing collaborative practitioners to continue our tradition of sharing and learning from one another. |
Where we are going…
Today, the IACP has over 4,000 members from twenty four countries around the world. We are dedicated to educating the public about the Collaborative alternative. We are committed to fostering professional excellence in conflict resolution through Collaborative Practice. We invite you to peruse this site to learn more about IACP, our services and initiatives.
Amy is the past-chair of the Family Law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association (2003) and is president of Families Moving Forward, Inc., a multi-disciplinary non-profit organization devoted to developing healthy approaches to family transitions.. . .[Law Degree summa cum laude Indiana Univ. School of Law, 1999; admitted to IN bar same year, graduate “with high distinction” in 1986. ]
5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation. What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are. As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).
FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC., is an interdisciplinary organization of attorneys, mental health providers, accountants, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in Indiana, by reducing conflict and cost, creating healthier outcomes for children, and enhancing the satisfaction of professionals serving families.
Seminars For Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals
| Date | Name (Type) |
| 7/27/2006 | SEMINARS FOR ADVANCED INTERDISCIPLINARY FAMILY PROFESSIONALS, INC. D/B/A SAIF (Assumed)) |
Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):
The sample report begins with a situation between father and stepfather which was hostile. Both wanted to coach on Little (10) Joey’s baseball team.
Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:
5. Mr. Smith and Mr. Doe should attend counseling sessions together to attempt to resolve their(For example, the mother did not want the father to volunteer on Fridays at school any longer. She maintained that the children were emotional and upset on those mornings and did not want to go to school. The teachers were contacted and reported that the children looked forward to and enjoyed their father’s presence.
AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:
From their 5-year prospectus:
AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting
Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp.
AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force: Christie Coates, J.D., M.Ed. (Chair), Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., (Secretary), Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D. , Philip Epstein, Q.C., Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William Jones (ret.), Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D
. . . .
The following new publications have been developed since 2002 while dated products were been eliminated:
• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues
There are scholarly articles galore about this. One by matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. (and a parent coordinator) uses the phrase repeatedly in the abstract — but to access the article one-time costs $34 and permanently $155. Needless to say, not many people who have parent coordinators in their lives can afford to read up on it….
“In 1994 the concept of parent coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who
WHILE PROMOTION EFFORTS TEND TO PHRASE PARENT COORDINATION PASSIVELY (as if a natural development), IN PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE FIELD:
AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:
And I am going to show you what apparent frauds some of the prime “trainers” are in this field too. But first, let’s look at the upcoming 2012 conference called:
The New Frontier
Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts:
This is an upcoming (Feb. 2012) meeting of the California Chapter of the AFCC. An entire day is dedicated to a workshop on Parenting Coordination, and a secondary one talks about how to get it in there — even if parents are indigent.
Here are the presenters’ bios (please scroll through). Some are more than a page, others short. Notice the types of professionals involved (typical), Judges, Attorneys and Psychologists, Mediators, etc. Some have been around forever (Joan B. Kelly, Dianna Gould-Saltzmann) others seem newer:
Graduate of Tehran University School of Law and Harvard…
Abbas Hadjian, Esquire devotes a substantial part of his family law practice to educating the Farsi‐speaking community on the comparisons between the American and Iranian legal system and recently published “Divorce in California,” which is written in Farsi. He is an expert on Iranian culture and laws.
(from his website, partial description of an amazing background):
Mr. Hadjian was born, educated and lived in Iran until 1980. Between 1959 and 1968 Mr. Hadjian was a professional journalist in Iran, with positions including editor, writer, reporter, translator and commentator in major Iranian publications and news agencies. His profession a journalist required and helped Mr. Hadjian’s foundational understanding of the Iranian legal, social, economical and political structure. Between 1962 and 1966, Mr. Hadjian attended the School of Law, Political Science and Economics in Tehran University. Among others, he received courses in Iranian Constitution, Civil, Family and Probate law, furthering his understanding of the legal, social, economic and political infrastructure of his native country.
Upon graduation. Mr. Hadjian became a political appointee in the Office of the Governor General, Iranian Southern Ports and Islands (Persian Gulf), where he acted as a ranking civil officer in the region until 1978, the year of the Iranian Revolution. As deputy to the Governor General in social and economic affairs, Mr. Hadjian relied heavily on his legal studies and implemented them in real life situations. In 1975, Harvard University accepted him to the renowned Edward S. Mason Program for Public Development on full scholarship, acknowledging five years of Mr. Hadjian’s services in developing the Persian Gulf region as one year of post-graduate studies. He was awarded a Masters Degree in Public Administration
A related site from “Culture Counts.net” (site has three diverse professionals) has a page about fatherhood, the new normal, which “surprisingly” reminds readers about:
Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children
- Children display increased self-confidence.
- Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.
- Higher grade point averages.
- More likely to mature into compassionate adults.
- Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age
Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men
- Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.
- May reduce health-risk behaviors.
- Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.
- Happiness and increased physical activity.
- Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.
- Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.
- Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.
Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS
Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.
9:00am – 5:15pm
All Day Institute (2)
(I2) Inside Parenting Coordination Practice in California: Managing Roles, Responsibilities, and Risks
- Lyn Greenberg, Ph D
- Alexandra Leichtner, JD
- Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS
- W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordination Program Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent FamiliesHonorable Lorna Alksne// Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA // Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD // Lori Love, Ph D
http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.html
III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers
… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage. These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Fami- lies 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to return to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs, and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,
Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents. The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.
Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150
+ + + + = = = + + + = = =
[VSLP*]. This footnote comes from a fragment of attorney Jennifer Jackson’s resume, which itself came from a bio of another nonprofit, Families Moving Forward, Inc. in Indiana. I was following up in another nonprofit, “International Association Collaborative Professionals” and I guess you can see about how curious I am about the inter-relationships of various nonprofits.
I looked at the staff. This one caught my attention — because of the specialties, not him personally:
Chris Emley (in 2011, or at least now on the website.)
Chris is a certified family law specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, with 41 years of experience focusing on child custody litigation. He has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1991. He has helped to govern VLSP since its inception in 1979. He received the State Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 1983, the Legal Assistance Association of California’s Award of Merit in 1989, and two Awards of Merit from The Bar Association of San Francisco (1977 and 2004). He was a BASF board member from 1979 through 1981, and chaired the Lawyer Referral Service Committee. Chris was Vice President of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, Chairman of the Board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and Chairman of the Board of Legal Services for Children, Inc.
There happens to be one pro bono group in the SF Bay area which used to help women leaving violence and eventually in the news (and had I known at the time to check all these 990s, I’d have seen the notation that it specialized in helping NONCustodial, low-income fathers, I’d have realized why this group refused to help so many mothers stuck in the family law system.). The presence of a Certified Family Law Practitioner on the board of VSLP, with his emphasis being on children’s rights, and without question, children in ANY institutional system these days need help and representation, does make me wonder who is helping with women’s rights when it comes to actual mothers who aren’t in jail for killing their batterers (which have some groups advocating) — but actually dealing with the horrors of year after year in a custody battle with a violent or abusive ex, and doing so without even a grasp of how it works, or who pays its bills.
General Comments:
I don’t see anything in VSLP which remotely deals with the situation, and was able to get no actual help (legal representation of any sort, pro bono) in my case either, not past the initial restraining order, and a perfunctory (and NOT in court) attempt to renew it, which I was told would be a non-issue, it’s often granted automatically! No one came to court where I, like many, many other “custodial” mothers after leaving abuse, was blindsided by a prior ex parte movement consolidating renewal with a divorce and custody matter, thus shifting the case into the family law system, where it remained, and where the actual topic of ongoing DV was drowned by the type of talk we see in these realms — psychological states, not literal deeds!
The moral is, every program and every nonprofit has its target clientele. As the target clientele (for keeping in their proper place) in so many federal grants to the states are fathers (when it comes to custody matters), it would make no “sense” for the government to also pay the opposing side, the protective mothers!
[[Interesting program, project of SF Bar: its family law person Chris Emley also on Board of “Legal Services for Children” which (as of 2001) got funding from City & County of SF, SF Dept. of Public Health, and SF Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families.
Its address seems to be a few doors down from Kids Turn: 1254 Market vs. 1242 Market Street. “Legal Services for Children” (2010) shows no Chris Emley on the Board, but its main purposes are: 1. Guardianship for children wanting it; 2. Helping kids dealing with expulsion and school-related issues; 3. Immigration. . ..It also represents children in foster care and helps support LGBT youth. 200 Volunteer attorneys gave over $1mil worth of their help. The group received over $1 mill. of contrib& grants, and gave $65,000 to a DC nonprofit, National Juvenile Defender Center (EIN# 02060456. On “Foundation Finder” this EIN doesn’t pull up a tax return…..for any year. Nor does a name search! However from NCCSdataweb, I see that it was incorporated in 2002 (legal services for children, in 1975). This “National Juvenile Defender Center” interests me: 2002 income, 0. A 2007 letter from Andrea Weisman, signed DC Dept of Youth Rehab. Services (“DYRS”) (shares address with a Board member of NJDC, Mark Soler, 2002) expresses the serious problems of Youth in Adult Facilities. Weisman and Soler (again, board member of the group which got $65K grant from the West-Coast “Legal Services for Children,” which takes funding from various depts. of SF and its city & county) worked together (1999?) on “No Minor Matter: Children in Maryland’s Jails.” Weisman notes she got a $1.6mil grant from OJJDP. ]]
National Juvenile Defender Center:
2002– income is zero. By 2009 — they are into Technical Training and Assistance. And ExDir. Patricia Puritz as only paid director, gets $134K salary) — and have landed over $5 million of grants, and earning $10K from investment income and have some serious program income in 2010 ($119K= almost (but not quite) enough to pay their own Exec. Director:. Check it out. So why, in the following year (revenues down to $405K — but probably some leftovers, wanna bet?) did a group in SF just grant them $65,000? Or was that a sort of tax equalization between them both. I live in the same state as “Legal Service for Children, Inc.” and we know that our K-12 schools are taking a serious hit? Why should enough money to feed, clothe and house three families in this area for a year, be given to a nonprofit out of DC that just got $5 million the year before?
The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) was created in 1999 to respond to the critical need to build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in the justice system. In 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center separated from the American Bar Association to become an independent organization. NJDC gives juvenile defense attorneys a more permanent capacity to address practice issues, improve advocacy skills, build partnerships, exchange information, and participate in the national debate over juvenile crime.
They operate 9 US Regional Centers; the California one is in SF and among its projects is:
MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)
In 2008, California was selected by the the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as one of four sites in the nation to participate in the foundation’s Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN). The four JIDAN sites, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey and California, join the four MacArthur Models for Change “core” states of Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington to form an eight-state network.
The California team is led by the Youth Law Center, and includes members from the Center for Families, Children and the Courts of the California Administrative Office of the Courts; the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law & Policy; the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office; theSan Francisco Public Defender’s Office; the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office; andHuman Rights Watch.
The eight-state network is coordinated through the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), and engages juvenile defenders, policymakers, judges and other key stakeholders in designing strategies to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice. California was chosen as a result of its demonstrated ability to achieve measurable reform on juvenile indigent defense issues. California’s JIDAN work will be centered in the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.
The Exec. Director of this “NJDC.INFO” nonprofit (inc. 2002) was in 2003 appointed by the Governor of Virginia to a Board of Juvenile Justice:
This bio/blurb places Ms. Puritz Professionally, prior to here, she was ABA Juvenile Justice Center, etc.
Much of this relates to the “OJJDP” and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. This is an entirely different category than “Parenting Coordination” through the family law center; it is dealing with things such as the US being the world largest per-capita jailor, that those in jail are disproprotionately minority, that horrible things are happening to youth while in confinement, etc. By comparison, the “Parent Coordinator” issue seems like kids’ play unless one begins to wonder how many of the youth in detention had parents stuck in the family law system, which definitely cuts down on actual parenting time and focus!
p://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/policy/juvenile_justice.html
SHARE THIS POST on...
ABOUT THIS BLOG (@11/2011) There’s (still) No Excuse For Abuse, Including Economic Abuse of Taxpayers to Allegedly ‘EndAbuse.’
A Few FAQs, but first
let me invite readers to something normally beyond my social media skillset: a Tuesday Night Blogtalk Radio show
My email alert said
NOPE. It is different. So I hope you will call or tune in next Tuesday at 9pm EST (til further notice):
|
||||||||||||||
Have you ever wondered why the justice system and the media ignores some predatory CPS or child support enforcement programs which target and exploit families? Are courts and the Department of Children and Families receiving financial incentives from the Federal government to increase conflict in family court cases by awarding custody to unfit and unwilling parents, and even taking kids out of good homes and into the system?Abuse Freedom Radio invites you to tune in this Tuesday night at 9:00 EST to welcome Host Athena Phoenix to the AFU family and support our newest program, The 66/34 Effect: Funding in the Family Courts with host Athena Phoenix. Guests this week will be:
- LIZ RICHARDS, Founder of National Alliance for Family Court Justice (www.nafcj.net) For over 20 years, Liz has been a pioneer in the mother’s rights movement a national expert on HHS funding research, fraud, and political reform.
- FRED SOTTILE, President of the LA Chapter of Fathers 4 Justice, author, radio host, and a prominent TANF Title IV-D abolition activist.
- JACK KELLY, Democratic party political activist, Boston based blogger and columnist who wrote about the Penn State scandal.
See Jack Kelly’s article here:
A Message To PennState Prez
Rodney Erickson: Clean House!
November 12, 2011By Jack
Find out from special guest Fred Sottile why father’s rights groups are joining the fight to cut $5 billion in wasteful spending on IV-D TANF programs, including fatherhood programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. Also learn about Fred’s work on judicial reform and transparency with activists like Richard Fine, Full Disclosure Networks, and Judicial Watch.
Liz Richards will educate listeners on the politics of HHS Fatherhood and Healthy Families program funding, and how these funds are used to effect the outcome of court cases. Are grant programs administered through child support enforcement agencies, such as Responsible Fatherhood programs and Access and Visitation programs meeting their funding and accountability requirements? Is there a connection to the Penn State scandal and Occupy Wall Street?Please join us, and feel free to call in and join the discussion as we find ways to improve the system.Sincerely,
Jane Boyer & Josie Perez
Abuse Freedom United
| IF HHS PROGRAMS ARE FAILING FAMILIES, WHY DO WE KEEP FUNDING THEM? What can we do to reform them? |
| Join Athena Phoenix Tuesday Nights at 9:00 p.m. EST 
9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
4:00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time
5:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time
6:00 p.m. pacific Standard Time
7:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time 8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time
Or tune in on the web http://www.blogtalkradio.com/abusefreedomlive
|
I believe this 11/15/2011 show is now available to hear, and it will be weekly (though with which guests, I don’t know). However, the “64/34 Effect” — which has nothing to do with what most “expose the impact of domestic violence” or Train The Judges to recognize it — movements talk about. That 64/34 effect, however, has had greater influence in preventing families from getting out of it.
You’ll also note that there are both men and women on the show, and (for the record) that’s not men and women who are all pro-feminist, or pro-father. Rather, at least some people have started figuring out it’s time to stop playing the Good Cop Bad Cop (Men v. Women) themes that have been fed us by media campaigns — and instead look at some of what I have begun to (for some years now) report on this blog. I report on organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and funding behind the policies that messed with my family (yes, even my ex, who was also a batterer) and compromised our futures –badly.
(I hope the show is helpful//for the record, I’m not a regular listener and don’t know about previous episodes), or the hosts Boyer & Perez)
NOW —
ABOUT ME (& the Let’s Get Honest BLOG)
I am What I am, which is changing with time. . .. (so is the blog, only it’s an it).
- I don’t tag consistently, so if you’re hunting for something, use the search field.
- I don’t proofread, copyedit, and once the thing is off my chest and published, usually that’s it’s format (love it or leave it).
- I know — and deduce, from who’s watching it — that this blog has information on it you will NOT typically find elsewhere. I know that, because I’m a diligent person and voracious reader, and I explored the usual alternatives –consistently and hard — during a seven-year period (and thereafter) between filing a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, and watching my children have a custody-switch overnight (not getting to say goodbye to them, or vice versa) after which they basically disappeared out of my life. This was a planned event, and an enabled event — and in this blog, I am going to talk about the CONTEXT in which planned and enabled events of this sort take place.
- I quit dealing with nonprofits, or asking them for help, after I realized who they are actually answerable to — and that’s their funders, NOT their clients, who represent warm bodies that come and go through their doors, justifying the funding. This includes all kinds of nonprofits.
- The most important things needed for a mother (specifically, but it can also help nonabusive fathers) to know in the court system — to possibly stop getting screwed with (pardon the French) will NOT be found on domestic violence prevention sides, family court self-help sites (naturally), or even protective mothers sites.
- I can document a family law case (Sacks v. Sacks) that had all of the above type groups backing it from Florida to the Supreme Court of the USA (where it was declined for a hearing) and back, which chose to ignore what I blog, and think that the case was “about” their individual judges, custody evaluators, attorneys, or situation. It’s not. Get over it. Deal with it. Grow up. What happens in the courtroom — in the bottom line — is NOT about you, and in many cases, the outcome is often settled before you get there (if you have the privilege, which some don’t).
(Sample of the language — notice the drama — and people are supposed to write the judges about all this:) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
WE ARE ALL WITH YOU LINDA MARIE
We thank you Linda Marie for your courage, faith, and strength to speak for those who have been silenced by their abusers and the courts.
CASE UPDATE: JUNE 27, 2011 CASE
US SUPREME COURT: “WE DONT DO FAMILY LAW”
THE US SUPREME COURT DENIED LINDA MARIE SACKS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN SACKS V SACKS. WE ARE DISSAPOINTED BUT NOT SHOCKED AT THE US SUPREME COURTS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. DESHANEY V WINNEBEGO, CASTLE ROCK V GONZALES, TITELMAN V TITELMAN ARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF OUR NATIONS HIGHEST COURT IGNORING THE PLEAS OF PARENTS TRYING TO FIND JUSTICE FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE SEVERELY ABUSED OR MURDERED. OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE STATE SUPREME COURTS AND THE US SUPREME COURT REFUSE TO PROTECT VICTIMS AND POLICE THEIR OWN. WHY HAVE SUPREME COURTS THAT ARE DEAF TO THOSE MATTERS THAT REALLY COUNT. IS BURNING OUR FLAG, STRIP SEARCHING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, SCHOOL PRAYER, AND THE LIKE-MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM ABUSE AND MURDER?
- NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN: FACTS FOUNDER ADELE GUADALUPE INTERVIEWS LINDA SACKS ABOUT HER CASE
- Click on this link and then go to bottom of blue page to download and read full petition to the US Supreme Court
Battered Mothers-A Human Rights Issue
READ MORE www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org
Write the judges in SACKS V SACKS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ All the groups involved should thank her for free (negative) publicity at her children’s expense. However, ignorance — and this WAS ignorance, and pigheaded refusal to smell the coffee – – – – is no excuse, either. (I wouldn’t say this, but tried to present information to this mother as well.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This Petition for Writ of Certiori, i.e., to be heard by the US Supreme Court under “Other Authorities” cites Dr. Phil and the O (Oprah’s) magazine, a SF online weekly, a radio interview of Linda Sacks, and basically a laundry list of the nonprofits and individuals that did NOT inform this parent about what just happened to her. Or why a Supervised Visitation Center — or having a person on her case (Dr. Deborah O. Day) who just happened to be a founding board member of the Florida AFCC, and a Certified Family Mediator and is big on Munchhausen’s by Proxy — might relate to the problems she, like others, has been having. Instead, she focused on being “squeaky clean” and how unfair the system was to her — rather than studying the system. The groups cited (see the writ) don’t talk about AFCC, either, nor does a recent tome called Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody (see the groups listed).
Meanwhile — in Lancaster, Pennsylvania very recently– a forum exists “Expose Corruption” exists, which reports on its local courts and potential corruption, and the moderator (I think it’s the moderator) simply sent off a “Right to Know” information request on one of the court personnel, and got payment vouchers,* (*it doesn’t look like Ms. Sacks ever did this) discovered no contract exists for the person in question, found out what a nice living she is making at public expense, as either Guardian Ad Litem or Parenting Coordinator. She sued him for inadvertently posting SS#s that the responding officials “forgot” to redact on the vouchers, and the game’s on. But it began with someone noticing that judges were steering cases to certain profiteers, and inquiring about the profit.
FBI searches court administrator’s office
BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)Published: November 15, 2011FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.
Mr. Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide The Times-Tribune a copy of the search warrant.
The visit lasted less than an hour. For a while, as agents worked in his office, Mr. Mackay was required to stand in a waiting room outside the suite that houses his office. An FBI agent stood near Mr. Mackay guarding the entrance to the suite. Eventually, four men dressed in plain clothes, only one of whom acknowledged being an FBI agent, walked out, with one carrying a box with white papers sticking out of the top.
. . .The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.
Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ms. Ross.
Now THAT’s how you investigate!
Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/fbi-searches-court-administrator-s-office-1.1232356#ixzz1e62IvTLL
Funny how Sacks’ coaches and/or centers of reference: Battered Women’s Custody Conference, Barry Goldstein, The Leadership Council, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Judicial Excellence, etc. But ordinary citizens (well, perhaps some “extraordinary” is involved here) on a forum can pick up:
-
(Kids 4 Kash, Lack. Cty) First Protest set for Friday, November 18 at 9:00 am at Family Court ( 
First … Last » )and
-
Family Court’s Co-Parenting Coordinator, Ann Marie Termini vs. Pilchesky, (Court documents posted here) ( 1 2 3 4 )
(etc.)(who you know I’ve been looking at too — as I can’t see where Termini & Boyan are currently incorporated — and I don’t think they are. Termini’s making a good living in Lancaster County at the courthouse, since (it seems) about 2008. Coincidentally? The “National Association for Parent Coordination” in Georgia got dissolved in about 2008 (same dynamic duo in charge). now they run advanced parent coordination training (for a stiff price) and well they should — because in Lancaster at least, it seems to net $60/hour, plenty of referrals (and without a contract even??). . . We, too, can do “right to know” or “FOIA” inquiries, and should do more.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On the other hand, knowledge — and knowledge you can act on locally — is empowering, even if the scenario is daunting. I have learned so much by having all systems fail in the family law, family, (religious institutions), criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement), and a few more along the way. I know I am a better woman for it, though sorry it took so many years (i.e., I got older in the meantime) Forgot to add
- I’m longwinded. The posting has really gotten out of hand, and while it may be a warm blanket to me, I’m getting ready to let go of it and go Facebook, Twitter, or something else. I don’t seriously believe anyone reads the entire posts. It’s where I keep (SOME, FYI, not all), of my research, for the record. The research has borne out, and there IS a clearer picture (in my understanding) of what to ignore and what to pay attention to in these systems. And of the country I live in (shudder!) as a woman, particularly a woman beyond kicking out some more babies, or with an appetite for raising someone else’s. That frees up a lot of thought time .. … ….
- Oh yes — there are about 9 different pages on here. But only the main page, generally, is added to. It’s structured like this. I write until I’m done (and only a small portion of the screen is visible at a time; no hardcopy printouts or second drafts). When I’m done –or sometimes several paragraphs beyond that, then I stop, and usually hit “Publish.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
|
Alaska Court System (209.165.166.194) [Label IP Address] 0 returning visits
|
||
|---|---|---|
 Anchorage, Alaska, United States |
||
|
(No referring link)
|
||
| 16 Nov | 13:00:29 | |
– – – – – or, say:
Total Visits:1
Location:San Francisco, California, United States
IP Address:City & County Of San Francisco (204.68.210.39) CA CityCnty of SF – KT artklReferring URL:
Visit Page:
– – – – -or, say:
Total Visits:1
Location:San Francisco, California, United States
IP Address:American Lawyer Media (208.8.241.6) [Label IP Address]Referring URL:
Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit/
– – – – – or …
16 Nov05:35:30
Total Visits:
South Amboy, New Jersey, United States Show Full URLs
1Location:Baltimore, Maryland, United States
IP Address:Psinet (38.112.73.146) [Label IP Address]
Referring URL:(No referring link)
Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/tag/parents-day-comes-from-true-parentsunification-church/
15 Nov14:02:52
Long Beach, California, United Statesor … (i’m not sure if this is good news, or not good news….).
 Executive Office Of The President Usa (198.137.240.197) WDC EXEC OFC PRESIDNT! 9/2/11 0 returning visits |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Show Full URLs |
||
|
(No referring link)
|
||
| 2 Sep | 08:55:24familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/page/18/?pages-list |
|
|
(No referring link)
|
||
| 15 Nov | 05:53:57familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/ocse-child-support-enforcementfederal-grants-to-states-lets-look-at-the-taggs-hhs-charts-cfdas-93-563-93-564/ | |
|
Executive Office Of The President Usa(198.137.241.197)WDC Exec Ofc Pres!198137241197 0 returning visits |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Show Full URLs |
|||
|
(No referring link)
|
|||
| 2 Sep | 08:55:17 familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/category/wheres-mom/page/2 | ||
|
(No referring link)
|
|||
| 15 Nov | 05:53:55
|
||
– – – – – Or (just one last one!):
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (I’m not going to keep posting visitors here, but the posts they chose to look at are an indicator of possibly something YOU might want to look at. Also, I believe we should keep certain public entities on their toes (if possible), particularly ones that have been on our HEELS, dogging us, driving us — and for what? For profit? For someone’s career track? To bring world peace or solve world poverty? |
|---|
So what is jurisdiction? It is the right, the power, and the control that the court will have over a certain legal issue or subject. Thus there is geographical jurisdiction (where can the case be heard?), subject matter jurisdiction (which court has authority to hear and decide this particular legal issue?), personal jurisdiction (does the court have the power to make a person obey its orders?) and there are other jurisdictional questions.
What we normally call FAMILY COURTS ( as I am understanding this) are actually by statue “CONCILIATION COURTS….Now the type of people going to the family law system are not typically the happily married couples, but couples with often “irreconcilable differences” this may come of a bit of a shock — while you are figuring out how to separate, the court is actually (by legal purpose) trying to get you back together, apparently (I’ll use that word a lot so no one thinks about accusing me of practicing law ….).
No, seriously …..
WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)
Conciliation Courts
California was one of the first states to establish conciliation courts. The purpose of a conciliation court is to encourage families to attempt reconciliation and reduce litigation in family law cases. In California counties with conciliation courts, parties may petition the court for help in resolving disputed family law matters prior to, or even after, filing an action for dissolution. While the matter is under advisement by the conciliation court, neither party may file an action for dissolution without permission of the court.
How many mothers or fathers are even aware that in having ANY custody dispute and going before a judge to settle it, they have entered “Conciliation Court Land” (I think. NOTE: I’m not an attorney, and reader is advised to consult, law, a licensed attorney or a better source before acting on any FYI information I post, from other sites, hereon!)
Basically when there is a custody DISPUTE (parents cannot work it out separately) in — I believe most counties in the US, but don’t know for sure — that opens the doorway for all THIS:
(CALIFORNIA LAW — which may explain where all the behavioral scientists get off in studying your children and collecting data from courthouses about this or that):
FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS (California Code 1800ff (part, below:)
1814. (a) In each county in which a family conciliation court is established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family conciliation court in disposing of its (ITS, not YOUR) business and carrying out its functions. In counties which have by contract established joint family conciliation court services, the superior courts in contracting counties jointly may make the appointments under this subdivision. (b) The supervising counselor of conciliation has the power to do all of the following: (1) Hold conciliation conferences with parties to, and hearings in, proceedings under this part, and make recommendations concerning the proceedings to the judge of the family conciliation court. (2) Provide supervision in connection with the exercise of the counselor's jurisdiction as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct. (3) Cause reports to be made, statistics to be compiled, and records to be kept as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct. (4) Hold hearings in all family conciliation court cases as may be required by the judge of the family conciliation court, and make investigations as may be required by the court to carry out the intent of this part. (5) Make recommendations relating to marriages where one or both parties are underage. (6) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations as provided in Section 281 of the Welfare and Institutions Code under the authority provided the probation officer in that code. (7) Act as domestic relations cases investigator. (8) Conduct mediation of child custody and visitation disputes. (c) The superior court, or contracting superior courts, may also appoint, with the consent of the board of supervisors, associate counselors of conciliation and other office assistants as may be necessary to assist the family conciliation court in disposing of its business.
Which, for the record, may or may not relate to YOUR business or intents in being there. In fact, the two purposes are often at odds. But did you know what its business was to start with? This is not told you in the basic self-help legal center, but it appears to be so....
The associate counselors shall carry out their duties under the supervision of the supervising counselor of conciliation and have the powers of the supervising counselor of conciliation. Office assistants shall work under the supervision and direction of the supervising counselor of conciliation. (d) The classification and salaries of persons appointed under this section shall be determined by: (1) The board of supervisors of the county in which a noncontracting family conciliation court operates. (2) The board of supervisors of the county which by contract has the responsibility to administer funds of the joint family conciliation court service.
OK, Let’s review this: COUNTY (financial) vs. STATE (pays judges) responsibilities and associations:
And State to Federal ….
The county commissioners (or, “Board of Supervisors of the County”) in which a conciliation court operates appoint the classification and salaries of people helping there work. Got that? (Judges, in California, are to be paid by the state — not the counties).
SO — when here comes the United States (federal) Child Support & Welfare System and says — “we will fund you, only it’s a $2/$1 relationship (or the 66/34% effect), …
provided you follow our rules — some of which includes, we want to do social studies on your families, (Just whatever the Head (Secretary) of HHS says to ….)
and we also believe that you should be running some marriage, fatherhood promotion, abstinence education, supervised visitation, mediation, counseling and parent education classes too, or other “access/visitation” programs — to reduce the overall divorce rate, which WE assert relates to the overall POVERTY RATE for which we are (see?? ) giving your state $XX b/million per year — if you want it that is…”
— GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE STATES (AND COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF CONCILIATION COURTS) ARE GOING TO LISTEN.
AND JUDGES ARE LIKELY TO ORDER SERVICES — THAT’S HOW WE GET THE INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOME OF THESE NONPROFITS AND INDIVIDUAL JUDGES ON SPECIFIC CUSTODY CASES THEY ARE TO HELP PARENTS SETTLE THEIR “DISPUTES,” and this JUST — PERHAPS — MIGHT INVOLVE FORCING THAT COUPLE TO GO SIT IN FRONT OF A COUNTY-PAID COUNSELOR (OR MEDIATOR), OR TAKE CLASSES BY A JUDGE- LAWYER-RUN PROGRAM THAT QUALIFIES FOR SOME OF THE GRANTS. . .
.Which may explain why American Lawyer Media — (or quite a few others visiting the same site) are somewhat interested in my post on “Kids Turn” . . . or why the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts (perhaps) may be interested in my reporting on the A/V grants, or OCSE — or “AFCC” which includes personnel with a penchant for ordering a whole lot of these types of income-producing programs:
(CODE, continued — but in more normal print so it will wrap to the margins right):
1815. (a) A person employed as a supervising counselor of conciliation or as an associate counselor of conciliation shall have all of the following minimum qualifications: {{NOTICE THE FIELDS}}
(1) A master’s degree in psychology, social work, marriage, family and child counseling, or other behavioral science substantially related to marriage and family interpersonal relationships.
(2) At least two years of experience in counseling or psychotherapy, or both, preferably in a setting related to the areas of responsibility of the family conciliation court and with the ethnic population to be served.
(3) Knowledge of the court system of California and the procedures used in family law cases. {{notice this is qualification #3, not #1}}
(4) Knowledge of other resources in the community that clients can be referred to for assistance.
(5) Knowledge of adult psychopathology and the psychology of families.
(6) Knowledge of child development, child abuse, clinical issues relating to children, the effects of divorce on children, the effects of domestic violence on children, and child custody research sufficient to enable a counselor to assess the mental health needs of children.
(7) Training in domestic violence issues as described in Section 1816. {{notice this is #7, not #2, although DV issues do result in disputed custody situations that come before this court!}}
(b) The family conciliation court may substitute additional experience for a portion of the education, or additional education for a portion of the experience, required under subdivision (a).
(c) This section does not apply to any supervising counselor of conciliation who was in office on March 27, 1980.
Does that explain why your life as a disputed custody parent (if that’s you) are now filled with these social science, behavioral modification, psychopathology & psychology of families & psychotherapist personnel?
NOW — a voice from 1977. I notice that it was published in the National Council on Family Relations. Who are they? Well not in this post, but this is the grant they got recently from our government (HHS) to keep marriages together or help persuade more people to marry| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS | MINNEAPOLIS | MN | 55421-3900 | ANOKA | 078679974 |
| $ 1,286,457 |
“CONCILIATION COUNSELING: THE COURT’S EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING VISITATION AND CUSTODY DISPUTES“
(excerpt)The Family Coordinator © 1977 National Council on Family RelationsThat’s how the counselors get in there. . . . Note the date –1972. The AFCC (which is an association of judges, lawyers, and exactly these types of counselors — must be coincidence!) didn’t actually finish getting caught and forced to incorporate (in IL) til around 1975. No-fault divorce was here or near, and FEMINISM was on the Ascent in America…. This caused some marital issues, obviously. ….Abstract
Counseling processes utilized by the Santa Clara County Conciliation Court in in resolving litigated visitation and custody disputes are described. The responsiveness of parents and their children is discussed as are the roles of both counselor and judge in these matters. A sample case reflecting a broad range of family dynamics is presented and the procedure by which cases are received and evaluated is reported. The practical and salutary features of this court-oriented program are set forth. (Excerpt): “It has been acknowledge for some time by judges and lawyers, as well as those inviduals affected (note order — judges & lawyers 1st, affected people, 2nd) that the process by which custody and visitation issues are decided is in need of change. With that in mind, THE CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (California) SUPERIOR COURT IN 1972 LAUNCHED A PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FULLY INTEGRATED INTO ITS FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES (caps & emphases= mine). PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM’S IMPLEMENTATION…. At the calling of the Family Court Calendar each morning and each afternoon, all those awaiting hearing on visitation matters are promptly and directly referred to the court’s Conciliation Service. (etc.)
WHAT I WAS NOT TOLD — EVER — BY ANY COURTHOUSE I ENTERED< ANYWHERE< OR ANY MEDIATOR:
WERE YOU? WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?
WHO HAS JURISDICTION IF YOU HAVE A CUSTODY DISPUTE?
THIS IS A 2009 blog from an attorney who works in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. It’s not hard to understand, it’s fairly clear — but were you told?
L.A. Divorce Blog (Nov. 24, 2009)
When a controversy exists between spouses, or when a controversy relating to child custody or visitation exists between parents (regardless of their marital status), and the controversy might otherwise result in divorce, annulment, legal separation, or the disruption of the household, and there is a minor child of the spouses or parents whose welfare might be affected thereby, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, the parties to the controversy, and all persons having any relation to the controversy. Where the controversy involves domestic violence, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, whether or not the parties have a minor child.
The purpose of filing a Petition for Conciliation is to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to preserve the marriage, to effect a reconciliation of the parties, or to amicably settle the controversy to avoid further litigation over the issue.
While this is talking specifically about someone wishing to stop the divorce via a “petition of conciliation,” the existence of this code – has affected all “custody disputes” and also how domestic violence is adjudicated. Cindy Ross (also of California, and who writes better) described:
(notice — this is an older post, 2/19/2003) and talks more about the impact.
AFCC was originally established in California as the means to enact Conciliation Court Law (CA Family Codes 1800-1852), an obscure set of codes used to prevent divorce in counties where the court itself deems it necessary to “promote the public welfare by preserving, promoting, and protecting family life and the institution of matrimony“. [15] While the Conciliation Court identifies children’s rights to “both parents”, it is used only to assist fathers take custody away from mothers and/or to otherwise gain inappropriate or illegal “access” to children.
Enacting Conciliation Court Law gives the family court jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, in violation of appropriate family codes and “child’s best interests” laws. For example, in California, while Family Code §3044 establishes a presumption that sole or joint custody for a parent convicted of domestic violence is not in the best interests of children, Conciliation Court codes are used not only to assist abusive men get custody, but to help them avoid criminal prosecution. [16] Because blame is shifted to mothers by concealing evidence of paternal crimes against women and children, in the Conciliation Court, victims of abuse (not perpetrators) get convicted in accordance with PAS “threat therapy”. [17]
PAS court-ordered threats include jail terms for mothers and institutionalization of children to convince them that the abuse never occurred, but their mothers are crazy. [18] PAS threats have been linked to the death of at least one child. When forced to “choose” between visiting his violent father in a positive frame of mind, or having his mother jailed for his refusal, Nathan Grieco chose suicide instead. [19]
The Conciliation Court uses PAS methodology to give abusive men the legal upper hand. However, “shared parenting” has become the rallying cry of the fathers’ rights movement, primarily because joint custody also means no child support obligations. When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get custody and get out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases.
She hasn’t reported on a few others factors, but at least this explains why, when coming in for a divorce, the court seems more interested in assigning you a few (dozen) experts. As also explained (again, long ago) on
Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral
practices in the court
… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.
Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below.
To which I’d add — and related federal programs, as they may be available.
To people who file civil restraining orders — this information is not shown them (last I heard), but if children are involved, they are then escorted (at least in my area) to a quick run by the local family mediator –who just happens to be in this conciliation court. The place looks, acts, and sounds like a courthouse, but in fact it is a support service, under conciliation law, to a conciliation court. Funny that, when divorce actions sometimes read “irreconciliable differences” — and yet someone is going to give it a try, for public benefit. Or at least pretend to. Heck, it’s a job, right?
I know many women who filed for safety and ended up in this court before they knew what hit. Sometimes the actions are consolidated Ex Parte to get them into this venue. Then we wonder why, when we talk about matters of law, due process, (particularly DV law), or even crimiinal matters, the judges, GALs, and evaluators jsut cannot hear — and talk a different language (as above, see the code).
The entity which lobbied for conciliation code to start with, in California, is known as the AFCC (association of family and CONCILIATION courts — get it?). Their job is to extract as much wealth as possible for as long as possible (this may include from extended family, foster care situations, adoptive families, you name it) and try to convince — or force — you to believe that this is in the best interests of what you think are YOUR children, but they know (by knowing about this section of code) are actually NOT your children — not until you and the Dad can agree. Your judge or lawyer is bad? Your ex done you wrong? Start a blog and unload there — but I am more interest in system change and reporting how systems have changed over time. When I feel I’ve said this well enough (or as well as I can on this blog), then I’ll stop saying it. Don’t hold your breath.SO, ABOUT THIS BLOG:
Scroll down to “READ THIS FIRST” page for a history of family law starting from the consequences of it, back down to the shady beginnings, one generation after women got the vote and between the world wars. Yep, that’s when the first law was passed, which eventually morphed, evolved, or as one summary puts it, “metastasized” into what we have now. And, like Hollywood, and other exports, this one seems to have originated in Sunny California, Southern part…
- This post doesn’t contain any porn, graphic violence, or disgusting images (as I recall), but it is going to include plain talk on what comes from papering over these things.
- [2011 update]. I investigate and report on corporations and nonprofits taking business from the court system, and taking diversionary monies from needy families through the 1996 TANF welfare reform and OCSE loopholes.
- Originally the blog was intended to develop and report on matters covered (since ab. 1993) at http://www.NAFCJ.net and others, which at least gave a sensible explanation for weird behaviors by family court officials. I continued researching, observing, and learning.
- A good deal also covers the “Faith-Based Behaviors” which have been enabled to expand beyond even the “Fatherhood Factor Funding” of 1994 & 1995. In 2001, GWB began office with two executive orders, 13998 and 13999, which opened the door for these (crooks).
- Recently, articles are hitting the press about the scandalous “take the money and run” grantees, the “steer the money to our friends” process exhibited by program managers at the state level, and more. Not to mention, the black hole of undistributed child support collections, which (as reported in part by Richard Fine in 1999) shows a system of bribery and kickbacks are steering custody results, and kicking too many kids into bad situations — or state care.
I also note that tools available to the public to study these things are indequate and limited; that there exists — both on database and (some indications) literally, a dual-docketing system, such that decisions made with a parent’s or child’s name on them — which bring federal program funding opportunities — can continue without that parent or child’s knowledge. Some of these do not seem to require a judge’s signature. Others may have such signature, but litigants somehow can’t get a copy of their own files. The database TAGGS is not set up to produce truly flexible reports which would help track down who is doing what and for whom. It is there for an appearance of transparency, as far as I am concerned. Before I re-read NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’ site) and began my own research, I didn’t run into a single protective mother or DV advocate who even used this database, or told women — or men — about it.
Above all, it’s time to let the idols, the myths about justice hit the dust (which is where idols belong anyhow) and go roll up the sleeves and start looking things up.
My blog is dense to read, and shows affects of PTSD (many times) — BUT I’ll bet you will not find many others reporting what I do.
Fathers in custody battles need to know — it’s NOT about you, or your story, or a particular judge; it’s about the system. Fathers also need to know that SOME of us mothers, while we do not back up one inch on abuse is wrong, or buy your stories about how much false allegations of it exist, we do know that you, too, have been extorted by at least the OCSE system, and we will work along the non-rabid community of fathers to do something about the kickbacks and lack of accountability.
And I personally wish to tell leaders of domestic violence coalitions and certain other agencies receiving major HHS and/or DOJ funding that — we mothers exiting abuse do NOT appreciate our legitimate needs having been SOLD OUT by your groups, to take funding for speculative theories and PR/educational campaigns on what “prevents family violence” let alone “poverty.”
NOW –that’s the N.O.W. — has no excuse for basically dropping the ball, not when in 2002 an excellent Family Court Report laid out the roadmap, and 2005 your California Leader called for an investigation of HHS use of Fatherhood Funds. (What she didn’t realize then is WE have to do this investigation, then bring it to legislators). NOW is still active in matters of domestic violence, and has a Family Law Task Force — but other priorities. NOW has done a lot (and I think them), but here — for all to see — is a clear indication that (as with other DV groups) the “Family Law” issue is not seen as a Violence Against Women issue:
Key Issues
NOW’s Top Priority Issues: (the top 6, and the “other important issues”)
Other Important Issues:
- Affirmative Action
- Disability Rights
- Family/Family Law
- Fighting the Right
- Global Feminism
- Health
- Immigration
- Judicial Nominations
- Legislation
- Marriage Equality
- Media Activism
- Mothers/Caregivers Economic Rights
- Working for Peace
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- Title IX/Education
- Welfare
- Women-Friendly Workplace
- Women in the Military
- Young Feminist Programs
Suffice it to say, I think a more singular focus is needed, and as NOW didn’t continue to report some of the material about Bush, Fatherhood, Welfare Reform, and other issues. I don’t even share 100% of those issues, or agree with all of them. I want to stay alive and exercise my rights, and my kids to NEVER have to repeat what happened and what they witnessed, while growing up, half in violence, and half in a custody war with a basis in extortion from more than one sector, with them, their distress, their simply being minors, as the bait. But we all need some NOW — because without a dose of them, it’d be The USA of Shari’a (Christian, Jewish, Muslim & Mormon versions, plus the same general themes among the agnostics and atheists). It’d be off the deep end and in over our heads. But they lost the focus on the HHS matters, which are also national matters because they involve the economy and systems change to push marriage and fatherhood programs (notice, I didn’t say to push marriage, or fatherhood — but to push the programs).
LIKEWISE:
The NCADV and Domestic Violence Statewide Coalitions have no excuse. Stop SELLING stuff (including conference attendances, memberships) and start reporting — for free– on welfare reform and what it did to battered women who are also mothers’ chances of EVER getting completely free from such dangerous relationships. You do NOT speak for mothers who have their lives or kids’ lives on their line.
Family Violence Prevention Fund is now “Futures Without Violence” (facelift, namechange, physical move to the SF Praesidio). I went up down and around the SF Bay Area looking for help, only to find out (once I got regular internet access and knew to look) that you, too, believe that the real way to prevent violence by men against women is to take funding from wealthy foundations who believe that the way to stop violence against women is to make sure that there is a man in all their homes, and a father in every abused child’s life. Then I learned you were a resource center for women like me, and I know lots of us in the area.
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | 94103-5177 | SAN FRANCISCO | 618375687 | $ 22,368,114 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | 94103-5178 | SAN FRANCISCO | 618375687 | $ 31,000 |
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 90XA0109 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT | 1 | 0 | ACF | 08-03-2005 | 618375687 | $ 496,000 |
That’s from Health and Human Services. Overall (not that this site is usually complete) USASPENDING.GOV shows the OVW funding as well:
- Total Dollars:$41,512,886
- Transactions:1 – 25 of 92
$34 million of this was straight grants, some was contracts…..
Somehow (when I check “Grants/HHS” at USASPENDING.gov — only $13 million shows up)
so often, “Discretionary”:
| Program Office | Recovery Act Indicator | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| CB | 90XA0109 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT | 1 | 08/03/2005 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | DISCRETIONARY | ESTA SOLER | $ 496,000 |
|
Used to write up a report on yourself?
Title: International Center to End Violence: Addressing Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect. Final Report to: DHHS/Administration on Children, Youth and Families under CAPTA. Grant Number 90-XA-0109. October 31, 2007.
Published: 2007 Available from: Children’s Bureau
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/ Administration on Children, Youth and Families 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 Abstract: This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of the federally funded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), an organization committed to building safer and stronger families by ending domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse against women and children. Major activities and accomplishments of the FVPF are described, including: the development of an Interactive Learning and Exhibit Center, the development of the International Center to End Violence,** and the implementation of training programs and experiential learning for engaging everyday gatekeepers and young students. Activities of the FVPF’s Teacher Training Academy are also highlighted, as well as public educational and engagement activities and school-based programming.
Results 1 to 1 of 1 matches.
|
**
by Philip V. Scribano, Pediatrician
and here:
New International Center for Family Violence Prevention Fund
(in case graphic doesn’t show…)
“Violence against women is an issue that cannot wait . .. and we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women,we empower our greatest resource fro development; mothers raising children; lawmakers in parliament;chief executives; negotiators; teachers; doctors; policewomen; peacekeepers and more.”..Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General, United Nations
New Home, new name – in the SF Praesidio (while – in this area — I know women who went homeless after custody-switch in the family courts; I almost did. That’s partly a child support matter, and a child support motivation. Where’s your blog — your website — your publication of how child support and the state of the OCSE/welfare reform affects custody decisions?? Which, in the case of women leaving violence — affects their and their kids’ safety and well-being?)
|
(OVW grant for this center includes a 2009 one of $2,000,000)
Yes you did engage boys and men — jumped on the bandwagon: Fatherhood as a tool to stop domestic violence.
I saw the funding surge behind the change of tune, too:
National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence
Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.
In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers
Did you train whoever trained Scott McAlpin? Scott DeKraii? Cody Beemer?
(yet — no mention, for the sake of the single, female-headed households in the State of Ohio, that it has a Fatherhood Commission, Fatherhood Practitioners, Fatherhood Summits, and that a Legislator is still running around strengthening fatherhood to stop child abuse (like that’s the solution); that it had an Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that is ripping off the public – in a large way — in an effort to turn back the clocks to the 1950s, pre-feminism and pre-VAWA?
in 2011, it’s up to $3,000,000
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90EV0401 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 2 | 0 | ACF | 08-04-2011 | 618375687 | $ 250,000 |
| 2011 | 90EV0414 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-17-2011 | 618375687 | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2011 | ASTWH110025 | PROJECT CONNECT: A COORDINATED PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN | 1 | 00 | DHHS/OS | 08-26-2011 | 618375687 | $ 1,650,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2011 Total: | $ 3,000,000 | |||||||
Never-Ending Education . . .
| 2010 | ASTWH090016 | FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM | 1 | 03 | DHHS/OS | 11-17-2009 | 618375687 | $ 1,500,000 |
And taking money and direction from Annie E. Casey Foundation, which virtually ensures that NONE of your media campaigns are going to tell women such as myself the relevant facts about 1996 Welfare Form, of the existence of the National Fatherhood Initiative (from the start, 1994, same year as VAWA) or how these funds have been used in family court situations. It sure has changed the tune — if, indeed, the tune ever was anything other than media campaign, technical assistance, and training since about 1997ff… While I am very thankful to be informed that strangulation, for example, is a high indicator of lethality, as a mother experiencing it in the home, I had that figured out (particularly in contexts of the talk that went along with it). Or that my dentist should’ve reported or further questioned (he didn’t) a certain suspicious & bloody incident involving my teeth.
Sample Annie E. Casey Fatherhood program (this is a small one)
“On Thursday, October 20th, eighteen men graduated from the Newark Y Fatherhood Program. Funded through the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 167 men have participated in our workshops during the past year. …A major highlight of theFatherhood Graduation was the presentation of awards from President Barack Obama to the Y’s CEO, Michael Bright and the Director of the Fatherhood Program, Daryl Brown. ThePresidential Award was given in recognition of their “devotion to service and for doing all you can to shape a better tomorrow for our great Nation.”
FVPF Program purpose (from the tax return, the 2009 Form 990, below):
“1. TO PREVENT VIOLENCE WITHIN THE HOME, AND IN THE COMMUNITY,
TO HELP THOSE WHOSE LIVES ARE DEVASTATED BY VIOLENCE BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE FREE OF VIOLENCE.”
4. Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the 3 largest program services by expenses:
- INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE – THE FVPF HAS HELPED CRAFT LANDMARK FEDERAL LEGISLATION, CO-FOUNDED A NATIONAL NETWORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST IMMIGRANT WOMEN , AND CONTINUES TO MUSTER THE FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE RESOURCES TO SAFEGUARD IMMIGRANT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN – AMONG THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. THE FVPF HAS FORMED PROGRAMMATIC PARTNERSHIPS AROUND THE WORLD IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS TO EXCHANGE WISDOM, IMPROVE HEALTHCARE, AND RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS.
- HEALTH – THE FVPF HAS HELPED EXPOSE A CONNECTION BETWEEN HISTORY OF ABUSE AND CURRENT HEALTH,** FURTHER SPOTLIGHTING THE CRITICAL NEED FOR SUSTAINING ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION, AND ADVOCACY IN CLINICAL SETTINGS. THE ORGANIZATION PROMOTES A HEALTHCARE RESPONSE THAT CONSIDERS THE ENTIRE LIFESPAN AND THAT INCLUDES PREVENTION. THE FVPF OPERATES THE NATION’S HEALTH RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION TO THOUSANDS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND OTHERS EACH YEAR. THE ORGANIZATION HAS ALSO DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED STATE-WIDE PLANS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
**astounding. And this was figured out when? …..
- (this is the “We Got Fatherhood Funding” segment) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. {{yes, but this is 2009!}} NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2009 | $26,157,567 | 990 | 16 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2008 | $22,018,363 | 990 | 31 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2007 | $17,917,034 | 990 | 33 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2006 | $13,612,574 | 990 | 33 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2005 | $9,114,506 | 990 | 31 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2004 | $7,045,197 | 990 | 24 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2002 | $6,261,569 | 990 | 22 | 94-3110973 |
Grants — $11.5 million
Program income — $181K
Salaries this year — $4 million
One resource is ERI (Economic Research Institute or “http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com”) which runs comparisons on non-profit organizations salaries;
the search I just did shows their assets about $22million — and their contributions and expenditures similar, at around $13 million. It shows a nice chart (I searched by EIN#)and has nice summaries, bar chats, etc.
Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded. They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.
Except that this group — in an area where women are still being stalked, robbed of (their children, among other things), having child support reduced to nothing or being forced to pay their former batterers (innumerable), finding next to no response with law enforcement when this occurs, women have been burnt and found hogtied around a road sign (2006, unidentified, Oakland-Temescal), kidnapped from their homes, stabbed repeatedly, then dropped off on the side of the road to bleed to death in front of motorists (Oakland/Orinda Elnora Caldwell), shot at work while IN tollbooths (2009, Ross), shot in church parking lots on a weekday morning (2007, McCall, Oakland), doused with gas and burnt alive, murdered and put in car trunks, shot (along with 6 others in beauty salons (2011, Seal Beach, CA Fournier 8 killed, 2008 Torres, Martinez 3 killed including responding officer),. . .
killed at court-ordered weekend exchanges and buried in a shallow grave only to be found when the murderer father plea-bargained it down by agreeing to locate the body (Wife missing 2006, conviction 2008, Oakland Reiser). Children have been also kidnapped galore, sometimes being murdered afterwards by overentitled fathers, while D.A.’s are soliciting campagns to standardize their Family Justice Center model in D.C. and in the California Legislature. I haven’t even linked to children and bystanders in this list; nor is it complete — but a LOT of it happened around divorce, separation and child custody — and yet where is even a mention of the AFCC, CRC, or the welfare reform that funds “increased noncustodial parenting time” and forces women to try to co-parent with their batterers under fatherhood theory — such as you also have??
Here is the California Charitable Registration results for their 2010 filing (as “Futures WIthout Violence”):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(For the record, it was incorporated as a nonprofit in California, in a simple filing with Esta Soler and a few others, in August 1989. To get the VAWA passed in 5 years is indeed an accomplishment, or may reflect connections the women had initially, I do not know.)
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process C1648791 08/30/1989 ACTIVE FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE ESTA SOLER
- September 10, 2010 notice from California Attorney General — they forgot their fee:
- FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 383 RHODE ISLAND STREET, NO. 304 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5133
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
- LETTER from California Attorney General, who handles charitable registrations:
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT (August 26, 2011)
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.
Must’ve just forgot — I’m sure they can afford $225.
- Another notice says they forgot to attach a list of contributors; also 8/26/2011.
FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 100 MONTGOMERY STREET, PRESIDIO – MAIN POST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129
RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors
We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.
The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of
Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.
I think that along with this many people earning over $100K per years, someone should’ve taken – I did — maybe an hour of their precious PR time to read some of the material put out by UNpaid mothers who have watched and documented what the family court systems is doing to their current safety levels. It’s not as though we aren’t on the web and aren’t talking !!!
2009 SALARIES OF FVPF, or, currently the ICEV: (Salary to left, “estimated other compensation from other organizations”) to the right of each name
$234,229 ESTA SOLER PRESIDENT + $71,069
$168,216 THOMAS FERGUSON CFO,CAO + $14,717
$ 166,265 DEBBIE LEE SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $34,928
(also a program director for a joint project with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Start Strong, Building Healthy Teen Relationships”)
“Start Strong: Building Healthy Teen Relationships is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in collaboration with Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Blue Shield of California Foundation* are investing $18 million in 11 Start Strong communities across the country to identify and evaluate best practices in prevention to stop dating violence and abuse before it starts.
Or — take a look at the assemblage of personnel on the campaign to end teen pregnancy, underneath this study of “What Research Tells Us about Latino Parenting Practices and their Relationship to Teen Pregnancy” starting with Thomas Kean, Chair of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (and former Governor of NJ). These are, basically, the rich studying and categorizing the poor — by ethnicity and about every other category — in order to better manage the population. They are particularly interested in breeding habits, which I think is borne out of fear of being outbred (take a look at the U.S. Congress by ethnicity and gender, and make an educated guess why….)
$ 163,251 LENI MARIN SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $50,806. (That would probably, with creativity, feed & house 3 families in the Bay Area on those benefits alone….)
$ 196,620 RACHAEL SMITH DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR + $21,418
$ 148,996, BRIAN O’CONNOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC COMMU + 13,426
$ 148,841 MICHAEL RUNNER DIRECTOR OF LEGAL PROGRA + $20,176
$ 136,681 KIERSTEN STEWART DIR OF PUBLIC POLICY PRO + $18,891
$ 125,685 LONNA DAVIS DIR OF CHILDREN’S PROGRA + $16,601
$ 112,139 COLLIN CASEY DIR OF ADMINISTRATION + $29,491 (any relationship to the Annie E. Casey people?)
In addition, contractors over $100K included:
LAURA HOGAN, PETER D. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., (WASHINGTON, DC), DEBORAH KARNOWSKY
@ $144,737. $143,855. $139,731. == for respectively: Project Building, Project Building, and Campaign Building.
Other projects on the 990 — grandiose in scope — described on Schedule O:
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4D, OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES:
WORKPLACE – THE NATIONAL WORKPLACE RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE FVPF, EMPLOYERS, AND UNIONS AROUND THE NATION THAT HAS REACHED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. THIS PROJECT MAKES POSSIBLE EMPLOYER AND UNION DISSEMINATION OF HELPFUL, EASY-TO-FOLLOW INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES AND UNION MEMBERS ON PREVENTING AND REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE POLICIES ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND WORKPLACE SUPPORT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE VICTIMS. THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES RESOURCES ONLINE THAT GIVE WORKPLACE LEADERS WHO WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE EXPERT ASSISTANCE.
EXPENSES $ 110773.
and for “CHILDREN / YOUTH / YOUNG FAMILIES: EXPENSES $709,895 (no description) and “PUBLIC POLICY / NEW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” exp. $80,900.
and the plan to end all plans:
- INTERNATIONAL CENTER TO END VIOLENCE – THE ORGANIZATION IS CREATING AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN SAN FRANCISCO AS A HUB OF EDUCATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TO ADVANCE US TOWARD A VIOLENCE-FREE SOCIETY. THE CENTER SEEKS TO PROMOTE THE VALUES OF RESPECT, EMPATHY, AND RESPONSIBILITY; EXPOSE THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND SOCIETIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD; ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN EXAMINING ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AND ITS INTERCONNECTIONS TO BIGOTRY AND HATE; AND ROUSE INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE, HATRED and BIGOTRY.
EXPENSES $ 220,101
and of course: another expense was “LEGAL $501,366
Well, I’ll find some of the descendants, if any, of the women mentioned above and tell them they didn’t die in vain, the
International Center to End Violence has a plan...
I believe a better use of time would for be for these directors to go hang out in homeless camps and at soup kitchens and ask the people how they came to be homeless, and in need of eating at soup kitchens. In the years that FVPF funds were doubling and increasing, I have noticed more and more women in those lines. Preach for hire in an open marketplace– not at their expense! While this group is not actually (that I can see) taking money direct from money dedicated to welfare, they ARE taking a helluva a lot from the HHS pot to forward the fund’s personal (shared by others, but it is personal to the fund) belief (or assertions) that more training will stop violence. Really? You just want my children and future grandchildren, currently this is in the USA, to fund your vision about fixing the WORLD? While in the entire time of their childhoods here, I can’t identify ONE thing that this group did to stop the battering in my home, or the family court gauntlet that followed. (And under what name is it doing business in San Francisco, anyhow?)
Incidentally (see TAGGS grants) — many of the grants which would otherwise go to shelters are going to this type of “training and technical support” activity – it’s lumped under the same labelThen.
To be fair, here is a 2010 statement with a California Assemblyperson naming FVPF (Futures without Violence) founder Esta Soler his 2010 Woman of the Year. It also says the organization was started — with a federal fund — in 1980 30 years ago. Perhaps in DC or Washington – the charitable and sec of state records in California both say about 21 years ago (as of 2010), i.e. 1989 – 1999 – 2009 -that’s 20 years.
Contact: Quintin Mecke @ (415) 557-3013
Sacramento, CA – Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) chose Esta Soler, the head of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as his 2010 Woman of the Year.
“I am proud to announce Esta Soler, one of the world’s foremost experts on violence against women and children, to be Woman of the Year for Assembly District 13”, said Ammiano. “Esta is a pioneer who founded the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) nearly 30 years ago and made it one of the world’s leading violence prevention agencies.”
Under her direction, the FVPF was a driving force behind passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 – the nation’s first comprehensive federal response to the violence that plagues our families and communities. Congress reauthorized and expanded the law in 2000 and again in 2005.
“It’s a tremendous honor to receive this award from Assemblymember Ammiano, a wonderful friend to all of us working to end domestic, dating and sexual violence and help victims,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President and Founder Esta Soler. “At a time when state funding for domestic violence programs is in peril, we especially appreciate champions like Tom Ammiano.”
Esta Soler first established the organization with a federal grant in 1980.
This 1980 is commonly cited — BUT unless it’s in Washington, D.C. (a corporations search page I can’t seem to sign into yet), the SF one was definitely 1989 — and thus the 1980 statement is an exaggeration. If the grant was received in 1980, I’d like to know how much, from which department and under what name. Most on-line databases don’t go back that far. I hope to research this a little further perhaps to better understand this organization.
It has become the nation’s leading expert on violence against women and children, the source of numerous trailblazing prevention and intervention campaigns, and a major force in shaping public policies that prevent violence and help victims in the U.S. and worldwide.
Soler, along with the honorees, was recognized today in the 2010 Woman of the Year ceremony. Each year, members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate honor a woman from their district who has distinguished herself in service to her community.
MINNESOTA-STYLE DV ORGANIZATIONS
The Minnesoh-tans (DAIP, MPDI, BWJP, Praxis, et al.) have done heroic things — but that’s no excuse for ‘taxation without representation” and the early-on insistence that your model CCR and its institutional ethnography become a nationwide model, without proof it works. And, it doesn’t. I hit on this particular set of nonprofits pretty hard throughout this blog, s am giving them a break today, except to mention that it took me a long time to realize that what “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT INC.” was actually about — (and which its name says) — developing (and selling) programs,
Not stopping domestic violence
and some pretty good grants behind that business, too….
STATEWIDE COALITIONS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Standardized & co-opted, used as heat shields for marriage entitites, didn’t include enough mothers leaving violence in their plans. DIDN’t PUBLICIZE FATHERHOOD COMMISSIONS, FAITH-BASED OPERATIONS, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES. Didn’t teach women the 1996 welfare reform information in its context.
This sounds harsh, so here’s an example:
Tim Carpenter reportedrecently some juicy details about a secret April meeting to design Brownback’s marriage agenda. The Topeka Capital-Journal uncovered some information on Brownback’s plans through a Kansas Open Records request.
The Kansas government spent $13,000 to bring together 20 mostly far-right marriage “experts” for the closed door meeting.
Organizations represented included the Heritage Foundation, Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, National Center for Fathering, Stronger Families, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Savers, Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, and National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting.
Thanks to information from Carpenter and sources, we know something of what Brownback has in mind, even though the details of the meeting remain confidential.
And (from a link in this article to another one) — ALL of these characters should be knowledgeable, household names, to anyone sitting under CADV state teachings or in their meetings. They deserve to know how things got started, and where they are going now, above the din of same-sex marriage and abortion rights issues. This affects mothers AND fathers:
Brownback program promotes marriage
July 2, 2011, Tim Carpenter, the Topeka-Journal
(listing attendees)
Wade Horn, who redefined President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, preached a gospel that encouraged poor women to marry their way out of poverty.
Marriage Savers creator Mike McManus said clergy members typically did a lousy job preparing couples for marriage and secular therapists were more likely to increase divorce among spouses in crisis.
This threesome was among 20 people who met behind closed doors in Topeka to share marriage program ideas with Brownback and executives at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
…In his follow-up letter to Brownback obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, [[Mike]] McManus said Kansas should prohibit no-fault divorce unless there was proof of physical abuse or adultery. A Kansas law ought to be passed, he said, allowing judges to select a “responsible spouse,” which would always be the person opposed to divorce. The statute would allow the responsible adult to receive up to 66 percent of child visitation and 100 percent of family assets in the divorce.
Any idea what this exposes women to? (read on). They are already being used as disposable wombs in too many marriages; if the beatings or abuse or virtual slavery (it happens!) can be severe enough that SHE wants out, then in Kansas he doesn’t even have to go through the motions of fighting for most of the kids and ALL of the assets! This does not protect women or children!
Horn, who resigned from HHS to take a job with Deloitte Consulting, departed the Bush administration amid reports of cronyism in awarding federal grants to the National Fatherhood Initiative he founded.
Helen Alvare, a member of the law faculty at George Mason who also was invited to Topeka, said she admired Sarah Palin’s devotion to family and professional achievement. In 2008, Alvare said Palin was “what a lot of women aspire to be on their best day.”
California writer Christelyn Karazin, who had a child out of wedlock before marrying, believed so strongly in the power of a man and woman to raise children she organized an event called “No Wedding, No Womb.”
This is portrayed as spontaneous blogging “NWNW” — so what was she doing in a secret meeting in Kansas? Flown in at Kansans’ expense, and in the company of people such as David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn? !! She saw the light (is now married) and so everyone else must see it the same way? Listen to some ex-married women, girl!
It was primarily a call to the black community to take action against the birth of children without the “physical, financial and emotional protection” of a father and mother, she said.
Joyce Webb, who works with Catholic Charities’ Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, recommended SRS divert $1 million from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for a new marriage program. TANF money is earmarked for families living in poverty.
Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was included in one published list of participants but didn’t attend, said during a speech about the pro-marriage movement that Catholics and Christians had to be the “visible light” for people failing to grasp intricacies of the institution of marriage.
SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki, responsible for implementing the governor’s marriage initiative, said thousands of Kansans who divorce each year lacked the skills and knowledge to form sustainable relationships.* Brownback wants SRS to help fill that information gap, he said.
*that “lack the skills” phrase is a buzz word to bring on the marriage educators, which is also a growing HHS trend and probably public law by now.
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who voted against confirmation of Brownback’s choice of SRS secretary, said he was intrigued by the governor’s simultaneous talk about removing government from the lives of the average Kansan and creating a state marriage program drenched in faith-based advocacy.
Siedlecki hired Richard Marks, the Jacksonville, Fla., director of the Marriage for Life, to join SRS and be involved in the initiative
(A little QUICK research on my part here See the URL above: He’s Baptist, Regent University, a Minister, adapted the PAIRS (which I think got HHS funding) curriculum for Christians, and just changed the FLorida nonprofit’s name to “CONNECTUS4LIFE, INC.” in 2002 (per Florida corporations search page called “sunbiz.org.” EIN#562283483. This is specifically incorporated as a “faith-based organization” and talks about the preachers involved. This one (I just looked) seems a tidy little income — $60K raised, he gets $16K as head of the nonprofit, and gets to write off $42 of expenses running marriage enrichment seminars.
“Believing that marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God,
we as pastors and ministers in the Greater Jacksonville area are committed
to ensure that these marriages (WHICH ones?) will endure til death.”
That’s a creed — not an incorporation!
“we are dedicated to strengthening marriages as we seek to”
I attended domestic violence support groups, being a Christian, towards the end of my “cohabitation” (with my spouse). Getting there was not easy; they were night-times. Want to know what % of the women there were pastor’s and deacon’s wives? I can’t name names, but the answer is — PLENTY. At least one had tried to kill his wife; the deacons knew, and it was a LONG time before he lost that position….
He also had a role in Florida Government: Served “four years on FLorida’s Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.” That commission name was a new one on me, so I just looked up, to find out, from “www.Floridafathers.org” that:
The 2003 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 480, replacing the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives as of July 1, 2003.
The new commission will take a broader approach to strengthening families by detailing comprehensive statewide strategies for Florida to promote safe, violence-free, substance-abuse-free, respectful, nurturing and responsible parenting; including connection or reconnection of responsible parents, both mothers and fathers, with their children.
From the Kansas article, above, we now know what is meant by “responsible” parent. It means the one that, if he resists divorce, will get 100% of the assets and (at least) 66% of the children. Mom can struggle to enforce 34% of her visitation after she’s kicked out of the house with 0% of the assets, which has already been the case when women FLED the home for safety (with or without kids). So, is this progress? But the CADVs should’ve been monitoring and reporting on these things — although I know that FL CADV had their hands full with FL-AFCC on “parenting coordination” matters, around this time as I recall.
The Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will each appoint six members to the commission by August 1, 2003, with at least half of the commissioners representing the private sector
The wording starts like this – and yes indeed, Florida did vote this Commission into existence in 2003:
383.0115 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. The Legislature finds that:
(a) Families in this state deserve respect and support. Children need support and guidance from both mothers and fathers, and families need support and guidance from community systems to help them thrive.
(b) There are many problems facing families.
(and it gets even more brilliantly deductive from there. I provided the link).
. . .
(e) Assisting states to end dependence of low-income parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage and assisting states in encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families are the two of four stated purposes of federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 which have been largely neglected by states and for which states are now urging Congress to designate 10 percent of all welfare funds, specifically for relationship education and skills development, responsible fatherhood programs, and community support as it seeks to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act in 2002.
. . .
(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) There is created within the Department of Children and Family Services, for administrative purposes, a commission, as defined in s. 20.03(10), called the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives. The commission is independent of the head of the department. The commission is authorized to hire an executive director, a researcher, and an administrative assistant. The executive director shall report to, and serve at the pleasure of, the commission.
This “independence within a department” is key to steering grants to cronies. I’ve seen it in Ohio and we’re (above) witnessing it in Kansas, 2011, as we speak.
To understand some of this subculture — and after I’d been looking at the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative website for a good long while I finally noticed who was pushing the statewide Marriage Initiative, starting with at GRAB of TANF funds, and this was held up to other states as an example . . . .
I noticed “Jerry Regier” — and, for an example, here is the Wikipedia Timeline of his Job Descriptions. He came from OK in 2002, and by 2003, Florida is voting for a Commission on Marriage and Families within the Children and Family Services. (Mr. Regier eventually had to quit this post in FL under some scandal about steering grants to his, as I say, cronies — but ended up, for our purposes, in yet a worse place — back at HHS as Assistant Secretary of the ASPE (evaluates things) where he presided over glowing reports about his former work in Oklahoma. That’s how the Bush-based Babies Cookie-cutter commissions (etc.) generally crumbles. Scandal, scoot to another state, repeat… So look at this chart with some care, OK?
| Jerry Regier | |
|---|---|
| Florida Secretary of Children and Families | |
| In office 2002–2007 |
|
| Preceded by | Kathleen A. Kearney |
| Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services | |
| In office April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002 |
|
| Governor | Frank Keating |
| Preceded by | Ken Lackey |
| Succeeded by | Howard Hendrick |
| Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs | |
| In office April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002 |
|
| Governor | Frank Keating |
| Preceded by | Ken Lackey |
| Succeeded by | Robert E. Christian |
| President of the Family Research Council | |
| In office 1984–1988 |
|
| Preceded by | Post created |
| Succeeded by | Gary Bauer |
So, Jim Marks’ “Marriage for Life” organization was formed (I just learned) in 2002 as a “faith-based” organization — i.e., in the wake of GWBush’s open door executive orders for faith-based organizations of 2001. Many of these groups form to get the grants, spend the money, and then RUN, disbanding, or being dissolved for failure to file with the IRS (or their state).
In Kansas (this is yet another article on the same issue):
SRS says Faith-based initiatives are still around, just not getting as much attention**
Oct. 23, 2011 by Scott Rothschild in “LJworld.com”
**I have 1 or 2 comments on there on these matters. You’ll recognize which ones (just submitted another).
In a pre-Memorial Day (2011) announcement, Siedlecki reorganized SRS, which included putting Anna Pilato in a new position called Deputy Secretary for Strategic Development and Faith-Based Community Initiatives.
Are you getting a feel for this yet?
Pilato had served for five years in the Bush administration, including as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
But Pilato, who is making $97,500 per year, says that in her job she wears two hats — strategic development and faith-based initiatives — and that the strategic development part of her job, which includes overseeing the design and development of staff for SRS, is by far the larger of the two.
. . .
Recently, SRS applied for a $6.6 million grant to pay for either faith-based or secular counseling that encouraged unwed parents to marry. Under the proposal, if the couple completed counseling, the state would pay the $86.50 marriage license fee.
But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the grant.
Kansas Health Initiative published the list of who attended. Recommend Memorizing. Coming to your state (or what’s left of it) soon. What’s kind of funny — Occupy Wichita made an appearance in the middle of a speech by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. (Protestors Disrupt Governor’s Poverty Forum (apparently, today 11/16/2011, KHI News service. I’m starting to like KHI…)):
Protesters interrupted the second of Gov. Sam Brownback’s town hall meetings on childhood poverty Wednesday, standing up during the keynote speech and reciting some of their objections to Brownback’s policies.
One of the 14 protesters was arrested and another was detained for a short period.
The protest began as Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation fellow invited to give the keynote speech, delivered his remarks advocating marriage as a key way to end poverty. Protesters, most of them members of Occupy Wichita, stood silently with their backs to Rector for about 10 minutes, then began chanting their grievances once he completed his speech.
Organizers stopped the meeting for about 15 minutes, resuming after the protesters had left the downtown hotel where it was held.
That Rector should’ve had the podium at this second town hall, or the first, is a dire sign for Kansas: (article links to this):
By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Nov. 14, 2011KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Reducing the number of children born to single mothers is the most effective way to combat childhood poverty.
That’s according to Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation fellow picked by Gov. Sam Brownback to keynote the first of his administration’s three planned meetings on childhood poverty this week.
. . .
Strong reaction
Shortly after Rector finished his remarks, Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization for Women, left the meeting room in anger.
“I was offended in there,” Rinker said. “The things he said, the inferences he made about women and women’s worth were offensive. As I looked around the room, I saw many other people looking to each other in shock and amazement.”
Rinker said the steady increase in births to young, single women was a cause for concern. But she said making available low-cost birth control and improving the women’s self-esteem and education would more effectively address the problem.
“The silver bullet is not wedded bliss,” she said.
Ms Rinker (appears very young, no?) should — with Kansas NOW — have been on top of this situation, should be teaching women about welfare reform and how the fatherhood movement got its two bits in on the situation diverting programs to promote fatherhood and marriage. (The information has been available on the web since 1993). For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (the article says) was instrumental in Welfare Reform. The Congressional Record debates ON this welfare reform are framed in concern about too many women of color having babies ! (in other words, it has severely racist overtones). To let him get up there and spout off, the same rhetoric — which is PAID FOR INFORMATION!
The number one factor behind poverty here in the state of Kansas is the death of marriage,” he said, noting that 38 percent of children in Kansas today were born to unmarried women, compared to about 5 percent in the 1960s. “This is the most dramatic social transformation in the 20th century.”
OH? How about a few world wars (creating untold orphans) and women getting the vote, the creation of the personal income tax, taking currency off the gold standard, and the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.? How about the advent of the internet, the decline of public education, — and how about the 2001 enablements of people like Robert Rector to get up and speak at government functions and expect faith-based organizations to drive the primary institutions around?
Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW,
on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System
Kari Ann Rinker is the President of the Kansas chapter of NOW and she joins us to talk about the budget problems in Topeka that led to end of prosecuting domestic violence cases.
The protests illustrated how serious the issue of poverty is, said Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.***
“These people are using this as an avenue to voice their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech,” she said.
(***search her name on my blog. She supported the last round of fatherhood initiatives in Kansas…. I commented on this).
The Heritage Foundation in Kansas is neither surprising, nor to be ignored. It explains a whole lotta backwards movement when it comes to safety for women and freedom for Americans — both genders, all ages.
I remember this site from a long time ago on the Heritage Foundation.
POWER ELITES: THE MERGER OF RIGHT AND LEFT
A. K. Chesterton once said: “The proper study of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothing that happens could be understood.”
He added: “These elites, preferring to work in private, are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon events has therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ.”
Chesterton described those agencies: “Their goal was to work through such agencies, and financial support received from one or other or all three big American foundations–Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford — provides an infallible means of recognizing them.”
The Rockefellers made $200,000,000.00 from World War I. Henry Kissinger’s brother Walter heads the Allen Group. The super-wealthy (with the exception of some Du Ponts and the Fords) have long supported the Republican Party — the party of plutocratic oligarchy. “If not kings themselves, they are king-makers.” They have quick access to the White House no matter who is President. Other super-rich, such as the Rockefellers, affiliate with the Democratic Party. Politics in the U.S., no matter what party, is under the control of the super-rich, large corporations and the international bankers.
A 1995 Wall Street Journal observed the formidable influence of the Heritage Foundation on government policies since the Reagan era:
“WASHINGTON — With the Republicans’ rise to control Congress, think-tank power in the nation’s capital has shifted to the right. And no policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“When GOP congressional staffers met in June with conservative leaders to help map current legislative efforts to cut federal funding for left-leaning advocacy groups, the closed-door meeting took place at Heritage headquarters. The group’s involvement wasn’t unusual. ‘Heritage is without question the most far-reaching conservative organization in the country in the war of ideas.’ House Speaker Newt Gingrich said early this year.
“Think tanks have long churned out studies that have wound up in official policy proposals. During Democratic times of power, the more liberal Brookings Institution has been a leading player here. Now, the 21-year-old Heritage Foundation, which rose to prominence in the Reagan years, is taking academic involvement to a new level.
“Over the first 100 days of the current GOP Congress, Heritage scholars testified before lawmakers 40 times–more than any other organization, Hill staffers say. Its scholars are credited by congressional members and staff as key architects of the House-passed welfare-overhaul plan and with inspiring some provisions in the GOP balanced-budget plan. ‘They talk to me sometimes 12 times a week,’ said Heritage budget analyst Scott Hodge earlier this year, explaining his ties to the staff of the House Budget Committee. ‘We–I mean House members–are putting together a final list of cuts.'”(5)
FACIST CONNECTIONS
Paul Weyrich – considered the architect and mainstay of the conservative revolution – calls for “reclaiming the culture” and a “second American Revolution.” A look at the inflammatory, extremist rhetoric with racial and Inquisitorial overtones on the Free Congress Foundation web site should alarm Christians as to Weyrich’s real intent:(etc.)
I encourage people to read this write-up on The Heritage Foundation from “SourceWatch.org” and understand (as I am beginning to)its relationship both financially and in purpose (ending TANF completely and eliminating the public education system in the United States) follows up on some serious international influence in the 1980s and 1990s. It took me a while to keep running across the information and understand it — but the Heritage Foundation, The Unification Church and its leaders’ intent to establish ONE world religion with him at the top (yep!) and the means by which the “faith-based operatives” (as I call them) move in and out of state-level, national-level posts and agencies, restructuring them IMMEDIATELY upon being hired (as happened with the Kansas SRS, above) – these are related. The fight is on. Read a segment — but don’t forget to go to the site and consider the international influence in covert wars by the US as well:
HERITAGE FOUNDATION – SOURCEWATCH
The Foundation also leaped to the defense of Ronald Reagan’s description of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” a description that generated wide global rebuke as potentially inviting nuclear conflict and, at the very least, further poisoning East-West relations. But with strong support by Heritage and other influential conservatives, Reagan stood by the statement, refusing to retract it until the Soviet Union began to crumble.
In an attempt to build on its foreign policy influence, the Foundation also engages in domestic and social policy issues, but its effort in these two areas has never quite matched the influence it wielded (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in altering the debate over American foreign policy. Yet, the Foundation continues to weigh in on these topics with varying levels of success. One of its undeniable successes has been serving as a breeding ground for many of the nation’s leading neo-conservative activists and intellectuals.
The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:
Liberation is at hand…. A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s – from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer – the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning…. But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture – indeed, the entire human outlook – will change…. Once this shift takes place – by 1996, I predict – we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including…. radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom.”
(**Contract with America
In 1994, Armey, then House Republican Conference Chairman, joined Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in drafting the Contract with America. Republican members credited this election platform with the Republican takeover of Congress, rewarding Gingrich with the position of Speaker and Armey with the number two position of House Majority Leader. Gingrich delegated to Armey an unprecedented level of authority over scheduling legislation on the House floor, a power traditionally reserved to the Speaker. Armey has been accused of being involved in a 1997 attempt to oust Gingrich as Speaker,[7] something Armey has strongly denied. In 1995 Armey referred to openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, as “Barney Fag“. Armey said it was a slip of the tongue.[8] Armey and his staff, especially spokesman Jim Wilkinson, took the lead in spreading the idea that Al Gore claimed to have “invented the internet.”[9][10][11]
then-President CLINTON had to do something to respond to the Republican “Contract with America” — and 1996 TANF (Welfare Reform) was what he did — or at least signed. This 1996 TANF is a major topic of the post and has affected custody situations for years in “Conciliation Court.” It is also affecting the economy, diverting welfare money to support needy families into more and more brutal and upfront declarations that women should marry their way out of poverty — when many women are poor and single because they fled domestic violence in the home, which might have resulted in their deaths (and sometimes still does, after separation) had they stayed, valuing “marriage” good enough to satisfy these people. So, important to understand some of the context. More on Armey from Wikipedia (as the above segment was):
Focus on the Family
According to Armey, he also sparred with Focus on the Family leader James Dobson while in office. Armey wrote, “As Majority Leader, I remember vividly a meeting with the House leadership where Dobson scolded us for having failed to ‘deliver’ for Christian conservatives, that we owed our majority to him, and that he had the power to take our jobs back. This offended me, and I told him so.” Armey states that Focus on the Family targeted him politically after the incident, writing, “Focus on the Family deliberately perpetuates the lie that I am a consultant to the ACLU.”[20]Armey has also said that “Dobson and his gang of thieves are real nasty bullies.“[21]
Yes they are! Of course, here’s how they describe themselves:
They are just — and this whole divert welfare into marriage promotion and abstinence education and “responsible fatherhood” etc. — are just “helping families thrive.”
(The individual, especially not the individual female or mother, does not exist.…)
Whereas the truth is a lot closer to this:
2009-02-2
God’s Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows
The Washington Post | On Faith blogby Rev. Susan Brooks ThistlethwaiteEvangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress “submission” as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.
Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”
In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering.
2006 Budget
In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.
While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giantMicrosoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). [2]
Historical funding
Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:
- Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
- Scaife Foundations: Sarah Mellon Scaife, Scaife Family, Carthage
- John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
- Castle Rock Foundation
It goes on — but these are foundations that are to be found behind (funding) so many fatherhood and responsible marriage studies, “Fragile-families” “Strengthening Families” etc. type projects.Whether or not these projects produce as they are supposed to, they continue getting funding and supporting Ph.D.s (Sarah McLanahan of Princeton? comes to mind) to justify more of the same.
When Dobson told Dick Armey that Focus on the Family (& friends, no doubt) “Delivered” the Christian conservatives, now they want something in return — he was probably telling the truth: Look at the amounts:
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2006 | $94,999,184 | 990 | 45 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2005 | $97,414,767 | 990 | 59 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2004 | $107,423,724 | 990 | 38 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2003 | $102,442,464 | 990 | 35 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2002 | $98,175,843 | 990 | 37 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2010 | $79,825,383 | 990 | 53 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2009 | $90,996,703 | 990 | 61 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2008 | $93,072,558 | 990 | 45 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2007 | $92,427,223 | 990 | 43 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family Action | CO | 2008 | $3,565,169 | 990O | 23 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action | CO | 2007 | $2,452,377 | 990O | 20 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action | CO | 2006 | $3,035,923 | 990O | 21 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action Inc. | CO | 2009 | $3,953,111 | 990O | 39 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action Inc. | CO | 2005 | $4,286,071 | 990O | 19 | 20-0960855 |
RIGHTWING WATCH partial bio of James Dobson gives an idea of the scope of influence and pull:
- Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army’s Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography, 1985-86.
- Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters.
- In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
- James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation.
- James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California.
- Read PFAW’s in-depth report on James Dobson.
The Family Research Council (nndb listing of who’s on the board.)
| Erik Prince | Business | 6-Jun-1969 | Founder of Blackwater Worldwide |
Military service: US Navy (SEAL Team Officer, 1993-96; Bosnia, Haiti)
Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire fundamentalist Christian, who co-founded the security and mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide in 1997 with Gary Jackson, a former Navy SEAL. He is a major Republican campaign contributor, who interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher, campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.
His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right — married to the son of Richard DeVos(Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.
Father: Edgar Prince (d. 1995, billionaire)
Dobson’s family background (He’s on the board too, obviously) included:
Dobson’s own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father’s fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God’s forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. “It makes no sense, but I know it happened,” Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.
Families will fall apart, Dobson argues, if homosexuals have the right to marry, adopt, or raise children. For this reason, Dobson and FOTF support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one women. Dobson and FOTF are also against abortion, against feminism, against pornography, against the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, against Oregon’s law allowing euthanasia, against Take Our Daughters to Work Day, etc.
(yes, women should stay home, that’s their business, really….)
He has proposed an innovative end run around “liberal” judges. The Republican-controlled Congress should, Dobson suggests, simply stop funding courts where judges make too many “liberal” rulings — stop paying salaries, stop sending security guards, stop paying the electric bills. “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson says. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”
or ….
| Kenneth Blackwell | Government | 28-Feb-1948 | Ohio Secretary of State, 1999-2007 | |
| Elsa Prince Broekhuizen | Relative | c. 1932 | Conservative financier, mother of Erik Prince |
State Treasurer Ohio (1994-98)
Council on Foreign Relations
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
Federalist Society
Freemasonry (!!!)
The Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow
(etc.)
Well, in case you want to know why I’m becoming more and more activitist — these are the stakes. The principles of
- LIFE
- LIBERTY
- PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
Bear a slightly different tone when one is dealing with the corporate giants and conservatives complaining that the republican congress and presidency they’d helped deliver weren’t delivering their constituency enough of the “goods” they wanted. While these people (most of the time) themselves have become unbelievably wealthy through corporations, foundations, or simply being born into it (Erik Prince, for example) — the society they are structuring is how to create “responsible fathers” who are willing (like them) to tweak the judicial AND legislative process, go get jobs — most likely low-paying ones — in (whose???) corporations and make sure they don’t let their females get too uppity. When legislative restrictions get in the way, they figure out an end-run around them. I have been seeing this in state after state (thanks to the internet, and networking with others).
I also witnessed this philosophy completely destroy 3 generations of my family line when I fought for the right not to be battered in the home AND the right to work independently to support what was left of this household in a profession of my choosing and for which both my own parents sacrificed to get the college training in. Throughout the court craziness — that would put any normal business underground within a year, without being propped up artificially — I had situations where a 20 minute hearing, or a short rubberstamping by an official who didn’t know our family, obviously hadn’t read the court record, and didn’t respect the existing laws (or court orders), even ones in his own hand — would completely restructure my, and my children’s lives.
We should be aware that the act of going before a “Conciliation Court” is going to expose people — your family & friends — to this treatment.
We should be aware that the act of taking ANY form of welfare (whether for food, cash aid — or, Moms, child support) is also exposing you to the same thing. I tried to get out – -and was pulled back in, as are others. We need forms of living which enable us to fight back against the complete undermining NOT of “Family Values” but of the US Constitution (which is probably in suspension by now, but it should not be so easily forgotten).
The public pays — and I have blogged this, after becoming aware — for public employees to pay membership in private nonprofits designed to help them run the child support business. At these meetings — in my state it calls itself a “COALITION OF EXPERTS COLLECTING BILLIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN” — the collaborate and plan how to EXPAND the welfare state, not reduce it. They look for ways to have more families become “Title IV-D” families, which brings on the programs, brings program funding to the counties, and etc.
It’s a ridiculous state of affairs — and as far as I can tell the groups in this chart below have not been reporting on it or doing anything about it:
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | MONTGOMERY | AL | 36101 | MONTGOMERY | 004344078 | $ 3,793,073 |
| ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Phoenix | AZ | 85012-1263 | MARICOPA | 867401366 | $ 3,204,336 |
| CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | EAST HARTFORD | CT | 06108 | HARTFORD | 088978429 | $ 3,204,334 |
| D.C. COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WASHINGTON | DC | 20013 | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | $ 35,000 | |
| DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WASHINGTON | DC | 20001 | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | 942435124 | $ 3,204,341 |
| DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WILMINGTON | DE | 19899 | NEW CASTLE | 025256293 | $ 5,391,930 |
| FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | TALLAHASSEE | FL | 32301-2756 | LEON | 053274101 | $ 7,878,370 |
| HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HONOLULU | HI | 96819-2391 | HONOLULU | 160292587 | $ 3,214,275 |
| ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | BOISE | ID | 83712 | ADA | 129850590 | $ 4,104,341 |
| ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | SPRINGFIELD | IL | 62703-1716 | SANGAMON | 168547040 | $ 3,204,337 |
| INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | 46202-1002 | MARION | 024387230 | $ 1,184,809 |
| INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | 46205-2460 | MARION | 105913375 | $ 2,019,532 |
| IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Des Moines | IA | 50312-5259 | POLK | 942559469 | $ 3,204,336 |
| KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Topeka | KS | 66603-3706 | SHAWNEE | 179971957 | $ 5,646,199 |
| LOUISIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | BATON ROUGE | LA | 70879-7308 | EAST BATON ROUGE | 837763630 | $ 3,204,339 |
| MICHIGAN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | OKEMOS | MI | 48864-4209 | INGHAM | 027986889 | $ 7,025,767 |
| MISSISSIPPI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | JACKSON | MS | 39296-4703 | HINDS | 927529420 | $ 3,204,340 |
| MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Jefferson City | MO | 65101-7801 | COLE | 184477318 | $ 2,438,927 |
| MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Jefferson City | MO | 65101-7801 | COLE | 868492646 | $ 718,239 |
| MONTANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HELENA | MT | 59624 | LEWIS AND CLARK | 036541035 | $ 5,648,340 |
| NEW MEXICO COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Albuquerque | NM | 87102-3842 | BERNALILLO | 847508405 | $ 3,274,336 |
| NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | ALBANY | NY | 12206 | ALBANY | 009343934 | $ 5,453,061 |
| NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | ALBANY | NY | 12206 | ALBANY | 790031702 | $ 1,814,609 |
| NH COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE | CONCORD | NH | 03303 | MERRIMACK | $ 35,000 | |
| NORTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | DURHAM | NC | 27701 | DURHAM | 957020266 | $ 5,926,704 |
| Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc. | HEMPSTEAD | NY | 11550 | NASSAU | 947923397 | $ 381,000 |
| OREGON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE | PORTLAND | OR | 97202 | MULTNOMAH | 790033500 | $ 2,921,826 |
| PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HARRISBURG | PA | 17112-2669 | DAUPHIN | 156527558 | $ 39,965,461 |
| PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HARRISBURG | PA | 17112-2669 | DAUPHIN | 166527558 | $ 945,000 |
| RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WARWICK | RI | 02888-1539 | KENT | 025869715 | $ 5,688,523 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | COLUMBIA | SC | 29202-7776 | RICHLAND | 035406367 | $ 3,204,339 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Sioux Falls | SD | 57103-7029 | BROWN | 556435980 | $ 718,239 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Sioux Falls | SD | 57103-7029 | BROWN | 614771058 | $ 2,486,098 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | PIERRE | SD | 57501 | HUGHES | $ 34,271 | |
| TENNESSEE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE | NASHVILLE | TN | 37212-0972 | DAVIDSON | 787712454 | $ 3,204,339 |
| WASHINGTON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | OLYMPIA | WA | 98501 | THURSTON | 059534409 | $ 3,254,000 |
| WEST VA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | CHARLESTON | WV | 25302 | KANAWHA | 192491629 | $ 3,204,338 |
| WISCONSIN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | MADISON | WI | 53703-3517 | DANE | 171537392 | $ 6,931,703 |
(this has been rather an exhausting page to put up… but… it may prevent some detours in understanding the FAMILY courts specifically — which, after all, are really conciliation courts.)
Just a few words on the NCADV which is a Denver, Colorado-based nonprofit, and what they are marketing:
http://www.ncadv.org/membership/MembershipBenefits.php
It is a membership organization (you don’t see it on the above states list, right?). It has sliding scale membership fees — but the public IS paying its dues, because the state organizations pay by % of their budget or — well, as it goes:
State Coalitions and National Organizations—0.1% of your annual budget, ($500 minimum) . . .
I think you can deduce at least some things they are selling, along with memberships — and it’s information and conference attendance, plus some other perks:
Programs and Agencies:
Non-Profit DV, SA or Dual Program—0.1% of your annual budget, ($250 minimum)
- 15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
- Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
- NCADV electronic newsletters
- Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
- One National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs for $84.95 (reg: $99.95)
- Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
- Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
- Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
- Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
Other Non-Profit* or Government Agency** (includes law enforcement and military)—$250*/$300**
- 10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
- Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
(etc. etc.) Great deals — if you’re in the business. As you can see, they are marketing to DV PRACTITIONERS. . They also do the conferences, where more speakers can also cross-market to attendees. Here’s 2012:
NCADV’s 15th National Conference Domestic Violence
and
NOMAS’ 37th National Conference on Men and MasculinityPreserving Our Roots While Looking to the Future
July 22-25, 2012
Denver, COSpecial Keynote Speaker: Ellen Pence
The fact that Ellen Pence is speaking (who is a Duluth person) shows the similarity of approaches.
Denver Registration: NCADV has been around since 1992 in Colorado (as a “foreign” corporation):
|
|||||||||||||||||
and in 2008 picked up another trade name (good to check out where one can):
| # | ID Number | Document Number | Name | Status | Form | Effective Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20081544805 | 20081544805 | Domestic Violence Protection & Prevention Coalition | Effective | FNC | 10/13/2008 03:53 PM |
I found a group called “CFC” which lists (that new name) as “Best of the CFC” and links to an automated payroll deduction for contribution to it.
WHAT I WiSH TO SAY:
Our kids were not your kids to bargain their rights away for supervised visitation, batterers intervention, parent education classes, or for that matter the more recent “Family Justice Centers.” I personally am recommending a boycott of Verizon (which helps fund these) for that very reason, after a season of being unable to even obtain a single cell phone to help replace the last lost job through the “HelpLine” or anywhere locally that promised this.
I am not very hopeful for the USA, but I live here, so this is part of my contribution as a citizen to report, and part of the legacy I could NOT leave my daughters because they were taken overnight, illegally, and with no remedy: primarily to satisfy someone’s too-large ego, and enabled by what law enforcement, in our case, was not. What was the price? They don’t even have all the facts in their own case, yet, or why society wouldn’t let me simply live and let live after throwing out, or why pro bono legal services for women basically won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole; they are focused on the low-income noncustodial males, and their career tracks, while enabling the rich ones to torture insubordinate exes through the courts. (Note: not my situation, but I see the cases).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011]
This Image from Oct. 2011 AFCC Regional Training Conference“ (“Pdf” of full conference brochure from AFCCnet.org website~~>)Working with Violent and High-Conflict Families: A Race with No Winners” in Indianapolis added during May 2018 post update. The phrase “high conflict” (no hyphen, only) used 18 times in the brochure. For a change, the word “alienation” was used only twice…
Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011] (Case-sensitive shortlink here ends “-UD”)
(Some format & minor amount of content updates (such as the image to the right and some others and post title extension starting at the ‘[” added May 14, 2018: I had occasion to reference this post on Twitter). Almost 24,000 words, but still important basic reading though originally written barely two years into this blog:
HAVE YOU HEARD THE LATEST LANGUAGE BLIP FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & CONCILIATION COURTS CULT?
From the “High Conflict Institute”
“CONFLICT HAPPENS“
No longer are DIVORCEs or FAMILIES “high-conflict” but “People” are. In fact, the issues are not the issues either.
When someone comes up to you with an issue — he or she (<=the usual application) doesn’t really mean what s/he says and is not to be taken at face value (ask the forensic psychologists). The REAL problem with family courts isn’t the family courts, and it isn’t even high-conflict families, or high conflict all by its rocky-mountain-high* self. The REAL problem is high-conflict people. Buy this book [“Splitting”] to know if you’re dealing with one:
AFCC 47th Annual (2010, Denver), Traversing the Trail of Alienation
<=**AFCC 47th Conference, Denver, CO, June 2010 (“Traversing the Trail of Alienation,” a trail with “Mile-High Conflict and Mountains of Emotions”)
Promo for “Splitting” from New Harbinger Publications
Bill Eddy image from publications page, Click image to enlarge. Note his affiliations.
Randi Krieger, from publications page (for “Splitting” book out 2011)
|
Splitting
Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder
By authors: Bill Eddy LCSW, JD, Randi Kreger
|
This book is advertised with others on alienation at the NCRC (more, below), as they are in the same professional circles. In fact, it appears he’s on the payroll here (2018 comments: link was to Canadian Bar Association. Search of “high-conflict” brought up just 3 articles, but not accessible without sign-up, which I didn’t at this point). (or is “Senior Family Mediator”) as well as his own split-off “High conflict institute” (see last sentence at the link I just provided).
Books by William Eddy, LCSW, Esq.
Bill Eddy provides Divorce and Family Law Mediation at NCRC as well as training for family law attorneys and other professionals at the High Conflict Institute. Please visit HCI atwww.highconflictinstitute.com for more information on Mr. Eddy’s trainings. He has written numerous books on the subjects of families and high conflict personalities, listed below.
- High Conflict People in Legal Disputes
- Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or Narcissist
- Understanding & Managing High Conflict Personalities (DVD Set)
- Don’t Alienate The Kids! Raising Resilient Children While Avoiding High Conflict Divorce
- It’s All Your Fault!
Bill sure was ahead of his AFCC time. While others were simply developing and lobbying for more parenting coordinator rights in Florida, Texas, and wherever — he was writing this book explaining that the Issue is not the Issue, and all the conflict in the family law venue really comes from disordered personalities in the court system.
Protect Yourself from Manipulation, False Accusations, and Abuse
Divorce is difficult under the best of circumstances. When your spouse has borderline personality disorder (BPD), narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), or is manipulative, divorcing can be especially complicated. While people with these tendencies may initially appear convincing and even charming to lawyers and judges, you know better—many of these “persuasive blamers” leverage false accusations, attempt to manipulate others, launch verbal and physical attacks, and do everything they can to get their way.
Splitting is your legal and psychological guide to safely navigating a high-conflict divorce from an unpredictable spouse. Written by Bill Eddy, a family lawyer, therapist, and divorce mediator, and Randi Kreger, coauthor of the BPD classic Stop Walking on Eggshells, this book includes all of the critical information you need to work through the process of divorce in an emotionally balanced, productive way.
I find it odd that he’s working with the author of “Stop walking on Eggshells” which someone gave me about halfway through the divorce fiasco, post-restraining order. They meant well, but like Lundy Bancroft’s “Why Does He DO That” — and regardless of some truths it may have held, neither one (conveniently) mentions the custody racket, financial incentive, fatherhood funding, welfare reform or in short anything which would give me a concise narrative of why the courts don’t take death threats followed by family suicide, or a stalking combined with previous death threats and violence, seriously — and insisted on psychologizing all terms.
People who have lived with this (and I acknowledge it exists) don’t need guides — they need out of the relationship.
Which is precisely what people working with the organization Mr. Eddy helps market through, are not going to let happen. Nope. If we wish to detach from a borderline personality, abuser, or simply an ex (and birth happened in there somewhere), we WILL be forced, most likely, to deal with an AFCC-devotee somewhere along the way — or most of the way along the way.
I have the book “Stop Walking on Eggshells” and it didn’t take to long to recognize it was an updated rebuttal of a 1970s feminist classic, (shown in 2005 version) Women and Madness (by Phyllis Chesler, PhD)
(Link expired: but see 12/31/1972 Review by Adrienne Rich. Reading it again now (2018) with my perspective, both experientially in the American family courts (post-battering interventions, 21st century) and having read so much anti-woman, anti-mother, values-driven (garbage) from the same sources she critiqued originally in this book, I have to basically agree. (I also FYI had this book as a young woman).
It asks:
Why are so many women in therapy, on psychiatric medication, or in mental hospitals? Who decides these women are mad? Why do therapists have the power to deem a woman mentally ill when she asserts herself sexually, economically, or intellectually? Why are women pathologized, but not treated, when they exhibit a normal human response to abuse and stress – including the lifelong stress of second-class citizenship?
Phyllis Chesler confronts questions like these and persuasively argues that double standards of mental health and illness exist and that women are often punitively labeled as a function of gender, race, class, or sexual preference. Based on in-depth interviews with patients and an analysis of women’s roles in myths and history, Women and Madness is an incomparable work.
Originally published in 1972, this classic has sold over two-and-a-half million copies. Passionate and informative, with a new introduction that examines the trauma of psychiatric labeling and envisions a psychology of liberation for the ages, this special twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Women and Madness remains frighteningly up-to-date.
By now there should also be one called “Children and Madness,” for the labeling children get when they report abuse, when they are active and assertive, and when they need to be controlled after any of the above. That’s been documented elsewhere, and comes under
Psychotropic Drug Abuse in Foster Care Costs Government Billions :
SHARE THIS POST on...
My response to Wayne County, MI issues: Behind many issues is often an AFCC judge…. (and what “AFCC” entails)
Review Time – who/what is the “AFCC”?:
“AFCC JUDGE” — Briefly, by this, it means all that AFCC believes, entails and habitually DOES.
- What is AFCC?
AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.
This is not necessarily what the US Court systems are in place for, nor civil codes of procedure, nor the bill of rights, nor the criminal law. AFCC views “conflict” as bad — seemingly worse than criminal behaviors by individuals in families towards others in the families. I can’t think of any field of human endeavor or growth that doesn’t have some built-in conflict, which can be resolved either by reference to an agreed-upon-standard, or by separation. However, in AFCC language, whoever has conflict (including with these dedicated professionals) is the bad guy, and court-ordered punishment can be meted out.
In this system, parents are required / forced to work it out being treated and viewed as a “family” whether or not they are one any more. Even if one has threatened to kill the other, to kidnap the kids, has caused serious injury to the other partner and/or their children, or has interfered with court-ordered visitation, the problem is viewed of conflict PER SE as being wrong, rather than there being an identifiable position of truth (and from it, some justice) on various matters.
Naturally it also sees its membership as an association of dedicated professionals who are going to resolve family problems.
- Who are AFCC members? – WHICH dedicated professionals, in what fields?
AFCC Members are:
| Judges | Lawyers |
| Mediators | Psychologists |
| Researchers | Academics |
| Counselors | Court Commissioners |
| Custody Evaluators | Parenting Coordinators |
| Court Administrators | Social Workers |
| Parent Educators | Financial Planners |
It seems to me this list of professions keeps expanding, which is another thing AFCC as an association does. We note that while there are some people as direct public employees/ servants who work in the justice system (judges, mediators, court administrators, court commissioners, and some categories of attorneys — i.e., child support attorneys, county-paid GALs, etc.) — some are not. The category “researchers” & “Academics” is definitely broad. Although many of these people certainly have been through divorce or custody issues, or are themselves parents please notice that “parents” is not a category.
In this worldview, then, the “PARENT” (regardless of what profession(s) any parent is in, including sometimes even some of the above categories) is the plebian, the novice, the uninstructed, the person that the professionals must handle. One thing many parents are definitely “uninstructed” in is that this organization exists and runs conferences to strategize how to handle THEM and their flawed selves.
AFCC personnel, when judges, are often highly placed (including state supreme courts) and activist. A look at the membership in this 2007 conference brochure shows an opening PLENARY session hearing;
The Presumption for Equal Shared Parenting: Pros and Cons There seems to be increasing support throughout the United States for a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting. Proponents say that such a presumption brings the best interest standard into comportment with parents’ protected and privileged status under the Constitution and will apply only to those situa- tions in which 1) parents cannot reach agreement; 2) both parents can present realistic parenting plans for the responsibility they seek; and 3) neither parent can present convincing evidence that the other parent is unfit. They say that this presumption will change litigants’ and practitioners’ expectation that gains are produced by proceeding to adversarial judicial hearings, will decrease post divorce conflict, and will uphold each parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his/her children. Opponents, while often sympathetic to shared parenting, argue that the presumption would seriously impede the Court’s ability to tailor custody determinations to the needs of each particular child.** Presenters: Michael McCormick; Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.; Honorable Robert Schnider
[The 2003 link points to an article from a Journal of CFCC (Center for Families & Children in the Courts, put out by Ca. Judicial Council: …
Effective Intervention With High-Conflict Families / How Judges Can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court “The emotional and psychological risks to children resulting from conflicted custody disputes and the varied needs of separated families have led to the increased involvement of mental health professionals in child custody cases. …But though treatment services can be expensive, high-quality treatment may be a more cost-effective intervention than continued litigation. … Courts can also maximize resources by appointing a forensically sophisticated therapist to fill a child- centered role (e.g., to provide the child’s treatment or child-centered conjoint or family therapy) and by allowing the therapist to confer with other therapists about the case. “
Sorry, but actually AFCC was founded to bring on the mental health professionals. It’s typical to talk in passive terms of needs that arose and demanded their services, however, this is a very aggressive organization that lobbies for constant expansion of the involvement of its professionals, as does this particular article. Some of the topics of conflict include economic depletion by constant involvement of custody evaluators and therapists to start with …
The Hon. Robert Schnider apparently one of the originals in Los Angeles area, born into a family law practitioner family — or at least working in his father’s practice. Purely for entertainment purposes, here’s a 2004 article in which this judge was going to possibly unseal (unsavory) parts of a divorce record affecting an Illinois Republican Senatorial race — Jack Ryan against . . .. Barack Obama. The author questions why any judge would be allowed to do this for high-celebrity cases, and notes that “To Unseal or Not to Unseal” (My terms) would either affect a political race, and might be called “child endangerment.” Jack Ryan was being compared to Bill Clinton as to his sexual habits at the time….]
((**including totally eliminating contact with the mother, in “interventions” when she has alienated the children — which would mean sole legal & physical custody to the father, i.e., “Tailored custody determinations” The fact that no opponents UNsympathetic to shared parenting (presumptions) are mentioned tells us how unlikely that either feminists or people advocating for domestic violence victims’ viewpoints were considered).
Many of the conflicts within marriages and sometimes causes of separation actually can come from violence by one partner towards another; it can be a dealbreaker in any relationship (and can and does sometimes turn lethal). AFCC positions itself at the crossroads and in this little paragraph above, has borrowed? the phrase “rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting” from the rebuttable presumption AGAINST custody going to a batter” legislative language in many states.
“Rebuttable Presumption” talk:
For example, a quick search comes up with Delaware Code. Even this Delaware Code, as strong as it is, has several loopholes to allow joint or sole custody of a child to go to a perpetrator of domestic violence — but even so, AFCC and others wish to change this to presumption for equal shared parenting (see above):
DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
Search DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no perpetrator of domestic violence shall be awarded sole or joint custody of any child.
(b) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no child shall primarily reside with a perpetrator of domestic violence.
(c) The above presumptions shall be overcome if there have been no further acts of domestic violence and the perpetrator of domestic violence has: (1) successfully completed a program of evaluation and counselling designed specifically for perpetrators of family violence {{aka “Batterers Intervention Program” — a thing marketed by the Duluthmodel.org philosophy}} and conducted by a public or private agency or a certified mental health professional; and (2) successfully completed a program of alcohol or drug abuse counselling if the Court determines that such counselling is appropriate; and (3) demonstrated that giving custodial or residential responsibilities to the perpetrator of domestic violence is in the best interests of the child. The presumption may otherwise be overcome only if a judicial officer finds extraordinary circumstances that warrant the rejection of the presumption, such as evidence demonstrating that there exists no significant risk of future violence against any adult or minor child living in the home or any other family member, including any ex-spouse.
(i.e., RISK ASSESSMENT PROPHETIC UTTERANCES. How can anyone demonstrate no significant risk fo future violence when people have walked out of batterers intervention programs, with flying colors, and gone on to murder the same person that got them in there?)
Along with “best interests” is of course if the other parent might “alienate” the child, allegedly.
An AFCC judge is going to oppose anything “high-conflict” and be favorably inclined towards shared parenting. Note presenter Mike McCormick, whose bio is:
Michael McCormick. Mr. McCormick is Executive Director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children and has written exten- sively and spoken throughout the United States on family law reform.
No presentations by NOW members or feminists in this association, that I’ve seen. Mr. McCormick is MORE than active in fatherhood issues, and complained that even Obama’s and Evan Bayh (Indiana) fatherhood and healthy marriage promotion just didn’t go far enough. It was too little carrot and too big a stick. He hangs out with Glenn Sacks and friends. I note that the acronym “ACFC” (below) is “AFCC” re-arranged. Coincidence?
I (Glenn Sacks) co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Wisconsin State Journal, Buffalo News, 6/30/07U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which they say will address our “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” Obama and Bayh are correct that fatherless children are dramatically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, use drugs, or get pregnant than children who have fathers in their homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act is explicitly a carrot and stick approach. The problem is that the carrot is too small and the stick is already too big.
Readers Every Year
Are you looking for an affordable way to reach over 6 million readers a year with your business or organization? My blog and my websites GlennSacks.com andHisSide.com receive over 10,000 unique visits a day. My weekly E-Newsletter has over 50,000 subscribers, and is by far the world’s largest regularly distributed E-newsletter devoted to family law reform, fatherhood and fathers’ issues. Contactus for more information.(Note he’s not complaining about fathers being treated like animals & mules, which is where the “carrot & stick” reference comes from. He wants the bribe, the incentive, and less regulation. Personally, being a mother, I’d be offended — and have been — when anyone came to me implying or saying that I needed federal intervention to attempt to maintain work to support my kids. This article was written 5 months after his presentation at AFCC, same year, or published then.
So one factor to remember about AFCC — they have no problem with conference presentations run by activities fathers’ rights leaders. They are definitely a father-friendly organization, at least certain kinds of fathers. They are also typically influential within the courts they preside over, when judges:
Another factor is that they are quite interested if not obsessed with redefining (and narrowing the definition) of domestic violence; they are going to discredit domestic violence as having primarily male perpetrators upon females, even though homicide data consistently shows this is who kills the most. This is consistent with Mr. McCormick (above)’s membership on a group called ‘RADAR’ who pushes this theory. Read on, same conference:
”
PLENARY
This presentation will review research studies on the relationship between domestic violence and custody assessments. The domestic violence paradigm presented in many studies consistently suggests one model of domestic violence, that of male perpetrator and female victim; the argument is then made that this male-abuser model will extend to child abuse.
In other words, let’s consider a different paradigm, the “theory” (“argument”) that male abusers often extend to child abuse is just theory ……just an argument…
The data on gender differences in both intimate personal violence and threats to children indicate, however, that the male-perpetrator model is only one of several models of domestic violence, and that risk to children occurs equally from mothers and fathers. The ethics of presenting a gender biased perspective for custody assessors are discussed.
Presenter: Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D.
I have posted on the Dueling Duttons (just for fun — there is a Donald Dutton, of this premise, and a Mary Ann Dutton also Ph.D., who deals more with the resultant trauma from abuse).
FINALLY as to “AFCC JUDGES” , AFCC is a very activist organization seeking to reform family law and lobbying for changes in laws, practices etc. They also have foundation sponsorship for conferences on “Domestic Violence and the Courts” as below:
Task Forces and Initiatives
Child Custody Consultant Task Force
Child Custody Evaluation Standards Task Force
Family Law Education Reform Project
Parenting Coordination Standards Task Force
Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project
Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network
And, of course, I believe I have made the case that many AFCC members are actively promoting their own products, curricula, and nonprofits are not at all above utilizing their positions as judges to direct traffic (through court-ORDERED participation into the programs, for example, see posts on Kids’ Turn. Questionable financial practice appears to be part of the territory.. See Johnnypumphandle on some of the Nonprofit Organizations:
Many non-governmental organizations exist to reap profit from the Family Law system. Most are identified as Non-Profit and are exempt from taxation. You may have contacted some of these organizations for help, only to discover that help is not available – particularly if you are seeking justice.
Many organizations have been established by professionals in the Family Law system for conspiracy and protection of these professionals. Thus we have many Bar Associations, whose members are lawyers and judges; Psychological Associations for classifying family members syndromes, so that none will be overlooked; and other associations established merely to act as a conduit for family member’s money collected in the process.
The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community“. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.
He is talking about private and/or nonprofit associations with judges as members using public buildings and premises to run their own businesses.
It appears that this “Los Angeles Superior Court judges Association” is quite likely the predecessor of the AFCC. See this:
Update 4/11/99Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . Vol. 15, No. 16 — May 3, 1999 . . . .So, what was up with that?
http://www.insightmag.comInsight Magazine
Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?
By Kelly Patricia O’Meara
An alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association {“LASCJA”} is at the heart of a scandal involving possible income-tax evasion and gifts that may affect judges’ rulings.
Dozens of checks, obtained by Insight, deposited in the LASCJA account were made out to several other institutions, including the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the Judges Trust Fund, the Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services.These organizations are not registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, and if the Bank of America has accounts for any of them, the checks were not deposited in those accounts.
. . . . Not only were attorneys who argue cases before the family court making payments to the judges’ fund, but so were the court monitors — appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations.Bringing in the topic of supervised visitation, and what’s up with tracking usage of those funds.
These monitors qualify for their jobs by paying to take a training and certification course from the judges, with the check going to the fund, whereupon they are placed on the exclusive list the judges use when assigning monitors.Sounds like kickbacks to me. That’s definite conflict of interest. The supervised visitation monitors paying the judges’ account and those judges funneling them business from the courtroom, from the bench….
“. . . . The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s contributions to the fund were payments to the judges run through a joint partnership with the court on MCLE classes. They split the proceeds from legal and professional seminars. . . . . So, in addition to the ethical issues involved in how the bank account has been maintained, its funding also raises numerous legal issues, according to attorney Richard I. Fine, a taxpayers’ advocate. “If a private group [the LASCJA] is using a public building and everything associated with that private group is being paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, then it is clearly fraudulent,” Fine contends. He adds that “unless the public entity has passed an ordinance specifically allowing the private group to exist and specifically stating that the public will bear the costs — separate phones, leasing office space, furniture, computers, etc. — then it should be paid for by the private organization.”. . . . According to Fine, “If the judges have provided false information on official financial statements submitted to government agencies or financial institutions [the Bank of America account], then they have defrauded the Internal Revenue Service and the county and the people of Los Angeles by receiving tax-free status under fraudulent means. … This would be the same as if a person lied on their tax return. It is incredulous to me that something like this could have happened and the IRS, state attorney general, county district attorney and auditor have not acted over all these years.”
Unless they, too, were in on it somehow.
OK, now I think we’re ready to consider why, when a judge that Wayne County, MI child support workers want OUT goes to privatize child support contracting — although I realize this issue is larger, and different (child support collections is multi-million$$ business within most states) the behavior of doing this is common to AFCC personnel from the outset. “BEWARE AFCC” “Court Cancer Metastasizes” summarizes it in this timeline (to review):
History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)
A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER
1939 Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals got State law passed (SB 737).
The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county {the public} would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases. The Family Law code • Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed. • Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation. Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception
1955 A Los Angeles judge formed the first Conciliation Court as per this law in Los Angeles.
1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.
1962
The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)
Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.
1963
Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse.
No incorporation documents on file, and no registration with Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board or IRS. Evidence: Statement from IRS that there is no such entity and corporation papers in 1969. The founders of CCC were Los Angeles judge Roger Pfaff and Meyer Elkin.
(Meyer Elkin awards and memorabilia are all over AFCC entitities and spinoff organizations).
(NOTE: Visit “AFCCnet.org” History page and you’ll see it claims to have begun in 1963.)
I continue to be amazed how little reported this powerful lobbying group is even spoken about. It’s like talking about the air — taken for granted, you inhale and exhale it, with little consciousness of the content.
OK, NOW — My RESPONSE TO THE MICHIGAN POST:
My last post: Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket. Judge was AFCC
Showed county workers picketing against the privatization and outsourcing of Child Support Enforcement, particularly as the companies bidding on the contract already had a history of fraud and other legal issues. Particularly as it would reduce workers’ salaries to $8 to $9 per hour, and more. People in Wayne County MI picketed to remove the judge (Marybeth Kelly) that did this.
This response shows how simple it can be to look up some basic data on a court situation. I’m simply pasting what amounts to a fast-track search of some information on the judge in question. I did not handle the issue of grants systems possibly going to county workers to bring marriage, fatherhood, or other program funding to them rather than the custodial parents, which may have been involved in part. This is an “off-the-cuff” response, minor phrasing perhaps re-arranged for this different format.
I wrote:
I’m not a Michigan native, and came to this posting because I am investigating some of the privateering in the child support industry, particularly Maximus, but in the course of this, Lockheed-Martin and Tier Technologies do come up.
RE:
As Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor noted in a statement thanking Kelly for her service, “What about the children whom the Wayne County Friend of the Court is supposed to serve? What about the families for whom a timely child support check makes the difference between survival and not being able to buy groceries?” ***Excellent questions.
Judge Mary Beth Kelly: Family law bench stint aids high court bid
Published: Sunday, October 03, 2010, 3:13 AM
She came under fire for acting too independently and trying to privatize the Friend of the Court.
That privatization effort was among the issues that prompted a labor-led coalition in 2007 to call for her resignation. Lawyers representing children under the supervision of the county’s juvenile court sued her the same year.
The lawsuit alleged Kelly violated the children’s right to counsel and effective representation when she removed hundreds of individual attorneys and replaced them with hand-picked “attorney groups.” **The lawsuit argued she created a “fixed-fee” system that resulted in far fewer attorneys for a growing number of children.
(**hand-picked, aka sounds like cronies to me. Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is a PRIVATE trade association of judges, mediators, evaluators and the type of personnel who mean courthouseforum sites have plenty of horror stories to post. They get positioned in high places, including state supreme courts, or Friends of the Court associations, and then influence policy, try to and do get laws passed to direct more business to themselves, meaning it’s harder for people to conclude their own court cases. PRIVATIZING — the complaint is that the courts are jammed, overwhelmed, but the logic behind that fails to say why. Privatizing removes protections including oaths that Judges are under as to not having conflict of interest, and their required statements to disclosure that have to be filed. )
The suit was filed in April 2007, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case three months later. (Who is on the Supreme Court?)
Julie Hurwitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said changing the system was politically motivated and leaves her concerned if Kelly is elected to the Supreme Court.
“I don’t think that political ambition has any place on the bench,” she says. “One has to look at the history.”
Kelly says she wanted to reduce deficits and improve services and wasn’t motivated by politics. And even as a conservative endorsed by Right to Life, she says she aims to keep partisanship off the bench.
Judge Mary Beth Kelly a Rule of Law Judge? Obviously not.
By Maryland Farmer, Section News
Posted on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:28:35 PM EST
Tags: Judge Mary Beth Kelly, Supreme Court (all tags)
I believe that the rule of law requires judges to be impartial and not decide cases based on their own personal, social or political views. Judges must take the law as it is written: we should neither add to it nor subtract from it, and apply it equally to everyone alike.
When the State of Michigan seeks to terminate parental rights, it is more than a mere temporary disruption of relationships: it is the forced, irretrievable, destruction of family life. It is an awesome power. “When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” The Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply with full force to parental termination cases. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)
The Role of A Judge in A Parental Termination Hearing
A parental termination case is essentially no different from any other kind of case. Both the parent and the State are entitled to a “rule of law” judge who faithfully applies the Constitution and the plain language of the statute, one who is unbiased, impartial, fair minded, and principled. The judge must give each party a fair opportunity to present his evidence. The judge should consider the evidence with an open mind. The judge must render a decision that is just, according to the evidence viewed against the plain language of the law.
In the Matter of Felicia Alicia Clemons, Minor – a Chilling Story of Abuse of Judicial Power
When Tamara Alicia Clemons appeared before Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Kelly in August of 2007, Judge Kelly was no rookie; she had been on the bench for eight years.
The Court of Appeals opinion details a chilling abuse of power, an abuse that conservative Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan later labeled, “disturbing.” See In re Hudson, 483 Mich. 928, 938, 763 N.W.2d 618, 627 (2009) (Corrigan, concurring)
A Petitioner had requested that the Court terminate Tamara Clemons’s parental rights to her daughter, Felicia. The Petitioner, that is, the person who filed the complaint against Ms Clemons, did not appear for the hearing. Neither did an attorney for the State of Michigan. Although Tamara appeared, she did so without a lawyer to represent her. Astonishingly, Judge Kelly did not dismiss, or even adjourn the case. Instead, she decided to abandon her role as an unbiased judge and take on the role of accuser.
Judge Kelly called witnesses to the stand. Instead of being fair minded, her questions displayed, according to the Court of Appeals, “an accusatory or prosecutorial bent.” Judge Kelly only elicited information that could be used to support termination. She assiduously avoided obtaining information that might help Tamara’s case.
After compiling the one-sided evidence, Judge Kelly refused to allow Tamara to introduce any evidence of her own. Judge Kelly used her power as a judge to deny Tamara the right to even defend herself!
At the conclusion of this inquisition, Judge Kelly wrongfully terminated Tamara’s parental rights to her daughter.
The Court of Appeals naturally reversed the decision. But the Court went one step further: the Court of Appeals, appalled by Judge Kelly’s lawless conduct, actually removed her from the case:
Given the egregious violations of respondent’s constitutional rights that occurred in this case, this case shall be assigned to a different judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice.
This action by the Court of Appeals, removing a trial judge from a case, is extraordinary. It is reserved for conspicuously bad conduct on the bench.
These are not the actions of a Rule of Law judge.
Here is the case:http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcehb&searchTerm=eUiQ.GeLa.UYGU.IbTY&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW
2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652,*
In the Matter of FELICIA ALICIA CLEMONS, Minor. CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES OF OAKLAND COUNTY, Petitioner-Appellee, and LATRECHA ADELL FOX, Guardian, Appellee, v TAMARA ALICIA CLEMONS, Respondent-Appellant.
No. 281004
COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN
2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652
August 19, 2008, Decided
– – – – –
[ENDQUOTE / start LGH comments]:
Again, the thing is the systems; get a grasp of that, and how individual judges act will be clearer. California, alas, is responsible for spawning that AFCC organization decades ago, and a lot of the trauma now going, plus excessive removal of kids from one parent or both parent is going to include 2nd and 3rd generations of people affected by policies run through the child support & welfare system, and pushed by AFCC judges in their conferences. This is privatizing not just the Friends of the Court, but in effect, the entire family court system (and associated ones), court proceedings are seen as problem-solving rather than being subject to justice, and new generations of law students are being coached and trained into this line of thinking, but highly placed AFCC judges, as in UBaltimore School of Law’s “Center for Children & Families in the Court.” (“CFCC”). Just check out their conference agenda and materials, under-reported situation.
I’d have to side with the county workers in the Wayne County issue because, their being public employees, I can do FOIAs and get payroll information, have a shot at any money trail in individual cases (if I were living in Michigan). Besides, no low-paid FT employee should lack benefits – if they didn’t have benefits, what’s the motivation for FT employment? It’d be better to work somewhere else…..
No charge for this PSA. If you read it, please pass it on, I doubt this is a high-traffic post!
I attach 2008? Annual report (from IN) of a private nonprofit group entrenched in the court system: Fathers & Families. Scrutinize who is on corporate donors (Indiana Dept. of Child Support services). Look at how many court officials and public employees are on the board of this group — which is focused on ONE out of TWO sides of the parents in most custody issues. Conflicts of interest, much?
Other states (Ohio, PA) have noted copying practices from Indiana. I even found Ontario, Canada, copying some US practices — the link was AFCC membership (international).
The courthouse forum where I found this had a “reply” button, but my reply has not shown up yet (that I can see), so here it is:
SHARE THIS POST on...
(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose?
This post is: “(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose? (Published 6-5-2011, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-J1”)
Seriously, now …..
What did a District Attorney, a City Attorney, and a Republican Faith-Family-Marriage-Fatherhood-pushing President have in common? In 2003, or since?
(Besides an urge to jumpstart an alliance of
One-Stop Family Justice Shops Centers)
BUSH: Family of Secrets (by Russ Baker)
Russ Baker shows that Decision Points is no candid memoir.
Investigative journalist Russ Baker updates what he uncovered in Family of Secrets about the Bushes with his responses to the former President’s best-selling book. In sum, Bush started a war under false pretenses, allegedly left the cockpit because of substance abuse, got fabricated religion in order to keep power, desired to invade Iraq even before his presidency, and works to set up his brother Jeb for the Presidency. Baker finds the Bush Family political system to be a brilliant con job, benefiting large wealthy interests, and being continued by Obama.
Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years [Interview]
(note: I don’t have this book. But my work here, continues to run across the Bush brand of religion influence and its infiltration of the legal, judicial, etc. systems).
”Or,
“The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlett:
(from Harpers article 2003 by author. Note: The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative (below) began in 2003)
Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.
The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family’s leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.”
Suharto reputedly involved, that he engaged in anti-Communist massacres didn’t seem to matter…Search “Suharto” and “Somalia” here (interview):
“The Family’s devoted membership includes Congress members, corporate leaders, generals, foreign heads of state, dictators. The longtime leader, Doug Coe, was included in Time Magazine’s 2004 list of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. “
The connected, the powerful, the very wealthy, the dishonest, the means-justifies-the-ends crowd. I am not being facetious at all by placing these two books here in preface to protesting the expansion of a “National” (and planned INTERnational) Family Justice Center Alliance. I am alerting us to question exactly which “families” are referred to her, and not to be fooled about the underlying intents. Look at who is sponsoring the movement!
OK, let’s look back to the West Coast Connections and Family of Inter-connected politicians, including some who are indeed Family to each other.
DA = Alameda County Family Justice Center — headed up originally by someone with real “family” connections, til she began running for County Supervisor,
a post she got, though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponent. Her husband just happens to be (presently) California State Treasurer, previously State Attorney General. Later in the post, more on this process is discussed. Mr. Gwinn & startup of the San Diego Family Justice Center has been addressed (in part) in earlier posts towards the end of May, 2011, and the topic itself is not exactly a new one to my blog.
ex-CA = San Diego County Family Justice Center
President = well, he was always into promoting Family.
Let’s Get Honest (that’s me) generally looks behind the scenes at funding and organizational histories of new Initiatives, Institutes, Centers, Movements, and other Projects proposed by those with political connections to better serve those without them, whose lives will be used to justify whichever project is next.
Right now, it seems that the Family Justice Center Alliance is proudly endorsed by the OVW (White House) starting back in 2003, and up and running. How the first two got up and running is a bit debatable. Used to these, I ignored it for a while, until I ran across CA SB 557.
California’s SB 557 has been passed by Senate and is awaiting in Assembly
Here is some of the voting and excerpts — plus my comments
The California Bill SB 557 is to streamline and authorize the Family Justice Center Model. It’s whizzing by committees, and as we speak, was read in the Assembly June 2, and being held at the Assembly Desk. Right now, per “aroundthecapitol.com,”
Votes
- 06/01/11 – Senate Floor: 39-0 (PASS)
- 05/26/11 – Sen Appropriations: 9-0 (PASS)
- 05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 (PASS)
- 03/29/11 – Sen Public Safety: 6-0 (PASS)
and
I am pleased to send you the enclosed Resource Manual for the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Assembly Bill 233). Passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last fall, this landmark legislation will take effect on January 1, 1998. Under the new law, funding of the trial courts will be consolidated at the state level to ensure equal access to justice throughout California.
Over the last several months, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), along with the California State Association of Counties and the Department of Finance, have worked together to familiarize the state’s judges, court administrators, and county executives with this historic new funding law. As part of that process, we are presenting this Resource Manual to assist you in understanding and implementing the new law.
There aren’t too many places in California politics, or its recent history, [SF performing Gay Marriage v Schwarzenegger] that one can go without finding the imprint of Mr. Lockyer.[Pension issues]
So I’m just wondering whether the relatively fast passage of this SB 577 was affected by the legislature’s knowledge (it’s obvious) that his wife was the former CEO of this grants-grabbing initative. And that the local D.A., who helped get this wife installed, was recently in Washington, D.C., lobbying with the OVW director for it . . . ..
- 06/02/11: In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to
establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to
assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and
human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to
access all needed services in one location and to enhance victim
safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to
services for victims of crime, as provided. The bill would permit the
family justice centers to be staffed by law enforcement, medical,
social service, and child welfare personnel, among others.
About privacy of information:
The bill would authorize a family justice center to share
information [WITH WHOM — each other?] pursuant to an informed consent process, as provided. The bill would authorize the National Family Justice Center Alliance, subject to certain limitations, to maintain nonidentifying, aggregate data on victims receiving services from a family justice center and
the outcomes of those services.The bill would provide immunity from civil liability to staff members of the center for information shared with others based on an established client consent procedure, provided that the center has a formal training program with mandatory
training for all members, as specified.
There are so many issues with this (again, original version) its hard to know where to start. But those familiar with the history of the founder of this system can see why (he/they) might have addressed specific issues, including civil liability for sharing info.
(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be
defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where
public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or
part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of** domestic
violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, or human trafficking from one
location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell
their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help,
and increase access to services and support for victims and their
children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised
of, but are not limited to, the following:
**First of all, public agencies are on the public payroll.
Child victims and parents coming for help are quite likely to have business before some arm of the courts where any member of those public agencies may have a built-in conflict of interest in the case. Consider, if it has to do with guardianship of a child, child support, or other issues. When it comes to private agencies— (private organizations, individuals, or “agencies” — what is a private “agency”?) there are issues of where does the law protect the victims seeking help by accountability to any of these private members. The “consent process” has to be taken with a grain of salt — a person in desperate circumstances such as these crimes, may not comprehend what it is they are signing away at the time, their emphasis is survival. Anyhow, potential staff might include:
(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys. {{note: = who created the 1st & 2nd justice centers in CA….1 of each.
(Tell me — for what purpose might a CITY attorney have any business in a family justice center? )
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(hey — are there still readers (active in this field as advocate, or survivor parent) who don’t understand, yet, that there are FEDERAL incentives to the states for
any number of actions which might quite well involve a social service agency staff member, or a child welfare agency social worker — such as adopting out, fostering out, or
declaring a child in need of services that may not, really, be in need of services. There are program funds for these activities. What about program administrators of such funds?
and so forth…..)
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(Translation: People administering TANF funds. We already have become aware that the fatherhood movement has a significant interest in portions of Title IV-D (welfare) finances going towards facilitating increased “noncustodial parent” (i.e., possibly perpetrator) access. No. Uh-uh, No. )
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.
Huh….
Excerpts from “Analysis” of this bill again specifies already-existing justice centers by name and requests they expand who gets served:
This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the City of Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma to create a two-year pilot project for the establishment of a family justice center, as specified. This bill defines the Family Justice Center model in the law and expands the reach for whom services will be provided to include, not only victims of domestic violence, but also victims of officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and human trafficking.
(The cyber-stalking (stand-alone) and cyber-bullying provisions would just about make the average high school student eligible for services…)
This bill also allows for the FJCs to be staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare personnel.
This bill provides that victims of crime will not be denied services based solely on the grounds of criminal history.
(don’t quite know where to file that last statement. )
Votes so far, if you live in California and in any of these are your legislators:
03/29/11 Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.
- 05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 pass as amended (see site)
Ayes – 5 Blakeslee, Corbett, Evans, Harman, Leno
- 05/26/11 Sen Appropriations 9-0 — PASS as amended
Alquist, Emmerson, Kehoe, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Runner, Steinberg, Walters
- 06.01/11 – Senate Floor 39-0 (1 absent abstain or not voting – Emmerson)
Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Some of the Senate Amendments (strikeouts, replacement):
The bill would prohibit victims of crime from
being denied services at a family justice center solely on the
grounds of criminal history and would prohibit a criminal history
search from being conducted during the client intake process.prior sections a, b, & c, were struck through.
Sections e, f:
(f) Each family justice center shall develop policies and procedures, in collaboration with local community-based crime victim
service providers and local survivors of violence or abuse, to ensure coordinated services are provided to victims and to enhance the
safety of victims and professionals at a family justice center who participate in affiliated survivor-centered support or advocacy
groups. All family justice centers shall maintain a formal client feedback, complaint, and input process to address client concerns
about services provided or the conduct of any family justice center professionals, agency partners, or volunteers providing services in a
family justice center.
No criminal background checks to be run, but protection for victims & professionals in the center who participate in affiliated survivor centered support or advocacy groups (off-grounds? How would this be done). This seems to address in part the situation Casey Gwinn’s employee Josie Clark sued him over (see recent posts).
Formal feedback good: (don’t recall that this even entered the original version — feedback fro participants…)
WELL, THERE WE HAVE IT. IT”S PASSED WITH FLYING COLORS, SO FAR, AND IS SITTING ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. MAYBE IT WILL PASS IN TIME FOR FATHER’S DAY, BUT I HOPE NOT. See “District Attorney Dubious Doings.” and re: nepotism, cronyism, racism:
Politics in this famous SF Bay Area, at least Alameda County are, in one blog I read — while probably not equal to Chicago’s or New York’s, known for:
Nepotism, Cronyism, Racism and Corruption
The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.
{{Quote is from a blog post dated July 2009,
The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it. . . . By hiring Chris Bates and Lisa Lockyer, Orloff had the kids of both the local assemblyman, Tom Bates, and the local Senator, Bill Lockyer (later became the Attorney General of the State of California), working for him. He already had the local Congressman’s kid, Jeff Stark, working for him, and he prmoted Stark.
And one of the articles I drew off in reporting this:
Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center
Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT
This is a very short article and commentary on Nadia Lockyer, wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, being givena a $90,000 per year job as Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, a job for which she seems to have no special qualifications. The article also questions the propriety of her employment, considering her husband’s position.The Alameda county Family Justice Center is one of meny local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW).
{{more on this, below — LGH…}}
The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Execuitve Director. Eventually, Nadia Davis Lockyer was given the top job, which pays about $90,000 per year. (initial pay was $65,000 but extra money was found to make it $90,000. I am researching where the extra money came from)
…Selection process was all for show, Nadia Lockyer is DA staff
Steve White 01.Jan.2007 15:47
I have just received a letter from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office which indicates Nadia Lockyer is an employee of that office.
The letter goes on to respond to my Public Records Act request for all info relaated to her hiring. The DA’s office claims all the info is exempt from disclosure, except for a brochure announcing the job. So they sent me a copy of that announcement.
The denial of information was expected. What was surprising to me is that Lockyer is an employee of the DA’s office. I thought the Family Justice Center was an independent entity which worked with the DA, not a subordinate office.
and, more, after he contacted the OVW for grant applicant guidelines:
[he] clicked the first link, which as the first page of a book on guidelines and rules for Federal graants, then went to the chapter entitled “Conflicts of Interest”
Reading that, it seems pretty clear Lockyer violated the Federal law, and presumably this is why they went through the big show of pretending to use an objective process to pick his wife for the job. These folks knew they were doing something shady from the start. Further evidence is that everyone involved is trying to duck my Public Records Act requests for more information. More on that in my next post
Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC
Steve White 25.Sep.2007 13:37
The first week of September, 2007, the ACFJC announced a large grant from the US Department of Justice, and in the grant announcement, which naturally everyone was very happy about, they added some statistics on how much good the ACFJC had done so far.
The stats were impressive. They claimed “Since it’s launch” the ACFJC had reduced Domestic Violence (DV) deaths from 26 to 6 in 2005, and, they had provided services to “20,000 victims and their families”.
Both claims were untrue. I checked with the Alameda County Public Health Department, and it turned out there has been a very long term decline in DV deaths, from 26 in 1996, eleven years back, to 6 in 2005. The Center opened in the last half of 2005, in August.
MORE (9/2007) INFO FROM Steve White “Boatbrain” on the ACFJC fudging (lying) on its statistics, in addition to improper appointment of CEO. Please read entire article we find further conflicts of interest and very disturbing dishonesty, reminiscent of the San Diego outfit:
The Alameda County Family Justice Center is an agency set up two years back as “one-stop shopping” for victims of domestic violence.
It was started by a Federal program to centralize several different types of services, (prosecutors, counselors, emergency housing) to DV victims. There are about 15 around the US, the Alameda center has been open two years as of August 2007.
I have already published, on Indymedia, an account of how the ACFJC hiring of Nadia Lockyer, the wife of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Executive Director of ACFJC was rigged by Nancy O’Malley, the Chief Assistant DA in the County.
Now, it appears the ACFJC is involved in other nefarious activities.
Recently, the ACFJC received another US Dept. of Justice grant, and the award was announced on their website.
The announcement gave several detailed claims for the achievements of the ACFJC, two of which seemed unlikely to me to be true: Since I knew the ACFJC was only open a bit over four months in 2005, I knew there was no logical basis for attributing all the 2005 decline to their actions.
But more than that, the reduction from 26 to 6 in one year struck me as extreme and improbable. That is an almost 80% reduction, too good to be true.
So, I called the Alameda County Public Health Department to try to get DV death rates, and called the office of the County Supervisor quoted in the article, Alice Lai-Bitker, to ask about the number.
My conversations with Public Health and Supervisor Lai-Bitker’s staff confirmed my suspicions. Too good to be true was exactly right. To get a death toll of 26 in the County, you have to go back to 1996, nine years before the ACFJC existed. There has been a steady long term decline in DV deaths since then.
The number for 2004, the year right before the ACFJC opened, was 11. Obviously, 6 in 2005 is a lot better than 11 in 2004, but there is a problem in the stats, in that Nancy O’Malley, the effective head of the ACFJC, is also the head of the DV death reporting team for the County, so she can fudge the figures.
I realize, one would not think deaths can be fudged. You are either dead or you or not. But, by using varying protocols for what the death was caused by, there is some maneuvering room for this. I am contacting the DV death reporting trainer for the state to try to nail this down.
All that aside, the point is, as far as attibuting the reduction in DV deaths to ACFJC, that was an extremely misleading claim, and I would argue deliberately misleading
He goes on . . . . after challenging the “20,000 victims and their families served…”
It seems much more likely they deliberately lied, to justify more funding in the future.
The County Administrator, Susan Muranishi, who was the highest paid employee of the County, a few years back, at $231,000 per year, is also quoted in the press release, expressing approval of the ACFJC and the grant.
I called her office to try to get documents to indicate what numbers ACFJC has been giving the County to justify the County’s funding. The receptionist there claimed they did not have any figures, and I had to contact ACFJC. If this was true, it seems to indicate a severe lack of oversight. No reports to the County Admin from the Center? How does Ms. Muranishi know how the County’s money is being spent? I doubt there are no reports, and intend to push them to release them, to see if there are any false numbers in the official accountings. Ditto for the Feds, who I have also requested info from.
That kind of reporting is why we most definitely need INDEPEPENDENT media centers, and pesky bloggers like myself and Mr. White (wonder what happened to is FOIA and Public Records requests on the ACFJC…
In 2010, here’s an article (and comments) on Ms. Davis-Lockyer running for county supervisor, replacing one of the retiring supervisors who, improperly, voted in Nancy O’Malley (per indymedia Steve’s writing). WHat goes around comes around. Again, for non-Californians, this is about how policies get institutionalized in practice, regardless of what results they produce — including initiatives, collaborations, institutes, coalitions, and so forth. This Family Justice Center seems symptomatic of what’s wrong, from both this end and (below) the White House end.
WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ON FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS – AND GWB DECLARES OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH (in 2003).
I have a general rule of thumb. If it has the word “families” on it — it has a fatherhood (and possibly governmentally endorsed) / faith influence. This appears to be the case with the FAMILY justice centers, as it did with the FAMILY violence prevention fund of SF (see recent posts). After all, US is just one big “family” and everyone in power is there to serve and protect the little vulnerable ones among us, right?
The “Family Justice Center” model is absolutely federally funded, and here is the October (DV awareness month, or as I put it, DV Industry Awareness month) October 8, 2003 White House Press Release:
This offers $20 million of funding to establish 12 centers. The emphasis is Under One Roof (after all, the service providers are just one big happy family, right?) and with a particular emphasis on including Faith Based Initiatives, says our former Prez:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Contact: Angela Harless
202-307-070
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SPEARHEAD PRESIDENT’S
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INITIATIVE TO BETTER SERVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMSWASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the Justice Department will lead a $20 million-dollar program to develop comprehensive domestic violence victim service and support centers in 12 communities across the country. The unprecedented pilot program, the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative, will make a victim’s search for help and justice easier by bringing professionals who provide an array of necessary services together under one roof. President Bush unveiled the initiative earlier today at a White House event formally declaring the month of October as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.”
“Domestic violence is unacceptable, and this Administration is determined to end the vicious cycle of violence,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “Our efforts across the federal government have made it possible for tens of thousands of women and their families to renew their hope, reclaim their dignity, change their lives and protect their children.”
{{HYPOCRITES!!}}
The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative will provide comprehensive services for domestic violence victims at one location, including medical care, counseling, law enforcement assistance, social services, employment assistance, and housing assistance. The Department of Justice will award grants to 12 communities nationwide to develop Family Justice Centers. Communities will be encouraged to look to the family justice centers in pioneered in San Diego, California and Indianapolis, Indiana for the development and creation of their own centers.
{{Sounds like Casey Gwinn (note: Republican) had a White House connection here… Indianpolis, home of Sen. Evan Bayh, is prime “fatherhood” country. Unbelievable….. The Indiana “Child Services” (a.k.a. Child Support Services) government website directly solicits “Fathers and Families” to pursue grants, as well as notices CRC (Children’s Rights Council)….. I doubt that the choice of these two cities was anything approaching accidental. Who else (grassroots up) was starting Family Justice Centers, around the United States, at this time?}}
Justice Department efforts will be further supported by its partners from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Labor.
{{So much for treating domestic violence as the criminal/legal issue it really is, with consequences, of course, across the spectrum of life, as crime does….}}
“The President’s Initiative will provide communities with the resources designed to co-locate coordinated services to domestic violence victims into one facility,” said Office on Violence Against Women Director Diane M. Stuart. “The services provided by the Family Justice Centers will help victims pursue safe and healthy lives.”
Family Justice Centers are designed to bring together advocates from non-profit, non-governmental domestic violence victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys,chaplains and representatives from community-based organizations into one centralized location.
Involvement of the faith community is integral to the Family Justice Center Initiative, as well as to the President’s overall strategy to end domestic violence. The Justice Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department are coordinating their efforts to ensure that faith communities nationwide get the training and tools necessary to help domestic violence victims in their communities.
{{Chaplains, imams, and rabbis don’t lack the “tools” to stop wife-beating — or the ability to network — but the problem has been historically the desire to do so. They are mandated reporters, too, and of child abuse. GO ask “SNAP” about how well that goes….
{{Reading this now, and as a survivor of domestic violence which was rationalized through religion, though I never accepted that basis, — I understand, and believe I’m right about this — that this has a more sinister purpose than “helping” victims from the faith-based perspective. Many of those victims that end up using the legal system went first to their spiritual perceived authority (translation, pastor, priest, etc.) and were ignored and the danger trivialized. SOme of the perpertrators were those people at times. Welcoming this group into these “centers” with open arms is simply wrong….but, how very “Bush”!!}}
“The faith-based component of the Family Justice Center Initiative is critical to its overall success,” said Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels. “Faith-based institutions are often the first place a domestic violence victim turns to for support and guidance.”
(and the last place they are about to find it — which has been documented repeatedly . . . . ) Next steps, integrating the faith community into the system (2004 release)…
I got on the SB 557 kick, here, because I heard about it accidentally. Accidentally, I happened to browse the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Annual Report of 2010 (yeah, this is my “casual reading material” at times)… only to find that this San Francisco Bay Area [“East Bay”] county leadership was running up to the OVW and trying to sell legitimizing the Family Justice Center” model (see “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post)….
District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and the Alameda County DA’s Office are proud to announce the publication of the 2010 Annual Report.
We invite you to view this comprehensive report.
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 2010 Annual Report (7MB PDF).
Because I’m familiar with the Justice Center idea already, I picked up on the graphics and mottos that also supported further promotion of it: the 2nd page of the report is a full page photo of a child and parent(?): “Justice isn’t served – – – til Crime Victims are.” On the palms of their hands is written: “I have the right to protection” “I have the right to be heard.”
Compare: (graphic on banner of the Alameda County Family Justice Center reads, next to an icon showing scales carring heart & dove, plus two figures reaching for them) “Justice isn’t served until victims are.”
Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center
Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ACFJC), a one-stop center for families experiencing domestic violence.
{{Domestic violence is a crime, and is committed by an agent. Note the grammar change: “families experience” it — no one actually DOES it. The District Attorney’s Office is the office deciding which crimes to prosecute, and which NOT to prosecute, and doing so ethically and honestly. District Attorneys offices in East Bay (and SF) counties have been experiencing multiple scandals recently, along with police departments… such as tampering with drug evidence and causing cases to be dropped, infighting during an election that resulted in an office fist-fight (Contra Costa County — nearby) and other serious problems, as well as having various members of their forces from time to time being prosecuted by employees or fellow colleagues on rape or other sexual harassment issues. In this context, I don’t recall hearing a major grassroots call for centralized, one-stop services.}}
The ACFJC provides, under one roof, the services required by domestic violence victims and their families:
- Crisis intervention, survivor support, and victim advocacy, incl “MISSSEY”
- Legal assistance services
- Medical care and mental health counseling for victims and children impacted by family violence
- Employment assistance, and information and referral to other community services
- Law enforcement investigation and prosecution of offenders
In the past, domestic violence victims often had to seek help from a fragmented, disjointed system of separate agencies offering related by frequently uncoordinated services.
I’m thinking diversity, rather than inbred centrality might be the better order of the day overall. After all — was our country designed for efficiency or liberty?(But I’m talking, pre-Bush Dynasty there…..)
From the DA’s report, a segment:
5. Putting Victims First Page
Alameda County Family Justice Center 22
Domestic Violence Unit 23
Restitution Unit 24Victims’ Rights & Services 25
Marsy’s Law 25
Victim -Witness Assistance 26
AND . . . .
Legislative Initiatives . . . p. 33
Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.
…. such as (one of several — the others sound legitimate, although if parents are involved, it’ll bounce to family law and become “moot” point sooner or later) . . . .. . . .
SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.
The TREND towards, meaning, the PUSH, enabled by BUSH towards . . . . . for these models. (other than, since the 1980s, the Duluth Model has been pushing this also, called “Coordinated Community Response.” So, how’d we say it’s going?
SHARE THIS POST on...
What’s Money got to do with it? This is about love, helping kids, protecting gender expression, right?
Yesterday, I almost got lost among AB 887 (redefining gender) and the backgrounds of its sponsor, after my recent post about the attempted (in 2002) AB 2263, suggesting that our top Judicial organization in the state (California Judicial Council) get paid — assuming it could also find other funding — to judge the mental health efficacy of Kids’ Turn, excuse me, (this is the sanitized version)”
projects or programs that provide services to assist children and their families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or legal separation... [[not mentioned -- this process can and does often take years -- like 10, 15, 18...]]
and which measures, among 5 standards, 3 which deal such hard data as “degree of conflict,” “mental health of children,” and “change in (parental) attitude”:
(1) Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding custody issues, as reported by the parents.
(2) The mental health of the children, as measured by their attitudes before and after participating in the project or program.
(3) Any change in the attitude of the parents who participate in the project or program.
Conflict is obviously bad — this is why, the US never engages in wars abroad or at home, such as on terror, drugs, homelessness, poverty, or fatherlessness. Conflict is Bad. Having the Judicial System involved in receiving public monies to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral modification programs (run by family law professionals and supported by millionaires and billionaires — see my posts, it’s true!) — is, per our Legislators (in 2002) Good. All they wanted was $50,000 — plus matching funds. In the cleaned up version…
Original version was more direct – but someone thought better of that and reworded it from the original, as reported May, 2002:
•AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.
FYI, for a perspective Assemblypersons in 2011 have salaries ranging from $95,291 (most) to $109K (one) and a few $102K. Judges outrank them by ca. 50% as to salaries. Kids’ Turn is a judges project (if not slush fund..) Judge are always being so helpful, because they love kids.
One legislator (Atkins) had previous been chief staff of the other former assemblyperson, now Senator legislator (Kehoe), it turns out and both were “out” lesbians (hardly unusual for California, but sometimes even I forget). Another Sunburst Youth Housing Project has Atkins & Partner/Wife’s name on it.
January 2005, after more than 3 1/2 years of hard work, The Center announced the creation of an innovative youth supportive housing project. This cutting-edge program is one of the first projects of its kind in the United States. The Youth Housing project provides 23 units of affordable, supportive housing for youth between 18-24 years of age, with a special focus on LGBTQ+ youth. These high-risk youth were living in the streets or in public spaces after having been ejected from their homes because of their sexual orientation.
This project has been made possible by the leadership and vision of Rev. Tony Freeman, Dr. Heather Berberet, San Diego City Councilmember Toni Atkins, Jennifer LeSar, The Center and its project collaborators — YMCA Youth and Family Services, San Diego Youth and Community Services, Metropolitan Community Church, Walden Family Services and the Chadwick Center at Children’s Hospital. We opened our doors to youth at the beginning of February 2006.
Oh yes, and the AB 887 sponsor’s wife was caught — well reported — exploiting the homelessness problem in San Diego to turn a nice penny as consultant for herself ($225/hour) by farming out the work to others, while her wife (Assemblyperson Atkins) was photographed with the volunteers counting the homeless.
2011, SanDiegoReader seems to be keeping tabs on these conflicts of interest:
Why Was Toni Atkins Consulting for Developers Vying for Redevelopment Dollars After She Was Elected to State Assembly?
By historymatters | Posted January 27, 2011, 3:51 p.m.
Why was State Assembly Majority WHIP Toni Atkins working for LeSar Development Consulting firm as the Senior Principal of Housing Policy and Planning even after she was elected to State Assembly? Toni was consulting with developers and helping them lobby to get these redevelopment tax dollars for their projects. So how in the world can she vote objectively as a State Assembly member let alone State Majority WHIP to freeze this redevelopment money and return it to schools and other state resources when she has a definite financial stake in seeing that the money remain in the pockets of developers like her wife and their clients.
…
How is it that Atkins and her wife Jennifer LeSar are continually allowed to financially benefit from the affordable housing gravy train. Affordable housing is a multi million dollar issue with a multi million dollar bounty at stake to the most cunning and shrewd land developers and Atkins is voting on this issue despite her personal financial stake. LeSar served as a CCDC Board Member for years while Atkins simultaneously served on City Council and voted to approve millions in redevelopment funds.
Meanwhile, Hunting for the Homeless (2011 Feb. Press article)
State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year’s numbers were up
I’m starting to like this blogger, “historymatters” — who seems to be on top of the issues — not that anyone seems to be stopping this flagrant wearing two hats at once while selling projects (contracts to cronies — or partners (nepotism?) — which are to help the public, allegedly). San Diego is not my area — except for the reputation they have in messing with parents around family law, and the infamous “Family Justice Center Model” (Casey Gwinn retirement program), same general idea. Our public servants are I guess to busy working on (and dreaming up, or expanding) projects to help the rest of us that it slipped their minds to report who was getting the contracts for those projects. During an era of increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, closing libraries, thousands of California prisoners being released due to overcrowding, and such — it’s very important to sell educational programs to parents undergoing divorce (and measure whether they worked) — and of course SOMEBODY has to go hunt up the homeless (while, during the daytimes, they are encouraged to keep moving….)
In “I’ve Got Issues” (I’m starting to like this blogger):
Jennifer LeSar was on the Board of Directors of the Centre City Development Corp. (CCDC) from 2002 to 2009. She started her development consulting business in 2005 consulting many of the same developers she was working with on CCDC. http://lesardevelopment.com/about-us/ CCDC recently asked the City Council to approve the contract extension with redevelopment money, yes that same redevelopment money that Atkins as State Assembly WHIP will vote on in Sacramento….sound like a conflict of interest?
2009 Article stating that Kehoe is going to back her former staffer, ex-City-Councilwoman Atkins for State Assembly( which we can see, she obviously got).
2010, January — The GayandLesbianTimes protests politicking by this duo (Kehoe & Atkins) (control of a nonprofit board? stacked — under threat to the organization if it didn’t comply?)
Former board resigns, San Diego Democratic Club appointed by Kehoe to take over PrideThe reconstituted Board of Directors of San Diego LGBT Pride met Wednesday, Jan. 27. The first order of business was to accept the resignations of board members Philip Princetta, Co-chair and Mike Karim, Treasurer. According to Pride, the new board members are fully committed to transparency and will honor the duties and responsibilities of the organization and continue the mission of San Diego Pride. However, the first meeting was closed into executive session soon after it began.At a special meeting held last Saturday, attended by City Councilmember Todd Gloria and former San Diego deputy mayor Toni Atkins, State Senator Christine Kehoe demanded that San Diego LGBT Pride board members Chair Philip Princetta, Treasurer Mike Karim, Secretary Carl Worrell either resign or she would place the organization into receivership – a court action that places property under the control of a receiver during litigation – according to an anonymous source at the meeting.Kehoe, Atkins and Gloria packed the San Diego Pride Board with a crossover of supporters, donors, and endorsers of their political campaigns – appointing the San Diego Democratic Club to take over Pride.Community members are questioning if they have legal authority to take such actions under the Brown Act….In a letter, obtained by the Gay & Lesbian Times, Worrell said, “I don’t know that I have ever before found myself in a situation where every alternative solution is wrong. But, in my opinion, that is the situation now. After the unconscionable bullying we took from Christine Kehoe, Todd Gloria and Toni Atkins; it is obvious that my involvement in shaping the future of Pride must end.In addition to demanding that the three current board members resign, Kehoe also stated that all Pride board meetings would be attended by a representative from both Kehoe’s and Gloria’s offices. She ordered a hiring freeze and said all Pride business must go through her office before any actions were taken, according to the anonymous source.
One reason I steer clear from nonprofits. Another reason is that I learned the hard way that they are answerable to their funders more than the clients they serve. I would NEVER deal with a nonprofit (If I were you) anymore without knowing who is on the board of directors, and who is footing the bills. Moreover, nonprofits can have their boards taken over and start firing staff, totally change the character of any organization which may have started out well.
So, I’m interested why these people would be so interested in controlling the nonprofit here San Diego LGBT Pride and looked it up. “Year Founded:1974 Ruling Year:1995” (meaning actually showed up as a nonprofit 21 years after it started… Wow, kinda like AFCC, which took forever to incorporate properly and start reporting income and paying taxes…). Income they deal with listed at $1.47 million… Purpose:
Foster pride in and respect for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
and Transgender communities locally and globally.
(See yesterday’s post on the gender expression bill. Guess some real progress has been made there.)
Guidestar’s IRS form 990 for the year 2009 shows only the 3 ousted officer, plus Exec. Director Ron deHarte earning $113K, and the main activity rallies, festivals, etc. (and operating in the whole). The income is mostly “program service revenue.”
Whether or not this type of behavior and leadership qualities is played out in the LGBT community or not, it seems common in these combos, I have noticed:
- Legislator Connection
- City level control (Councilmen, Councilwomen), and County Level Supervisors
- Redevelopment Connections (real estate developers, or those financing it)
- Favored nonprofits controlled by one of the above to provide services
- Cronies getting the contracts, or cronies/spouses getting to be Exec. Director of the favored Nonprofit/agency (Example: “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys — Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s (3rd) wife gets coveted $90K job over a $3million-grant-initiated “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (I think was the title) whose actual benefits to the public are questioned (if ever proved). The process by which this Executive Director was appointed took the cooperation of County Supervisors, helped by the early resignation of a (as I recall) District Attorney (rather than waiting out is term to let the appointment happen normally: i.e., From Orloff to Nancy O’Malley.
Case closed: One big reason the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to name retiring District Attorney Tom Orloff‘s handpicked successor, Nancy O’Malley, to the plum job was her role in helping launch the Alameda County Family Justice Center – a federally funded program that helps victims of domestic violence.
Not only are Supervisors Gail Steele and Alice Lai-Bitker big supporters of the program, but its executive director is Nadia Maria Davis-Lockyer – the wife of longtime East Bay pol Bill Lockyer. Nadia is also running for supervisor.
Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center
Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT
This is really changing the way the system is responding to victims.”
-Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney“We use business principles to address social problems and build lasting solutions.”
-Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq., Executive Director
Well, well — the Sneak Peak of ACFCJ finds out that Ms. Nadia is going to take retiring County Supervisor Gayle Steele’s place — very appropriate, because Supervisor Steele probably could have — but like Lai-Bitker, chose not to — protest the improper propelling of this woman to the head of the ACFCJ to start with (see the articles i’ve linked to). TWO county supervisors protested swishing the appointment past the public improperly. THREE County supervisors (including those two) did not. So here we are —
Congratulations and Thank You, Nadia Lockyer
On November 2, 2010, Nadia Lockyer was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to fill the seat vacated by retired County Supervisor, Gayle Steele. Nadia’s last day as the Executive Director of the ACFJC was December 31, 2010. We wish to thank Nadia for all she did for the ACFJC and we wish her well in her new position. We know she will continue advocating to ensure the safety and health of all children and families in Alameda County.
Senior Deputy District Attorney, Kim Hunter, will be the Acting Director of the ACFJC. She and Cherri Allison of FVLC will work together to provide leadership until a new director is installed.
And of course a blurb in this ACFCJ newsletter celebrates the inauguration of Nancy O’Malley, who helped get this ACFCJ started:
District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, Sworn in at ACFJC
The Inauguration Ceremony of Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attor- ney, took place at the ACFJC on January 3, 2011. Approximately 250 people gathered on the 2nd floor to hear an introduction by Chief Assistant District Attorney, Kevin Dunleavy, and the Oath of Office administered by Cali- fornia Supreme Court Associate Justice Carol Corrigan. Nancy ended the ceremony with a touching speech that thanked her mentors and family. A reception immediately followed at Z Café.
Congratulations Nancy!
Convenient for the providers, not necessarily the best for the clients.
Also Known As:
- Physical Address:
- 470 27TH St
Oakland , CA 94612
2008 IRS Form 990 (contains warning notice on potential errors in this version)EIN# 942300454This group’s budget is small fry among big fry (Grants $650,000) and its Executive Director, Marcia Blackstock has something worth hearing about this group and practices in general:
If you’ve got ears, listen up to this one:
Biography
Blackstock is the Executive Director of Bay Area Women Against Rape, which was founded in 1971 and is recognized as one of the first three victim assistance programs in the nation.
Initial Involvement in the Crime Victims’ Movement
Marcia Blackstock became involved in Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) as a volunteer in 1978. BAWAR had been formed in 1971 by an outraged foster mother whose high school-age daughter had been treated badly both by the police and the emergency room staff after she was raped.
Context of the Era
BAWAR had a “huge adversarial relationship” with law enforcement, hospital personnel, mental health professionals, and the judiciary in the early days. Blackstock remembers that BAWAR’s views were not trusted, nor did BAWAR trust anyone in the system to appropriately assist sexual assault victims. “It was a lot of upheaval, a lot of anxiety, and frustration,” Blackstock recalls. On the other hand, there was substantial community support from the local universities and other collective groups such as the Berkeley Free Clinic and the Women’s Health Collective that were also working and organizing to see that people were treated with dignity and respect and that their needs were met.
Greatest Challenge
Looking back, Blackstock believes that the greatest challenge was establishing credibility among professionals in the various fields that dealt with rape victims. The therapists, law enforcement officers, judiciary, and hospital personnel considered themselves the “experts” and maintained an adversarial relationship with BAWAR mainly because of its grassroots origins. The BAWAR advocates were not considered to be “professionals.”
“We were coming from a peer-support, community-based, grassroots organization that brought in a huge variety of people from a variety of backgrounds and education and ideas, but all coming together and focusing on a common goal. But we were considered ‘peer’ and not ‘professional’, at best paraprofessional and rarely that.”
One of the problems that BAWAR faced was that licensed counselors who felt that they were more knowledgeable had no experience at all working with sexual assault victims.
A high school student who refused to cheer on her “rapist” has been ordered to pay $45,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. Where’s the justice in this?
By Cord JeffersonPosted: 05/05/2011 02:54 PM EDT
“I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she told reporters in 2009. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”
To that end, HS refused to cheer for Bolton when he stepped up to take some free throws during a game in January 2009, four months after he had pleaded guilty to the attack. When she folded her arms and stood silently, however, her school’s superintendent, Richard Bain, ordered her outside and told her she had to cheer for Bolton. When she refused again, HS was kicked off the cheerleading squad.
(How much money, fame, press does a good basketball team attract to a school?)
HS later sued the school for kicking her off the team, but the results of that lawsuit have time and again gone terrifyingly against her.
(What’s Gender got to do with THAT situation? Or, money? –or Justice? The rapist paid $2,500, and she has to pay the school district $45,000 for protesting — not with violence, but with silence?)
ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC [EIN# 26-1141080]
Also Known As:
- Physical Address:
- 470 270TH StOakland , CA 94612
- At A Glance
- Category (NTEE):
- Human Services / (Victims’ Services)
- Year Founded:
- 2010 Ruling Year: 2010
I’m looking at a 990 signed this past February by Harold Boscovich. (You can too — it’s free). There are no officers, no income, and no officer, it says, was paid. Now THAT’s an unusual tax return! “The purpose of this corporation (not nonprofit?) it “to provide comprehensive collaborative professional services to victims of domestic violence and their children, to victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation; to victims of elder abuse, and to victims of child abuse, at no cost.
QUALIFYING FOR PUBLIC CHARITY STATUS: The Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1) Test and the Section 509(a)(2) Test
Tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code permits a charitable organization to pay no tax on any operating surplus it may have at the end of a year, and it permits donors to claim a charitable deduction for their contributions.
There is a further division in the world of Section 501(c)(3) organizations, classifying them into private foundations and public charities.
The private foundation laws impose a 2 percent tax on investment income, limit self-dealing and business holdings, require annual distributions, prohibit lobbying entirely, and restrict the organization’s operations in other ways. Also, large donors to a private foundation have a lower ceiling on the amount of deductible gifts they can claim each year. In most circumstances, public charity status is preferable to private foundation status.
And it appears that this Alameda County Family Justice Center (“ACFJC” as I might refer to it again), started by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, hand-picked by the retiring one TOm Orloff as a shoo-in (or to be the incumbent shortly before he retired) whose connections I’m sure helped get the $3 million grant to start this particular ACFCJ — and who then helped get another connected individual, Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq. become Executive Director and at once get a 50% increase in salary, to just below what a California Legislator (Assembly) typically gets ($90,000 / $95,921)….
Well, back to our IRS stipulations / qualifications link:
To determine the charity’s support base, (we might as well look at this….)
Gifts, grants,(Footnote 3) contributions, and membership fees received.
• Gross investment income (e.g., interest, dividends, rents, royalties, but not gains from sale of capital assets).
• Taxable income from unrelated business activities,4 less the amount of any tax imposed on such income.
• Benefits from tax revenues received by the charity, and any services or facilities furnished by the government to the charity without charge, other than those generally provided to the public without charge.
{{Hmmm….Does this rule have anything to do with why a new location was needed for the Center?}}
Footnote 3 In some limited circumstances, an unexpectedly large grant may be excluded from both public support tests as an “unusual grant” described in Regulation § 1.170A-9(e)(6). These technical rules are beyond the scope of this memorandum.
Not becoming a Private Foundation — Well, if there’s a whole lot of wealth involved, this could be annoying. Also, if you want very large private donors to support you, they deductible for those donors is also lower, which may make them wish to contribute instead to 501( c)3s as “Public charities” — like the Kids’ Turns of the family law world?
A Section 501(c)(3) organization can avoid private foundation status, and thus be classified as a public charity, in any of three ways: (1) by being a certain kind of institution, such as a church, school, or hospital; (2) by meeting one of two mathematical public support tests; or (3) by qualifying as a supporting organization to another public charity. In this memo, we discuss the two mathematical public support tests.
The Public/Governmental Support Test of Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1)
This public support test was designed for charities which derive a significant proportion of their revenues from donations from the public, including foundation grants, and from governmental grants. The test has two variations. If an organization can satisfy either of the two variations of this support test, it will qualify as a public charity under Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1).
The first variation is known as the one-third test. A charity can satisfy this test if public support is one-third or more of the total support figure. Nothing more is needed if this mathematical fraction is attained.
The second variation, known as the 10 percent facts and circumstances test, has two requirements. First, the charity’s public support must be at least 10 percent of its total support. Second, the charity must demonstrate, with reference to facts and circumstances specified by the IRS, that it is operated more like a public charity than like a private foundation.
Income: $3,250,900
Also known as: FVLC
Oakland, CA 94623Category: I71 (Spouse Abuse, Prevention of); P43 (Family Violence Shelters and Services); P62 (Victims’ Services)Physical Address:PO Box 22009 Oakland , CA 94623Web Address:www.fvlc.org Telephone:(510) 2080220 Facsimile:(510) 2083557 Contact:Ms. Cherri N. Allison, , Esq.cherri@fvlc.orgExecutive Director(510) 2080220 x32
Mission Statement
Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) has been working to end domestic violence in Alameda County since 1978, when a small group of abuse survivors founded the agency. To advance our mission of ending domestic violence, FVLC employs a holistic approach that integrates a comprehensive service model with dedicated efforts to address and change institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors within the legal, health, education, and criminal justice systems.
Yeah, “holistic” and “comprehensive service” are definitely the keywords these days. Please notice carefully (underlined) which systems it tries to address and change “institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors” within — it specifically does NOT mention within the Judicial system, and it most definitely does not mention anything — at all – about the “FAMILY LAW SYSTEM” although it’s title says ‘Family Law Violence Center.”
Go figure, huh? And how telling. The most critical information people coming through “stage one” of leaving domestic violence, assuming kids are involved, is what is coming up next — which IS the “family law system.”.
After looking at the 990 (as usual, I often go straight to the officers’ page), and notice the Executive Director is being paid a modest (for this size of operation) salary of $90K year, and her name is:
ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT TEAM
Cherri N. Allison, Esq. is the Executive Director at FVLC. A lifetime resident of Oakland, Ms. Allison has more than 7 years of legal non-profit management experience. Ms. Allison also has over 12 years of experience as a family law attorney.
Prior to coming to FVLC, Ms. Allison was the Director of Programs at the Alameda County Bar Association. In addition to Ms. Allison’s expertise in non-profit management, she has experience in board development, program development, grant writing and investments. She currently serves as the President of the Board for the Women Lawyers of Alameda County, is a former member of the FVLC Board, and is a member of the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and the Charles Houston Bar Association.
In 2008, she is (not inappropriately, I’m sure) awarded by the Bar Association for the work with this Community Organization, along with other judges, attorneys, etc., as it says (tickets, $125),
2008 Installation and Distinguished Service Awards Dinner
Join us on Thursday, January 17, 2008, as we swear in our Officers and Directors and honor the recipients of our Distinguished Service Awards while we enjoy a delectable dinner buffet and cool jazz. The festivities will take place at the Claremont Hills Resort & Spa, majestically resting on 22 acres of beautifully landscaped gardens in Berkeley.*
(*starting to sound like some of the wonderful AFCC, or for that matter, Kids’ Turn promoting retreats and seminars.)
(the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” is a grants recipient, from my understanding, through HHS and is where CPEDV went….). WELL, I guess that FAMILY LAW EXPERIENCE may tell us why this group doesn’t seem to educate its clients about the family law process, and what’s happened to it since, say, 2001 (Bush, faith-based), or even 1998, 1999 (US Congress passes resolutions on fatherhood). However, it’s clear Ms. Allison must be informed about the intersection of DV & Family Law; she has written about it:
Domestic violence remedies in California family law cases, 2008. Cherri N. Allison, et al. (CEB, 2008) KFC 115 D664 not accessible to general public, unless you are in L.A.?
Get this (2009)
Women Lawyers of Alameda County (WLAC) honors Exec Director of ACFCJ, District Attorney (who helped fund and start ACFCJ) who also honor a retired woman judge (Hon. Peggy Hora., Ret’d.) who pushed “therapeutic jurisprudence” – a VERY problemmatic practice in the judicial field, and also endorsed by AFCC.
How sweet — aren’t these professionals all close friends with each other then? (Except the women driven homeless through family law system and twice-thrice-and ongoing-abused (Legal abuse syndrome) through its practices, or while (out of state — MD — another state pushing Therapeutic Jurisprudence through Univ. of Baltimore School of Law “CFCC”) a pediatrician mother (is that professional enough?) lost 3 children, drowned in a bathtub on a scheduled visitation, although she warned, pleaded, and asked for visitation to be curtailed based on the prior mental health history and state of the father. (“Cabrillo”).
WLAC “Honor Roll”
This Issue’s Honor Roll:
Cherri N. Allison, Executive Director of the Family Violence Law Center of Alameda County, was recently named “Woman of the Year” for the Justice Category of the Alameda County Commission on Status of Women and will be inducted into the Alameda County Women’s Hall of Fame on April 25, 2009.
I think that instead of professionals honoring and decorating themselves in nice ceremonies (Sun Myung Moon and the U.S. Senate mock coronation ceremony comes to mind) instead some of the women who DIED because of stupid family law rulings, sometimes along with their children or in front of them, in scheduled exchanges with the father for co-parenting purposes — THEIR names should be honored.
I do not live in this county and so am not familiar with which is most dramatic, but how about honoring the mothers who, having left an abusive relationship (or possibly separated because of the abuse) thereafter, by complying with family court orders to fork over their children to an ex-batterer or abuser, ended up dead.
If this is too many low-income people to consider at once, then why not go for someone closer to the legal profession’s social class — Hans Reiser. Why not honor his wife, Nina. I’m not sure which county this case was in, but sounds like her body was unearthed Alameda County.
And whoever is recommending Batterers Intervention Programs gets my “dunce award of the year; here’s why from “Sagaria Law” — they don’t complete the programs anyhow! Or, (in one high-profile case) they complete the programs and then walk back and kill the woman anyhow (Scott McAlpin).
The programs draw funding — is there something too hard to spell about that?
I started this blog to warn others! after years of the rollercoaster (downhill slide, overall) of the family law system that no one who was involved warned me about when I separated from the abuser. In retrospect, it might have been better to ask for self-defense lessons, mace training, and just utilize it, so I could communicate directly to this person that was is and is not acceptable is, in marriage, a two-way street, and wives are people, too.
FVLC’s services include both protection initiatives for people currently experiencing abuse and prevention initiatives to eliminate future abuse. Today, FVLC is recognized as a leader in the community in both delivering exceptional services to abuse survivors and in advocating for long-term social change for victims.
During FY 07-08, FVLC achieved the following accomplishments [(accomplished the following)]:
- Provided legal services (representation, paperwork preparation, and advice and counsel) to 525 clients, for a total of 2,250 contact hours and 692 court orders.
- Provided crisis counseling and safety planning to 2,823 clients, for a total of 3,250 contact hours.
- FVLC’s HEAL (Healing Emotions and Loss After Domestic Violence) Program provided intensive parent/child psychotherapy to 31 children and their primary caregiver, for a total of 900 contact hours.
- FVLC’s RAP (Relationship Abuse Prevention) Program provided intensive leadership training to 56 youth and violence prevention education and outreach to 1,008 youth.
FVLC has set the following goals for the current year (FY 08-09):
- Continue to strengthen collaborative relationships with other agencies co-located at the Alameda County Family Justice Center with FVLC. This includes the Oakland Police Department, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and numerous other community-based agencies.
- Engage in policy work around domestic violence by playing a leadership role on several state and countywide task forces, including the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Alameda County Family Violence Council, Domestic Violence Advisory Council for the Social Services Administration of Alameda County, and Alameda County Teen Dating Violence Task Force (formed and led by FVLC).
(As you can see, it’s now fashionable to say the words “domestic violence” and form task forces to do something about it, allegedly. Look at the variety of groups that do: The ABA, CPEDV, and something from Alameda County itself I can’t even find (yet), as well as a SSA “Domestic Violence Advisory Council.” How many of these talk to victims they helped 5 years down the road or so?
- With our collaborative partners Youth ALIVE! and Youth Radio, expand leadership training and policy work around teen dating violence at Oakland middle schools through various classroom, after-school, and summer activities, effectively reaching approximately 1,600 adolescents. This is made possible through a generous four-year, $1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
(Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is very big into funding fatherhood materials. )
This is simply taxation without representation, and totally unacceptable in my book.
And I’m not a Tea Partier.
It sheds a whole different light on the “social contract” that most of (what remains of) the middle class has bought into. If they stick to their jobs, neighborhoods, kids, and planning for leisure & retirement (and don’t ask too many questions about the top layer) — then the top layer will structure society so as to kind of leave them alone, and of course (this goes without saying) make sure the rabble doesn’t get out of control.
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS, per IRS search (on the name):
Name City State Country
Code ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Oakland CA USA — ANAHEIM FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Anaheim CA USA — FRIENDS OF THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Riverside CA USA — NATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER ALLIANCE San Diego CA USA — SOUTH BAY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Torrance CA USA — STANISLAUS FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION Modesto CA USA — FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY INC. Tampa FL USA — FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION OF IDAHO Nampa ID USA — FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ST. JOSEPH COUNTY INC. South Bend IN USA — THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF BOSTON INC. Boston MA USA — ESSEX COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. Roseland NJ USA — CENTER FOR FAMILY JUSTICE Albuquerque NM USA — TRI-COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF NORTHEAST NEW MEXICO INC. Las Vegas NM USA — FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF ERIE COUNTY INC. Buffalo NY USA — YOUTH AND FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INC. New York NY USA 4 FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER OF GEORGETOWN COUNTY Georgetown SC USA — KNOXVILLE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER Knoxville TN USA — BEXAR COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER FOUNDATION San Antonio TX USA — FRIENDS OF THE FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER San Marcos TX USA — RESTORATIVE JUSTICE MINISTRY FAMILY SERVICES CENTER Woodville TX USA —
to Be Continued…
SHARE THIS POST on...
Let’s Get Honest about “Kids’ Turn” and Judges’ Profit.. [First Publ. Oct. 24, 2011, updated Mar. 25, 2017].
~ ~ ~
First published Oct. 24, 2011, I would consider Let’s Get Honest about “Kids’ Turn” and Judges’ Profit.. among key posts early in the blog (from a 2017 perspective). In wishing to quote this (for one of its passing references to Kids’ Turn donor “Halsey Minor” (founder of CNET), and because a blog-upgrade has for some reason turned the base post color to a sort of sickly mixture of greenish-white, I’m adding also a font-change, border, and a few other things I didn’t know how to do in 2011. Kids’ Turn has since submerged itself into (if I remember it right) San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center (SF CAPC) which “CAPC” is something of a serial curriculum-peddler (through a series of nonprofits to run the curriculum). That’s a general recall, and anyone is free to do a more detailed check on the Secretary of State, or Attorney General (Charitable Trusts Registry) as I do throughout this blog in case I mis-remembered exactly WHERE Kids’ Turn decided to submerge its identity into another nonprofit with classes to sell.
This may have happened anyway in the organization’s process of growing up and not wishing to call attention to the conflicts of interest it would sure seem to represent for anyone with a divorce case and likely to be added into forced co-parenting education, when the entity routinely has family court connections, family court judges, attorneys, or administrators on its board, and as this post references, contracts with the City and County of SF regarding the court.
Or, I like to think this blog may have had SOMETHING to do with their decision to go further underground and (apparently) otherwise continue business as usual…//LGH 3-25-2017.
Per an Annual Report, 2010, on this organization which sheds light on how the courts work:
The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:
• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered
HALF THE CLIENTELE OF KIDS’ TURN ARE ORDERED TO GO THERE BY THE COURTS. Notably, this Nonprofit also was started by a family law judge, and by the end of this (LONG) blog, you should know much more about the interrelationship between the Profit in Non-Profits and how judges order litigants to attend services provided (fee-based) for organizations that MANY of them have sat on the board of.
Not just for US. Nope, the UK is going to help out this “charity” (started by family law judge…)
Kids’ Turn will soon complete a partnership with two charities in the United Kingdom (Relate and National Family Mediation) leading to implementation of Kids’ Turn throughout Great Britain.
Amazing….they write:
The UK govt has pledged a new pot of funding to help families. Here is a link to an online article about it which we posted on the KT Facebook Fan Page:
• Our partner agencies will submit funding requests in three categories, one of which is to implement Kids’ Turn throughout the UK
• They will received the funding award notices by March, 2011 and when awarded, the funds will be in place for four years
• The two agencies have settled their partnership challenges and worked out their respective roles re. the implementation of Kids’ Turn
UNbelievable… Some families stuck in the courts (beCAUSE they are stuck in the courts) can’t afford internet, and “Kids’ Turn” has its facebook page…
I am simply throwing out some greens here, about a gleam in a judge’s eye (1987-1990) that is going global. Not exactly in the free market — it is subsidized as a sub-grantee THROUGH the California Judicial Council, under “Access Visitation Grants,” and as such, you probably can’t get out of some facet of indoctrination once you file a motion in any family law court, anywhere, for any reason. You might, but it’s kind of like what I hear of slot machines, gambling, etc. — the House always wins.
KIDS’ TURN,” INTERNATIONAL” — and is CLOSELY Associated with AFCC:
International Conference Presentations (cached article…)
Kids‘ Turn Executive Director, Claire Barnes, had the privilege to co-present this summer at the International Commission on Couples and Family Relations’ 2002 Conference held in Sydney, Australia. She collaborated with Claire Missen, Teen Between (Dublin, Ireland) on the topic of Divorce and Teens. The respective papers, where cultural commonalities and differences specific to gender differences were discussed, are available for review.
Additionally, Susanna Marshland, former Kids‘ Turn Program Director, participated in a panel presentation at this year’s AFCC Conference in Hawaii. The topic of Best Practices was a perfect venue for Susanna’s information on the Kids‘Turn Early Years Program. Susanna’s remarks are also included
for review.1. Statistics: a presentation by Claire Missen, Teen Between (Dublin, Ireland)
2. Presentation by Claire Barnes, M.A to the 2002 International Commission on Couple and Family Relations: Distance Diversity Dislocation, June 2002, Sydney, Australia
3. Summary of Presentation for the ‘Best Practices’ workshop
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Annual Conference, presented by Susanna Marshland, LCSW, June 7, 2002, Waikoloa, Hawaii
How nice to belong to more than one organization for which conferences can involve transcontinental and transoceanic travel to exotic locales to talk about “healing family relationships.” OF note — this organization is funded in part as a sub-grantee from US Federal funds, including diversions from WELFARE to enhance CHILD SUPPORT collection for needy families. ….
But what caught my interest — what is KIDS’ TURN doing on a notice of lien to the SFTC, which is the San Francisco Courts? (Source: CRIIS.com, recorded documents)
Record Date Document Number GrantoR GranteE Name Cross Reference Name Document Type 14-DEC-2010 J09891700 R KIDS TURN SFTC NTC LIEN 14-DEC-2010 J09960500 R KIDS TURN SFTC NTC LIEN 11-DEC-2009 I88704700 R KIDS TURN SFTC NTC LIEN 27-JAN-2004 H64725800 R KIDS TURN SFTC NTC LIEN
Someone should look into this — what’s THAT about? From what I understand, “SFTC” is the San Francisco Superior (or Trial) Courts — pls. submit comment correcting me if I’m wrong. And its GRANTEE, i.e., Kids’ Turn is granting something to the courts, while receiving grants from the Cal. Judicial Council through the courts.
I could write on anything — of course — but have noticed this particular group (out of SF and San Diego, originally) going international, Hawaii, Illinois, you name it. They say they are really successful — read it on the website here, a study done in 2009 (it began around 1988) “Our programs work….”
SHARE THIS POST on...
More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011]
(“Vomite” would be an imperative in Latin, if it were a real verb, so I adjusted the ending).
Read my most recent post for some background
This morning, I noticed visitors from three universities (New York, Princeton & Berkeley) had been on my site very recently. The Berkeley visitor was viewing a site featuring some work by Lundy Bancroft, a well-known author books such as “Why does he DO that?” or “The Batterer as Parent.”
I would like to comment upon “Why he (Bancroft, et al.) DOES that” and the concept of “The Batterer as Parent” in a wider perspective of this field of the family law system.
For the former perspective, the short answer is, a combination of from (I’ll still presume) residual good will towards suffering females and their children and, more to the point, for a living.
To recap that, the reasons appear to be:
- He’s probably basically a good guy, which probably put him outside the mainstream (meaning, funding flow) of the family law court professionals, and
- For a living.
See my post “Moms are Parents Too” and read the comment at the bottom, which is an update.
Now, as to the concept “The Batterer As Parent.”
Although assault and battery is a crime (or either one alone) as I understand it, either misdemeanor or felony level, in practice, the family law system acts as an opaque umbrella under which this terminology is really not taken seriously. Not really.
So mothers who take Bancroft & batterer language into a court hearing may be in for a real rude awakening — it’s not welcome overall. Hence, a living has to be made elsewhere, and a name, as I mentioned. Although Mr. Bancroft has in the past presented alongside what I’d call overt “fatherhood” presenters (yeah, I looked that up), I’d say he’s not on the same page, or in the forefront of THAT movement. He and this rhetoric is more like a gnat in its side — definitely not so much as a “thorn in the flesh.”
Obviously, it lands with something of a thud. to solve this, we are encouraged to watch our demeanor more carefully, strategize just so, and not step on too many toes. Don’t pick unnecessary battles, don’t rock the boat, etc.
I believe that anyone telling a mother who has been ass-whupped (or anything approaching it, including emotionally, financially, etc.) in front of her own kids, to advise, do it some more, and all will be well, or this is the ONLY way all will be better than it is now, has a lot of nerve.
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
How Much Mileage Can DV Advocates get out of the press on San Francisco’s Ross Mirkarimi/Eliana Lopez case?
with one comment
This has been headline news for how long? It definitely brings up mixed feelings on my part — knowing how many women are receiving far more severe battery, false imprisonment, endangering children and intimidating witnesses throughout the Bay Area, and have been for years — many years. While each time there is some press, someone from one of the organizations gets quoted.
March 31, 2012, last Saturday, Section “C,”* an article laid out at top of the page, full width, and by Columnist C.W. Nevius), reads:
(*Bay Area section of the SF Chronicle)
**not sure this is the same “Myrna Melgar, just included the LinkedIn profile which shows her professional/civic leadership in the area. It probably is)
This is the Bay Guardian article, and it seems well written enough. I’m glad someone filled in a few of these details, including a factor that until 5 Mr. Mirkarimi was raised in a bi-cultural family (Russian Jewish mother/ Iranian Muslim father), and then was separated from his father. There seems to be a sense of father-absence here:
(The bulk of my post is addressing topics raised in this article, particularly a certain reference to a Canadian sociologist for insight into this Californian incident).
Whirlwind romance, charmer? Another article (reporting on this one) adds:
Heather Knight Thursday, March 29, 2012
(He got his girlfriend knocked up in the course of leisure? or business? Not mentioned — were they married at the time?
(Michael Macor/The Chronicle)
Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, speaks to the news media about the three misdemeanor charges against her husband, on Friday Jan. 13, 2012, in San Francisco, Ca
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/28/BAS31NRKL3.DTL#ixzz1qv1dHpDm
Bay Guardian Op-Ed, cont’d.:
Now, about prosecuting the low-level domestic violence against the wife’s wishes:
I don’t know Ms. Melgar’s life story (or whether she’s currently married — sounds like not). However, there are TWO ways the District Attorney’s Office can disempower women — if this is correct, prosecuting against the woman’s wishes when it’s supposedly a “minor” event. Or (and this was my situation and MANY other women’s) NOT prosecuting them despite severe domestic violence, when prosecuting them might save a life, or save ongoing destruction of life. See
And in this politically charged event — MADE TO ORDER for anyone who didn’t want Mirkarimi’s Progressive Politics disrupting the city (notice — nothing to do with domestic violence in that phrase) — because the events had some validity.
INTERJECTION — information from Purpleberets.org — and the topic is well-covered at the Sonoma County (Northern CA, not too far from SF) “Women’s Justice Center.” This is talking about much, MUCH more severe cases where DA refused to prosecute. (And if you know my blog, the case underlying it — and which eventually led to my blogging habit — was when district attorneys in TWO Counties refused to stop a child-stealing in action, or to prosecute it — ever. The general practice over a number of years (by law enforcement, specifically — I’m talking police in a number of cities, county sheriffs in more than one, and the district attorney’s office. As it turns out later, the person in charge of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (a hybrid creation by DA’s office and others modeled on San Diego’s one which came out of the City Attorneys’ Office — I’ve blogged this plenty elsewhere), Ms. Nadia Lockyer, then went on to win the position of County Supervisor (with help of a $1 million campaign funding and very, very, very well connected spouse 30 years her senior) — had a substance abuse problem, started an affair with someone (closer to her age) she met in rehab — himself getting off ‘meth’ — and had an incident requiring 911 assistance in a Newark (California) motel early a.m. This is the Bay Area leadership . . . . . it’s typically about politics and careers — and NOT about preventing violence against women and services to them. In the larger scope.
So, re: the immense power of the District Attorney’s Office: Written, I believe, around the year 2000:
California Passes Tough New Domestic Violence Laws — by Maria DeSantis, director Women’s Justice Center
Back to Myrna Melgar’s article, minimizing the incident:
It seems Myrna is oblivious to the fact that, through the family court, if Eliana did decide (later) to go to Venezuela without her husband’s assent, he could — in a moment, and don’t think such a person is unaware of this — charge her (or find someone to charge her) with parental kidnapping, put an arrest warrant out for her, and in the meantime get practically ANY family law judge in San Francisco — unless they had a personal grudge or other political reason to not do this — to switch sole custody to him, demand some sort or extradition, and/or have her thrown in jail if she came back to work things out. And don’t think that this isn’t a possibility. Maybe they would’ve worked it out — or maybe not. But one thing’s for sure — I read a LOT of material put out by domestic violence groups, and have networked with hundreds, literally, of mothers over the years, and most of them were completely ambushed by the concept that appealing to domestic violence laws to protect themselves and kids, even if they were IN a battered womens’ shelter — was no shield at all for later transfer of their children to their abusers. This is literally a third line of advocacy, now — “protective parents.” So, while it did not NOW rise to that abusive level, it certainly could’ve later.
In contradiction to the concept of “no-fault” divorce law…
**Jargon translation: wife-beating is no reason to restrict a child who witnessed this having access to their biological father. Let us do supervised visitation, etc. — hence (in the US) HHS “Access/Visitation” funding, with help from the (also international) Children’s Rights Council, which developed the term “access” to replace the term “visitation.” This model will be ADMINSTRATIVELY or PRACTICALLY begun (or has been already) and then other highly placed individuals (state by state in the US) will suggest — hey, why not make it a law? (Example: PA: Commission on Justice Initiatives: Changing the Culture of Custody).
PRAXIS means “practices.” Who is practiced upon? (Sorry, this wasn’t brought before our voters — except it went through the US Reps House Appropriations Committee, I guess. . . ..
Not before endorsing and propagating a system of educational institutions — taking public funding — based on social theory, and which have attracted a host of inappropriate misappropriations of public employees times, and which set up a built-in HIERARCHY — the exact OPPOSITE of what women, particularly mothers, leaving abuse need. This hierarchy is a lose/lose situation for any person imagining he/she has enforceable, legal rights in the USA — as an INDIVIDUAL. It sets up the hierarchy of the TEACHERS (for hire // mercenaries) versus the “TAUGHT.”
The social science THEORY that one can educate or train men out of violence is just taht — a theory. It is also contrary to the american (USA) form of government, which is to expect people to keep an identifiable law, and maintain a fair process of assigning punishments for those who choose not to. This means all people can be informed of WHAT their laws are — and leaves no room for speculations on the social impact of father-absence, single-parenthood, or even violence against women — and then millions of $$ which the public (and private interests) fund to tinker with the demonstration projects each time they get it wrong.
Back to the C.W.Nevius article (top of post), which continues:
FYI, I do not live in San Francisco (some may wonder), but have lived in the area for over two decades, and worked frequently in the city and in surrounding counties — both during and after my “domestic violence” marriage. I notice that whenver there’s a high-profile event, here is this SF DVConsortium and Beverly Upton being consulted for help. I never got any help from them, nor did I get ANY help from the Family Violence Prevention Fund, although, they do throw a great conference, and how validating to know that domestic violence is a health risk (like, I didn’t know that?). It did NOTHING to address the ongoing violence enabled by the family law system to any and all mothers who, after doing the right thing, but having for some reasons, very persistent Exes — are thereafter psychologically, economically, legally and in other ways tortured (if not extorted) — in the custody realm.
This group apparently could care less, so long as they get their funds and keep up the reputation for protecting women from violence – without addressing the land mines ahead of them. SEE MY BLOG! no one gave me a federal fund to publicize this, and apparently the more other groups immunize themselves from DV rhetoric, the better it is for BOTH pro and con grantseekers. So, here — for a quick update — this “Consortium” consorts in getting public grants to continue their agenda. I gather this is a progressive agenda because it’s under the umbrella of the (very large) TIDES Foundation, which also sponsored the nonprofit “Stop Family Violence” — which appears (best I can tell) to consist of a website, and one or two professionals who got to fly around to conferences nationwide (Irene Weiser, i forget who the other person was) and now is perhaps inactive, although the website is still up there.
Members of this agency
Obviously this is important work — HOWEVER — notice the collective grants-obtaining clout they have? That must be HOW there has been such coordinated and collective silence on the fathers’ rights grants and movement I report, and so have other UNsponsored INDIVIDUALS. Do they teach women about to file a kickout order about the upcoming Access/Visitation grants (in place, $10 million a year since 1996), how the Federal Incentives to the Child SUpport Enforcement system include running demonstration grants on how to increase noncustodial (father) time with the children, and how if they go on welfare, they are quite likely to be ex-parte consolidated into a divorce action, and thrown to the family court wolves, whose funding is MUCH larger?
NO — not last I heard.
Do they say anything about the organization AFCC, which practically runs the local Family Courts, let alone the Family Court Facilitators’ offices where people NOT as well-off financially (probably) than Ms. Lopez will end up seeking remedies? AFCC publishes most of the brochures available there — and (I checked in recent years) the coverage of domestic violence issues is highly diminished. So, what does that say about women’s right to know and make an INFormeD decision about whether to confront their batterer (sometimes with a civil protective order — not even mentioned in these dialogues), or call the police and hope a criminal one is instated?
LASTLY (and that’s enough for today!), I wanted to also show the Mayor Ed Lee catering to the FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE organization, which currently owns prime real estate (or owns the organization that owns the real estate) in the SF Praesidio. Futures without Violence, indeed. The antidote to tyranny in our country (whether by domestic individuals within their family walls, or outside them by public officials) is a balance of powers between (1) the government and (2) the people, and fair enforcement of crimes against the state which jeopardize the safety of the public — which domestic violence DOES, and there’s plenty of evidence in the form of innocent bystanders shot, businesses disrupted, as well as responding police officers. We live in one of the more violent countries in the world, in many levels, and despite decades of advocacy by DV groups, their inherent demand for public funds to “coordinate services” and educate — the world, essentially — they are not open to criticism from the street level about this agenda.
TOO BAD – it’s here, it’s coming and I’m not going to stop, if I can help, this outrage. I have one-third of my adult life thrown down this rabbit hole ,and the concept of betrayal is absolutely high. MSM is owned, and is never going to tell the whole story. More bloggers are needed — bloggers that cite their sources where possible, and make sure that this situation is no longer covered up, or specially framed when it comes time to renew the funding for the VAWA act and the counterintuitive simultaneous funding of the next round of fatherhood/marriage etc. grants. No wonder this keeps going on, perhaps — our society is so stressed and compartmentalized, and has been already pre-trained to have their income taxes garnished, so garnishing wages for child support is a short step away. No privacy, no safety, and no justice. Just more debt!
My parting shot, I think: The Mayor that wants Mirkarimi out references Futures without Violence. Label this: “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours!”
Ed Lee addresses domestic violence conference
Rachel Gordon
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qux42sTZ
(STATE CHARITABLE RETURN FOR 2009) FORM RRF-I INFORMATION REGARDING GOVERNMENT FUNDING STATEMENT 14 ART B, LINE 6
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
April 2, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids
Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, Alameda County Family Justice Center, Child Support, custody, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, Esta Soler, family law, fatherhood, Feminists, Futures Without Violence (FVPF) 2010 return $11mil revenues $36mil assets rejected-Sched B omits names&addresses of contributors, FVPF becomes Futures without Violence, Intimate partner violence, Laureen Snider (Toronto), men's rights, Myrna Melgar, Nicholas Bala (Toronto), Nonprofits investing in Real Estate, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..