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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for the ‘Mandatory Mediation’ Category

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

leave a comment »


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

(*cite, and this quote again, below)



Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Domestic Violence Sites on the Worldwide Web

By Leslie Ellen Shear

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

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

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

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

fourth DV link is:

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

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

Other than that, what’s with this one?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s where the proof hits the proselytizing:

Statement:  ACFLS was formed in 1980


Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

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

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

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

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


Family Law Trial Court Proceedings

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

Representation of children in family court by court appointment.

Consensual Dispute Resolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass- roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute, 5 Journal of Child Custody 88 (2008)

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

CASE NO. C064475 SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359



RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________


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

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

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

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

Curiae ACFLS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








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

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

“To Promote and Preserve the Family Law Speciality”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + + + + + +

I have a question.  In fact, several questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Custody Evaluator’s Credentials Questioned In Lawsuit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill Gates Seeks to Reinvent the Toilet

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

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

Healthcare Districts, Associations of Healthcare Districts and their Watchdogs:

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mt. Diablo Health Care District lawyer billed beyond board limit

By Lisa Vorderbrueggen
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 11/28/2011 04:15:57 PM PST

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

▪ Annex land to cities or special districts,

▪ Detach land from cities or special districts,

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

Form new special districts and incorporate new cities,

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

▪ Merge cities and special districts,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type

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

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

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

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

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

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
1 2

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

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

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

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

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

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

(Thank you, Wikipedia) 

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

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

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

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

Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2646702
Registration Number: 125817
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/2006 Renewal Due Date: 5/14/2008
Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status: 8/23/2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

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

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

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

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

The STOP Program: Understanding & Treating Domestic Violence

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

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

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

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

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

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




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

ACFLS (“Inc.”)

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

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


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

These grants will empower community-based organizations by:

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s try:

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

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

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

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

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

No wonder at the individual and family level, such societies have trouble with so many people who do this at the local and family level.  Perhaps it’s the “trickle-down” effect.  The wealth didn’t trickle down, but after enough decades of abuse and deprivation of rights, angry crowds assemble, without sufficient outlets, and they explode — or go home and kick the wife.  Or husband.  Or child.

One guy in France recently, just murdered his three-year-old son in a washing machine, allegedly for misbehavior (he was THREE!) at pre-school.  He was 33.  The mother, of seven (age 25), tried to cover for him.  The neighbors knew of prior abuse in fact the five-year old sister of the three-year old knew, and reported (probably at the same time).  I cannot pardon this mother for lying — but I sure do wonder what conditions had her marrying at age 19 (married to get away from abuse at home) and having one child a year, approximately, with the bastard.  Now the surviving six are going to be in foster care.  I sure hope THAT Grandma won’t put up a fight for custody, after no reporting in time to save her grandson’s life.

I cannot give an answer articles like this (as a mother, I tried), but I sure did notice that the AMERICAN article, reporting on this — had 89 comments, and the summary made no mention of where was the mother.  Only 1 in 10 comments (about 8-9 maximum) even mentioned the mother which (to me, not having read all the links) for all I know was not in the picture.  She wasn’t in the reporter’s picture.  Those who mentioned the mother verbally crucified her along with the Dad.  Others debated contraception and abortion.  A Dad or two got on to say, hey, c’mon, we’re not all bad!  And I couldn’t do a 1500 word response, because more than 1500 word circumstances led to this situation.

What good did the preschool do?  Did it have any concept of abuse going on of a little kid at home, or were traumatized, or acting-out little kids so normal to them, or shut-down emotionally ones — who knows?  Perhaps — barring families like this — preschool just isn’t an appropriate place for three-year olds; maybe they need to be taken care of by the Moms, not by the state, or parochial schools, or daycare centers.   Maybe if there weren’t such a push for early childhood systems (YES< I know this was France, not the USA, but think about it), there’d be more money for other social services — like FOOD — to help support even married or cohabiting mothers while they take care of their children.

What really bothers me was a comment from a woman in Atlanta, Georgia — “don’t they have children’s services in France?”

Don’t they have awake citizens in Georgia?  So many problem situations lead back to there, including people who began in GEorgia and now are so problemmatic in (Scranton), PA area that some parents who began reporting, and getting payment records from one of the dynamic duo of parent coordinators (Boyan, Termini — Boyan was the Georgia connection, but both are among professionals recommended — from Kentucky Courts — in:

  1. Active Parenting Publishers


    Active Parenting programs are built to help educators create successful parent  Active Parenting Publishers has provided award-winning, video-based parenting classes for helping professionals since 1983. Kennesaw, GA 30144-7808 

These professionals (on that roster and others), one of them was so “helpful” that between her, a local judge and a local GAL, apparently, the FBI went and raided the courthouse, walking out with evidence — before a man who’d filed a lawsuit against inappropriate use of public funds could complete the lawsuit.  The thread is here:


These parents and activists banded together on a forum, and have posted things such as a questionable professional’s contracts, payment vouchers, and made connections, for example (one post) Oct. 4th, from user “Toss Ross” (meaning — see below) — noticed (from the payments posted, presumably):

Is this just a coincidence or was there a natural huge spike in Termini’s income with the county?

January of 2008 is $2,320.00 total for her services.

January of 2009 is $3,220.00

January of 2010 is $4,110.00

January of 2011 is a huge increase to $7,050.00

Isn’t 2008 when Chet started appointing cases like crazy to Ross?

And all of a sudden Termini sees over 300% increase in business since Ross got all those case?  Did Termini get all of Ross’ cases.  Wow, if that’s the case Termini sure got lucky.

Coincidence?  I think not Mr. Fed.  I think not.

How about LiBassi? Did he get lucky, too?  Thank you, Mr. P.  What a treasure of information. I hope the investigators note the luck and the coincidences.

Ross is the GAL, and Termini the Parenting Coordinator.  He noticed a payment spike in 2008.  Well (coincidence?) in Georgia in 2008 a Boyan-Termini Business lost its incorporation status (National Association of Parent Coordinators), etc.

not here (note:  “0 comments”)

FBI searches Lackawanna County (Pennsylvania) court administrator’s office

Published: November 15, 2011

FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.

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

The visit lasted less than an hour. . .

A source familiar with the visit told the newspaper the search warrant was related to the county’s guardian ad litem system.

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 Ross.

Read more: http://citizensvoice.com/news/fbi-searches-lackawanna-county-court-administrator-s-office-1.1232501#ixzz1fzQiFd1s

As we have been talking about groups which are not filing consistently with the State (of California, mostly) for their Charitable Returns — or not doing so correctly — while doing sometimes (Futures without Violence) mega-business within the state — it seems appropriate to remind us about the strange financial relationship between KIDS TURN (SF) and the SFTC:

As below:

Date Document Doc Type E/R Name
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 12/14/2010 J099605-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TURN
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 12/14/2010 J098917-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TURN
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 12/11/2009 I887047-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TURN
Show Name Detail Show APN Detail 01/27/2004 H647258-00 NOTICE LIEN R KIDS TUR



You can see the four dates.  Every single one of them shows that “SFTC” actually has a LIEN on Kids Turn, meaning (apparently) that at some point in time, the nonprofit Kids Turn RECEIVED some money (or other thing that would be due back) from the SF Courts.  They now owe this to the courts, creating a Recorded Lien (?).    This has happened in 2004, 2009 and twice in one day in 2010, generally around the end or beginning of a year (Dec/January).  Was this for tax reporting purposes as well?
A BIG — very big — stink was made in California about Judges — who are to be paid by the state — receiving payment from the states, and not counties.  Legislation was passed to retroactively immunize the state of California’s Judges from prosecution for this (after Richard Fine casework) let the entire judicial system have to be shutdown.  Then they got back to disbarring the honest man, and throwing him in jail improperly, not to mention somewhere in there cutting off his legitimately earned fees as an attorney.  We should review this from time to time as a reminder of JUST who one is dealing with in the august legislators and judicial authorities of the state with the largest court system in the country, and which is looked to as a model.  I fear that Big Brother in this case has been setting a lousy example, and I cannot hold common Californians responsible for having high-conflict families, either, or being “flawed,” problemmatic, or most recently, having multiple personality problems troubling the court professionals (Bill Eddy High Conflict Institute language, etc.) as we are so often described in AFCC conferences.
KT was founded and “board-ed” as we know by judges, attorneys, and supported by foundations, donations, and of course some of the attorneys and judges on the board at times no doubt also contributed to Kids’ Turn) — which is a parent education model that tried to get iits name — SPECIFICALLY — written into California Law as THE standard, and which model has been followed in other states.
OK, let’s do a hypothetical situation here.  Again, I’m speculating — which so far, is not seditious, it’s simply expressive and cogitational.  I do not believe this is prohibited activity (other than we’ve already discerned that reporting criminal activity against one’s self or one’s kids, including kidnapping, assault, battery, molestation, stalking or other threats — is a self-defeating in the family law forum.   The ROI is just not worth it!  You will be labled and ordered into parenting services, and have another court professional assigned to your high-conflict-parent self.
But let’s just suppose:   At any given time (given the rotating board membership of Kids’ Turn), let’s suppose that a presiding judge, commissioner, or other person is ALSO involved in litigation on a specific case, and a parent, or a parent’s business, makes a nice fat donation to Kids’ Turn at the time.  Money is clearly changing hands between this group and the courts (not to mention, it also showed up as a nonprofit vendor in the City and County of SF 2007, 2008 & 2009) — wouldn’t that compromise the integrity of any ruling?
And because the general public doesn’t have access to the list of contributors in any timely fashion (the OAG does), unless the ruling judges were scrupulously honest (something they don’t exactly have a reputation for) how could any parent wishing to check impartiality, once aware of this particular financial relationship, protect his or her custody case?  Without access to the information.  As we can see below — (I think it was San Francisco) one of the groups had had its corporate license suspended, but now is reinstated (after I reported….):
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Here’s the previous version, as I blogged Aug 31, 2011 in “Chasing Down Charitable & Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits”:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process


Meanwhile, in Pennsylvania (which is working on also passing a Faith-based initiative; I hope the bill stalls in suspended animation) civil rules of procedure were amended to specify REQUIRED use of “Kids First” (a fictitious name registered to Chet Muklewicz) a Kids’ Turn knockoff (same idea, same setup basically, different name); only this time, some of the locals caught on, reported, and in comes the FBI.  Believe me, I’ll teach them everything I know in the noble effort.  These are some seriously “high-conflict” parents (they have a serious conflict with court corruption) and may they never settle down, at least in that regard.

The forum was even shut down inappropriately without notice to the moderators, but the resulting suit pulled in the ACLU and up they went again


TIt’s self-evident that (given how simple it is to incorporate) the average “consumer” (litigant or “client” of any Family Court Services setup — even if they become aware of their local professionals’ addicition to forming nonprofits, & related for-profits marketing what the nonprofit sells, and memership associations to sell franchise opportunities for the same — while taking public funds as county employees, or contractors (etc.) — there is no way to keep up.

Nor should we have to — or be forced to spend the valuable ours of our lives as parents — or anyone else — tracking down crooked behavior on behalf of our own government that can’t (or doesn’t) keep up with it!


Just as certain parties wish to legislate their pet parent education (or abstinence education, for that matter) into mandated status — I believe that anyone who disagrees with this better think about how to get some legislating that starts with “JUST SAY NO!” to allowing ANY court employees or County employees staffing the courts, to form, be employed by, or be on the boards of, ANY nonprofit to which the court, jails, or county — will defer business.

The kazillions of diversionary programs presume that the US population has simply become unmanageable, riotous, incapable of monitoring themselves, dangerously volatile, horrible to children (universally, judging by how popular the foster care and adoption industries are) and in general incompetent idiots incapable of managing themselves or their neighborhoods.


I do not share this view.  Yeah, it applies often enough — but I have a problem with the parties stating this so often having been the ones riding herd for decade after decade anyhow — so this should be taken into account.  Starting with the public education system.  Talk about handing over one’s children to the current Administration the moment they go through the doors, and/or metal detectors.   No sir!   This is an institution that doesn’t handle competition very well, and the more centralized it gets, the less freedom the US has, and we’re pretty far down the fascist road already (referring to centralizing control and setting policy without going through Congress).  The more it fails, the more money it demands to compensate.

Taken as a whole, it is quite similar to the family court system, which people universally like to say is “broken” –but it seems to be working according to plan from what I can tell.  It’s the PLAN I have issues with — and which needs to be changed, if it cannot be tolerated by the public any longer.



Written by Let's Get Honest

December 8, 2011 at 8:32 pm

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, Vocabulary Lessons, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

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

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

leave a comment »

A Few FAQs, but first

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

My email alert said

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

NOPE.  It is different.  So I hope you will call or tune in next Tuesday at 9pm EST (til further notice):

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

See Jack Kelly’s article here:

A Message To PennState Prez

Rodney Erickson: Clean House!

November 12, 2011


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.

Jane Boyer & Josie Perez

Abuse Freedom United

Why is child support enforcement creating TANF programs which waive due process, collecting billions in child support, then fail to disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit? How much does your judge know about HHS funding and family services? How much of your tax dollars is being used to support programs like CPS, foster care, The Second Mile nonprofit, and Penn State who failed to protect the children raped by Coach Sandusky? Tune in and find out.

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

(646) 595-2134
9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
4:00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time
5:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time
6:00 p.m. pacific Standard Time
7:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time              8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time


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

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

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


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




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

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

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

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

. . .The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.

Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ms. Ross.

Now THAT’s how you investigate!

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/fbi-searches-court-administrator-s-office-1.1232356#ixzz1e62IvTLL


Funny how Sacks’ coaches and/or centers of reference:   Battered Women’s Custody Conference, Barry Goldstein, The Leadership Council, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Judicial Excellence, etc. But ordinary citizens (well, perhaps some “extraordinary” is involved here) on a forum can pick up:

(etc.)(who you know I’ve been looking at too — as I can’t see where Termini & Boyan are currently incorporated — and I don’t think they are.  Termini’s making a good living in Lancaster County at the courthouse, since (it seems) about 2008.  Coincidentally?  The “National Association for Parent Coordination” in Georgia got dissolved in about 2008 (same dynamic duo in charge).  now they run advanced parent coordination training (for a stiff price) and well they should — because in Lancaster at least, it seems to net $60/hour, plenty of referrals (and without a contract even??). . . We, too, can do “right to know” or “FOIA” inquiries, and should do more.

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

On the other hand, knowledge — and knowledge you can act on locally — is empowering, even if the scenario is daunting.  I have learned so much by having all systems fail in the family law, family, (religious institutions), criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement), and a few more along the way.  I know I am a better woman for it, though sorry it took so many years (i.e., I got older in the meantime) Forgot to add

  • I’m longwinded.  The posting has really gotten out of hand, and while it may be a warm blanket to me, I’m getting ready to let go of it and go Facebook, Twitter, or something else.  I don’t seriously believe anyone reads the entire posts.   It’s where I keep (SOME, FYI, not all), of my research, for the record.  The research has borne out, and there IS a clearer picture (in my understanding) of what to ignore and what to pay attention to in these systems.  And of the country I live in (shudder!) as a woman, particularly a woman beyond kicking out some more babies, or with an appetite for raising someone else’s.  That frees up a lot of thought time ..  … ….
  • Oh yes — there are about 9 different pages on here.  But only the main page, generally, is added to.  It’s structured like this.  I write until I’m done (and only a small portion of the screen is visible at a time; no hardcopy printouts or second drafts).  When I’m done –or sometimes several paragraphs beyond that, then I stop, and usually hit “Publish.”
Whatever I am saying, visits are steadily coming from state & county & city governments, various court systems, law firms, the California Judicial Council, 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Alaska Court System ( [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
United States FlagAnchorage, Alaska, United States
(No referring link)
16 Nov 13:00:29

– – – – – or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:City & County Of San Francisco ( CA CityCnty of SF – KT artklReferring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page:

 – – – – -or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:American Lawyer Media ( [Label IP Address]Referring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit/

– – – – – or …

State Of New Jersey ( NJ State of (undistrib CS)    0 returning visits
(No referring link)

16 Nov05:35:30


Total Visits:

United States FlagSouth Amboy, New Jersey, United States     Show Full URLs

1Location:Baltimore, Maryland, United States

IP Address:Psinet ( [Label IP Address]

Referring URL:(No referring link)

Visit Page:    familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/tag/parents-day-comes-from-true-parentsunification-church/

   [[that post has a lot of corporation / charitable regisration lookups on some well-known California Marriage Promotion groups — more on that later]]
or, ..
County Of Los Angeles([Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
(No referring link)

15 Nov14:02:52


United States FlagLong Beach, California, United States

or … (i’m not sure if this is good news, or not good news….).

Executive Office Of The President Usa ( WDC EXEC OFC PRESIDNT! 9/2/11    0 returning visits
United States FlagWashington, District Of Columbia, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
2 Sep 08:55:24familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/page/18/?pages-list
(No referring link)
15 Nov 05:53:57familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/ocse-child-support-enforcementfederal-grants-to-states-lets-look-at-the-taggs-hhs-charts-cfdas-93-563-93-564/
Executive Office Of The President Usa( Exec Ofc Pres!198137241197    0 returning visits
United States FlagWashington, District Of Columbia, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
2 Sep 08:55:17   familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/category/wheres-mom/page/2
(No referring link)
15 Nov 05:53:55


– – – – – Or (just one last one!):

Calnet2 St Of Ca Judicial Council (aoc San Francis( SF CalJudiCouncil SFAOC    0 returning visits
United States FlagSan Francisco, California, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
26 Jul 12:23:39familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/whats-money-got-to-do-with-it-calif-legislators-judges-at-play/
(No referring link)
4 Aug 11:34:38familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/afcc-coordinates-parenting-coord-and-the-courts-democrats-spearhead-next-fatherhood-legislation-hr-2193/
(No referring link)
18 Aug 14:28:21familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/how-nonprofit-status-all-nonprofit-status-large-small-leads-to-abuse-of-individuals-money-flows-towards-the-visionary-dictatorial/
(No referring link)
14 Nov 09:22:46familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/say-no-to-sb-557-contd-local-connections-faith-focused-ovw-grants-all-in-the-family-but-whose/
(I’m not going to keep posting visitors here, but the posts they chose to look at are an indicator of possibly something YOU might want to look at.  Also, I believe we should keep certain public entities on their toes (if possible), particularly ones that have been on our HEELS, dogging us, driving us — and for what?  For profit?  For someone’s career track?  To bring world peace or solve world poverty?
(besides which it was seriously difficult to get those stats into the WordPress margins… ) 
By law, the ANSWER is here, and the answer is NOT his or hers….
The UCCJEA talks about which STATE has jurisdiction, when it’s a multi-state custody matter.  But what about within a single state?
So what is jurisdiction?  It is the right, the power, and the control that the court will have over a certain legal issue or subject.  Thus there is geographical jurisdiction (where can the case be heard?), subject matter jurisdiction (which court has authority to hear and decide this particular legal issue?), personal jurisdiction (does the court have the power to make a person obey its orders?) and there are other jurisdictional questions. 

What we normally call FAMILY COURTS ( as I am understanding this) are actually by statue “CONCILIATION COURTS….Now the type of people going to the family law system are not typically the happily married couples, but couples with often “irreconcilable differences” this may come of a bit of a shock — while you are figuring out how to separate, the court is actually (by legal purpose) trying to get you back together, apparently (I’ll use that word a lot so no one thinks about accusing me of practicing law ….).

No, seriously …..

WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)

Conciliation Courts

California was one of the first states to establish conciliation courts. The purpose of a conciliation court is to encourage families to attempt reconciliation and reduce litigation in family law cases. In California counties with conciliation courts, parties may petition the court for help in resolving disputed family law matters prior to, or even after, filing an action for dissolution. While the matter is under advisement by the conciliation court, neither party may file an action for dissolution without permission of the court.

(taken from Robert L. Lewis site; San Jose Family Lawyer)

How many mothers or fathers are even aware that in having ANY custody dispute and going before a judge to settle it, they have entered “Conciliation Court Land” (I think.  NOTE:  I’m not an attorney, and reader is advised to consult, law, a licensed attorney or a better source before acting on any FYI information I post, from other sites, hereon!)

Basically when there is a custody DISPUTE (parents cannot work it out separately) in — I believe most counties in the US, but don’t know for sure — that opens the doorway for all THIS:

(CALIFORNIA LAW — which may explain where all the behavioral scientists get off in studying your children and collecting data from courthouses about this or that):

 FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS (California Code 1800ff (part, below:)

1814.  (a) In each county in which a family conciliation court is
established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family 
conciliation court in disposing of its (ITS, not YOUR) business and carrying out its functions. In
counties which have by contract established joint family
conciliation court services, the superior courts in contracting
counties jointly may make the appointments under this subdivision.
   (b) The supervising counselor of conciliation has the power to do all of the following:

   (1) Hold conciliation conferences with parties to, and hearings
in, proceedings under this part, and make recommendations concerning
the proceedings to the judge of the family conciliation court.
   (2) Provide supervision in connection with the exercise of the
counselor's jurisdiction as the judge of the family conciliation
court may direct.
   (3) Cause reports to be made, statistics to be compiled, and records to be kept 
as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct.
   (4) Hold hearings in all family conciliation court cases as may be
required by the judge of the family conciliation court, and make
investigations as may be required by the court to carry out the
intent of this part.
   (5) Make recommendations relating to marriages where one or both
parties are underage.
   (6) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations as provided
in Section 281 of the Welfare and Institutions Code under the
authority provided the probation officer in that code.

(7) Act as domestic relations cases investigator. 
 (8) Conduct mediation of child custody and visitation disputes.
   (c) The superior court, or contracting superior courts, may also appointwith 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…”



.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
$ 1,286,457
(click on name to see what the grant 90FM0001 was about, from 2004-2008)(then click on the grant# and see that its 2011 continuation for only $785,612 was continued at Utah State U.  Utah appears to be a very marrying state, one might think, given the prevailing religion..


The Family Coordinator © 1977 National Council on Family Relations


Counseling processes utilized by the Santa Clara County Conciliation Court in in resolving litigated visitation and custody disputes are described. The responsiveness of parents and their children is discussed as are the roles of both counselor and judge in these matters. A sample case reflecting a broad range of family dynamics is presented and the procedure by which cases are received and evaluated is reported. The practical and salutary features of this court-oriented program are set forth.
(Excerpt):  “It has been acknowledge for some time by judges and lawyers, as well as those inviduals affected (note order — judges & lawyers 1st, affected people, 2nd) that the process by which custody and visitation issues are decided is in need of change.  With that in mind, THE CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (California) SUPERIOR COURT  IN 1972 LAUNCHED A PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FULLY INTEGRATED INTO ITS FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES (caps & emphases= mine).  PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM’S IMPLEMENTATION….
At the calling of the Family Court Calendar each morning and each afternoon, all those awaiting hearing on visitation matters are promptly and directly referred to the court’s Conciliation Service.  (etc.)
That’s how the counselors get in there. . . .  Note the date –1972.  The AFCC (which is an association of judges, lawyers, and exactly these types of counselors — must be coincidence!) didn’t actually finish getting caught and forced to incorporate (in IL) til around 1975.  No-fault divorce was here or near, and FEMINISM was on the Ascent in America….  This caused some marital issues, obviously. ….




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.


Scroll down to “READ THIS FIRST” page for a history of family law starting from the consequences of it, back down to the shady beginnings, one generation after women got the vote and between the world wars. Yep, that’s when the first law was passed, which eventually morphed, evolved, or as one summary puts it, “metastasized” into what we have now. And, like Hollywood, and other exports, this one seems to have originated in Sunny California, Southern part…

  • This post doesn’t contain any porn, graphic violence, or disgusting images (as I recall), but it is going to include plain talk on what comes from papering over these things.
  • [2011 update]. I investigate and report on corporations and nonprofits taking business from the court system, and taking diversionary monies from needy families through the 1996 TANF welfare reform and OCSE loopholes.
  • Originally the blog was intended to develop and report on matters covered (since ab. 1993) at http://www.NAFCJ.net and others, which at least gave a sensible explanation for weird behaviors by family court officials. I continued researching, observing, and learning.
  • A good deal also covers the “Faith-Based Behaviors” which have been enabled to expand beyond even the “Fatherhood Factor Funding” of 1994 & 1995. In 2001, GWB began office with two executive orders, 13998 and 13999, which opened the door for these (crooks).
  • Recently, articles are hitting the press about the scandalous “take the money and run” grantees, the “steer the money to our friends” process exhibited by program managers at the state level, and more. Not to mention, the black hole of undistributed child support collections, which (as reported in part by Richard Fine in 1999) shows a system of bribery and kickbacks are steering custody results, and kicking too many kids into bad situations — or state care.

I also note that tools available to the public to study these things are indequate and limited; that there exists — both on database and (some indications) literally, a dual-docketing system, such that decisions made with a parent’s or child’s name on them — which bring federal program funding opportunities — can continue without that parent or child’s knowledge. Some of these do not seem to require a judge’s signature. Others may have such signature, but litigants somehow can’t get a copy of their own files.  The database TAGGS is not set up to produce truly flexible reports which would help track down who is doing what and for whom.  It is there for an appearance of transparency, as far as I am concerned.  Before I re-read NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’ site) and began my own research, I didn’t run into a single protective mother or DV advocate who even used this database, or told women — or men — about it.

Above all, it’s time to let the idols, the myths about justice hit the dust (which is where idols belong anyhow) and go roll up the sleeves and start looking things up.

My blog is dense to read, and shows affects of PTSD (many times) — BUT I’ll bet you will not find many others reporting what I do.

Fathers in custody battles need to know — it’s NOT about you, or your story, or a particular judge; it’s about the system. Fathers also need to know that SOME of us mothers, while we do not back up one inch on abuse is wrong, or buy your stories about how much false allegations of it exist, we do know that you, too, have been extorted by at least the OCSE system, and we will work along the non-rabid community of fathers to do something about the kickbacks and lack of accountability.

And I personally wish to tell leaders of domestic violence coalitions and certain other agencies receiving major HHS and/or DOJ funding that — we mothers exiting abuse do NOT appreciate our legitimate needs having been SOLD OUT by your groups, to take funding for speculative theories and PR/educational campaigns on what “prevents family violence” let alone “poverty.”

NOW –that’s the N.O.W. — has no excuse for basically dropping the ball, not when in 2002 an excellent Family Court Report laid out the roadmap, and 2005 your California Leader called for an investigation of HHS use of Fatherhood Funds.  (What she didn’t realize then is WE have to do this investigation, then bring it to legislators).  NOW is still active in matters of domestic violence, and has a Family Law Task Force — but other priorities. NOW has done a lot (and I think them), but here — for all to see — is a clear indication that (as with other DV groups) the “Family Law” issue is not seen as a Violence Against Women issue:

Key Issues

NOW’s Top Priority Issues: (the top 6, and the “other important issues”)

Other Important Issues:

Suffice it to say, I think a more singular focus is needed, and as NOW didn’t continue to report some of the material about Bush, Fatherhood, Welfare Reform, and other issues. I don’t even share 100% of those issues, or agree with all of them.  I want to stay alive and exercise my rights, and my kids to NEVER have to repeat what happened and what they witnessed, while growing up, half in violence, and half in a custody war with a basis in extortion from more than one sector, with them, their distress, their simply being minors, as the bait.  But we all need some NOW — because without a dose of them, it’d be The USA of Shari’a (Christian, Jewish, Muslim & Mormon versions, plus the same general themes among the agnostics and atheists).  It’d be off the deep end and in over our heads.  But they lost the focus on the HHS matters, which are also national matters because they involve the economy and systems change to push marriage and fatherhood programs (notice, I didn’t say to push marriage, or fatherhood — but to push the programs).


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 94103-5178 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
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20024
Abstract: This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of the federally funded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), an organization committed to building safer and stronger families by ending domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse against women and children. Major activities and accomplishments of the FVPF are described, including: the development of an Interactive Learning and Exhibit Center, the development of the International Center to End Violence,** and the implementation of training programs and experiential learning for engaging everyday gatekeepers and young students. Activities of the FVPF’s Teacher Training Academy are also highlighted, as well as public educational and engagement activities and school-based programming.
Results 1 to 1 of 1 matches.


by Philip V. Scribano, Pediatrician

and here:

New International Center for Family Violence Prevention Fund

Quote from Ban Ki Moon

(in case graphic doesn’t show…)

“Violence against women is an issue that cannot wait . .. and we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women,
we empower our greatest resource fro development; mothers raising children; lawmakers in parliament;
chief executives; negotiators; teachers; doctors; policewomen; peacekeepers and more.”
..Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General, United Nations
And we were the first to engage men – as coaches, mentors, and positive role models to boys.

New Home, new name – in the SF Praesidio  (while – in this area — I know women who went homeless after custody-switch in the family courts; I almost did.  That’s partly a child support matter, and a child support motivation.  Where’s your blog — your website — your publication of how child support and the state of the OCSE/welfare reform affects custody decisions??  Which, in the case of women leaving violence — affects their and their kids’ safety and well-being?)

Montgomery Street Barracks

Built in the 1890s, the six red-brick Montgomery Street Barracks that frame the Main Parade have become Presidio icons. All will be rehabilitated and will feature activities and services for visitors, such as restaurants, galleries, and cultural institutions. Activities will spill out on to the Barracks’ expansive front porches and the Main Parade Ground. The Walt Disney Family Museum opened in one of the barracks in fall 2009 and the International Center to End Violence will open in another in spring 2011.

(OVW grant for this center includes a 2009 one of $2,000,000)

Yes you did engage boys and men — jumped on the bandwagon:  Fatherhood as a tool to stop domestic violence.

I saw the funding surge behind the change of tune, too:

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.

 In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers

Did you train whoever trained Scott McAlpin?  Scott DeKraii? Cody Beemer?

(yet — no mention, for the sake of the single, female-headed households in the State of Ohio, that it has a Fatherhood Commission, Fatherhood Practitioners, Fatherhood Summits, and that a Legislator is still running around strengthening fatherhood to stop child abuse (like that’s the solution); that it had an Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that is ripping off the public – in a large way — in an effort to turn back the clocks to the 1950s, pre-feminism and pre-VAWA?

in 2011, it’s up to $3,000,000

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90EV0401  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 2 0 ACF 08-04-2011 618375687 $ 250,000 
2011 90EV0414  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES 1 0 ACF 09-17-2011 618375687 $ 1,100,000 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 3,000,000

Never-Ending Education . . .


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):



4.  Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the 3 largest program services by expenses:


**astounding.  And this was figured out when? …..









Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2009 $26,157,567 990 16 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2008 $22,018,363 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2007 $17,917,034 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2006 $13,612,574 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2005 $9,114,506 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2004 $7,045,197 990 24 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2002 $6,261,569 990 22 94-3110973
EIN# 94-3110973

Also described by them at

Grants — $11.5 million

Program income — $181K

Salaries this year — $4 million

One resource is ERI (Economic Research Institute or “http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com&#8221;) which runs comparisons on non-profit organizations salaries;

 the search I just did shows their assets about $22million — and their contributions and expenditures similar, at around $13 million.  It shows a nice chart (I searched by EIN#)and has nice summaries, bar chats, etc.

Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded.  They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.

Except that this group — in an area where women are still being stalked, robbed of (their children, among other things), having child support reduced to nothing or being forced to pay their former batterers (innumerable), finding next to no response with law enforcement when this occurs, women have been burnt and found hogtied around a road sign (2006, unidentified, Oakland-Temescal), kidnapped from their homes, stabbed repeatedly, then dropped off on the side of the road to bleed to death in front of motorists  (Oakland/Orinda Elnora Caldwell), shot at work while IN tollbooths (2009, Ross), shot in church parking lots on a weekday morning (2007, McCall, Oakland), doused with gas and burnt alive, murdered and put in car trunks, shot (along with 6  others in beauty salons (2011, Seal Beach, CA Fournier 8 killed, 2008 Torres, Martinez 3 killed including responding officer),. . .

killed at court-ordered weekend exchanges and buried in a shallow grave only to be found when the murderer father plea-bargained it down by agreeing to locate the body (Wife missing 2006, conviction 2008, Oakland Reiser).    Children have been also kidnapped galore, sometimes being murdered afterwards by overentitled fathers, while D.A.’s are soliciting campagns to standardize their Family Justice Center model in D.C. and in the California Legislature.    I haven’t even linked to children and bystanders in this list; nor is it complete — but  a LOT of it happened around divorce, separation and child custody — and yet where is even a mention of the AFCC, CRC, or the welfare reform that funds “increased noncustodial parenting time” and forces women to try to co-parent with their batterers under fatherhood theory — such as you also have??

Here is the California Charitable Registration results for their 2010 filing (as “Futures WIthout Violence”):

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

(For the record, it was incorporated as a nonprofit in California, in a simple filing with Esta Soler and a few others, in August 1989.  To get the VAWA passed in 5 years is indeed an accomplishment, or may reflect connections the women had initially, I do not know.)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
  • September 10, 2010 notice from California Attorney General — they forgot their fee:


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:


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.


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….)






$ 112,139 COLLIN CASEY DIR OF ADMINISTRATION  + $29,491  (any relationship to the Annie E. Casey people?)

In addition, contractors over $100K included:


@ $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:



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:


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.


The Minnesoh-tans (DAIP, MPDI, BWJP, Praxis, et al.) have done heroic things — but that’s no excuse for ‘taxation without representation” and the early-on insistence that your model CCR and its institutional ethnography become a nationwide model, without proof it works.  And, it doesn’t.  I hit on this particular set of nonprofits pretty hard throughout this blog, s am giving them a break today, except to mention that it took me a long time to realize that what “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT INC.” was actually about — (and which its name says) — developing (and selling) programs, 

Not stopping domestic violence

and some pretty good grants behind that business, too….

STATEWIDE COALITIONS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:  Standardized & co-opted, used as heat shields for marriage entitites, didn’t include enough mothers leaving violence in their plans.  DIDN’t PUBLICIZE FATHERHOOD COMMISSIONS, FAITH-BASED OPERATIONS, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.  Didn’t teach women the 1996 welfare reform information in its context.

This sounds harsh, so here’s an example:

Tim Carpenter reportedrecently some juicy details about a secret April meeting to design Brownback’s marriage agenda. The Topeka Capital-Journal uncovered some information on Brownback’s plans  through a Kansas Open Records request.

The Kansas government spent $13,000 to bring together 20 mostly far-right marriage “experts” for the closed door meeting.

Organizations represented included the Heritage Foundation, Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, National Center for Fathering, Stronger Families, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Savers, Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, and National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting.

Thanks to information from Carpenter and sources, we know something of what Brownback has in mind, even though the details of the meeting remain confidential.

And (from a link in this article to another one) — ALL of these characters should be knowledgeable, household names, to anyone sitting under CADV state teachings or in their meetings. They deserve to know how things got started, and where they are going now, above the din of same-sex marriage and abortion rights issues.  This affects mothers AND fathers:

Brownback program promotes marriage

July 2, 2011, Tim Carpenter, the Topeka-Journal

(listing attendees)

Wade Horn, who redefined President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, preached a gospel that encouraged poor women to marry their way out of poverty.

Marriage Savers creator Mike McManus said clergy members typically did a lousy job preparing couples for marriage and secular therapists were more likely to increase divorce among spouses in crisis.

This threesome was among 20 people who met behind closed doors in Topeka to share marriage program ideas with Brownback and executives at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

…In his follow-up letter to Brownback obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, [[Mike]] McManus said Kansas should prohibit no-fault divorce unless there was proof of physical abuse or adultery. A Kansas law ought to be passed, he said, allowing judges to select a “responsible spouse,” which would always be the person opposed to divorce. The statute would allow the responsible adult to receive up to 66 percent of child visitation and 100 percent of family assets in the divorce.

Any idea what this exposes women to?   (read on).  They are already being used as disposable wombs in too many marriages; if the beatings or abuse or virtual slavery (it happens!) can be severe enough that SHE wants out, then in Kansas he doesn’t even have to go through the motions of fighting for most of the kids and ALL of the assets!  This does not protect women or children!

Horn, who resigned from HHS to take a job with Deloitte Consulting, departed the Bush administration amid reports of cronyism in awarding federal grants to the National Fatherhood Initiative he founded.

Helen Alvare, a member of the law faculty at George Mason who also was invited to Topeka, said she admired Sarah Palin’s devotion to family and professional achievement. In 2008, Alvare said Palin was “what a lot of women aspire to be on their best day.”

California writer Christelyn Karazin, who had a child out of wedlock before marrying, believed so strongly in the power of a man and woman to raise children she organized an event called “No Wedding, No Womb.”

This is portrayed as spontaneous blogging “NWNW” — so what was she doing in a secret meeting in Kansas?  Flown in at Kansans’ expense, and in the company of people such as David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn? !!   She saw the light (is now married) and so everyone else must see it the same way?  Listen to some ex-married women, girl!

It was primarily a call to the black community to take action against the birth of children without the “physical, financial and emotional protection” of a father and mother, she said.

Joyce Webb, who works with Catholic Charities’ Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, recommended SRS divert $1 million from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for a new marriage program. TANF money is earmarked for families living in poverty.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was included in one published list of participants but didn’t attend, said during a speech about the pro-marriage movement that Catholics and Christians had to be the “visible light” for people failing to grasp intricacies of the institution of marriage.

SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki, responsible for implementing the governor’s marriage initiative, said thousands of Kansans who divorce each year lacked the skills and knowledge to form sustainable relationships.* Brownback wants SRS to help fill that information gap, he said.

*that “lack the skills” phrase is a buzz word to bring on the marriage educators, which is also a growing HHS trend and probably public law by now.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who voted against confirmation of Brownback’s choice of SRS secretary, said he was intrigued by the governor’s simultaneous talk about removing government from the lives of the average Kansan and creating a state marriage program drenched in faith-based advocacy.

Siedlecki hired Richard Marks, the Jacksonville, Fla., director of the Marriage for Life, to join SRS and be involved in the initiative

(A little QUICK research on my part here   See the URL above:  He’s Baptist, Regent University, a Minister, adapted the PAIRS (which I think got HHS funding) curriculum for Christians, and just changed the FLorida nonprofit’s name to “CONNECTUS4LIFE, INC.” in 2002 (per Florida corporations search page called “sunbiz.org.”     EIN#562283483.  This is specifically incorporated as a “faith-based organization” and talks about the preachers involved.  This one (I just looked) seems a tidy little income — $60K raised, he gets $16K as head of the nonprofit, and gets to write off $42 of expenses running marriage enrichment seminars.

“Believing that marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God,

we as pastors and ministers in the Greater Jacksonville area are committed

to ensure that these marriages (WHICH ones?) will endure til death.”

That’s a creed — not an incorporation!

“we are dedicated to strengthening marriages as we seek to”

I attended domestic violence support groups, being a Christian, towards the end of my “cohabitation” (with my spouse).  Getting there was not easy; they were night-times.  Want to know what % of the women there were pastor’s and deacon’s wives?  I can’t name names, but the answer is — PLENTY.  At least one had tried to kill his wife; the deacons knew, and it was a LONG time before he lost that position….

He also had a role in Florida Government:  Served “four years on FLorida’s Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.”  That commission name was a new one on me, so I just looked up, to find out, from “www.Floridafathers.org” that:

Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives

The 2003 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 480, replacing the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives as of July 1, 2003.

FamilyThe new commission will take a broader approach to strengthening families by detailing comprehensive statewide strategies for Florida to promote safe, violence-free, substance-abuse-free, respectful, nurturing and responsible parenting; including connection or reconnection of responsible parents, both mothers and fathers, with their children.

From the Kansas article, above, we now know what is meant by “responsible” parent.  It means the one that, if he resists divorce, will get 100% of the assets and (at least) 66% of the children.  Mom can struggle to enforce 34% of her visitation after she’s kicked out of the house with 0% of the assets, which has already been the case when women FLED the home for safety (with or without kids).  So, is this progress?  But the CADVs should’ve been monitoring and reporting on these things — although I know that FL CADV had their hands full with FL-AFCC on “parenting coordination” matters, around this time as I recall.

The Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will each appoint six members to the commission by August 1, 2003, with at least half of the commissioners representing the private sector

The wording starts like this – and yes indeed, Florida did vote this Commission into existence in 2003:

383.0115 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. The Legislature finds that:

(a) Families in this state deserve respect and support. Children need support and guidance from both mothers and fathers, and families need support and guidance from community systems to help them thrive.

(b) There are many problems facing families.

(and it gets even more brilliantly deductive from there.  I provided the link).

. . .

(e) Assisting states to end dependence of low-income parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage and assisting states in encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families are the two of four stated purposes of federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 which have been largely neglected by states and for which states are now urging Congress to designate 10 percent of all welfare funds, specifically for relationship education and skills development, responsible fatherhood programs, and community support as it seeks to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act in 2002.

. . .


(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
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
Preceded by Post created
Succeeded by Gary Bauer

So, Jim Marks’ “Marriage for Life” organization was formed (I just learned) in 2002 as a “faith-based” organization — i.e., in the wake of GWBush’s open door executive orders for faith-based organizations of 2001.  Many of these groups form to get the grants, spend the money, and then RUN, disbanding, or being dissolved for failure to file with the IRS (or their state).

In Kansas (this is yet another article on the same issue):

SRS says Faith-based initiatives are still around, just not getting as much attention**

Oct. 23, 2011 by Scott Rothschild in “LJworld.com”

**I have 1 or 2 comments on there on these matters.  You’ll recognize which ones (just submitted another).

In a pre-Memorial Day (2011) announcement, Siedlecki reorganized SRS, which included putting Anna Pilato in a new position called Deputy Secretary for Strategic Development and Faith-Based Community Initiatives.

Are you getting a feel for this yet?

Pilato had served for five years in the Bush administration, including as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But Pilato, who is making $97,500 per year, says that in her job she wears two hats — strategic development and faith-based initiatives — and that the strategic development part of her job, which includes overseeing the design and development of staff for SRS, is by far the larger of the two.

. . .

Recently, SRS applied for a $6.6 million grant to pay for either faith-based or secular counseling that encouraged unwed parents to marry. Under the proposal, if the couple completed counseling, the state would pay the $86.50 marriage license fee.

But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the grant.

Kansas Health Initiative published the list of who attended.  Recommend Memorizing.  Coming to your state (or what’s left of it) soon.  What’s kind of funny — Occupy Wichita made an appearance in the middle of a speech by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.   (Protestors Disrupt Governor’s Poverty Forum (apparently, today 11/16/2011, KHI News service.  I’m starting to like KHI…)):

A Wichita police officer tries to restrain a member of Occupy Wichita who protested at a town hall meeting on poverty Wednesday in Wichita.

Protesters interrupted the second of Gov. Sam Brownback’s town hall meetings on childhood poverty Wednesday, standing up during the keynote speech and reciting some of their objections to Brownback’s policies.

One of the 14 protesters was arrested and another was detained for a short period.

The protest began as Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation fellow invited to give the keynote speech, delivered his remarks advocating marriage as a key way to end poverty. Protesters, most of them members of Occupy Wichita, stood silently with their backs to Rector for about 10 minutes, then began chanting their grievances once he completed his speech.

Organizers stopped the meeting for about 15 minutes, resuming after the protesters had left the downtown hotel where it was held.

That Rector should’ve had the podium at this second town hall, or the first, is a dire sign for Kansas:  (article links to this):

By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Nov. 14, 2011

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Reducing the number of children born to single mothers is the most effective way to combat childhood poverty.

That’s according to Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation fellow picked by Gov. Sam Brownback to keynote the first of his administration’s three planned meetings on childhood poverty this week.

. . .

Strong reaction

Shortly after Rector finished his remarks, Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization for Women, left the meeting room in anger.

“I was offended in there,” Rinker said. “The things he said, the inferences he made about women and women’s worth were offensive. As I looked around the room, I saw many other people looking to each other in shock and amazement.”

Rinker said the steady increase in births to young, single women was a cause for concern. But she said making available low-cost birth control and improving the women’s self-esteem and education would more effectively address the problem.

“The silver bullet is not wedded bliss,” she said.

Ms Rinker (appears very young, no?) should — with Kansas NOW — have been on top of this situation, should be teaching women about welfare reform and how the fatherhood movement got its two bits in on the situation diverting programs to promote fatherhood and marriage.   (The information has been available on the web since 1993).  For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (the article says) was instrumental in Welfare Reform.  The Congressional Record debates ON this welfare reform are framed in concern about too many women of color having babies !  (in other words, it has severely racist overtones).   To let him get up there and spout off, the same rhetoric — which is PAID FOR INFORMATION!

The number one factor behind poverty here in the state of Kansas is the death of marriage,” he said, noting that 38 percent of children in Kansas today were born to unmarried women, compared to about 5 percent in the 1960s. “This is the most dramatic social transformation in the 20th century.”

OH?  How about a few world wars (creating untold orphans) and women getting the vote, the creation of the personal income tax, taking currency off the gold standard, and the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.?   How about the advent of the internet, the decline of public education,  — and how about the 2001 enablements of people like Robert Rector to get up and speak at government functions and expect faith-based organizations to drive the primary institutions around?

Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW,

on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System

 Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW, on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System

Kari Ann Rinker is the President of the Kansas chapter of NOW and she joins us to talk about the budget problems in Topeka that led to end of prosecuting domestic violence cases.

Listen or Download Audio MP3

The protests illustrated how serious the issue of poverty is, said Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.***

“These people are using this as an avenue to voice their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech,” she said.

(***search her name on my blog.  She supported the last round of fatherhood initiatives in Kansas….  I commented on this).

The Heritage Foundation in Kansas is neither surprising, nor to be ignored.  It explains a whole lotta backwards movement when it comes to safety for women and freedom for Americans — both genders, all ages.

I remember this site from a long time ago on the Heritage Foundation.


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)

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:


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:


The Foundation also leaped to the defense of Ronald Reagan’s description of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” a description that generated wide global rebuke as potentially inviting nuclear conflict and, at the very least, further poisoning East-West relations. But with strong support by Heritage and other influential conservatives, Reagan stood by the statement, refusing to retract it until the Soviet Union began to crumble.

In an attempt to build on its foreign policy influence, the Foundation also engages in domestic and social policy issues, but its effort in these two areas has never quite matched the influence it wielded (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in altering the debate over American foreign policy. Yet, the Foundation continues to weigh in on these topics with varying levels of success. One of its undeniable successes has been serving as a breeding ground for many of the nation’s leading neo-conservative activists and intellectuals.

The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:

 (Dick Armey being a Texas Republican during the “Contract with America” years.   Below this quote…**)

Liberation is at hand…. A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s – from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer – the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning…. But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture – indeed, the entire human outlook – will change…. Once this shift takes place – by 1996, I predict – we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including…. radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom.”

(**Contract with America

In 1994, Armey, then House Republican Conference Chairman, joined Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in drafting the Contract with America. Republican members credited this election platform with the Republican takeover of Congress, rewarding Gingrich with the position of Speaker and Armey with the number two position of House Majority Leader. Gingrich delegated to Armey an unprecedented level of authority over scheduling legislation on the House floor, a power traditionally reserved to the Speaker. Armey has been accused of being involved in a 1997 attempt to oust Gingrich as Speaker,[7] something Armey has strongly denied. In 1995 Armey referred to openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, as “Barney Fag“. Armey said it was a slip of the tongue.[8] Armey and his staff, especially spokesman Jim Wilkinson, took the lead in spreading the idea that Al Gore claimed to have “invented the internet.”[9][10][11]

then-President CLINTON had to do something to respond to the Republican “Contract with America”  — and 1996 TANF (Welfare Reform) was what he did — or at least signed.  This 1996 TANF is a major topic of the post and has affected custody situations for years in “Conciliation Court.”  It is also affecting the economy, diverting welfare money to support needy families into more and more brutal and upfront declarations that women should marry their way out of poverty — when many women are poor and single because they fled domestic violence in the home, which might have resulted in their deaths (and sometimes still does, after separation) had they stayed, valuing “marriage” good enough to satisfy these people.    So, important to understand some of the context.  More on Armey from Wikipedia (as the above segment was):

Focus on the Family

According to Armey, he also sparred with Focus on the Family leader James Dobson while in office. Armey wrote, “As Majority Leader, I remember vividly a meeting with the House leadership where Dobson scolded us for having failed to ‘deliver’ for Christian conservatives, that we owed our majority to him, and that he had the power to take our jobs back. This offended me, and I told him so.” Armey states that Focus on the Family targeted him politically after the incident, writing, “Focus on the Family deliberately perpetuates the lie that I am a consultant to the ACLU.”[20]Armey has also said that “Dobson and his gang of thieves are real nasty bullies.[21]

Yes they are!  Of course, here’s how they describe themselves:

Focus on the Familyhelping families thrive

They are just — and this whole divert welfare into marriage promotion and abstinence education and “responsible fatherhood” etc. — are just “helping families thrive.”

(The individual, especially not the individual female or mother,  does not exist.…)

Whereas the truth is a lot closer to this:


God’s Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows

 The Washington Post | On Faith blog
by Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

Evangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress “submission” as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.

Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”

In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering.

2006 Budget

In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKlineNovartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giantMicrosoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), PfizerPhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). [2]

Historical funding

Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:

It goes on — but these are foundations that are to be found behind (funding) so many fatherhood and responsible marriage studies, “Fragile-families” “Strengthening Families” etc. type projects.Whether or not these projects produce as they are supposed to, they continue getting funding and supporting Ph.D.s (Sarah McLanahan of Princeton? comes to mind) to justify more of the same.

When Dobson told Dick Armey that Focus on the Family (& friends, no doubt) “Delivered” the Christian conservatives, now they want something in return — he was probably telling the truth:  Look at the amounts:








Focus On The Family CO 2006 $94,999,184 990 45 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2005 $97,414,767 990 59 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2004 $107,423,724 990 38 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2003 $102,442,464 990 35 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2002 $98,175,843 990 37 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2010 $79,825,383 990 53 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2009 $90,996,703 990 61 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2008 $93,072,558 990 45 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2007 $92,427,223 990 43 95-3188150
Focus On The Family Action CO 2008 $3,565,169 990O 23 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action CO 2007 $2,452,377 990O 20 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action CO 2006 $3,035,923 990O 21 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc. CO 2009 $3,953,111 990O 39 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc. CO 2005 $4,286,071 990O 19 20-0960855 

RIGHTWING WATCH partial bio of James Dobson gives an idea of the scope of influence and pull:

  • Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army’s Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography, 1985-86.
  • Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters.
  • In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
  • James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation.

  • James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California.
  • Read PFAW’s in-depth report on James Dobson.

The Family Research Council (nndb listing of who’s on the board.)

Erik Prince Business 6-Jun-1969   Founder of Blackwater Worldwide

Erik Prince

Military service: US Navy (SEAL Team Officer, 1993-96; Bosnia, Haiti)

Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire fundamentalist Christian, who co-founded the security and mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide in 1997 with Gary Jackson, a former Navy SEAL. He is a major Republican campaign contributor, who interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher, campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.

His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right — married to the son of Richard DeVos(Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.

Father: Edgar Prince (d. 1995, billionaire)

Dobson’s family background (He’s on the board too, obviously) included:

Dobson’s own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father’s fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God’s forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. “It makes no sense, but I know it happened,” Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.

Families will fall apart, Dobson argues, if homosexuals have the right to marry, adopt, or raise children. For this reason, Dobson and FOTF support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one women. Dobson and FOTF are also against abortion, against feminism, against pornography, against the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, against Oregon’s law allowing euthanasia, against Take Our Daughters to Work Day, etc.

(yes, women should stay home, that’s their business, really….)

He has proposed an innovative end run around “liberal” judges. The Republican-controlled Congress should, Dobson suggests, simply stop funding courts where judges make too many “liberal” rulings — stop paying salaries, stop sending security guards, stop paying the electric bills. “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson says. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

Well, he was raised with abuse at home, and bullying, and has grown up  basically the same, as Dick Armey said.

or ….

Kenneth Blackwell Government 28-Feb-1948   Ohio Secretary of State, 1999-2007
Elsa Prince Broekhuizen Relative c. 1932   Conservative financier, mother of Erik Prince
Kenneth Blackwell
Under Blackwell:

  State Treasurer Ohio (1994-98)

  Council on Foreign Relations
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
Federalist Society
Freemasonry  (!!!)
The Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow

Well, in case you want to know why I’m becoming more and more activitist — these are the stakes.  The principles of

  • LIFE

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
IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Des Moines IA 50312-5259 POLK 942559469 $ 3,204,336
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
Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc.  HEMPSTEAD NY 11550 NASSAU 947923397 $ 381,000

(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:



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
NOMAS’ 37th National Conference on Men and Masculinity

Preserving Our Roots While Looking to the Future

July 22-25, 2012
Denver, CO

Special Keynote Speaker: Ellen Pence 

The fact that Ellen Pence is speaking (who is a Duluth person) shows the similarity of approaches.

Denver Registration:  NCADV has been around since 1992 in Colorado (as a “foreign” corporation):

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID Number Document Number Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Event Status Form Formation Date
1 19921036251  19921036251 NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Application for Authority/
Entity Name
Good Standing FNC 04/07/1992

and in 2008 picked up another trade name (good to check out where one can):

# ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 20081544805  20081544805 Domestic Violence Protection & Prevention Coalition Effective FNC 10/13/2008 03:53 PM

I found a group called “CFC” which lists (that new name) as “Best of the CFC” and links to an automated payroll deduction for contribution to it.


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).

Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here.

with one comment


From the “High Conflict Institute”


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 — they don’t really mean what they say  and are 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 to know if you’re dealing with one:

Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder

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 (or is “Senior Family Mediator”) as well as his own split-off “High conflict institute” (see last sentence at the link I just provided).

NCRC: National Conflict Resolution Center

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
  1. 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

Cover of Women and Madness

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  :

A troubled child who had previously suffered from neglect, sexual assault and abusive parenting, Gabriel spent the previous year shuttling among several foster parents while taking a constellation of anti-psychotic medicines, including Lexapro and Vyvanse, to control his depression and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Like most children in Florida foster care, Medicaid paid Gabriel’s medical expenses.  Just one month before his suicide, Gabriel’s doctor prescribed him Symbyax, an anti-depressant restricted for treatment of children. The medication’s FDA-requiredlabel features a warning that use of the drug by children or teenagers can lead to suicide.

 does not meet criteria established by Congress for Medicaid reimbursement, so it is illegal for Medicaid to pay for a prescription of the drug to a child. Sohail Punjwani, the doctor who prescribed Symbyax for Gabriel, received a stern letter from the FDA about his history of over-prescribing mental health drugs.


AS QUOTED IN “SAFE RELATIONSHIPS (on-line) MAGAZINE”, which is from (inhale — it’s a long title):

The Institute for Relational Harm and Public Pathology Education

Sandra L. Brown, M.A., CEO of The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction & Public Pathology Education holds a Masters Degree in Counseling with a former specialization in personality disorders/pathology. She is a program development specialist, lecturer, community educator, and an award-winning author.

Her books, CD’s, DVD’s, and other training materials have been used as curriculum in drug rehabs, women’s organizations and shelters, women’s jail and prison programs, school and college-based programs, inner city projects, and various psychology and sociology programs and distributed in almost every country of the world.

(I notice she is on the board of EVAWINTL.org, End Violence Against Women International — which is having a San Diego Conference in 2012.  See fine print at the end, purple background) (Note:   I’m a little disturbed by not being able to find this as an EIN or as a corporation in NC (where EVAW listed her), or nationally, although there is an active speaker itinerary and clearly training for therapists at $635-$735 a pop in Hilton Head, SC this coming January.  So, is she paying taxes, and is this a fictitious name registered there — or anywhere? Just tried about 5 searches, including registered name, NC corporations, SC corporations, 990 finder, NCCSdataweb and even the IRS finder, plus USPTO (for registered mark )  I think the credentials bear checking out (and remember trying to some years ago also).  See claims on the site and this linkedin description:

Sandra Brown, M.A.

CEO at The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction & Public Pathology Education

Asheville, North Carolina Area 
Professional Training & Coaching Current
  • CEO at The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction & Public Pathology Education
  • Executive Director at Bridgework Counseling Center
  • Pathologist at The Manors Psychiatric Hospital Education
  • Liberty University
286 connections


  • Company Website

(the linkedIn shows her a member of almost every mental health organization around — it’s unusually long string, and yet the only education shown is “Liberty University” (no state), M.A. — which doesn’t add up.  Sorry:

Executive Director Bridgework Counseling Center

January 1987 – January 1998 (11 years 1 month)

Founder and director of a large multi-faceted mental health program focused on trauma disorders and psychopathology.

Degree — M.A. in Counseling from “Liberty University” ? ? ?

Offered outpatient services, residential treatment, program consultant to inpatient hospital programs, and clinical training to therapitss.


The Manors Psychiatric Hospital  (“the Manor” ???in Santa Monica,  here?  or idea for the name from here?  Anclote Manor/The Manors/Northpointe Behavioral Health?, which was shut down in 1997, demolished in 2001 . . or ??????)

April 1993 – August 1996 (3 years 5 months)

Inpatient unit for Women’s Trauma Disorders.

Liberty University is a Christian University with huge on-line segment, apparently.  (Houston, I think we have a problem here)

Liberty University Christian College Education


For 40 years, Liberty University has been training champions for Christ.Liberty University is now the nation’s largest, private, non-profit Christian college and…

She is among some better-documented colleagues at the Relationship Training Institute (San Diego) as “Guest Lecturer”:

Guest Faculty:

Russell Barkley, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Medical School
Sandra L. Brown, MA, CEO, The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction & Psychopathy Education*

William Eddy, JD, LCSW, President of High Conflict Institute (=original topic of this post).

*I personally think anyone that can make up a corporate name that long and call herself CEO, possibly has a personality disorder…. what, actually, is the work history? Who is the EVP of the “IRHRPE” — and if it’s a nonprofit, GIVE ME AN EIN#!!!  — Should I check the Liberty University degree, too?  Particularly distressing is lack of any geographical identification on Ms. Brown’s LinkedIn profile:

I have worked in the field of mental health, relationships, psychopathology, and personality disorders for the past 20 years. I have been involved in program development, program services, publishing, Model of Care development and treatment issues in a wide range of delivery modalities.
Author of six books and many e-books, CDs, DVDs, and other products related to pathology.
Therapist trainer, program consultant, key note speaker

It does not say she was actually a therapist, which has certification requirements.  She’s definitely adept as a publicist and getting speaking engagements.

Also, what — exactly – is “Founder and director of a large multi-faceted mental health program” (Bridgework Counseling Center)??  “program” like the word “Center” like the word “Institute” could mean almost anything, and the leader is left to fill in the dots and assume a real clinic, hospital, or other situation is involved.  I find the repeated use of all of them without tangible (real-world, not just on-line), well, odd.  Were there employees that she directed after founding this wonderful place that I can’t find any on-line identity for, either?

OK, in Florida, listed under “Survivor and Victims’ Resources, by Holli Marshall, Mar 21, 2009:

Bridgework Counseling Center, Inc. & Sanctuary

The Sanctuary Group Home
1634 Nebraska
Palm Harbor, FL. 34684
Attn: Sandy Brown/ph:(813)530-4199
The Sanctuary at Bridgework is for women who have sustained multiple emotional traumas beginning in childhood and extending through adulthood. They have developed disorders requiring assisted living and rehabilitation.


( . .  rrr:    A FL group Sandra L. Brown (agent/officer) called Bridgework Ministries, Inc. — EINV 592940904 — that got itself revoked for failure to file — DID have a NC address also.  I don’t feel like tracking it further).

ANYHOW ….Her theme is the the public is scandalously undereducated about the prevelance of pathology throughout our society:

The Problem of the Unrecognized Face of Pathology

We live in an age where ‘Positive Psychology’ has ingrained a mantra into society’s psyche–that if you think it (the psychopath needs to change his behavior), then you can make it happen (our relationship will be successful when he changes). That may be true when you begin with a person who has normal psychology. But it’s a long way from being true for those who have pathology.

That’s funny — because the courts are all into interventions & educations (whether marriage, parenting, co-parenting, etc.) and sure they can change behavior permanently for the best interests of the kids, right?

Sandra Brown just happens to be making up for the gap in the public’s awareness of the psychopaths next door (although from the newspaper headlines, this ought to be clear enough), and everyone responds afterwards “what a nice family they seemed to be” “but he was so devoted to his son!”  and so on.

WELL, moving on from the pervasive but puzzling personality with associations in:

Personality Disorders Appearing in Family Court

by Bill Eddy, Esquire, L.C.S.W.

Probably the most prevalent personality disorder in family court is Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) 
more commonly seen in women. BPD may be characterized by wide mood swings, intense anger even at benign events, idealization (such as of their spouse — or attorney) followed by devaluation (such as of their spouse — or attorney).

Also common is Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) — more often seen in men. There is a great preoccupation with the self to the exclusion of others. This may be the vulnerable type, which can appear similar to BPD, causing distorted perceptions of victimization followed by intense anger (such as in domestic violence or murder, for example the San Diego case of Betty Broderick). Or this can be the invulnerable type, who is detached, believes he is very superior and feels automatically entitled to special treatment.

I noticed this some months back, but didn’t get around to blogging it yet.  They had apparently been running out of ways to work the words “high-conflict” into a sentence (substituting for accurate descriptions of concrete events with identifiable actors), let alone names for conferences that pair the words “high-conflict” with alienated.  For example here’s a cute one (only from 2010):

AFCC 47th Annual Conference

Traversing the Trail of Alienation: Rocky Relationships, Mountains of Emotion, Mile High Conflict 

June 2-5, 2010
Sheraton Denver Downtown
1550 Court Place
Denver, Colorado

Conference Brochure (PDF)
Verification of Attendance (PDF)
Order conference audio CD’s or MP3’s 
Plenary Sessions Audio (MP3)
AFCC members can access these sessions by logging on to the AFCC Member Center.

I suppose this was kind of cute, about as cute as running a mock coronation in the U.S. Senate Dirksen building for a would-be world Messiah (the True Parents to the world) — or like some San Francisco family law judges at play, dressing up as the kings and queens of Camelot:    But it’s not cute, really…  I believe it shows an inner desire to actually BE royalty, which could be problemmatic when legislators and/or judges don’t have good boundaries.

Here’s from 2011:

Regional Training Conference

Working with High Conflict and Violent Families: A Race with No Winners

HyattRegencyIndianapolis • October27-29,2011

Home of the Indy 500.  How cute. SOmetimes they  just HAVE to let a word about violence slip in there — but not without “high Conflict” and of course Parenting Coordination (got to remember this market niche) and more Interventions.   Sometimes, they all kind of are just patched together for effect — I guess it works to those for whom this language is normal, but to me, it sounds kind of like kids throwing oil paint around — and they aren’t Jackson Pollock,** either:

5. integrating domestic Violence interventions with Parenting coordination to Protect children in high conflict Families

(interesting title capitalization for a brochure)

Though parenting coordination is designed to implement and monitor parenting plans for high conflict families, domestic violence in the parenting dynamic necessitates deeper professional intervention and refined conflict management skills. This work-shop is designed to train parenting coordinators in domestic violence interventions appropriate for individual and couple work, to facilitate necessary parenting communication in a safe manner that will allow for successful parallel parenting and the promotion of a healthy relationship between each parent and their children.

Jackson Pollock, “Action painting.”  There seems to be a parallel, although I’d rather look at a Jackson Pollock than wade through AFCC conference verbiage:

Pollock was the first “all-over” painter, pouring paint rather than using brushes and a palette, and abandoning all conventions of a central motif. He danced in semi-ecstasy over canvases spread across the floor, lost in his patternings, dripping and dribbling with total control. He said: “The painting has a life of its own. I try to let it come through.” He painted no image, just “action”, though “action painting” seems an inadequate term for the finished result of his creative process. Lavender Mist is 3 m long (nearly 10 ft), a vast expanse on a heroic scale. It is alive with colored scribble, spattered lines moving this way and that, now thickening, now trailing off to a slender skein. The eye is kept continually eager, not allowed to rest on any particular area.** Pollock has put his hands into paint and placed them at the top right– an instinctive gesture eerily reminiscent of cave painters who did the same. The overall tone is a pale lavender, maide airy and active. At the time Pollock was h[a]iled as the greatest American painter, but there are already those who feel his work is not holding up in every respect.

**”the eye is kept continually eager ,not allowed to rest on any particular area.” — with the AFCC rhetoric, it’s similarly for effect.  Resting — examining — the central concepts, most don’t hold water, and certainly not in the larger context of the real world to which these theories are applied.  There’s a craziness to the grammar also; words are made-up and assembled in officious-sounding terms which boil down to — “we want to do business as running your business, but have a judge approve this as somehow in the best interests of your children.”

(reread the workshop paragraph):

Excuuuuse me?  See how messy it gets when an AFCC person slips up and admits that domestic violence occurs?  They can’t speak straight.  High-Conflict is typically used to mask the word Domestic Violence, or dilute and distract from any focus on it.  The term doesn’t work so well in other applications.   For example, what is “domestic violence in the parenting dynamic” — exactly?  And when someONE perpetrates a domestically violent ACT (or series of acts) upon another or other(s), this is not “parenting dynamic” it is crime.  At that point, are or are not these professionals mandated reporters, or self-appointed euphemism devisers? And if these are reported and prosecuted properly, someone is going to be either in jail — or not “parenting.”

GRAMMAR — (this has been going on for decades in the same circles within family courts).   The phrase “domestic violence in the parenting dynamic” detaches the violence from its agent — and squarely distributes the blame on both parents, or (even more detached) on the abstract “parenting dynamic.”  Even the word “parenting” is a fairly recent piece of jargon, although widely accepted now.   People have been giving birth and living in families, or groups for millennia, but only recently was the artificial “parenting” developed to an art form and a segmented activity, opposed (I guess) to “schooling.”  The concept of warehousing people by age group is much more recent.  A person who has been targeted for abuse is NOT responsible for that abuse, yet grammatically holding them responsible justifies the “bring on the experts, the counsellors” which is what AFCC intends to do.  In this dynamic, civil & legal rights, including for the children, just walked out the front door.

How alienated that prose is.  Domestic Violence in the parenting Dynamic.”

Of course, thanks to many other “dynamics” in our society, these people often do NOT go to jail and DO end up “parenting” (samples provided below).   Part of the reason why they do relates to conferences like this by people who make decisions.  I find the passive descriptors taking the easy way out of a dilemma their (AFCC’s) forefathers committed years ago, i.e., trying transform language, stop divorce (and congratulate themselves for doing so0 and BRING ON the psychologists and counselors to make a better world.  (How’s that been going, incidentally, of late?)

What kind of thought process (“dynamic”) would lead any professional to include that he or she can truly promote a healthy relationship without stopping the domestic violence, first of all, by naming it and reporting it, then, to the extent possible, prosecuting it?  If we are still to believe it works, go ask a young woman from San Francisco, Anastasia Melitchenko.  Good luck on getting her opinon (and no children involved in this one, even….).  The workshop was in 2011 — and yet by 2005 in California, it had been repeatedly proved that domestic violence counseling (“intervention”) with habitual batterers can fool even the smartest counselors.

Perhaps they aren’t all that smart — perhaps “intervention programs” isn’t even a good idea to start with.  This idea also has an origin (can you spell D-U-L-U-T-H and “Collective Community Response”?)  Coordinating Community Response to Domestic Violence:  lessons from Duluth by Melanie Shepard, Ellen Pence (google book, see p. 42 or search DAIP)

It doesn’t seem to phase the collective organizations dealing with divorce at all when people die around this.  Just some language adjustments, that’s all.  By the way, you can’t ask Anastasia whether intervention worked for her man.  It didn’t, not even the Primary Male Center for Peaceful Living (2005).

It also didn’t work on Scott DeKraii this past fall either (although actually, after he beat up his stepfather, I don’t know whether he attended the 52-week batterers’ program, before going on to murder his wife — and 7 others .(2011)   But notice — the class was ordered.    The Huffington Post article is one of the few to actually track some history and quote his stepfather, “he’s never been held accountable; he’s always been bailed out of everything.” A restraining order meant, give up firearms — but it was only for a year.  “

When his stepfather, Leroy Hinmon, asked him for rent, Dekraai attacked him in front of his mother and 4-year-old son.

“He was beating him up, slapping him around,” Max Hinmon said. “He worked my brother over pretty good.”

The police were called and Leroy Hinmon got a temporary restraining order in August 2007.

Dekraai, who didn’t dispute the claim that he cut and bruised the older man,

Just imagine if that had been a 3-year restraining order, and some jail time.  Somehow, by Fall 2011, Scott had obtained – and used — plenty of firearms.  …. Also a little “under-reported” in the Seal Beach Shooting (which DeKraii committed), and although — to be clear — this attorney was NOT his attorney in 2011, one former attorney, Donald S. Eisenberg of Long Beach, CA — is definitely AFCC, and a supporter of Warshak, Sanford Braver, and many others who absolutely affirm equal parenting (some discussion below) and filed in 2003 to protest the “LaMusga moveaway.”:

Supreme Court Case No. S107355

Court of Appeal Case No. A096012

Contra Costa County Superior Court Case No. D95-01136

Application for Leave to File Amicus Curiae [i.e., they missed the deadline]

In re the Marriage of SUSAN POSTON NAVARRO (LAMUSGA) Appellant and GARY LAMUSGA,  Respondent

Donald S. Eisenberg (SBN 68859) 6700 E. Pacific Coast Highway Suite 220 Long Beach, CA 90803

Tel: — – – – – Fax: – – – – –

Attorney for Amici Curiae, Richard A. Warshak, Ph.D.; Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D.; Joan B. Kelly, Ph.D.; James H. Bray, Ph.D.; William G. Austin, Ph.D., et al.

It reads in part (in justifying why the court should hear them):

. . . Amici believe that the participation in this brief by so many leading experts from the social and psychological sciences is a reflection of the widely-shared conviction in their respective fields that it is important this Court not be misled by opinions and conclusions that are not shared by most eminent scholars, researchers, and practitioners who have spent long years conducting, evaluating and applying the research

In other words, their most eminent selves, who’ve been around a very long time, deserve a hearing.  Mr. Eisenberg, again, was the attorney, not those seeking to write the brief.

In their proposed amici curiae brief, they present the Court with the latest research available and the consensus thinking of the majority of social scientists on the causes and effects of unhealthy parental alignment with children, the consequences for families of parental relocation, the reasons for caution in considering children’s opinions, and many other issues that are highly relevant to the issues in this case…..

A total of 28 experts, including 18 Researcher/Authors or Practitioner/Authors and 10 Practitioners who apply research in their Family Forensic Practice have asked that their names be included as signers of this brief.

WELL, 28 experts, 18 researcher or practitioner authors (i.e., the wrote & published), and 10 Family Forensic Practice practitioners can’t all be wrong.

What Eisenberg (obviously was going to be quizzed after a former client committed a beauty salon massacre, including of the mother of his son) said:

Published: Oct. 12, 2011 Updated: Oct. 14, 2011 1:59 p.m.
Text: Text: Larger Text: Smaller Text: Reset Next Article »


HUNTINGTON BEACH – Neighbors of a house searched late Wednesday in connection with the deadliest shooting in Orange County history said one thing stood out about the man who lives there: His total devotion to his son.

Police identified Scott Dekraai as their suspect in the midday shooting at a Seal Beach beauty salon that left eight people dead; he was being held on suspicion of murder. Court records show he has been fighting his ex-wife – who colleagues said worked at the salon – for custody of their son since 2007

Dekraai married the woman who is now his ex-wife in Clark County, Nev., in early 2003, records show. He filed for divorce in Los Angeles County in 2007, a month after his tugboat accident, court records show.

His attorney at the time, Don Eisenberg, said Dekraai gave him “no reason to suspect a thing.” Another attorney has since taken the case, and Eisenberg said he hasn’t heard from Dekraai since 2009.

“I know they had a difficult relationship,” he said of Dekraai and his ex-wife. “But that’s nothing that would foreshadow a tragedy life this.”

That’s kind of interesting — because in August 2007 the same man got a restraining order for beating up his stepfather in front of his son.  That also puts another viewpoint on “devoted to his son” who — 4 at the time — witnessed this.  if I may gently propose, it is habitual in some circles — in the family law system, specifically — to underplay overt violence towards other human beings, not to mention threats to kill one’s ex.

Mr. Eisenberg presenting at an AFCC conference in 2008 (at which time, Mr. DeKraii would’ve been his client, no?

The Rosetta Stone of Child Custody:

The Bar, the Bench, and Mental Health Experts Decoding

Each Other’s Philosophy and Practice

Feb 8 – 10, 2008 in Santa Monica, CA

AFCC has consisted of “The Bar, the Bench and Mental Health Experts” from the beginning — and they are still working on “Decoding” each other’s language?

Mr. Eisenberg presented alongside the Supervising Judge of the Los Angeles Family Law Department in this conference.  For geographical reference, basically Long Beach is right next to Los Angeles, and Seal Beach is right nearby also:

Donald S. Eisenberg, Esq., past chair of AFCC-CA, is a certified family law specialist practicing in Long Beach California. He has 30 years experience devoted to “human issues” in divorce such as domestic violence, parent education and custody evaluations and is a frequent speaker on those issues. He extensive experience in international Child Custody Law and has published appellate decisions. He has been retained by mental health agencies to advise counselors and interns on their rights and obligations in problem custody cases.  [[he was also on this conference’s planning committee..]]

the judge involved:

Hon. Robert Schnider has been the Supervising Judge of the Family Law Department of L.A. County Superior Court since 2005. In 2000, he became the only judicial officer assigned to family law ever to receive the L.A. Bar Association Outstanding Jurist Award. He is on the Board of the AFCC California Chapter and is on the Family Court Review editorial board. He was an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School teaching Family Law, has lectured for the Continuing Judicial Studies Program to teach family law to incoming California family law judicial officers and made presentations to many other professional organizations. He has authored and co-authored articles [[supporting? about?  — a word missing here]] presumptions for custody, court-ordered counseling, and legislative issues in family law.


Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D., is on the AFCC Task Force on Model Standards for Parenting Coordinators and Special Masters and on the American Psychological Association Collaborative Working Group on Psychological and Legal Interventions with Parents, Children and Families. He practices in Santa Clara County, California, specializing in forensic psychology. He has done numerous trainings and presentations nationally and internationally to mental health, legal, and judiciary groups. His publications include, “Ethical, Legal and Professional Practice Issues involved in Acting as a Psychologist Parent Coordinator in Child Custody Cases, “ Family Court Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2004; “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination,” co-authored with AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Family Court Review, Vol. 44, No. 1, January, 2006; “Family Systems,” chapter co-authored with Jamie McHale, Handbook of Clinical Psychology, Alan Gurman (Ed.) 2007.

And — at this time when one of his clients was having a “normal” divorce with “nothing to anticipate” such a tragedy — and subject to a restraining order which resulted from his having beat up his stepfather in front of a four year old boy, his son — this is what the workshop was on:

W8 You Call Yourself an Expert: Critical Evaluation of Expert Testimony in Family Law Cases

Judicial Officers and attorneys are frequently presented with testimony from expert witnesses regarding parenting issues that are before the Court. Testimony may purport to summarize the state of psychological research or clinical wisdom, or present information based on therapeutic contact with a parent or child. Such expert testimony may provide important information to the Court, or may be so incomplete or biased that the information and opinions are misleading.** Effective presentation and evaluation of expert testimony presents challenges to judicial officers, attorneys, and mental health professionals.

What guidelines exist for presentation of expert testimony to the Court? Does the expert have a responsibility to present contrary evidence? How can one differentiate between reliable and unreliable expert testimony? How can expert testimony be effectively challenged? Using commonly encountered examples, our interdisciplinary panel will address these and other cutting- edge issues regarding consideration of expert testimony.

Presenters: Donald S. Eisenberg, CFLS; Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D.; Honorable Robert Schnider; Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.  (see elsewhere on my blog)

**I agree.  Of course, I don’t think that these presenters view the terms “so incomplete or biased that the information and opinions are misleading” quite from the same perspective!


California Penal Code:   (since that’s my state):

13823.4.  (a) The Legislature finds the problem of family violence
to be of serious and increasing magnitude. The Legislature also finds
that acts of family violence often result in other crimes and social

[[I'm going to follow up on this section, which seems to be emphasizing 
more and more "centers" and alleging that they prevent something....]]


3823.15.  (a) The Legislature finds the problem of domestic
violence to be of serious and increasing magnitude. The Legislature
also finds that existing domestic violence services are underfunded***
and that some areas of the state are unserved or underserved.

Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature that a goal or purpose
of the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) shall be to
ensure that all victims of domestic violence served by the Cal EMA
Comprehensive Statewide Domestic Violence Program receive
comprehensive, quality services.

[[** i’ll show below that DV services are actually well-funded —

but most of them are diversionary and put into education, training, and “Collective Community Responses”

which have had mixed results. Perhaps that’s why it is a problem of increasing and serious magnitude, when combined

with AFCC’s refusal to face it head on — and this is the group basically running the custody and divorce cases in the US]]

or, for example:

Family Code 3044 at least recognizes an actor in the “domestic violence” definition and doesn’t call it a “parenting dynamic”

  1. For purposes of this section, a person has “perpetrated domestic violence” when he or she is found by the court to have intentionally or recklessly caused or attempted to cause bodily injury, or sexual assault, or to have placed a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent serious bodily injury to that person or to another, or to have engaged in any behavior involving, but not limited to, threatening, striking, harassing, destroying personal property or disturbing the peace of another, for which a court may issue an ex parte order pursuant to Section 6320 to protect the other party seeking custody of the child or to protect the child or the child’s siblings.
(of course it then goes on to talk about batterer’s classes and parenting classes….)





 This section talks about mandated reporting and defines ASSAULTIVE OR ABUSIVE CONDUCT.  (NOTE:  Parental alienation and having “conflict” do not make the list…)

11160. (a) Any health practitioner employed in a health facility, clinic, physician’s office, local or state public health department, or a clinic or other type of facility operated by a local or state public health department who, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, provides medical services for a physical condition to a patient whom he or she knows or reasonably suspects is a person described as follows, shall immediately make a report in accordance with subdivision (b): [all font changes are mine…] (1) Any person suffering from any wound or other physical injury inflicted by his or her own act or inflicted by another where the injury is by means of a firearm. (2) Any person suffering from any wound or other physical injury inflicted upon the person where the injury is the result of assaultive or abusive conduct. ..the behaviors are defined as follows:

(d) For the purposes of this section, "assaultive or abusive conduct" shall include any of the following offenses:
   (1) Murder, in violation of Section 187.
   (2) Manslaughter, in violation of Section 192 or 192.5.
   (3) Mayhem, in violation of Section 203.
   (4) Aggravated mayhem, in violation of Section 205.
   (5) Torture, in violation of Section 206.
   (6) Assault with intent to commit mayhem, rape, sodomy, or oral
copulation, in violation of Section 220.
   (7) Administering controlled substances or anesthetic to aid in commission of a felony, in violation of Section 222.
   (8) Battery, in violation of Section 242.
   (9) Sexual battery, in violation of Section 243.4.
   (10) Incest, in violation of Section 2...
(11) Throwing any vitriol, corrosive acid, or caustic chemical
with intent to injure or disfigure, in violation of Section 244.
   (12) Assault with a stun gun or taser, in violation of Section
   (13) Assault with a deadly weapon, firearm, assault weapon, or
machinegun, or by means likely to produce great bodily injury, in
violation of Section 245.
   (14) Rape, in violation of Section 261.
   (15) Spousal rape, in violation of Section 262.
   (16) Procuring any female to have sex with another man, in
violation of Section 266, 266a, 266b, or 266c.
 (17) Child abuse or endangerment, in violation of Section 273a or 273d. 
(18) Abuse of spouse or cohabitant, in violation of Section 273.5.

Interjection — I’m going to show “Section 273.5, at the righthand margin, which defines abuse of spouse or cohabitant. note the verbs:

(a) Any person who willfully inflicts upon a person who is his or her spouse, former spouse, cohabitant, former cohabitant, or the mother or father of his or her child, corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to six thousand dollars ($6,000) or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Holding oneself out to be the husband or wife of the person with whom one is cohabiting is not necessary to constitute cohabitation as the term is used in this section.

(c) As used in this section, “traumatic condition” means a condition of the body, such as a wound or external or internal injury, whether of a minor or serious nature, caused by a physical force.

(d) For the purpose of this section, a person shall be considered the father or mother of another person’s child if the alleged male parent is presumed the natural father under Sections 7611 and 7612 of the Family Code.

(e) (1) Any person convicted of violating this section for acts occurring within seven years of a previous conviction under subdivision (a), or subdivision (d) of Section 243, or Section 243.4, 244, 244.5, or 245, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, four, or five years, or by both imprisonment and a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(2) Any person convicted of a violation of this section for acts occurring within seven years of a previous conviction under subdivision (e) of Section 243 shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not more than one year, or by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.

(f) If probation is granted to any person convicted under subdivision (a), the court shall impose probation consistent with the provisions of Section 1203.097.

When women, or men, who have been assaulted & injured read this in the law, if they do, they understand clearly that the law is saying;
that type of behavior is criminal and is against the State, and not just a "personal dynamic" and not just a "family matter." Groups
(including religious groups) that wish to keep it under wraps, and all-in-the-family, have a serious logic / reality gap, which results
in serious danger for . . . as it turns out not just victims, but people associated with them. While the custody evaluators may not have
figured this out yet (judging by their dialogues) the public is starting to. Failure to prosecute these crimes leaves others in danger, and 
increases the isolation of those who have already been isolated by the abuse.
That "shall be" is apparently not happening. See "District Attorney Discretion"
District Attorney Power Still Unfettered  (written 11 years ago, still true today, apparently)
A critical area for victims of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse that has been left ignored by legislators this year and in years past is the district attorney’s absolute power to refuse to file charges no matter how solid the evidence. Even if a district attorney refuses to file charges on a whole crime category, there is no legal remedy for victims.  

For example, at this writing, we at Women’s Justice Center (Sonoma County, “wine country, in N. California) have a case of three days of spousal rape, sodomy and beatings which the district attorney has filed only as misdemeanor domestic violence. The detective in the case states there is ample evidence to file multiple felonies.  In another case of a woman beaten to the point of a fractured skull, the D. A. refused to file at all for five months until one day the perpetrator went out and committed another assault with a deadly weapon on another victim. I

© Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center

Instead, the D.A.’s seem to be going around to open expensive new “family justice centers” as I have blogged, including one in Sonoma County, “Sonoma County purchased the 20,000-square-foot building last year for $4 million. Remodeling was expected to cost another $4 million….”  This is precisely what JusticeWomen talked about in “How to Start an INDEPENDENT Advocacy center and why”  Around the country, some of these center are starting to be associated with some egregious violations of due process, both in the original San Diego one (I blogged) and a recent case from Harford County, MD (which I received an appeal on from Phyllis Chesler mailing) turns out also to have been a “Family Justice Center.”  The mother in question had a child put into foster care, where it was killed at 9 months, and she is herself in hiding after being assaulted (per the site) in the jail itself.  Meanwhile, in Ohio, they are upset (justifiably) about a supervised visitation center — turns out to be funded through a “Ohio Families & Children First” & a statewide Children’s Levy — let a little girl be raped – during a supervised visit.  “No Need for a Special Prosecutor in probe of child rape at CSB,” though…  When citizens came to the CSB board meeting to hear about the review of this incident, they were forced to sign in, apparently a violation of the Ohio Open Meetings law was violated:   “Meanwhile, an attorney for the victim’s grandmother says CSB committed a “clear violation of the Open Meetings Act” Tuesday by preventing several people from attending a board meeting. Atty. David Engler, who represents Loretta Banks of Warren, filed a civil complaint Thursday in Trumbull County Common Pleas Court seeking an injunction to prevent the agency from barring citizens from future meetings”
Continuing the list. 
(19) Sodomy, in violation of Section 286.
   (20) Lewd and lascivious acts with a child, in violation of
Section 288.
   (21) Oral copulation, in violation of Section 288a.
   (22) Sexual penetration, in violation of Section 289.
   (23) Elder abuse, in violation of Section 368.
   (24) An attempt to commit any crime specified in paragraphs (1) to (23), inclusive.

I'm sure you can get the general idea from reading the descriptions. Question is -- so why can't the AFCC? And why do they persist
in focusing on other, LESS relevant topics, and insisting (by silence and evasive language) they are somehow MORE relevant?

In a September 2011 joint conference between AFCC & AAML, held in Philadelphia, called
Advanced Issues in Child Custody:

Evaluation, Litigation and Settlement

Join AFCC and AAML for an outstanding program designed for advanced-level family lawyers, mental health professionals, judges and others who work in child custody.

• Learn the latest advanced practice skills and strategies • Earn continuing education credit • Expand your practice through unparalleled networking opportunities • An interdisciplinary faculty of leaders in the field • The latest research on children, custody, separation and divorce

Topics include:

Witness Preparation Direct and Cross Examination

Child Development and Attachment

Child Relocation Disputes

Mental Health Consultation  [end of left column]

[top of right column] Parental Alienation

Psychological Testing

Domestic Abuse

Bias and Opinion Formulation

Ethics: Best Interests or Zealous Advocacy?

(you can check the brochure), the word “alienation” occurs 7 times, “conflict” 6, “domestic abuse” 6 times — but only in one sessions and references to that session, and “domestic violence” a word that is out of favor in these circles, only once – in passing, in the opening paragraph.  Just to check, I saw if there were any words referring to what is often the reason custody conflict goes on for years — and that is issues of sexual abuse of children, or allegations (in AFCC terminology “false allegations”) of it.  the word “molestation” doesn’t occur, or “child abuse” or “sexual abuse.”  the word “sex” occurred once — in the section under “Domestic Abuse” and not particularly in regard to children.  I guess these are hard topics for divorce professionals to have to deal with — so, better let the kids just deal with it on their own.  after reunification therapy….

Sponsored by:

Sponsoring Organizations //Pennsylvania Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers //Hofstra Law School (in NY)

No really — here’s the opening day, 2nd Pre-Conference Institute session of this Philadelphia Conference:

2. Advanced Mental Health Concepts: A Lawyers’ Guide to the DSM-IV-R and the Use and the Misuse of Psychological Evaluations in Litigation

Which sections of the DSM-IV-R are most relevant to family law cases and why? What are the pros and cons of having your client undergo a psychological evaluation? This session will provide a primer to the DSM for attorneys, highlighting those sections most applicable to a client’s parenting and co-parenting. Particular emphasis will be placed on the DSM Axis II (personality disorders) clients, who predominate high conflict custody cases. Procedural guidelines for psychological evaluation will be provided to increase its potential utility in a litigated child custody case.

Kenneth P. Altshuler, Esq., AAML President-Elect, Portland, ME

Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, Palo Alto, CA  (search my site, under Parenting Coordination sections, the name comes up)

Personality disordered clients dominate “high-conflict” custody cases.  Either that, or one parent might just be fighting to protect something, which the professionals choose not to hear, as in the recent case of Scott DeKraii v. Michelle Fournier, Orange County California (home of “Orange County Healthy Marriage Coalition), which had “watch out!” written  ALL over it, including antipsychotic medications, previous assaults on stepfather in front of 4 year old son resulting in a restraining order and “batterers’ intervention” classes, a man for whom more than 50% custody was not enough, a young man who’d begun attempting to have sex at age 12, and a man who had previously come to his ex-wife’s work place and threatened to kill her, in front of witnesses — after which he did.  And the witnesses, this past October.   Dealing with Deafness regarding situations like this might GIVE someone a personality disorder, after too many years of it, just as war veterans have certain symptoms too.

Here’s one more sample, which just goes to demonstrate the concept of using a domestic violence expert as a “heat shield” in certain companies — from the same conference.  As we can see the theme of Alienation is the primary (and first up) topic.  The world is viewed from this high point, for AFCC professionals:

Plenary Session #1—Preparing the Expert Witness

Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Ken H. Lester, Esq., Lester & Hendrix, Columbia, SC 2:30pm-3:00pm Break

3:00pm-4:15pm Concurrent Sessions 1-4

1. Understanding and Responding to Parental Alienation

There is much debate and controversy over parental alienation—how to identify it and how to intervene effectively, both therapeutically and through the courts.

This debate often comes from the “floor” — from people not present at the conferences.  From people who understand the origins of the term, and the application to which Richard Gardner put it, i.e., a circuitous way to characterize a child, male or female, who doesn’t like being raped or molested.  That child is “alienated,” which  means bring on the court-referrals, and reunification camps — at least one of them run by one of the presenters here, Matthew D. Sullivan, as I recall.  An informal rate-the-courts site gives him a solid “F” as an evaluator (NOTE:  I am not in particular favor of this site, and know who’s behind it, but just making the point).  He is in the business — this is the business he is in, and AFCC is a business conference for people who have, by fortune or long-term lobbying, become entrenched in public institutions such as the courts, or for example (in California), the “Administrative Office of the Courts” — and this includes as judges.

The passive term– “there is much debate and controversy over” just goes to show that ALL PR is good PR and good for business. The controversy continues because this group continues to promote, push, and prioritize the term, while others have discredited it as lacking scientific basis, while many now-noncustodial mothers understand it as simply a legal technique to justify a custody switch when no other reason exists.   This has been known for years.  It makes no difference, however, when the conferences continue and the appointees, judges, evaluators, mediators, and other mental health professionals — continue to hold positions of authority over young children and their parents.

Children may resist or reject a parent for many reasons. In this session the presenters will summarize the consequences of alienation and discuss how to differentiate alienation from other types of parent-child contact problems, including justified rejection. Highlighting the essential role of the court, the present- ers will provide an overview of mental health interventions for mild, moderate and severe cases as well as the legal responses and remedies available.

Barbara J. Fidler, Ph.D., Co-author, Challenging Issues in Child Custody Disputes, Toronto, ON, Canada

Catherine H. Petersen, Esq., AAML Parliamentarian, Norman, OK4

Thursday, September 15, 2011

“justified rejection” is about as roundabout a term as one can get for child abuse, or other harmful behaviors.

2. Parenting Coordinateen 9ion

The hybrid mental health/legal role of the parenting coordinator (PC) is becoming increasingly utilized in custody cases where high conflict continues post decree, thus elevating children’s risk of stress and adjustment issues

Or, as the case may be, kidnapping, abuse, and/or murder.  Example:  Here is a man. Christopher D. Curry (and not the only Christopher D. Curry, obviously) that was arrested in Cleveland — recently — for whipping (beating) his 5 year old daughter for failure to know her alphabet well enough.  (Which brings up the question of, why didn’t the people who called 911 intervene faster?).   I have yet to find any mention in any news report (although it’s all over) of where was the mother?  Being curious, I went to the court docket (Summit County, Ohio) and found out that in 2003 she had filed a restraining order against him; someone by the same name and about the same age in the same region (although it’s a common name) did jail time for receiving stolen property, misdemeanor assault and was in a drug rehab program.

So — why was he caring for a five-year old, where was that little girl’s Mommy?  and why didn’t the new reports ask this question even once?

Police say Ohio dad beat girl over alphabet lesson.

Nov 11, 2011  (co. Associated Press 2011, posted at “abclocal.com” under National/World)

AKRON, OH — Police in Ohio have accused a man of beating his 5-year-old daughter because she was having trouble with her alphabet homework.

Akron police say the kindergartner was struggling to recognize the letter D on Tuesday when 39-year-old Christopher D. Curry became angry.

According to police, he picked the girl up by the neck and struck her in the head repeatedly.

The Akron Beacon Journal reports the child was treated at a hospital for bruises and cuts, including a left eye nearly swollen shut.

Curry has been charged with felonious assault, child endangering and domestic violence. He was {{was??}}being held in the Summit County jail with bond set at $100,000.

IS this the same person (b. 1973, this is 2011 — age sounds about 39)?

Here’s the 2003 restraining order:

Filed Date Case Number Party Party Type
07/25/2003 DR-2003-07-2766 CURRY, CHRISTOPHER D

Case ID Name/Date Of Birth Party Type File Date (YYYY/MM/DD) Case Type Court
DoB: 10/4/1973     
DoB: 12/13/1993     
DoB: 10/4/1972     
DoB: 10/4/1973     
DoB: 10/4/1972     
DoB: 10/4/1972     
DoB: 10/4/1972     
DoB: 10/4/1973     
DoB: 10/4/1973     
Date 2/28/1994:
 (apparently did 135 days in county jail)

Another sample of how AFCC //AAML conferences can handle “abuse” or at least refer to it, so no one can say, they just don’t talk about domestic violence, showed up in this conference:

From Sept. 2011 AFCC/AAML conference at Philadelphia, one more workshop:

Although this brings up, “would you know if your client was being (abused)?,” it looks like the only session in the conference that comes close to bringing the topic up:

5. Domestic Abuse in Separation and Divorce: Implications for Legal and Mental Health Professionals

If your client has been coping with domestic abuse or coercive controlling behaviors,** including forced sex,(1) would you even know it? Many abuse victims intentionally mask the violence in their relationship in the hopes of reducing the potential conflict (2) during the divorce process. But unidentified domestic abuse can have significant negative implications for the litigation and evaluation process, so it is imperative that lawyers and evaluators understand these dynamics.(3)  Very recent research has led to the development of new tools for practitioners to use in screening for and assessing the impact of such abuse. (4)Participants attending this interactive workshop will learn to better screen and assess the significance of the different kinds of abuse that occur in intimate relationships (5) and develop effective strategies that will lead to safer and more effective practice.

Loretta Frederick, Esq., Senior Legal and Policy Advisor, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN

John S. Slowiaczek, Esq., AAML Vice President, Omaha, NE

The numbered footnotes are mine – for comment:

(1) forced sex with whom?  In this context, adult is implied — yet historically a hot issue in child custody contexts is abuse of the CHILD during (Unsupervised) parenting time.   I supposed in this conference, a decision was made just not to deal with the topic any more, not this time.   From 1998, a family therapist in Washington discusses “The Myth of False Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Divorce Cases” and lays out how Richard Gardner and “parental alienation” theory figured into this.   Merrilyn McDonald wrote:

It is commonly believed that false allegations of sexual abuse in the context of divorce are epidemic, that most allegations made in the context of divorce are made by vindictive mothers and that these allegations are almost always false. These beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence.1

It is widely believed that at least 50 percent of all allegations of child sexual abuse are false, and that an accused person appearing in a court of law is quite likely to have been falsely accused. Those who defend accused child sexual offenders want us to believe that 50 percent of individuals brought to trial are innocent. These beliefs are not supported by scientific evidence, either.2

. . . . 

A good scientist simply cannot claim that anecdotal case descriptions tell us about the population in general. If I were a forensic psychiatrist or psychologist who had a practice devoted exclusively or almost exclusively to serving those who have been accused of child sexual abuse, and if my criteria for determining that an allegation was false was to accept the declarations of the accused, then I could quite easily arrive at findings that 50 or 75 or even 100 percent of allegations of sexual abuse were false. My findings, however, would never be accepted by good scientists as anything more than a description of the people in my own practice. No good scientist would agree that my findings could tell them anything about all people or about all contested custody cases.

To put it another way, if I were to go to a prison and interview twenty men in maximum security, I might conclude, based on that sample of men, that 50 percent of men are murderers.23

. . .  (this relates to the subject line, and bears re-hearing)…

Many times when a mother believes and defends her children, she is accused of being insane by the offender’s defense team. It seems easier to believe that a mother is insane than that a clean-cut, handsome man would sexually offend his children.

I doubt that even the PENN STATE/ Paterno / Sandusky recent scandal will change this permanently.  Not unless institutional practices are changed.  Just imaging, had these two organizations not been so determined, for so many years, to re-frame domestic violence and child abuse as “HIGH-CONFLICT’ and those trying to remove children from it as “ALIENATORS” — would there have been a culture understanding it’s both OK and important to be aware of these situations and talk about them, or notice symptoms that might indicate such abuse has taken place?

The mother may present to the court as anxious, stressed and upset about the situation, which in some minds seems to support the idea of her insanity. If she has been battered by the accused herself, she may have a number of psychological issues and may, indeed, be in need of therapy. This does not mean that the allegations are false or that any pathology in the mother negates the existence of sexual abuse to the children. If there is pathology in the woman, it is important to have a competent, neutral professional determine first, whether the pathology has been caused by domestic violence, and second, whether the pathology has any relationship to the allegations of abuse.

. . .   The field has attempted to detach and distance itself considerably from Richard Gardner, while sticking to the basic essence of his concepts.  To put the out blatantly again (this was written before Gardner’s untimely death in 2001):

The situation of mothers is made even more difficult by the existence of instruments that claim to be able to determine if a mother is falsely accusing. Richard Gardner created the “Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale,” which he claims can ferret out falsely accusing mothers and children.38This scale is often used against mothers and children. Jon Conte, editor of the respected “Journal of Interpersonal Violence,” had this to say about the Sex Abuse Legitimacy Scale: “Probably the most unscientific piece of garbage I’ve seen in the field in all my life.39It must be noted that Gardner self-published this scale (and most of his other writings as well),40and that this scale has never been subjected to peer review or any kind of scientific scrutiny. There is no basis in published, peer-reviewed research for anything claimed in this scale. Using it, many, if not most, mothers who behaved in a very typical, normal way after hearing a disclosure of sexual abuse would fail to meet the “criteria” for a genuinely accusing mother. Some of the criteria for inclusion in the category of false accusers are initial belief of the child’s disclosure, disclosure during custody or divorce dispute, anxiety about the child being seen alone with a psychiatrist or psychologist, and anger or suspicion toward the accused.41

This author (McDonald) goes on:

I looked to Gardner’s own writings to glean a bit of insight into his ideological position regarding sexual abuse. In his book, True and False Accusations of Sexual Abuse, Gardner, who does a great deal of forensic work for the accused, nationwide, said:

My final position on this matter is this: a pedophile is the name given to a person whom the judge and/or jury decides they want to put away. … It is of interest that of all the ancient peoples it may very well be that the Jews were the only ones who were punitive toward pedophiles. … Early Christian proscriptions against pedophilia appear to have been derived from earlier teachings of the Jews, and our present overreaction to pedophilia represents an exaggeration of Judeo-Christian principles and is a significant factor operative in Western society’s atypicality with regard to such activities.42

 Well, bravo for Jews and CHristians — although nowaday, I don’t know that we have the same brand of either religion (particularly the latter) in operation when it comes to letting little girls hit at least puberty before being groomed for or used for sexual purposes by adults, and little boys being able as well to keep other adults hands off their genital AND anal regions, as well as off other adult male private parts.   This — in blunt terms — is what children dont need more of.  Now let’s review the ONE workshop in a multi-day conference last September 11 with two major organizations who affect WHERE CHILDREN LIVE after, many times, accusations of abuse come up.  This was one 45- minute breakout session of 4 (during the time slot), Friday morning of a Thurs – Sat. conference.  If professionals are dealing with clients with any of the issues, and which “Advanced” skills and knowledge, this was the closest they’d come to it in the Philadelphia conference>

5. Domestic Abuse in Separation and Divorce: Implications for Legal and Mental Health Professionals

If your client has been coping with domestic abuse or coercive controlling behaviors,** including forced sex,(1) would you even know it? Many abuse victims intentionally mask the violence in their relationship in the hopes of reducing the potential conflict (2) during the divorce process. But unidentified domestic abuse can have significant negative implications for the litigation and evaluation process, so it is imperative that lawyers and evaluators understand these dynamics.(3)  Very recent research has led to the development of new tools for practitioners to use in screening for and assessing the impact of such abuse. (4)Participants attending this interactive workshop will learn to better screen and assess the significance of the different kinds of abuse that occur in intimate relationships (5) and develop effective strategies that will lead to safer and more effective practice.

Loretta Frederick, Esq., Senior Legal and Policy Advisor, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN

John S. Slowiaczek, Esq., AAML Vice President, Omaha, NE

(2).  Let’s take statement 2 — why abuse victims “intentionally mask the violence in hopes of reducing the potential conflict.

Rebuttal (mine):  the statement is overbroad and vague — which relationship?  Clients of these people are in the divorce, separation custody processes, as such their “relationship” is as required by having children in common, by court decree, and or by whether or not one of them may be a stalker, etc.   What’s more, this phrasing (Grammar) excuses professional lack of awareness that abuse has been happening on the victim, and attribute it to the victim’s hope of not creating conflict.  Talk about not stepping on people’s toes!

Also, talk about projecting motives:  “in hope of not causing conflict.”  The street reality is, separation from, independence from, demanding any sort of anything from a partner who has formerly battered (see “Battered women’s justice project” so we know Ms. Frederick must be aware this happens) — AUTOMATICALLY causes conflict. Prior to this, in for example, a live-in relationship, the woman — or man — knows what showing independence does:  it causes conflict.  For someone who has been so brave as to start standing up and expect boundaries, that person — that abuse victim — already knows that conflict exists.

On the other hand, over time in the family law system, it doesn’t take “rocket science” to realize that talking about this is counter-productive, and talking about it MAY cause retaliatory judgments, and has been.  So I find that statement odd.  I don’t think a person totally aware of how things work would’ve made it, and wonder that Ms. Fredericks (more on her co-presenter) would even say that.  I am a woman who was battered — a lot — in marriage, and speculating that “hope to avoid conflict” may cause an abuser to “mask” abuse in the relationship absolutely does not represent my truth.  In fact — as I’m demonstrating in these quotes — it is HABITUALLY the AFCC’s (and this represents a good chunk of the court’s) INTENT & HOPE TO MASK ALREADY IDENTIFIED ABUSE, WHICH ITSELF CAUSES AN INNATE CONFLICT WITH THOSE WHO HAVE REPORTED IT AND ARE ATTEMPTING TO GET IT OUT OF THEIR FAMILIES’ LIVES & THEIR KID’S “NORMAL” EXPERIENCE OF LIFE.

Women in this situation are in a fight for survival and sometimes for their children — and that survival is more important than not offending someone else or causing “conflict.”  We are not afraid of conflict, because we have already been living with it for years.  We want peace — naturally — but not at the price of slavery, or of sacrificing children (or contact with them).  We should not have to run additional guantlets in this forum, virtual tightropes, to get that safety and freedom from ongoing abuse — in different forms, post-separation. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice child support, either.

(4)  Very recent research has led to the development of new tools for practitioners to use in screening for and assessing the impact of such abuse.

First of all, Ms. Frederick’s professional background shows that she does indeed know populations that have suffered severe violence and abuse.   And as she is also an attorney, surely she must know the legal definitions of it, as does Mr. Slowiaczek (more below).   I blogged last August about the BWJP / AFCC mutual project to study the “institutional ethnography” of the family court system:


Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations

BWJP and its project partner, Praxis International, are expanding recent multidisciplinary efforts to more effectively protect the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents in the family court system by crafting a more practical framework for identifying, understanding and accounting for the contexts and implications of domestic violence in custody arrangements and parenting plans.

BWJP and Praxis staff  have formed a National Workgroup with representatives from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  In consultation with leading researchers and practitioners, they have begun to examine the institutional processes by which family courts commonly reach and/or facilitate crucial parenting decisions, including the use of auxiliary advisors such as custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates.

That’s all very nice (and professionally rewarding) — however, most parents I’ve had contact with, during the past TWELVE years my case has been IN the family court system — will agree that IN the family court system is one of the most dangerous places any parent can be when issues of violence and abuse were primary in the separation. We are on a different time frame.  ALL children, growing up, are on a different time frame.  And our needs definitely diverge from those whose livelihoods are IN the family court system.

When BWJP joined up with AFCC, I knew that it would no longer speak for such families.  As we can see, the speech has been sanitized, compartmentalized, neutralized and in fact purged of concrete terms in search of some mutually acceptable framework.  BWJP comes under DAIP, which comes under the MPDI (Minnesota Program Development Inc.) group, which — for reference — is paid this much (grants, HHS — not including any OVW/DOJ grants) to talk about frameworks and explicate what is — and is not — dangerous behavior and run (and sell) interventions for it:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

Ms. Fredericks, according to an interview in this book, began as a legal aid lawyer in a small MN town (Winona) and quipped, how could you not become a feminist:

books.google.comBonnie WatkinsNina Rothchild – 1996 – 352 pages – Preview
Loretta Frederick Loretta Frederick is a Legal-Aid attorney in Winona, a small city along the Mississippi River She has been active in family-law issues, and in the founding of the Women’s Resource Center there. Loretta, 40, has an 

(one can search, I can’t copy & paste).  She began in 1978 right out of law school, and quipped:  “you couldn’t, not unless you were really dense, practice poverty law for more than 10 minutes and not become a feminist” I recommend reading it, because I believe (judging by the choice of companions) this person — who really knows what happens behind closed doors — is not quite the feminist any more.  If the plan is to infiltrate an organization such as AFCC and influence it towards understanding that battering and rape still occur, I would have to say, that the purpose might be amiss at this point.  Rather, the presence of this group in a conference provides public rationalization that the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts actually cares about children that end up battered and/or raped, let alone tha adults involved.   

For context, Ms. Fredericks and Ms. Denise Gamache have both published alongside, quite a bit (google the names) in various contexts.  I’d thought Loretta had spearheaded an HHS grant — but for reference, historically, here are HHS Family Violence Prevention Grants with Ms. Gamache as principle investigator.  Notice the dates, titles, and amounts:




Fiscal Year City Recovery Act Indicator Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
1995 DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 03 93671 OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0



(For meaning of CFDAs 936571 and 93592, look it up at TAGGS.hhs.gov)

How many resource centers and how much technical assistance does it take for a custody evaluator, attorney, mediator, or judge to recognize someone who has been abused in a court proceeding?

Are we there yet?   Have we forgotten that some abusers ARE judges and attorneys?   Or the Alanna Krause case?  Her father was a prominent civil rights attorney, and here’s part of her story.

From SF Weekly, 2002:

n many ways, Alanna’s academic and social success is unsurprising. She grew up in a well-to-do family in Marin County. Her mother, Lauren Simone-Smith, is an artist with multiple college degrees. Her father, Marshall Krause, a prominent civil liberties attorney before his third retirement in 2000, worked for the ACLU in the ’60s and has argued successfully before the U.S. Supreme Court six times.

Despite her pedigree, Alanna’s life before college was nothing short of hellish, fraught with physical violence, institutionalization, and running away — much of which could have been avoided. As a 10-year-old in 1993, Alanna had gotten tangled up in the crony-driven Marin family courts during a bitter child custody battle between her parents. Throughout the custody case, she begged to live with her mother, because, she claimed, her father was physically abusive and often left her at home alone.

But in the end, the system granted custody of Alanna to her dad, despite some troubling circumstances. According to a report submitted to the Los Angeles Juvenile Courts, Alanna’s therapist had had a “seemingly intimate” relationship with her father (which he denies), and both the court-appointed evaluator and her court-appointed attorney relied on questionable science in making their recommendations. Once he had custody, Marshall Krause checked Alanna into a locked residential treatment facility in Utah for five months, though she had no criminal history or evidence of mental health problems. When she returned to her father’s care at age 13, Alanna decided that she couldn’t live with what she attests were constant fights and the threat of physical confrontation, so she ran away to Los Angeles. A juvenile court there finally placed Alanna with her mother in Ojai, where she lived until she left for college last year.

Alanna believes her $135 million lawsuit will send the
message that children need a voice in family courts.

Actually — it was a very smart thing to run to another jurisdiction.  Had her case played out in L.A. with the same issues, she’d probably still have stayed with her Dad.  Another prominent case in reported (also in the SFWeekly) in 2001 involved a California/Texas custody fight, over the issue of child abuse (not Alanna’s kind, the other kind):

Law and Borders

Prosecutors, judges, governors, a sex offender, and a woman with a penchant for poor judgement entangle California and Texas in an epic child custody war with two sure losers — aged 7 and 9.

By Lisa Davis (published: November 14, 2001 — 10 years & 1 day ago EXACTLY — in SFWeekly)

Alameda County’s Santa Rita Jail is among the largest county jails in the United States; it holds thousands of women, including, since her extradition in September, Debra Schmidt, mother, grandmother, minor media star, accused kidnapper, former fugitive, and subject of a war  between Texas and California.

During the last several years, Schmidt has become entangled with a host of public and private characters — including prosecutors, judges, and even a couple of governors (one of whom went on to become president) — in an epic child custody war over the meaning of the most basic aspects of family, law, and family law. At the heart of the matter is Schmidt’s belief that her two youngest daughters are not safe with their father, a convicted sex offender to whom the California courts have, sometimes in apparent violation of the law, granted a variety of supervised and unsupervised visitation and custody arrangements. Her concerns seem eminently reasonable; public records show the father has exhibited a variety of anti-social behaviors, including child molestation and alleged spousal abuse.

Through a series of strategically ridiculous moves, however, Schmidt has managed to turn the legal tables upon herself, and to at least temporarily invalidate the agreements that are the foundation of interstate law and order. After fleeing to Texas with her children, Schmidt was able to gain the backing of authorities there — but in doing so, she sparked the ire of California family courts and a prosecutor who has filed child abduction charges against her.

Way to blame the mother, in that paragraph.  What options did the legal system leave her?

Also, re:  “the agreements that are the foundation of interstate law and order,” that law and order has been made a joke of more than once in this system, including when mothers want to try & get their abducted kids back.

I’ll let Cindy Ross tell how the Beltway Sniper’s (John Muhammad) attorney described him (cf. “Eisenberg,” above) a “normal, thoughtful, reasonable guy” frustrated by the court system. Earlier, he had abducted his children out of the country & changed their names.  When the mother caught up, she fled across country, and hid in Maryland.

Another parental kidnapping scenario from same general timeframe:

Despite concerns regarding John Muhammad’s potential for violence and his violation of court orders, attorney John S. Mills of Tacoma, tried to help him find the children and regain custody after Mildred was forced to go “underground”. According to the Washington Post (see previous linked article), Mr. Mills said of Mr. Muhammad:  “He was angry at how he was treated over his kids…He was never able to locate her. That went on for two or three months. Then he vanished” . . . “For three weeks in October, the “Beltway Sniper” terrorized the Metropolitan Washington, DC area. Ten people were shot to death and three seriously wounded while they were doing routine activities like shopping, mowing grass, pumping gas, or going to school. The “Sniper” left cryptic and chilling messages referring to himself as “God” and threatening that children were not safe “anywhere, at any time.

After 22 days, following leads that took them from Maryland to Alabama and New Jersey to Tacoma, Washington, authorities arrested two suspects. John Allen Muhammad, 41, and John Lee Malvo, 17 were found at a rest stop sleeping in their car. Rifles confiscated from Muhammad’s vehicle included an XM-15 and ballistic tests linked the rifle to the .223 caliber bullets used to shoot most of the victims.

Scared Silent

Excerpt from this book tells of the moment when (in DC area) she had to face that her ex was the Beltway Sniper.  The other people killed were a smokescreen, so when she was killed it’d be blamed on “the sniper” — yet he got caught.   She even had trouble reconciling this, but remembered his statements:   “Now I was recalling every frightening comment John had ever made to me. He once said, “When a man hits a woman, it means that he has lost all respect for her. It would be easy for him to kill her after that.”  But I did not foresee, not even in my wildest nightmare, that John would ever kill people who had nothing to do with me or our troubled marriage.”  ….”

More on this couple–he had military training, Nation of Islam, returns from Saudi Arabia war with PTSD, took the children — on a visitation.  Before they had a written custody plan, “nothing police could do to help.”

And yet to his attorney, he was just a guy frustrated over divorce.  He was also a convert to Islam, militarily trained, PTSD-exhibiting, prior death threats to wife, regular sort of man the family courts show bias against, and no real threat to her, or anyone else.  10/25/2002 extended Washington Post article shows more background, including 2 court martials, one for striking an officer.

ERGO — I say — there is no explication needed for battering, and no training interventions.  There are not 50 ways a man can repeatedly assault his wife, and some of them be simply “relationship violence” and not domestic violence, just “high conflict.”

All this was addressing the comment, “Through a series of strategically ridiculous moves, however, Schmidt has managed to turn the legal tables upon herself, and to at least temporarily invalidate the agreements that are the foundation of interstate law and order.”  I know the writer meant no harm, and probably was unaware of how often mothers in the courts, where violence was a factor, are indeed caught between a rock and a hard place.  Then again — what excuse is there for the lawyers being so unaware?

Back to the California/Texas case.

The cross-jurisdiction custody battle became so heated that one-time Texas Gov. George W. Bush and his successor, Rick Perry, refused to extradite Schmidt to stand trial in California — a transfer that is ordinarily a matter of routine legal courtesy. Eventually, a federal judge forced Texas to hand Schmidt over, and now a mother who claims her only interest is to protect her children from a sex offender waits to stand trial in Alameda County next week on a felony child abduction charge.

The fate of her children remains unclear.

A Texas court has ordered that the children not leave the Lone Star State, where they currently live. A California court is demanding the children return to the state of California. Neither state seems willing to budge, and no one seems to know the way out of a legal stalemate that better serves the needs of large legal egos than the interests of two girls, aged 7 and 9.

Even in jail and half a country away from her children, Schmidt says that she would do it all over again. “The California courts put me in the position of having to protect my children,” she says, utterly sure in her naive belief that because she is in the moral right, the legal system will eventually be on her side, too.

You can say that again, about the egos ….  (the story goes on to indicate she was raped by the husband in front of a daughter, threats to take the children out of the country, and so forth.  The court continues ordering the couple to mediation….)

In any event, the incident marked the last time Schmidt allowed Saavedra to visit their children. Between March and August 1997, the couple bounced back and forth between courts and court-ordered mediation, arguing about the custody and visitation of their children. Repeatedly, the court ordered Schmidt to allow her ex-husband to visit their children, and, repeatedly, Schmidt defied the order. At one point, the children were to meet with their father at the Walter Britten Center in Stockton, a county-operated center designed expressly for such court-ordered visits. Schmidt refused to bring her children to the center, saying that it was not supervised well enough, particularly because it included an outdoor playground that was not supervised at all.

In fact, according to Vicky Price, a counselor at the center, Walter Britten was not set up to handle visitation by sex offenders — federal guidelines require that they be seen and heard by a supervisor at all times — until at least 1999, two years after the court ordered Schmidt to take her children there.**

LGH note:  Looks like Walter Britten is one of the Access/Visitation grant recipients, in the Supervised Visitation Network; purpose:  “For Enhancing Opportunity and Responsibility for Nonresidential Parents.”  This is part of welfare reform and fatherhood promotion; Saavedra may was a sex offender, but also a Dad, and so this case very possibly had some money changing hands on it.  However clearly the mother said, “No!”

“Manuel called me the day before the second visit was supposed to happen and said, “Say goodbye to your girls,'” Schmidt says. “It scared me. I believed him [when he said he would abscond with the children], and I still do.”

This woman and Alanna Krause — and the fathers — are different generations and couldn’t be more different, but the court in both cases refused to protect children from abuse.

Here’s what AFCC was discussing in 2002, (2001 conference had to be postponed some because of 9/11 (apparently that size of disaster, they couldn’t ignore):

With AFCC staff and many members en route to New York for the 2001 Regional Conference, terrorists struck the World Trade Center on September 11.  The conference was cancelled, but the AFCC spirit was not to be daunted by these events.  With the support of AFCC New York members and Hofstra Law School, the conference was held five months later, and AFCC members worldwide contributed money and support to help the organization weather this challenge.

But in Baltimore, plans had been already laid to make sure fault was never assigned in custody cases; rather, the courts were to become “CONFLICT MANAGERS (as referenced at a Hofstra School, Selected Conference presentations by A. Schepard (AFCC):

The Transformation of the Child Custody Court: From Fault finder to Conflict Manager to Differential Diagnosis,

Second Annual Symposium on Family Law

of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Family Division, Baltimore, Maryland (November 14, 2001)

OR (2000)

Keynote Speaker on Children of High Conflict Divorce,

Wingspread Conference Sponsored by the Johnson Foundation

and the American Bar Association Family Law Section (September 2000)

(3) … unidentified domestic abuse can have significant negative implications for the litigation and evaluation process, so it is imperative that lawyers and evaluators understand these dynamics.

It is not “imperative” that lawyers and evaluators understand these dynamics to make it better for litigation and evaluation, but most of all so that one of their clients doesn’t get knocked off – or bankrupted and put homeless, in the litigation and evaluation process.   Their concern ought to be a LITTLE closer to their clients’ concern.  Which brings up another point:

A little reminder:  Who is an “officer of the court.”

**coercive controlling behaviors ARE a form of abuse, but there is always someone to shave off more situations to whittle down the definition of what is “Real” abuse a little more.  FYI, abuse happens on a continuum, and may start out with a bang, or it may be a constant paring down of options, til no options remain.  For example, it may start out economic, or in any other form — but if people cannot be together in mutually voluntary way — then coercion won’t make it better.

Now — I am going to address this workshop, some.  I didn’t know Mr. Slowiaczek, so looked him up.  Here is a Transcript of testimony — he was testifying (name shows up 3 times) apparently in support of — and Loretta Fredericks (not present, but mentioned by someone testifying against) what appears to be a bill stating joint custody as presumptive for the state of Nebraska:

Transcript Prepared By the Clerk of the Legislature Transcriber’s Office

Judiciary Committee March 25, 2009

[LB4 LB226 LB423 LB589 LB660]

The Committee on Judiciary met at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 25, 2009, in Room 1113 of the State Capitol, Lincoln, Nebraska, for the purpose of conducting a public hearing on LB660, LB589, LB423, LB4, and LB226. Senators present: Brad Ashford, Chairperson; Steve Lathrop, Vice Chairperson; Mark Christensen; Colby Coash; Brenda Council; Scott Lautenbaugh; Amanda McGill; and Kent Rogert. Senators absent: None. []

This attorney is prestigious  — a National Vice President  — within AAML, and sat on the 50th Anniversary National Committee (AAML)  on:

Bounds of Advocacy Revision – Special Committee
Elizabeth Lindsey, Vice Chair
John Slowiaczek, Chair

(whatever that was about). He is now concentrating on (family law / domestic relations) and per his site, Mr. Slowiaczek is an experienced trial lawyer with a broad background. Mr. Slowiaczek now concentrates his practice in the field of domestic relations and is recognized as one of the leading domestic relations lawyers in this region. He frequently lectures on various domestic law issues. He serves on the Executive Committee and is a Fellow in the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers is a fellow of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Mr. Slowiaczek is also a Diplomate of the American College of Family Law Trial Lawyers. He is listed in The Best Lawyers in America and is rated “AV” in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory.and is named in the Great Plains Superlawyers list. :

SO here is part of his testimony, in 2009, in front of a whole lot of Senators, i.e., The Nebraska Legislature, 3/25/2009, on one of these bills:

He is opposed to the bill presumption of equal / shared custody . . on the other hand, he seems to think that mediation was working just fine.  Note this comment:

SENATOR COUNCIL: And one of the proponents alluded to the issue of child support. [LB589 LB423]


SENATOR COUNCIL: And in your experience, how often do these custody disputes boil down to the child support obligation? [LB589 LB423] 

JOHN SLOWIACZEK: I think a fair number of people want shared custody because they want to pay lower child support, but they don’t want to pay corresponding expenses associated with shared custody. I mean, the fundamental concept of shared custody is you’re going to share time and you’re going to share expenses, but they don’t do that. Too often one person will say, I’m paying child support, but I’m not going to pay any of the other expenses. And I think it’s fair to say that many people historically want shared custody because they don’t want to pay as much support. [LB589 LB423]

and this observation:

SENATOR ASHFORD: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Opponents of either bill or both. [LB589 LB423]

AMIE MARTINEZ: Good afternoon. My name is Amie Martinez. I am an attorney in Lincoln. Martinez is M-a-r-t-i-n-e-z. About 90 percent of the work that I do is in the area of domestic relations, and I appear before you today as the chair of the house of delegates for the Nebraska State Bar Association. The Nebraska State Bar Association is opposed to both LB423 and LB589. We have a number of concerns specifically with regard to the presumption of joint custody. To be clear, we’re not opposed to the idea of joint custody or to orders that include joint custody, but to the presumption imposing joint custody in all situations. First of all, not all families have equal parenting time roles up until the time that they are divorced. So this would be a change many times in circumstances. The American Bar Association favors a case-by-case to determination without rigid presumptions for or against joint custody. The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges instruct judges not to presume that joint custody is in the best interest of children. In January of 2009, just a few months ago, Minnesota issued a joint physical custody presumption study group report.

In Minnesota, the legislature directed the state court administrators to consider a potential impact of an adoption of a statute similar to this, to these that are being proposed with regard to a presumption for joint physical custody. With a group of lawyers, laypeople, psychologists, various groups of folks they came up with six recommendations. And the primary recommendation was that there should be no presumption for or against joint custody with the exception that in cases involving domestic violence, there should be a presumption against. Several states have in the past created presumptions of joint custody only to later change their statutes to eliminate that presumption and to allow joint custody only when parents agree to the same. One such state is California who reported that more than…according to the judges, more than two-thirds of them found that the imposition of joint custody under the operation of the presumption led to mixed or bad results. Several states have encouraged joint custody but do not impose the presumption. One of those states is Iowa. I heard one of the remarks included a quote out of Iowa. And the Supreme Court actually in 2007 interpreted the legislation to not impose that presumption. Nebraska previously had a presumption that mothers should receive custody, and we eliminated that presumption. In sum, the presumptions take the place of individualized attention to determine the best result for the child. And our concern is with regard to that presumption. [LB589 LB423]

SENATOR ASHFORD: Thank you, Amie. It’s good to see you again. Next opponent. [LB589 LB423]

JOHN SLOWIACZEK: Good afternoon, Senator Ashford, Senators. My name is John Slowiaczek, it’s S-l-o-w-i-a-c-z-e-k. I’m an attorney. I’ve been practicing law in Omaha24for 35 years. My practice is devoted entirely to domestic work and it has had…I’ve done nothing but divorce law for all practical purposes for the last 25 years. I am very much opposed to the legislation. There should be no presumption one way or the other. The law as it presently exists works and it works fine. The presumption in favor of joint custody whether it’s legal or physical would be chaos in the legal system. And as far as I’m concerned, it would do nothing but exacerbate divorces. It would make it much more expensive, and people would be fighting when they otherwise wouldn’t fight. Right now we have a mediation program that is statewide that has been passed as a legislation last year. And that is working and I think it’s working well . . .

When you look at children and you look at homes, generally speaking most parents have similar goals for their kids. But within most homes people divide their responsibilities and they divide the determination as to who’s going to be performing certain roles. And in my experience, it’s a very unusual family that has equal sharing of responsibility for children. To make a presumption that you’re going to make equal responsibility is ludicrous. One thing I ask of you is ask yourself, do you want to spend one week in a bed in one home and one week in a bed in another home and go back and forth. People who want joint custody, whether…and they want to make a presumption, as far as I’m concerned are more concerned about their own best interests than the best interests of the children.

Very interesting …  now imagine if the reason for separation literally had something to do with domestic violence or child abuse — how that might work in application.  I don’t think the parent would sleep — at all — while the child was in the other home.

JOHN SLOWIACZEK: Well, last year we…there’s new legislation that was passed and there is mediation now mandated in the state for parenting with regard to all issues that involve custody of children. So within the context of the divorce process, everybody goes to mediation sessions in an effort to resolve parenting issues. [LB589 LB423]

SENATOR COASH: With the limited time we’ve had that in place, what’s your opinion on how well that’s working for the children? [LB589 LB423]25

JOHN SLOWIACZEK: Well, I’m a product of Douglas County, so we’ve had it in place for probably I want to say ten years and I may be a little bit off on that. It has cut down custody fights and it’s working fine. And I will admit, I went into the mediation process kicking and screaming saying it shouldn’t work, and it… [LB589 LB423]

So he was a divorcing father and mediation worked for him.

SENATOR ASHFORD: I remember that (laughter). That goes back to 1991, John, and that’s a dim, dim memory for both of us. [LB589 LB423]

JOHN SLOWIACZEK: It works and it’s working fine. I think it’s really working fine

AND — here’s the reference to Loretta Frederick, in this testimony:

ROBERT SANFORD: (Exhibit 13) Senator Ashford and committee members, my name is Robert Sanford, S-a-n-f-o-r-d, and I’m the legal director for the Nebraska Domestic Violence Sexual Assault Coalition. The coalition is a membership organization made up of 22 local organizations providing services to victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking across the state of Nebraska. I am here today to express the coalition’s opposition to both LB423 and LB589 because presumptions for joint custody can increase the risk of harm to children and victims of domestic violence. Joint custody is often seen as an ideal for both parents and children, and those who are best situated for it are going to agree to it regardless of whether the presumption exists or not. Our concern for the safety of the parent and child when there is conflict and the potential for violence as presumptions for joint custody often compromise a victim’s safety.

A presumption of joint custody requires more interaction between parents to negotiate the day-to-day life of a child, increasing the likelihood children will be exposed to high and moderate levels of conflict. Loretta Frederick of the Battered Women’s Justice Project also states that both the logistics of the child’s schedules and needs must be workable in order for joint custody to work. Why would Nebraska pass a law adopting a presumption for joint custody when states such as California, the first state to pass a presumption of joint custody, have moved away from it? While these two bills have language regarding the best interests…may I finish my sentences? [LB589 LB423]


ROBERT SANFORD: …regarding best interest of the child, best interest is clearly to be ignored if the parents are both fit. We stand in opposition to both of these bills. [LB589 LB423]

And one proponent brought up “parental alienation” — who was a father, who’d been through several divorces he said:

RUFINO VILLARREAL: Good afternoon. My name is Rufino Villarreal. It’s spelled R-u-f-i-n-o V-i-l-l-a-r-r-e-a-l. I’m a proponent, obviously, and I’m just a citizen. I’ve been involved in a few groups for equal parenting, but I’m commenting as just a citizen. {{sure…. thinking independently}}   I think we can all agree that most people believe and most psychologists believe that children need both parents. They need the role model of the father and the caring of the mother. And I think this bill is moving us into that direction. I think it’s really important. I’ve had a couple of divorces and so I’ve kind of been through the mill on this. And I think what our society is seeing as a whole is because the father is usually excluded from the family that it’s a negative impact on the child, which in turn affects our communities with more, you know, violence, drug abuse, and so forth when they don’t have the father figure or at least equal parenting for the children. {{real independent thinking:  fatherlessness is a social scourge}} Now, I was in the Fathers for a Lifetime group and there’s a lot of fathers out there that really want to get involved . . .

here was I guess it’s kind of like a power thing, but it’s not really a power thing. It’s just the kids need both parents. You know, I guess I learned about parental alienation syndrome the hard way with my divorce, my last one. And as far as the power goes, my wife has changed my son’s name, Rufino Junior, to Tony (phonetic) in her school. And I told the school, you know, his name is Rufino. They go, no it’s Tony (phonetic). And I go, why? They said because your wife has custody. You know, I don’t think that’s right. I think all we just need is some equality, you know, nothing more. And that’s about it. [LB589 LB423]

He learned the word “parental alienation” from somewhere.  Changing the son’s name — that’s tough, sure…  But now that the legislature is not listening, and AFCC is conferring, parental alienation talk is the theme…

Clearly, the language AND grammar of “high-conflict” and “alienation” is alienated from the world we live in — from reality

If AFCC wishes to sincerely help protect little children from assaults — as well as “alienation” — they had better start using real-world language, and let go of the made-up jargon, the purpose of which is to transform others’ reality in a way to keep justifying their existence in this world, and silence on situations like the one above.  It should be understand that the bulk of the AFCC conferences are hoping to pull in custody evaulators, parent coordinators, psychological testing, and a lot of other work that many individuals couldn’t even begin to afford the first time around.  For those who do go that right — they will be bled dry financially (one side, or both) which of course stacks the odds to or from one parent, and definitely compromises the well-being of the child, sometimes removing a parent entirely from his/her life by virtue of one parent can no longer afford to PAY to see his or her child (if supervised visitation is assigned).

From the “High Conflict Institute”


NO — really? ??  You’re kiddin’ me….

Veteran’s Day Youtube

U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Dannielle Ritacco stands among headstones during the 62nd Annual Veterans Day Memorial Celebration at the Veterans Memorial Cemetery at Evergreen-Washelli in Seattle on Friday, November 11, 2011. Photo: Associated Press, Joshua Trujillo / seattlepi.com

These soldiers have rest.  But while they were alive, they had conflict — it’s part of life.  There is one way to get rid of it — kill off life, or figure out common values within a group, or pick a world ruler.  Now, I”m not in favor of the first and last options, so til those become mandatory, I’m more in favor of negotiating as many common values within any group (or relationship) I’m in; and if no reasonable — or NONlethal/destructive — resolution is possible, then I choose to detach from that relationship.

And I did this as a parent, being able to negotiate a very difficult separation (involving a DV restraining order) — until I learned that certain people had an innate concept with my right to detach (in order to live) and a more serious conflict with the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights.  These were to be suspended for more and more situations — the primary excuse for suspending them being, if one was a member of a “family” (i.e., participated in normal human behavior called reproduction).

ANYHOW — Back at the Ranch, I learned:

No longer are we actually calling murderous and violent relationships “high-conflict.”  We are to call them “Potentially high-conflict” and get judges to immunize families against Potential conflict through court-ordered participation in training by this licensed counselor.  I guess he’ll have to share air time with Parent Coordinators…..

While Penn State is reeling and reconsidering ‘what happened”  AFCC professionals have not skipped a beat in developing new ways to market the same old hogwash, that everyone actually wants their skills, and that the public should be supporting their marketing plan through the family law courts.

Oh yes — and that child abuse as in child porn, molestation and trafficking does not REALLY exist, hence the only child abuse really worth talking about is alienation, meaning one parent may not have access to another child.  In results, they end up frequently making sure that parent is the mother — not the father.  And when it doesn’t go that way, somehow, no matter how many fathers feel entitled to run off with their children and do a murder/suicide event — it doesn’t phase AFCC practices a bit.   Not hardly.  They are on a course, and none dare intervene.

The real problem with AFCC members, overall (this is not to say there aren’t nice people in there or decent ones.  Not in the leadership of course — there’s no excuse for subscribing to the group’s tax evasion practices (significant of the beginnings) — or even premises, which include that the language of criminal law should be dismantled in favor of better language of their choosing. But to continue membership and participation is to engage in denial about the purposes and practices of the group.

Sometimes  I think that the trouble is, some people really LOVED elementary school — and excelled at it.  If there is a teacher at the head of the room dominating the activities, then all is well with the world.  The thing is, to get in with whoever’s in charge, and not attract negative attention.  Then someday, you, too — can play teacher, to the World.  Because the world without a headmaster, a principal, a schoolmarm that really has it under control — can be a very, very scary place.  One might have to stand on one’s own too feet.  One might have to come up with original thoughts and justify them without friends nearby.   And those thoughts might not have even a leg to stand on, exposed to clear light.

That’s at least one theory I have of why this group still is around, after all that has been exposed about it starting around mid-1990s.  The other reason is that it’s figured out how to control things, is it only takes so many affiliates in high places to start reaching critical mass.  Plus, let’s not forget, when it comes to parenting classes, supervised visitation, court-ordered counseling, and mediation — a lot of the bills are paid by the public already, whether through federal grants, or local county courthouse payrolls.

(when reading the literature and reflecting on the practices of AFCC groups — including making up new professional niches, starting national organizations to promote them, and then citing these all over their personal websites as if it evidenced something much more than group memberships, or collections of associated group memberships (AFCC, CRC, APA, AAML, etc.)

So, here we have the theory of “HIGH CONFLICT PEOPLE” and of course, along with this is needed a “HIGH CONFLICT INSTITUTE”

High Conflict People aren’t just difficult people,

they’re the MOST difficult people.

They pick a Target of Blame and assault that person verbally, physically, financially, etc.* * * They promote high conflict divorces, lawsuits, complaints against co-workers, neighbors, friends and family. They sue professionals, gather negative advocates, cost employers lots of time and money. They convince everyone that it’s all your fault!   If you’re dealing with a situation like this then you’ve come to the right place to get information, resources and tools to help you.

**”THEY?”  As if the court system itself were not incentivized to cater to this, or inciting it when sometimes even the parent didn’t care about the issues!  Talk about the “Us/Them” divide….

Now (from the same page) about the “WE” — as opposed to the big, bad enemy, ‘They” — the “high-conflict people.”

  • We provide speakers and trainers
  • We provide consultations to organizations and individuals on an hourly basis.
  • We developed this program to help potentially high-conflict families stay out of court, while learning and practicing conflict reducing skills, teaching these skills to their children, and making decisions. It is designed to save courts time and parents money and offers a significant shift in attitude toward high-conflict cases.

First of all, doesn’t sound like anything new at all.  Second — I thought it was about high-conflict people – not high-conflict cases.

SOMETIMES though, it’s just off the deep end….  I believe these are self-explanatory irrational.

Goals of New Ways for Families™

  1. To immunize families against becoming high-conflict families during the separation and the divorce process.
  2. To help parents teach their children resilience in this time of huge and rapid change in the foundation of their family life
  3. To strengthen both parent’s abilities to make parenting decisions, while relying less on experts and the courts** to make their decisions for them.
  4. To assist professionals and the courts in assessing both parent’s potential to learn new, positive ways of problem-solving and organizing their family after a separation or divorce.
  5. To give parents a chance to change poor parenting behaviors (including abuse and alienation) before long-term decisions are made. This method emphasizes learning new skills for positive future behavior.
**Pay no attention to the fact that we assume ourselves to be the experts and wish the courts to recognize that status, and the privileges attached.
**Pay also no attention to the ASSUMPTION that neither parent is competent to make a “parenting” decision.

How It Works

Step 1:   Getting Started

Parents can agree to use New Ways, or a judge can order it while also making temporary parenting orders, support orders, and restraining orders.** First, each parent selects his or her own Individual Parent Counselor from a list of counselors trained in the New Ways method. Then, each parent prepares a Behavioral Declaration and a Reply Behavioral Declaration, which are the only declarations provided to the counselors, along with any related parenting orders, two business days before the counseling begins.

**That’s the wet dream.  A world in which this group — too — can avoid the competitive marketplace entirely and simply have a judge ORDER participation.  No more actually having to produce a product someone needs, wants, and would voluntarily buy with what’s left of their money — after all, in America, chances are their mommies and/or daddies already ran the family court gauntlet.

In short it’s NEW WAY, or the HIGHWAY.    Notice the “opt-out” option isn’t mentioned.  The concept of taking New Ways For Families while throwing an abuser out of one’s immediate reach, and dealing with the extreme danger this can mean to self, children, bystanders and/or him(her) is typical.  After all, is it a New Ways Counselor going to be in the crossfire?

Here are the speaker bios, predictable background and affiliations:

Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq.
Bill Eddy is a lawyer, therapist, mediator and the President of High Conflict Institute. He developed the “High Conflict Personality” theory (HCP Theory) and has become an international expert on managing disputes involving high conflict personalities and personality disorders. He provides training on this subject to lawyers, judges, mediators, managers, human resource professionals, businesspersons, healthcare administrators, college administrators, homeowners’ association managers, ombudspersons, law enforcement, therapists and others. He has been a speaker and trainer in over 25 states, several provinces in Canada, Australia, France and Sweden.

He developed a theory (using THE buzz-word of the AFCC, it’s all over their material, it dribbles out every time a member opens his or her mouth, or is faced with a seriously distressing situation, like anything involving a crime, especially if towards a child) and set up an “Institute” for it.   While the word “Institute” used to — I gather — mean something significant, it has been so cheapened as to mean almost anything some people put together – in whatever meeting place (including a website, or a hotel conference room, or a series of them).  It’s a nother robe put on the emperor  to make him look larger, significant and more impressive.

As an attorney, Bill is a Certified Family Law Specialist in California and the Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego. Prior to becoming an attorney in 1992, he was a Licensed Clinical Social worker with twelve years’ experience providing therapy to children, adults, couples and families in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics.

He is a therapist, his professional work life prior to becoming an attorney was in psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics.  I can see why it’s important in such situations there not be too much conflict, particularly considering the pharmaceuticals that may be coursing through the clients’ veins.

The literature says the center started in 1983.  The State of California says it started in 1990, hardy suprising given the field:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
NATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER 079054 Charity Current SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity
NATIONAL CONFLICT RESOLUTION CORPORATION 099851 Charity Delinquent SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity

(sorry about the paste function and extra space there…).  EIN of the top group is 330433314.  Of the bottom, EIN#  330670516 (same address)

The top one has good income:  Its founding document show it incorporated in 1990 as “San Diego Mediation Center” and in 2004 changed its name to above, National Conflict Resolution Center” with a HOST of people on the board (including at least one judge), and partially supported by:Partial Funding County of San Diego, City of San Diego

Sponsored by San Diego County Bar Association

Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-09
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-10
Total Assets: $832,868.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $2,510,272.00
RRF Received: 09-MAY-11

The lower one (“National Conflict Resolution Corporation”) shows same incorporator (Jeffrey L. Harris), date-stamped 1995 and (unlike the other one, which simply incorporates as a charitable organization) ”

The specific purpose of this corporation is to provide dispute resolution services

and educational training in communications and dispute resolution skills.

It showed assets of $14,829.83 and income (receipts) of “0” on the 2001-02 state filing, same for the previous year.  So I presume that this organization is not just “delinquent” but that it doesn’t exist — or isn’t producing any receipts in the above line of work:

 The top one, however in (for example) 2008 — had $741K grants and $2,254K (i.e $2.254 million) program service revenue (up about $700K from the previous year).  I recommend reading a 990 or so (for example, the tax-exempt public benefit service of this was nicely profitable — about $550K was actually earned providing mediation and also in PR:  “provide ongoing information and education to the justice system officials, members of the legal community, and policy makers as to the benefits of ADR.  Developing new applications for transferability of ADR to other regions.)  THERE ARE JUST UNDER 2 DOZEN MEMBERS (UNPAID) AND DIRECTOR STEVEN P. DINKIN PULLED IN $133K, OTHER DIRECTORS (all female, I think) between $62K – $84K in service of the public here….)

Training fees + ($40K) “Credentialing” brought in about $2 million, that’s not bad.  I can see why others like the model…  Part X lists some grants receivable, including $10K from the Superior Court, $5K from a law firm, Procopio, Hargreaves & Savitch $5K; County of San Diego DCHD ($3K), and miscellaneous others.    

DOES THIS (San Diego, California PO Box address) Institute exist as a corporation?  Because these groups — with california corporations with the words “Conflict Institute” in them — do, or (for some) did:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

Note the corporation survival rate is 50%.

Mr. Eddy has been Faculty for San Diego’s “Relationship Training Institute” — another San Diego group on my radar to also blog.  This group does business with the courts also:

4036 Third Ave.
San Diego, CA 92103

(self-proclaimed) “

“The World’s Authority on Relationship Development
and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training
and Consultation”

RTI really is a hot-shot group:   “The Relationship Training Institute is approved for Professional CE credits by the following organizations:”  (among them….)

  • Board of Registered Nursing
  • American Psychological Association
  • Certified Additions Treatment Counselor
  • Department of Consumer Affairs – Board of Behavioral Sciences
  • Judicial Council of California – Administrative Office of the Courts
  • National Board for Certified Counselors
  • NAADAC The Association for Addiction Professionals
  • State of Nevada Committee on Domestic Violence

GUEST FACULTY INCLUDE:  (it’s a long list — this is just a chunk of it):

Guest Faculty:

Russell Barkley, Ph.D., University of Massachusetts Medical School
Sandra L. Brown, MA, CEO, The Institute for Relational Harm Reduction & Psychopathy Education
Stacy W. Buhbe, Ph.D.
Constance Dalenberg, Ph.D., Core Faculty, Alliant/CSPP University
Leslie Drozd, Ph.D.**  [[SECTION ON DROZD BELOW]]
William Eddy, JD, LCSW, President of High Conflict Institute
Matt Englar-Carlson, Ph.D., CSU Fullerton
Brian Erickson, Esq., San Diego City Attorney’s Office

Terrence Real, LICSW, Family Institute of Cambridge

Gael Strack, J.D., Chief Executive Officer, National Family Justice Center Alliance


While I’m here, Leslie Drozd is very AFCC, and quite the activist/author/coacher:

She has conducted child custody evaluations for over 20 years. She works daily doing forensic work (including expert witness testimony, mainly in Family Law Court). . .She conducts post divorce work with families including reunification therapy when a child has rejected a parent. She works as a parenting coordinator and as a co-parenting therapist and she reviews the work of other colleagues and serves as a consultant to attorneys.

Dr. Drozd is a well-known expert on family violence, abuse, and alienation – especially in high conflict divorce cases. She has spoken for the Association of Family Conciliation Courts (international, national, and state conferences) as well as at conventions held by the American, California, Arizona, Minnesota, Missouri, Orange, Los Angeles, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo Psychological Associations, Alliant University and California School of Professional Psychology, Argosy University, University of California, Irvine, and Harvard University doctoral program in the School of Public Health. She is the co-author (with 6 others) of a bench book for judges* in how to deal with domestic violence in child custody cases

Yes, the BENCH BOOK FOR JUDGES (or at least one of them):

First of all note the URL:   http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/BenchGuide.pdf





{{ I keep having a nagging question —  why should parents who can’t keep their hands, threats, and abuse off another spouse (or kid) retain any parenting privileges?  Why is parenting more important than parenting WITHOUT domestic violence, and how can anyone — really — expect to STOP (let alone “prevent”) domestic violence without adequately calling it what it is?  I know what it’s like to have now over 10 years dealing fairly and equitably with an abuser in a custody situation who couldn’t accept being de-throned, and so got even in and out of court, until the children were in someone else’s care, after which he abandoned them.  The courts got their part, child support agency got ITS cut, the people who wanted my kids got them, and although this apparently meant him living off the radar — after a belated attempt to stalk (coerce) me into taking him back, when it looked like some inheritance might be involved — simply dumped them.  I saw no character change, nor did the court ever require any.  Those who took the hardest hits were my chidlren — who basically lost both parents, ALL child support, and had to deal with strangers who got them by breaking the law; who explicitly took advantage of no one around to enforce anything, and with a vengeance….  Would it be better to simply eliminate any pretense of giving a crap about domestic violence, then to drag it out like this, for fun and profit of the Ph.D.’s among us, not to mention the entrepreneurs in the welfare systems of the world?}}

**”The Family Violence Department would also like to thank the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for helping to support this important endeavor. Much of the groundwork for this tool was done through the Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody, a project of NCJFCJ and funded by HHS.

Quotable parts:

“Ordering an Evaluation: When Is Domestic Violence Experience Necessary?”

What If There Are No Resources for an Evaluation?

If Resources Are Available, Should I Order an Evaluation?

The Clearest Cases

In the most egregious cases, it may not even be necessary to order an evaluation in order to decide that a child’s best interests would not be served by allowing contact with a violent and abusive parent. However, even a parent who is not an appropriate candidate for custody may desire visitation; and a careful evaluation may indeed be necessary to determine (a) the motivation for that request,** (b) what impact ongoing contact will have on the children, and (c) whether and how visitation can be structured to assure the safety of the vulnerable parent and the children.

**read that parent’s intentions.  So far, we are not as a whole doing too well in this category — and historically have not.  However, as Supervised Visitation has some federal funds behind it, ….

page 11 — if there is a history of physical violence and involvement of police or criminal system, order an evaluation:”

When Victims Have a History of Physical Violence

A history of physical violence in the parents’ relationship—and especially a history of police or criminal justice system involvement—almost always warrants an evaluation, if resources are available. In such cases, it is crucial that the history be subject to careful review and to supplementation, as appropriate. In particular, concerns are frequently raised that neither the standards governing the issuance of civil restraining/protection orders, nor the standards used by prosecutors in criminal domestic assault cases, sufficiently distinguish between the primary perpetrator of violence in an abusive relationship, and a partner who may be using violence defensively

Between the lines, this benchbook for the family law judge is saying, we can’t really trust the civil or criminal sectors of out justice system to do their job right and distinguish a perpetrator from a victim.  Hence then a person who received a protective order gets a real shock when they go to the family law venue, where it’s treated with disdain, although family judges do issue them as well.

I notice how the list of suggested readings alternates between DV acknowledgement and alienation-promotion:

Navigating Custody & Visitation Evaluations in Cases with Domestic Violence: A Judge’s Guide

Reading Material


*This publication pre-dates:  No-fault divorce, the Violence Against Women act, and a good chunk of feminism.  If the date is correct here, sounds like it was written before the AFCC even got caught and forced to incorporate, which was around 1975, as I recall! !!

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, {{of course…}}} Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluations at http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/Child_Model_Standards.pdf.


[Bancroft’s well-written book as to the dynamics says nothing at all about TANF Reform as an incentive to extended “high-conflict custody” cases.  Alas..He also tends to be a little more out of the loop, as he has identified more with the protecting mothers movement than others.]

Carol S. Bruch, Parental Alienation Syndrome and Alienated Children—getting it wrong in child custody cases, 14 CHILD & FAM. L.Q. 381-400 (2002).

Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Danger Assessment (2003) at http://www.son.jhmi.edu/research/CNR/Homicide/Danger03.pdf.

Jacquelyn C. Campbell et al., Risk Factors for Femicide in Abusive Relationships: Results from a Multistate Case Control Study, 93 AM. J. PUB. HEALTH 1089-97 (2003).

Judging by the headline stats (and I’m familiar with the Campbell lethality risk assessment) — most people don’t believe it anyhow.

Clare Dalton et al., High Conflict Divorce, Violence, and Abuse: Implications for Custody and Visitation Decisions, 54 JUV. & FAM. CT. J. 11 (2003).

(note:  the word “domestic violence” does not appear in the title).

A 2004 answer to this writing (which I think I blogged long ago) is here:

High Conflict Divorce or Stalking by Way of Family Court? The Empowerment of a Wealthy Abuser in Family Court Litigation: Linda v. Lyle – A Case Study” (authors from San Diego)

– – – – – – –

Massachusetts Family Law Journal, 22(1&2) 4-16.


Virtually all coverage of high-conflict divorce assumes both parents are the source of the conflict.[1]Blame is assigned solely and equally to the parents in essentially all cases without much analysis. However, if one party is abusive and sufficiently wealthy to fund on-going litigation, the Domestic Court may be ideally suited to the spurned mate’s agenda.[2] The systematic assertion of ‘dominion and control’ via Family Court litigation would superficially mimic a high-conflict divorce because there would be ongoing litigation.[3][4] The interpretation is consistently that the parties cannot get along and they are using their children as pawns.[5] A closer look shows high conflict divorce has features common to both domestic abuse relationships and the stalking behavior displayed by abandoned abusers.[6]This fascinating case study illustrates how power is transferred from the abusive mate to the professionals, who are, apparently, also at risk to lose control.

– – – – – –

(continuing list from the Benchbook for Judges)


Leslie M. Drozd & Nancy W. Olesen, Is it Abuse, Alienation, and/or Estrangement? A Decision Tree, 1 J. CHILD CUSTODY 65 (Nov. 2004).

Suggested Resources  etc.

In short, Leslie Drozd is classic AFCC, and proud of it.    If you still don’t know what I mean by “Classic AFCC” and the use of the term “HIGH-CONFLICT” – here’s a sample in fact, why not just buy the book and read Chapter 1 from Drozd and be sure to click on the last parent coordination “Sample Decision” where Daddy doesn’t have to say where, within 60 miles, he is taking 4-year old Sarah, because he’s a responsible sorta guy and doesn’t want Linda (the ex) checking up on him and intruding on his parenting time.  (In certain situations, such a stipulation would give a real headstart on a kidnapping, and has, before………)…  This book gets a whole page.

Resources for Professionals

Innovations in Interventions with High Conflict Families

Edited by Linda B. Fieldstone and Christine A. Coates

This volume presents six very distinct approaches in working with high conflict families, and provides the reader with opportunities for adoption, replication or creative expansion of the models featured.  With six chapters (225 pp.), this is a must-read for every professional who works with high conflict, alienation, domestic abuse and child custody disputes.

Click here to purchase book

Innovations in Interventions with High Conflict Families

Contents and appendices:


High Conflict, Domestic Abuse or Alienating Behavior: How do you know?
by Nancy Williams Olesen and Leslie Drozd

Appendix 1:
Domestic Violence Child Custody Protocol (PDF)

Appendix 2:
Alienation Child Custody Questionnaire (PDF)


Children and Absent Parents: A Model for Reconnection
by Rhonda Freeman

There are no appendices for this chapter.


A High Conflict Divorce Education Program: After the Storm: Surviving High Conflict Divorce
by James C. Billings, Gary L. Robbins and Donald A. Gordon

Appendix A:
After the Storm
 Intake Form (PDF)

Appendix B:
After the Storm
 Phone Screening (PDF)


Bringing Co-Parent Counseling Services to High-Conflict Low-Income Families**
by Jeffrey Zimmerman and Elizabeth S. Thayer

(a.k.a. how can we parent coordinators get in on the TANF Diversionary programs like the marriage-mongers?)

Appendices A-G (PDF):
A: Intake form
B: Appointment form
C: Client record
D: Client information, release and privacy forms
E: Fee schedule
F: Exchange of information form
G: Focus on K.I.D.S. program description forms

Appendices H-L (PDF):
H: Meeting review examples
I: Parent follow-up survey
J: PEACE Program follow-up survey
K: PEACE Program executive summary
L: Letter of understanding/agreement


Mental Health Consultation in Child Custody Cases
by Elena Hobbs-Minor and Matthew J. Sullivan

Appendix 1:
Consultant Agreement and Fee Policies Fee Policies (PDF)

Appendix 2:
Statement of Understanding and Fee Agreement (PDF)


Parenting Coordination: An Emerging Role to Assist High Conflict Families
by Robin M. Deutsch, Christine A. Coates and Linda B. Fieldstone

Appendix 1:
Parenting Coordination Brochure (PDF)

Appendix 2:
FCS PC Intake Screening Form (PDF)

Appendix 3:
FCS Order of Referral (PDF)

Appendix 4:
PC Administrative Order (PDF)

Appendix 5:
PC Motion for Discharge (PDF)

Appendix 6:
Sample Introductory Letter (PDF)

Appendix 7:
Parenting Coordinator and Decision-Maker Agreement (PDF)

Appendix 8:
Screening for Domestic Violence (PDF)

Appendix 9:
Parenting Plan Checklist (PDF)

Appendix 10:
Decision of Parenting Coordinator (PDF)

We are in calling it high-conflict country.  So, again, exactly where (and who) is the


…that is doing business in California and no doubt elsewhere.

Let me see if the County of San Diego can find this famous group; has it filed for its fictitious name in San Diego, where its mailing address is?



Any person who regularly transacts business for profit, UNDER A FICTITIOUS NAME, in the County of San Diego is required to file a Fictitious Business Name Statement with the Recorder/County Clerk, within 40 days of first transacting business.

PLEASE NOTE: Although registration of a Fictitious Business Name is required, this office serves ONLY as the central depository of these names, neither approving nor disapproving a particular name and CANNOT accept any responsibility for any omissions, similarities, or duplications among the Fictitious Business Names on file. Fictitious Business Names are filed ONLY in the county where the business is located. State-wide registries do NOT exist.

(unlike in states such as Georgia, or Florida, for example)

Mr. Eddy filed for this name only last June — right after father’s day, 2011:

Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date
  …  Certified  Non-Certified 2011-017379 HIGH CONFLICT INSTITUTE EDDY WILILAM AI STATEMENT 6/14/2011

and the fictitious name  does exist for RTI — started in 2005, good through — well, 2010:

Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date
  …  Certified  Non-Certified 2005-017394 THE RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE WEXLER DAVID STATEMENT 5/17/2005

(SITE:  San Diego Assessor-Recorder).  Another sample search — one can type a business name in the “Owner” field.  I typed the word “Marriage” which produced the alternate names for CHMC:

Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date


Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date

Background information from:”WhatIsCoParenting.com

Bill Eddy is President of High Conflict Institute based in Scottsdale, Arizona. Bill is a Certified Family Law Specialist in California with fifteen years’ experience representing clients in family court, and a Licensed Clinical Social Worker with twelve years’ experience providing therapy to children, adults, couples, and families in psychiatric hospitals and out patient clinics. He is Senior Family Mediator at the National Conflict Resolution Center in San Diego, California.

Mr. Eddy has been a speaker in over 20 states, several provinces in Canada, France and Australia.{{Which is to say, he is probably an AFCC member}}  He has become an authority and consultant on the subject of high conflict personalities for family law professionals, employee assistance and human resource professionals, ombudspersons, healthcare administrators, college administrators, homeowners associations, and others.

He obtained his law degree in 1992 from the University of San Diego, a Master of Social Work degree in 1981 from San Diego State University, and a Bachelors degree in Psychology in 1970 from Case Western Reserve University. He began his career as a youth social worker in a changing neighborhood in New York City and first became involved in mediation in 1975 in San Diego.

Case Western is (obviously) Ohio — and Psychology is one of the easiest bachelors on the planet to get, not that it doesn’t require work.  SOcial work in NYC, even more.  So how did he end up going to California from New York within 5 short years?  Any marriage (or divorce) in the works there?

So, if he’s been in San Diego all these years, then he lived through the “Enron by the Sea” years as well.   …Maybe it’s time to try a little variety in life.


What is the High Conflict Institute?

High Conflict Institute (HCI) was co-founded in 2007 by Bill Eddy, LCSW, Esq., and Megan L. Hunter, MBA, to provide education and resources to professionals handling High Conflict disputes.

HCI believes that high conflict family law disputes are not driven by complex issues, but by High Conflict Personalities (HCPs)

Co-founder is form Arizona — home of “N.A.M.E.” (National Association of Marriage Educators”) and one of the few state legislators who is actually a member of the Unification Church (I don’t know if Mark Anderson is still in office, but blogged this).  It is also known for the man who shot a legislator this past year (Gabrielle Giffords) and nearly any domestic violence survivor who is fighting to retain or regain custody will also know about Arizona’s Dawn Axsom (deceased, along with her mother) because a family law judge there refused her and her infant daughter move-away privileges.  It is the state which got some serious study by some Columbia Journalism students in Battening Down Immigrants, Locking Up Profits (Corrections Corporation of America & privatizing of the prison system).  It is also — “coincidentally” — the new residence (Northern California being former) of Philip Stahl, well known AFCC person and Parental Alienation Preacher, as well as a chapter of AFCC.

Did I mention Maricopa County and Sheriff Arpaio?

If I were going to start a High Conflict Institute – and California had too many of similar organization — Arizona would be a great state to do it in, I doubt feminists have a stronghold anywhere near.  After all, Oklahoma has its statewide Marriage Initiative, and Minnesota has the Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs (not that they seem to have slowed down the “high-conflict” rhetoric much), Indiana and Ohio are as Faith-Based and Fatherhood as it’s possible to get (I hope), having a Commission of one (Ohio) and Faith-based Office (Ohio Governor’s office).

And here it is, or at least here is an LLC by the name founded in 2007:

Date of Taking Office: 10/10/2007
Last Updated: 10/12/2007

Megan Hunter’s business management background along with 8 years as a Family Law Specialist with the Arizona Supreme Court, including policy formation, research and program development regarding court processes, parent education and court processes, provides a vast background and broad understanding of the issues facing both families and professionals in family law.

Her linkedIn shows serious involvement at the governmental level in family law issues, including child support — plus being past President of the Arizona AFCC (one of their larger chapters).  While this is commendable and substantial — as a litigant (even in another state) I would bring up serious concerns about Conflicts — of Interest, that is — in that the “New Ways for Families” dreams, hopes, suggests, and intends — that a family law judge might order their program in association with a restraining order!  As it says on the site, even.

Megan Hunter

President at unHooked Books

Phoenix, Arizona Area 
Professional Training & Coaching
  • President at unHooked Books
  • Co-Founder and Vice President at High Conflict Institute
  • Founder and President at Family Law Solutions
  • Past President & Board Member at AzAFCC
  • Child Support Specialist at FAMILY LAW
  • Family Law Specialist at Arizona Supreme Court

see all

  • University of Phoenix
  • University of Phoenix
  • Chadron State College

see all

302 connections

High Conflict Institute

DETAILS (from Megan Hunter LinkedIn):
January 2007 – Present (4 years 11 months)

Professional training for people who handle high conflict disputes. Vice President and co-founder of High Conflict Institute. Developed the concept of the Institute after 13 years as the Family Law Specialist with the Arizona Supreme Court, Administrative Office of the Courts and Child Support Manager of the Dawes County Attorney’s Office in Nebraska.

As such, I’m sure Ms. Hunter is extremely well informed in diversionary purposes to which Child Support & TANF may be directed, including counseling and parent education….

August 1999 – July 2006 (7 years)

Judicial training, lead the review and revision of Arizona’s Child Support Guidelines, staffed two policy-recommending legislative committees, liaison between the courts, the executive and legislative branches and the State Bar to analyze and develop integrated strategies for system-wide improvements, managed various programs including parent education, conciliation court, case management, integrated family court, fatherhood and mediation, wrote educational brochures for the public, bench books for judges, member of federal child support task force responsible for creating national strategic plan, collaborated with academic institutions to integrate current empirical research into family law initiatives and laws, wrote and managed grants.

The background is Business and Economics, and clearly she’s good at it.  I WONDER how good that resume would’ve looked had she been the subject herself of an extended, high-conflict, violent, and dealing with a narcssistic personality disordered (sarcasm intended) “co-parent” and WITHOUT having anyone to voluntarily inform her — as most mothers leaving violence do NOT, because their advocates have sold them out for funding — the impact of the fatherhood programs upon her chances for justice — or any job stability — throughout the process?  Or for a coherent, rational — and economic — explanation of why the existing laws don’t mean much once an psychologizing-explicating-rationalizing-minimizing abuse professional is on the scene..

And what happened to this business outfit — not much verbiage under there for ”

Family Law Solutions (2006 -present, 5 years 11 months). 

I have gotten calls from women terrified that their police abuser was let out — or one recently, that the ex-kidnapper had served time and was back on the scene locally.  I do not have the means to help them, but if I DID have the means, I sure as hell would have the will, and I ahv SOUGHT the means to stop this insanity.

As President of the Arizona AFCC, Ms. Hunter even

mentioning “Family Law Solutions, LLC” would provide a wide readership, as in this fall 2006 newsletter

I forgot to mention another wonderful Arizona nonprofit, and an influential one in the family courts (and as to child support & custody):

Fathers & Families Coalition of America, Inc.
39 East Jackson Street
Phoenix, AZ, USA 85044

WELL, I hope this post left some food for thought, but I know it brought some links for looking at.  Again, there will have to be more and more “training institutes” and harder and harder efforts, as time progresses and the truths come out — to make sure that people outside the court system do not finish connecting the dots on WHY certain groups cannot describe abuse in its proper (which includes graphic) legal terms, and in just how much we are expected to sacrifice our children to the experts (or lose contact with them) for the sake of . . . .  “the children.”

We don’t need more “high conflict institutes.”  We need more honest and intervening neighbors, who KNOW their neighbors and are no longer misled into thinking the experts they paid for are doing their own dirty and emotionally distressing work for them — which is KNOWING better than to stand by while someone else is beat up or molested, in their home.  And KNOWING what really happens to kids who report to their teachers.   We cannot turn into a nation of “educators and educatees” – no sir!

I found this quote today (while looking for Sandra Brown, M.A.’s work background, which — unlike Ms. Hunters– is a lot harder to find).

It is listed under “THE BAKER ACT CONSPIRACY

A portion of the proceeds from the sale of this book
will be donated to the Citizens Commission on Human Rights of Florida and Amnesty International.
Chapter 1
The Manors
When I went to medical school, sixty years ago, there were only a handful of mental diseases. I think there were no more than six or seven. Now there are more than three hundred. And new ones are, quote, “discovered” every day. Labeling a child as mentally ill is stigmatization, not diagnosis. Giving a psychiatric drug is poisoning, not treatment. I have long maintained that the child psychiatrist is one of the most dangerous enemies, not only of children, but of adults, of all of us who care for the most precious and vulnerable things in life. And those two things are children and liberty. Now I ask again, how can parents protect themselves from the therapeutic state? That is from the alliance of government and psychiatry?
 Dr. Thomas S. Szasz Dinner Speech
(Used with permission of Dr. Szasz)
If you are adult enough to understand that by quoting something mentioning “scientology” this does not mean I am a Scientologist (likely one of the worst cults around, and similar in nature to the Unification Church which is why I keep blogging the latter’s role in the marriage/fatherhood movement.  It’s a slow sell, but people are beginning to notice the data I’ve provided — such as a member of the CHMC.org being a Unification Church member, etc.  Cults tend to resemble each other, when you get down to operational practices.  Anyhow, I’m going to go back and look at this site, which begins the book (if ever finished or not), like this — and it’s talking about psychiatric labeling of people for profit.
I saw you always within my walls. I felt you as you touched me. I could read your emotions and your thoughts. I never slept. I was made of bricks and mortar. I was the floors, the ceilings, the walls, and doors. I was five stories tall. I was The Manors. I was originally a public and later a private psychiatric hospital, located in Tarpon Springs, Florida, on the Gulf of Mexico. In the 1920s, I was built to be a golf resort, and I was gorgeous. Al Capone, in his drunken, syphilis-filled body, once shot me.
I became a public psychiatric hospital in 1953. I always attracted scrutiny for racketeering and patient abuse, but not even a federal grand jury investigation lasting over seven years could reveal my deepest and darkest secrets. No one saw the hundreds of millions of dollars obtained by my owners and their friends through Medicare, Medicaid, and private-insurance fraud. No one understood the extent of the abuse and manipulation of patients. No one, until now, knew the full extent of the abuse.
. . . If you think of organized crime as the Mafia and the Sopranos then you still live in the I Love Lucygeneration of mentality. The sole purpose of organized crime is making money, or, more accurately, acquiring it. I had observed organized crime operating within my walls for decades. It operated under the patronage of the pharmaceutical industry and through political donations to politicians in office. Vito Genovese would have been proud. . . .
 For those born to the very rich, the Kennedy or Rockefeller types, even insurance expiration provided no exit. Their families paid the $1,000 a day to keep them within my walls. Family peace of mind: a steal at $365,000 a year. The patient’s mind was a different matter: drugged daily for years, it was obliterated by mind-altering regimens of doctor-prescribed medication. Not even those who had committed themselves were allowed to leave. In the 1970s, the Florida legislature passed a law that stopped them: The Baker Act legalized involuntary psychiatric hospitalization. Once deemed a threat to themselves or others, those who sought to leave were Baker-Acted and kept within my walls against their will
(The writing is from point of view of the building and describes and undercover agent who ended up getting that building demolished.  The line, however, between psychologists (which cannot prescribe medicine) and psychiatrists and lawyers is being blurred, and the closer they begin to work together, IGNORING the cries of those abused and trafficked, the closer this entire country is to slavery — involuntary.
Stop swallowing things whole, stop ignoring who is running the “family courts” of america (let alone CPS), who is funding them, and (with me) start looking at some tax returns and corporate identities — for a change !!    ! !    ! ! ! !   New Ways for Families?
Here’s an old way:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident . . . . . ”  

Written by Let's Get Honest

November 16, 2011 at 10:48 am

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…

with 2 comments

(Today, I simply blogged, and continued — incorporating some discussion about our two main databases, about access/visitation grants, demonstrating the importance of doing trademark registration searches on groups (as in Colorado) and following up on a California-based group (influence found in COlorado by way of Washington) which, having been formed in 1970 as “Mothers Anonymous” and intended to help mothers involved in child abuse stop it, was within one year of incorporation changed to “Parents Anonymous,” got its stuff trademarked, was already, or got “in” with the HHS & DOJ — and is doing, currently about $18 million worth of business with HHS & DOJ combined.

The influence of fatherhood promotion is definitely showing in its materials, as well as the habit of marketing, marketin g, getting the trademark licensed, certifying accreditation to teach one’s own private curriculum brand — AND with close ties to Los Angeles County Judicial System among its board members.  This group was THE top grantee of a certain category (in the year 2002), and I hadn’t even heard of it before.

I did not finish with the El Paso County, Colorado information (at bottom), and connecting the work of CPR & PSI to actual Child Support Enforcement Groups (via a different, trademarked name), but although it’s LONGwinded — I guarantee you, taken in small installations, this IS a very informative post.

I also catch TAGGS omitting DUNS# (such that many, many grants will remain unseen) and usaspending.gov doing the exact same thing — with the DUNS#, $697K grants showed (for parents anonymous).  Omitting the DUNS$ the $18 million surfaced.  O Mi God . . . ..

I am publishing without apologies:  Read at your own risk!

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

Oct. 21, 2011 update:

Concern #1:

March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate.  Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic:  drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – – The letter is signed by:  Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist.  Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters.  The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.

[article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid.   Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate.  Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].  (If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)

Concern #2:

A Wikipedia article (flagged by wikipedia as probably less than objective) shows how many firms ICF began acquiring, and notes that its CEO is from MIT.  What I’m concerned about is why HHS lists this corporation as “City” and not a contractor…..  And its habit of acquiring company after company….  Reminds me of Maximus, the child support giant…

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

We are still on this topic:  Who are the groups that got these grants?

Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Kenneth J. Wolfe
(202) 401-9215

ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) today announced $119,393,729 in grant awards to 120 grantees to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), the grant awards will help fathers and families build strong relationships to support the well-being of their children.

As ever, the missing noun, “mothers.”  Leaving it out is accurate, as these do NOT help mothers build strong relationships with their kids, rather, it helps completely eliminate contact with the children in some cases, in order to be more fair to fathers (supposedly) in the courts.  Once a family court has eliminated such contact, including by refusing to do anything about ongoing violations of existing court orders, or ongoing threats making attempts to re-establish broken contact a Russian Roulette for some mothers, many, many of the organizations set up to help “BUILD STRONG RELATIONSHIPS” for the kids, refuse to help mothers — at all — even contact them.  It is a win-win situation for any substandard father whose real goal is to hurt that mother through taking her kids.  It is a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, who will have clean-up duty, or pay for ongoing monitoring procedures (supervised visitation centers) which themselves sometimes come up fraudulent.

“A strong and stable family is the greatest advantage any child can have,” said George Sheldon, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “These grants support programs that promote responsible parenting, encourage healthy relationships and marriage, and help families move toward self-sufficiency and economic stability.”

The Healthy Marriage program awarded a total of $59,997,077 in grants, which include 60Community-Centered Healthy Marriage grants and a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage grant. The Responsible Fatherhood program awarded a total of $59,396,652 in grants, which include 55 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood grants and fourCommunity-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grants.


After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage  / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.  My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database.  Til just now.

I also started a new page on this blog (2011 Healthy Marriage Grantees . . . Speed- Dating), but its layout isn’t much better.

I uploaded my printout (which is horizontal and wont fit on this post).  Using the TAGGS list, instinctively having discovered the grants series, only to discover that someone had fudged entering the “principal investigator’s” last names – – I had only one group left to locate:  ICF, Incorporated out of Fairfax, Virginia, which got a $1.5 million grant to push marriage education, presumably.

Finally I googled the ridiculous set of initials “NRCSPHM” after speculating on their potential meaning (looks like I didn’t read the press release carefully enough, having just skipped to the list of grantees), and found a grants opportunity announcement from San Bernadino County, CA — leading to the interpretation:






= NRCSPHM, “obviously”

How grandiose.

Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Institute, plus those working in the child support and welfare  fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?  Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..

Just for the records, some marriages need to be broken up because they are just a little to close for comfort, either for the person being assaulted, or for the inappropriate sexual relationships with minors in the family.  And those of us who have gotten OUT of some of those situations, and family lines where this was occurring, do not appreciate standing by for the next decade and watching public funds to used to propagate ridiculous practices based on paid-for theory that doesn’t accont for exceptions, doesn’t require grantees to really even be legal entities, doesn’t MONITOR the funds from start to finish, and can’t show any results more than accounts of warm bodies who ALLEGEDLY sat through their classes.

We are having ongoing murder/suicide around custody “disputes,” while the groups running the thing run off and meet in exotic or plush conferences, tax-deductibel, to run mutual trainings, tax-deductible, and make up new themes to describe the “flawed parents” they are (sigh) forced to deal with in the process of rescuing children and eliminating the concept of crime as crime, to be replaced with new definitions they have (privately) agreed upon, and how to get these “solutions” voted into state laws.  If you’re lost, this paragraph was talking about the AFCC; any paragraph about the related CRC would have to talk about the practice of financing this through child support and welfare diversions.  That was called “Welfare Reform,” FYI.

There was already a “NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER” in California — Dennis Stoica, registered agent:

OK, I let off enough steam (don’t worry, I’m pissed, but not armed, except with information) to get to the point of this post.

I finally found the missing $1,500,000 grant, and grantee.

Do you know why earlier search hadn’t located “ICF, INC”??  Well, looks here like someone decided to put spaces inbetween the initials in the name, although in the ACF press release the acronym for the project award had no spaces:

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
Award Title Sum of Actions

Then I looked up the name, with its idiosyncratic TAGGS database entry, spacing between the letters of the name.  OH — there was about another $1 million of grants?

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
I C F, INC  FAIRFAX VA 22031-6050 FAIRFAX 072648579 $ 2,477,256

The company under which Healthy Marriage (a.k.a. “Responsible Fatherhood,” same diff…) shows as “ICF International” (see below).  But 

under ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.” in Bloomberg  (Businessweek/Investing), after noting “no key executives listed,” and a 1969 founding, shows why we should be giving this company a financial boost, with a $$5.5 million start-up grant, rather than an actual contract:

ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract

Office of Acquisition Management (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/Headquarters, has awarded a $107,631,975.00 modified federal contract on Feb. 1 for professional, administrative, and management support services to ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.

ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., announced that it has won a $8,462,890 federal contract from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Acquisition Management, Cincinnati, for technical and regulatory support for the development of criteria for water media.

ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., won a $4,919,708 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management for race to the top technical assistance network under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  [“ARRA”]

Well, no, actually more like $3,656,370 million since 2007, and this organization is categorized as “City Government,” although it’s a private, for-profit corporation, from what I can tell in the real world outside TAGGS:

Recipient: I C F, INC
Address: 9300 LEE HIGHWAY
FAIRFAX, VA 22031-6050
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: FAIRFAX
HHS Region: 3
Type: Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment )
Class: City Government


Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90PD0271  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-27-2011 072648579 $ 977,256 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 2,477,256

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2010 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 2 0 ACF 09-17-2010 072648579 $ 500,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 500,000

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2009 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 2 ACF 06-15-2009 072648579 $- 702,966 
2009 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-18-2009 072648579 $ 500,000 
Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $- 202,966 Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.[3]

In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.[5]

In 2010, ICF acquired Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.[6]

In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 0 ACF 09-21-2007 072648579 $ 882,080 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 882,080

Total of all award actions: $ 3,656,370


THis is a major corporation doing major business with the US Govt and others; it was founded originally by a Tuskeegee airman, and has deep connections to the defense industry and technology.   (read up from its site).  It went public (Trading on NASDAQ) as of 2006 for $12.00 a share, and is danged impressive!

this is the “SHORT” description.  AGAIN, I note that the TAGGS database did NOT give its accurate name (omitting the “INTERNATIONAL”) for some reason spaced out the letters of its name (which the company, obviously, does not do) and so forth.  Here is website description from the news release on its going public in 2006

ICF International (Nasdaq: ICFI) partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and improvement. Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 1,800 employees serve these clients worldwide. ICF’s Web site is http://www.icfi.com.



Here they are describing their “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” work (no mention is made of “marriage” in the overview).  They are experienced in transforming communities, and no doubt, their work will indeed continue to give father(hood practitioners and promoters) the PR edge and corporate influence, plus public presence through social media, that mothers — who are losing their kids to these fatherhood programs in droves, now — do not have someone doing for our cause, although we give birth to these children, after 9 months (Usually) sometimes nurse them, alter our lives to take care of them, and have a President who has only expanded the programs that his Presidential forebears put in place, which cause this trouble to women leaving abuse while there is a family court system waiting, with open jaws, to direct traffic to one of their family-strengthening programs…

ICF helps U.S. federal and state agencies, grantees, nonprofit agencies, and service providers in reaching communities, fathers, and families with the message of how responsible fatherhood is critically linked to nearly every aspect of a thriving community.

Our experts bring skills from the fields of youth at risk, education, children and youth, poverty, and family strengthening and can see the links among these areas. Although the issue has been recently spotlighted in the media and in policy, ICF’s work in this area spans years.

ICF contributes toward finding ways to help providers implement programs that improve outcomes for children and families. We have helped service providers implement systemic changes to bring men into mentoring, civic life, and neighborhood stabilization efforts in ways that have wide-ranging impact.

We help organizations get the information that they need to develop programs that support fathers and families through a range of services including:  (See site for the list):

… CLIENTS (and we see it’s not the OCSE, but the OFA)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

  • Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
    • Office of Family Assistance (OFA)

The most recent one they are doing acknowledges — taking TANF monies and trying to direct traffic to a FBCO (Faith-based group) — which in the case of women trying to leave abuse, which SOMETIMES includes abuse by priests, preachers, or pastors, or at least coverups of this BY them, after being made aware of it (it’s part of the religious territory) will then have the same types of groups rooting for the men they are trying to keep a safe distance from.  I”m going to post the list of projects, current and past, done by this organization.  (No WONDER things are getting rough around the edges in family courts!)

PLEASE NOTE:  the ACF Press release mentions this $1.5 million grant going to the “healthy marriage” grantee portion (as if this wasn’t primarily promoting paternalism anyhow) — but as far as I can tell, ICF International considers the project to be filed under “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”  That is the program link.


Now that I have a DUNS#, let’s see how much business other than HHS grants, they do with us, meaning the U.S.


Healthy Marriage Grantee does over $1 BILLION Of BUSINESS with the US Government.

(notice its name shows different here, too).


  • Total Dollars:$1,116,743,207
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 6,935

For example, this grant:

Transaction Number # 5

PIID: HHSP23320110015YC (Definitive Contract)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)
Product/Service Code: R408 : Program Management/Support Services
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount: 

(NOTICE the other database doesn’t add the spaces between initials of the group’s name). . . .HHS is a world unto itself, for sure…)

From the TIMELINE tab (on this DUNS# for ICF, INC) it shows that 2003 was a low, 2009, a substantial jump, and 2011 looks to be a banner year for the company.

Of the $1 billion plus of business, $32 million were received in 84 grants, the most (or, largest amount) in 2009.

  • Total Dollars:$32,702,456
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 84

NOT that you can rely on this database, either (i’ve found by experience, but here’s the other acknowledgement — it aint’ complete, or accurate, or reliable);

I checked “Health and Human Services” (5 grants) and came up with a smaller number than are on the TAGGS database, by about $1.5 million:   The last reward does not show yet.  (however in other searches, I’ve found grants in prior years, over $1 million, that didn’t make it onto USASpending ever, apparently.  I have typically thought of this as USASpending UNDER-reporting, and only recently (when associated with all the other “anomalies” of the TAGGS database) considered the possibility of HHS OVER-reporting, which would be consistent with the practices of some of their court-affiliated grantees, a few of who have been caught (I’m thinking particularly in the supervised visitation field:  Karen Anderson, Genia Shockome cases .. … )

  • Total Dollars:$2,156,370
  • Transactions:1 – 5 of 5

COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

OMB has not included subcontracting award data on USAspending.gov and has no specific plan for collecting such data.

The USASpending.gov Web site has been live for more than two years so the public can see where its tax dollars are going, but the site’s data has not been complete nor accurate, according to a new report.

USASpending.gov went live Dec.13, 2007–a month earlier than the legislated deadline. It’s a Web site compiling a comprehensive list of the more than $1 trillion in financial assistance awarded through contracts, loans and grants. Congress mandated such a site in its Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which became law in September 2006.

Since the Office of Management and Budget launched the site, OMB has fallen short of several of program requirements, the Government Accountability Office [“GAO”] reported March 12.

Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:

House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data

March 15, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

On Friday, Ellen testified in front of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Her testimony mostly focused on the findings from our Clearspending project, which assessed the data quality of the grant programs in USASpending.gov. It was heartening to see the committee taking the issue of data quality in USASpending.gov so seriously. While admittedly not a sexy topic, this issue has serious implications in decisions that the government makes about our federal spending. To quote Rep. Issa’s (CALIFORNIA) opening statement, “The failures to make the data right is the reason we’re not getting a responsible government”.

Clearspending found nearly $1.3 trillion dollars Clearspending logoin misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.

Chris Smith, the CIO of the USDA, testified that the reason the grants were not reported was because they went to individuals, and the law governing grant reporting does not require reporting for grants to individuals. However, the actual program description describes these grants as formula grants to states. The entity receiving the grant is a state, not an individual, and therefore the grant is subject to the reporting requirements. Smith also mentioned that the transactions were under $25,000 and therefore not subject to the reporting requirement. While this may be the case, it seems unlikely. The program in question has a $10 billion bu

You Will Be Watched on USASpending.gov…Maybe Even Prosecuted


I intended to write about how innovative and exciting USASpending.govis, because it opens up extensive government budget databases: you can search, browse, and even write programs to query the system.But, that changed when I read this on the home page:WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.
Wow.I guess Uncle Sam doesn’t really want to open up his budget for public review.

dget. Let’s say that each state gets an equal payment once a month. That would still be over $16 million dollars per transaction–not even close to the $25,000 minimum. It seems that the reporting guidelines have been misinterpreted in this case.

and, a rather frightening 2007 article on USASPENDING.gov from “DOTGOVWATCH.ORG” indicates, while we are flopping around hoping to get some sensible information, or doing so is likely to be watched, and that the home page contained this warning:

WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.  {link has moved since….}


National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage 


Funding Opportunity Title: National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage
Funding Opportunity Number (FON): HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207
Program Office: Office of Family Assistance
Funding Type: Discretionary
Funding Category: Cooperative Agreement  (WITH WHOM??)
Announcement Type: Initial
CFDA#: 93.086
Post Date: 06/28/2011
Application Due Date: 07/28/2011


The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is announcing the solicitation of applications to competitively award cooperative agreements for demonstration projects that support “healthy marriage promotion activities” as authorized by The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291).The cooperative agreement awarded under the Funding Opportunity Announcement will support the development, implementation, management of a National Resource Center for Marriage and Relationship Education (NRCMRE).The NRCMRE will support marriage and relationship education (MRE) program development, implementation, and integration. ACF is responsible for Federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities.  The NRCMRE will provide MRE information, resources,and technical assistance designed to assist in the development of a broad approach to serving families and children by incorporating MRE into already existing services.

WHAT”S NEW?  Welfare Reform has always supported DHHS running social science experimentations on the American Public, and required states receiving assistance — access visitation assistance — to help the Secretary of HHS (NOTE:  Presidential appointee, not elected) — run them:

This SEpt. 1999 “ACTION TRANSMITTAL” (internal HHS document posted on-line) regarding 45 CFR 303.109 shows that there was not even a requirement to monitor what happened to the grants added until 2 years after they’d been in operation!  Nor was there a stipulation for protection procedures.  It provides a nice history of the Access Visitation procedures, which apparently started in 1988 with $4 million and have been at $10 million/year since 1996 or so.  Obama Administration likes to stay on the good side of the fatherhood movement and so has been promising to increase and expand this.

Recommended browsing for review, and for newcomers to the concept that the Federal Government is interested in your family court case, and tweaking the outcome of it through federal incentives to the states.

Apr 28, 1999 AT-99-007 Final Rule – Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

The intro gets a little technical, but read it anyhow:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children & Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement


ISSUED: April 28, 1999


SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

BACKGROUND: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs is a recent program to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to and visitation of their children. $10 million per year has been granted to States since 1997; it is a continuing capped appropriation. Funds are granted to states based upon the number of children in single family households, a $50,000 minimum per state will be increased to $100,000 this year. The range of grants is from $100,000 to nearly $1 million per year. State programs are managed by agencies designated by the Governor; many states do not operate the program through the IV-D agency. Funds may be used for the following activities: mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

ATTACHMENT: Attached is the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15132-6). This is a new regulation mandated by Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act which was enacted by Section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This rule is consistent with the President’s Memorandum of March 4, 1995 to the heads of Department and Agencies which announced a government-wide Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce or eliminate mandated burdens on States and others.


DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

David Gray Ross
Office of Child Support Enforcement

. . .

SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.”  This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .       To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror.  Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children.  I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption INcentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa).  Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.

All the fatherhood fundings seem to come to this dept. as well as the access visitation fundings.  I found it tied into the Marriage Education stream as well, at the sate level, and linked to a TENNESSEE group selling curricula, a (nonprofit?) called FIRST THINGS FIRST.  The item in question was trying to encourage black families to get and stay married, specifically.  I think OHIO is a bit afraid of black people; they should move to East or West Coast (or Chicago) and “get real!” vs. trying to regulate breeding behaviors through selling marriage education!

Let me quote this 1999 HHS Action Transmittal (of a final rule regulating access/visitation grants) — because it’s not a half-bad summary, or birds-eye view of how some of these programs (including the healthy marriage system also) really got entrenched and became the norm:

AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to $4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.

Typically the process of encouraging someone to comply with a court order is contained right in the legal process.  You file a contempt order with the court, and the judge rules on this, or sanctions someone.  What necessity was there to develop programs to “encourage” U.S. citizens to comply with rule of law, or a court order?  I do not believe this could’ve been the genuine purpose, just the alleged purpose.  Designing programs to manipulate people’s behavior is manipulation, period. using public money to do so, I say, is wrong.  We EXPECT people to adhere to a common standard, and then use the existing state and local court systems, so all know what the standards are, and there can be a common expectation of ethics.  Alas, this system was much more distant from the people affected (i.e. voted on in washington; but some of us live on the other coast).

The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects”. The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).

Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis. Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.

As you can see, Congress wants these programs in operation. As it says, they are directed towards fathers (admittedly then, and probably still (though less so now, about 15 years later) who are the main noncustodial parents and ones paying child support (although — is anyone keeping track??))  So right here, unknown to me (I was in a marriage, getting assaulted at the time, like many other women), my government was setting up programs to encourage INCREASING noncustodial parent time beyond whatever we would eventually decided ourselves, without these programs’ involvement.

Personal/Anecdotal re:  Mediation:

This also resulted — in my case — of going straight to mandated mediation upon a restraining order having been made permanent, and in that condition (while I was still in shock, and probably he was also) a court order was figured out in a VERY short time frame (one appointment), where I was not in shape to protect my boundaries, informed of the access visitation programs, or knowledgeable even about the rules of court for DV cases.  Our mediation almost completely defeated the prime stipulations of the restraining order.  Bad idea!   But because a restraining order was such a huge leap, at the time, our family didn’t know what it’d just been cheated out of, on the basis of anticipation that their father was going to bail out on child support (before any was really set, even!), and needed more policy to encourage him to pay

Here is how this Action Transmittal responds to comments raised by DV advocates, or at least some, as to safety issues.  Please note that this is 1999, and only NOW has any provision whatsoever regarding safety to the custodial parent been raised:

Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.

In 2006 (10 years later) and in countless instances inbetween, a woman was murdered during an exchange of children.  However, as her husband had buried her, and no body was found, it was an unusual high-profile trial:  Two children (6 & 8) were there when she was murdered during the routine, court-ordered exchange.  Finally, the man was convicted, and as part of his plea-bargain, helped the police by leading them to the (shallow grave) 3 miles from his home:  Hans & Nina Reiser case.   DastardlyDads blogspot keeps count (I couldn’t handle doing this, have no idea how the person in question does):  see (February 2011 post)

175 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USAAn update to our previous 76 Killer Dads, 88 Killer Dads, and 138 Killer Dads lists.

“This is NOT a comprehensive list of all U.S. fathers who have killed their children in situations involving domestic violence and/or child abuse. This list is limited to articles I have found where there is an identifiable child custody, visitation, and/or child support angle in the children’s deaths. Even then, I can’t claim that this is a comprehensive list of child custody, visitation, and or child-support- related murders. Quite often, newspaper articles just don’t provide enough information to make a judgment call.”
This person was simply reading the newspaper accounts, and keeping a count.  Notice — PLENTY from 2008 – 2010.  There is no question that the presence of these access and visitation grants  enabled and encouraged some very bad behaviors, such as murder.  It has also made it nearly impossible for marriages which really should have been split up and NOT have continued involvement by a perpetrator of violence upon mother Or child(ren) — to become separate entitities.  Why?  Because sometimes the child support arrears literally extorts the father into waging a custody battle he may not even want.
Recently (for Pete’s sake!) an assistant deputy attorney (I forget exact title), a mother working for the California Attorney General, had her little girl abducted on a court-ordered (?) visitation, and despite her frantic calls to get the baby back, FBI didn’t issue the Amber Alert (per procedures to WAIT LONGER when it’s parental involvement) and there was a murder -suicide.  GUESS WHAT:  THIS POLICY ENABLED THAT (Samaan/Fay).  If even someone working in this arm of government cannot save her own child’s life, what have we come to?
IF they do persuade/encourage/f acilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their chidlren in cases where there were BAD, VISITATION-OBSTRUCTING MOMS (and NOT prior abuse, violence, or threats in the relatioship) —
ANYHOW, here was the 1999 response to what I’d call women’s rights organizations to this policy and these grants:

Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by commentators who wrote about domestic violence.

No they don’t.  Not really.  I do not believe the people responding here were themselves in situations where a life was at risk, possibly theirs, possibly their offspring’s, around custody issues.  If it had been, the response would’ve been less “detached” and “handsoff” in nature:

Access and visitation by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and their children must be addressed when it is a problem.

CAN?  it already had been, the wording have been “has.”  And “dangerous situations” doesn’t use the word “lethal” in any way, which it should’ve.

But — because of child suppport ,and because of child psychologist reports about continuing contact, there MUST be no complete separation from the criminally behaving parent.

It is our intent to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both parents.

“Weighing sensitively” replaces, evaluating the truth of . .. But the, we’re talking family courts…..

In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows: “(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and children.”

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.

Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and being used to ensure safety.

Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be used.

Alternative forms of conflict resolution, most likely involving the same stable of family law mediation providers, i.e., AFCC personnel who tend to minimize DV and discredit it.


This “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects,” I have read.  Highlights from this one, published by HHS, acknowledge that the purpose is SPECULATION that more access might mean more child support payments — however, also cites child psychology as it being better for the child to have contact with both children.  This being in 1996, and two short years after the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) passed, failure to mention it is notable.  Responding to “fathers’ rights groups” IS mentioned:


As set forth in the Family Support Act of 1988, this evaluation explored the effect of two waves of Child Access Demonstration projects on the amount of time required to resolve access disputes; reductions in litigation related to access disputes; improvements in compliance with court-ordered child support amounts; and promotion of the emotional adjustment of children. It also assessed the extent and nature of child access disputes as well as parental satisfaction with the demonstrations.


Recent research in child psychology shows generally that close, frequent, and positive contact with the father following divorce and separation is beneficial for the child.

Child access is also important for child support enforcement. Recent Census data and research studies have indicated that where noncustodial parents have visitation rights or joint custody they tend to be more compliant with child support orders, although it is difficult to show cause and effect since the parents wanting to see the child may also be the better payers. Desire for increased child contact may follow child support payment rather than vice versa. Moreover, denial of visitation is seen {{by _ _ _ _ _ _ _??}} as the major reason for nonpayment of child support for noncustodial parents who have money to pay child support.

Whatever the reason is, the person is noncompliant.  Trying to set up programs to “get inside their head” as to why is based on some philosophy, I guess, that it’s more important to please noncompliant parents (NB, at the time, primarily fathers) than to establish — for both parties and for stability for the kids — an expectation that a court order is a court order.  Same for visitation.

There has been considerable pressure {{from fathers and fathers’ groups}} for the system to give support to the needs of noncustodial as well as custodial parents.

In 1996, it’s obvious that then-President Clinton’s 1995 Executive Order to incorporate more ‘Fatherhood” in federal agencies was already out there.  No mention of this seems real odd.

Over 43 States authorize joint custody. There are currently over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs and over 280 fathers’ rights groups organized throughout the country to facilitate child access by noncustodial parents.

Of course there are!  The Children’s Rights COuncil (Maryland) had been around since the 1980s; and the HHS itself had just provided a tidy grant to start the National Fatherhood Initiative aslo.  Regarding “over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs”  — the organization most pushing mediation has been the AFCC.

A co-founder of AFCC includes Jessica Pearson (hear tell, see NAFCJ.net, also her name is on at least one of its earlier incorporations in California, from Denver; I’ve posted it more than once on-line here).  This report was done by

Congress responded to the continuing public debate about the problem of noninvolvement by noncustodial parents and resulting litigation by directing HHS to conduct State demonstration projects relating to a variety of means of facilitating continuing involvement by the noncustodial parent.

In 1996 a new Federal grant program for child access and visitation programs was established nationwide.  (etc.   . . . You can read it. . .. )


This is a later (after 2002) summary bearing the typical evaluation credit:  Center for Policy Research / Policy Studies, Inc. (both in Denver).

Its writers (compilers, I gather) are Jessica Pearson and David Price, for the respective agencies.  I’ve profiled both these corporations plenty on the blog and associated Dr. Pearson clearly with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Its language is apparent here, in discussion A/V funding when it comes to “high-conflict families.”  I think this section pretty much Says it All — in describing the largest court system in the country (California’s) zero mention is made of the phrase “domestic violence.”  Notice the substitutionary words, applied to BOTH parents, not just one.  THey are viewed as a unit, and not as individuals:

The phrase “high-conflict” is used 40 times (approximately once every 4 pages on averate) and an entire chapter is devoted to how to deal with such, “parents.”


“To investigate and provide long-term access assistance to families with entrenched disputes and/or serious allegations of parental misconduct, using a variety of court-ordered services.”

“serious allegations of parental misconduct” clearly puts said misconduct into the “behavioral” realm and not criminal.  Readers should understand that the authors, by association, would consider “parental alienation” serious misconduct, as well as alleging or reporting, or having allowed a child to report, any serious misconduct.  There are no moral values or standards outside the dispute resolution industry here, apparently:


Brief investigations by trained court personnel when parents exhibit high conflict behavior, with recommendations to the court on needed services.

It is not necessary to conduct any extended investigation, or read reports of non-court personnel, such as police reports, or CPS reports.

Translation:  This is a “Catch-22.”  If there HAS been “serious parental misconduct” it is going to cause conflict — unless one parent can be extorted or intimidated into silence (which this system helps do). . . .  NO reference to ascertaining the cause of it shows up.  The knee-jerk solution is tell the court to “recommend needed services”

I will translate this formula for driving business to related professionals, or court-affiliated nonprofits another time here:

ANY CONFLICT is an excuse to INCREASE BILLABLE HOURS (whether to Title IV_D provided, or force the parent(s) to pay) to some “SERVICE.”



More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

  • Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
  • Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access
  • Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.
  • Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children
  • Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.
  • ␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**
  • ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.

(**aka, do not rape, etc.)

A 12-week curriculum for domestic violence?  (There are 52-week batterers intervention programs, and they aren’t even proven effective…excepting getting out of a jail sentence for DV)

the word “mother” occurs 42 times and “father” more than 100 times.   The document is well worth reading to understand how the court “thinks” about parents walking into its doors, while providing services that the federal government (as of the late 1990s) pays 90% of the expenses for, and that any state paying less than $100K for statewide services will still get $100K for statewide services anyhow.

I have not tracked to what extent this program has been expanded, or the Administration hopes to expand payments for it as of 2012.  I have stomach issues and it’s early in the day, might need to keep any meals down  . . .

David A. Price is a very interesting professional: He publishes consistently opposite the CPR group, and/or with Jane Venohr, Ph.D. (who has been staff in both CPR & PSI), for example, in Colorado:

Multiple Initiatives Grant

Notice the authors.  (Thoennes is also CPR).   In the selection above, the piece citing David Price has credit like this:

Jane Venohr, Ph.D.

David Price, Ph.D.

Policy Studies Inc.

999 18th Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 863-0900

(on the left — and on the right side, is CPR)

Esther Griswold, M.A., Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555

However, Jane Venohr has been (from the start?  Certainly for a long time) “CPR” — she is one of the 3 key leaders, out of 6 women listed in “About Us.”

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate


Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

So for purposes of the study, Jane wore her PSI had with Mr. Price, and someone else wore the CPR had.  This is common among AFCC-personnel; if you don’t know the common association, you just don’t know.  Perhaps in all professions, but I sure notice it among the court’s.   ALSO, in Colorado, “David A. Price” is only associated with two corporations, one of which (he) voluntarily dissolved in 2008, apparently, namely, a law firm:

Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Address Type Count
80204, US
Registered Agent 1
Registered Agent 1

The first one was formed (note) in 1984, and he has been filing consistently — unlike many marriage grantees– even this past month! It’s also a nonprofit.

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID # Click here to sort in ascending order. Entity Name Entity Type Date Filed Entity Status
1 19871583603  CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES Nonprofit Corporation 08/15/1984 GOOD

I believe I have pointed this out before, but Policy Studies Inc. has 12 trade names, many of them relating to child support; (always) notice the dates of incorporation:

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Address Type Count
CO 80202, US
Trade name Registrant 12 
[Next 2>]
Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

and the last two:

Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM

The “Parent Opportunity Programs” have been studied, noted as problemmatic for mothers, by National Alliance of Family Court Judges (Liz Richards).

The El Paso County Child SUpport Services site has a section on this, what appears to be an access-visitation-funded program, one would think from the description:

This would seem to be a government site, judging by the phrase “El Paso County” and how official it looks.  However the URL is clearly  a *.com:


By Contrast, for example, Jefferson County, CO child support site is clearly a government site (see url http://co.jefferson.co.us/cse/index.htm)  Notice, central to the site:

Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

Fatherhood Program 

Learning to be the best dads we can be!

The purpose of the Fatherhood Program is to provide education and support for those individuals desiring to enrich their lives and their child(ren) while providing peer based engagement, motivation and indefinite support to individual fathers and families.  These fathers will be educated about practical parenting styles and skills.  Emphasis will be placed on the critical need for fathers to be active in parenting their children {{Access & Visitation…}} as well as serving as positive role models for other children in our communities.  The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives,{{also code for access and visitation, possibly including help modifying support or custody orders}} becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community.
Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated.  The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan.

The  ‘Fatherhood Case Manager’ is listed as a DHHS employee:

“The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.”  (ACF/OFA, meaning, probably, National).  “Colorado WOrks” is no doubt their welfare program).”  Suppose a noncustodial mother hits this page?  We do exist, even as the silent minority!)

SEE HOW THIS WoRKS, yet?  LInks to, for example:



. . .(I explored this site a bit, which includes a home for abused children, and “Circle of Parents(TR), which also turns out to be HHS/OFA funded:

Families First received a Partners for Kids: United Hands Make the Best Families Responsible Fatherhood sub- award grant from the national Circle of Parents® office, to provide training and technical assistance to these two sites. The project is funded by the U.S. DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.


Circle of Parents

“Mission Statement : Prevent child abuse and neglect and strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups.”

Anything HHS-funded and purporting to prevent child abuse is likely to do this by promoting father involvement . . .  It’s how the cookie crumbles:

About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert. **  

 CIRCLE OF PARENTS RECEIVED $4,800,000 IN “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program” funding from the OFA from 2006 through 2010, a five-year period.  The first two years, a flat $900K each, then each subsequent year $1,000,000.   Here it is, all = award 90FR0098.  (Found in 3 minutes — I didn’t think of it on first posting — taggs.hhs.gov / award search / selected Year 2011/cfda 93086, and scanned the (178) results).  This group shows no 2011 award, but its presence in the list shows prior awards.

Circle of Parents®   EIN 800106957

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
CIRCLE OF PARENTS  CHICAGO IL 60611-3777 COOK 623444994 $ 4,800,000

The “Chicago” connection makes me wonder whether Jeffrey Leving is involved.  (See FFCA conferences, a large part of which each year appears to be drooling over (and coordinating how to get) the next round of fatherhood funding from whichever HEAD representative from the HHS/ACF shows up to remind them, “Who’s Your Daddy?” when it comes to caring about them enough to donate public funding from US Taxpayers (of both genders).

Here’s the Tax Return signed 4/15/2011 by CEO Cynthia R. Savage, with a very moderate salary (for the field) of $73K.  Then again, most if it apparently comes from grants taken away from TANF to start with, or other HHS funds used to promote fatherhood, after setting up organization after organization with websites and other “technical assistance” to dominate the PR on a topic, and sell trainings or curricula, usually.

Revenue (that year):








Circle of Parents IL 2010 $65,404 990 31 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2009 $68,336 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2008 $52,969 990 28 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2007 $26,843 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2006 $83,638 990 24 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2005 $16,914 990 18 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2004 $3,803 990 25 80-0106957

Here’s one project of the group (note the format, graphics, high-quality media) that directly states it was funded by the above grant #90FR0098):


it is from Douglas County, KANSAS and designed to make Dads feel more comfortable in toddler playgroups, including a section called “DADDY & ME.”

NOTE:  KANSAS was making news at a petition site recently:  Topeka has declared it cannot afford even its domestic violence laws any more, they are too expensive, it is decriminalizing domestic battery, expecting the county to pick up the slack.  I kid you not:

Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.  Oct 4, 2011, Liz Goodwin.

 For a perspective, Google “Claudine Dombrowski” on my site — I have posted some of her court docket on there, and related the time when she was arrested for not bleeding after a severe assault, in the right county.  Actually she wasn’t reporting, simply seeking treatment at the time.  One of the assaults involved a crowbar, and this particular case has made it (along with Jessica Gonzales Lenahan) to the IACHR, as human rights violation perpetrated by the United States on its citizens.  The handling of this type of violence throughout the land has been resulting in — eventually, and in many, many cases — simply switching custody to the offender and letting the victim go repeatedly to court to fight for contact, while trying to stay sane in knowledge of who is caring for her kids, and (sometimes unsuccessfully) alive.   Another article on this topic.    NOTE:   TOPEKA IS THE CAPITAL OF KANSAS.  NOTE #2 — the head of the HHS department came from Kansas.
{{An acquaintance of mine forwarded the article (which I knew about), and said she’d submitted a comment, responding to a petition on this matter, that funding be found to allow the Women and Children of the state of Kansas to leave the state, for their own safety.}}

This article from “The Nation” sites the recent “Seal Beach, California” shooting — around a custody dispute.  The ex-wife and 7 bystanders were murdered. Obviously, what’s needed is more promotion of “responsible” fatherhood to counter murderous fathers.  It is more important to let Dads know how to feel comfortable while pushing strollers and at parks, than to stop that insanity!

[Tagline:] Topeka, Kansas, decriminalized domestic violence to save money. It’s not the only city to cut services to survivors of abuse, just as the need escalates.

After Chad Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County in Topeka, Kansas, had his budget cut by the County Commission last month, he announced that he no longer had the financial resources to pursue misdemeanor domestic violence cases, essentially handing them off to the city. The City Council, in turn, voted last week to decriminalize domestic violence so that it didn’t have to pay up. This put the ball back in Taylor’s court; he now says he will review cases sent to him by Topeka police and pursue them on a case-by-case basis. During the game of hot potato, suspected abusers walked free—reports range from eighteen to thirty people. Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):


Karen Schrader, Training and TA manager for Circle of Parents:

In 2006, Circle of Parents applied for and received one of (only) Five “Responsible Fatherhood Community Access” grants from the HHS/OFA.  She specifically mentions connections to “FamiliesFirst” in Colorado, two Dads in particular being among their national leadership, but until this ($900K grant, probably part of a 4-year agreement) they weren’t “specifically focused on fatherhood.”  HOWEVER, “the grant provided the opportunity to move the ‘cultural norm’ of our Circle of Parents network, and the ‘cultural norm” of local community-based/faith-based home visitation programs  farther along the continuum of engaging and supporting fathers.”

Provided the opportunity?  Translation:  We took the grant, and so agreed to tailor it towards fathers…..  LIke they’d wanted to all along, but not having access to free HHS funds was hampering their ability to change the culture of the organization.  (How much “culture” and a 2-year old organization have, to start with? MORE LIKELY — the organization was formed with a view to this in mind, and very much with an awareness of the HHS funding streams available. Only the 990s would tell, most likely, though.

NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE INFLUENCE in a $4.8 million national networked nonprofit discovered with links directly to (at a minimum) Colorado Child Support Enforcement site.

One of our strategic objectives was focused on changing the organization’s cultural norms around embracing fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), experts in the fatherhood field, joined forces with Circle of Parents to help show us the way. We needed to assess where each grantee was on the scale of father-friendliness.

is called fawning, obsequious pandering to whoever has the money, and probably conflict of interest, too.  It’s disgusting!   The sole purpose of this organization appears to be transforming LOCAL groups into so-called “father-friendliness.”   The Executive Order that endorsed this activity, in 1995, came from a philandering Democratic President with a history financial corruption preceding the PResidency (i.e., “Clintongate,”) and with need of a personal cleanup crew to handle that philandering.  This is the SAME LANGUAGE 15 years later.

Each local and state grantee completed a father-friendly check-up assessment and created an action plan to increase their abilities to engage fathers.

Knowing that organizational change was important when we wrote the grant, Circle of Parents created a multi-level training and technical assistance system to assist the Network state and local grantees in becoming more father-friendly. In addition to NFI, expert consultants such as a domestic violence professional with experience in working with males and Bernie Dorsey of the Con- scious Fathering Program of Parent Trust for Washington Children, were engaged to provide much-needed direction and guidance. By year 3 it became clear that we needed to be more intentional in our efforts. We added additional training events and technical assistance focused on not only organizational assessment, but also staff self-assessment. If organizations are going to change their cultural norms, the staff must make personal changes as well. Circle of Parents’ commitment to father outreach and engagement will continue long after the grant ends in September. In this issue, we’ve focused on North Carolina as one illustration of the far reaching impact of this grant both on the state and local levels.

Karen Schrader took $50,100 as Program Administrator from the over $1 million of government grants (i.e., money taken from poor households food stamps, cash aid, or children’s child support / enforcement) to act as a talking head for the NFI policy set up in 1994, when this group got a conflict-of-interest-type grant from HHS, having a co-founder that was then WORKING for the HHS.  (Wade Horn, to my recall).

The third employee was paid $34,000 — would support most single-parent families adequately most places in the US — if they were NOT constantly dragged into father-friendly high-conflict custody ligitation, thanks to programs like this — to support the talk and promotion of this one group.  Membership dues one year, $13,000.  That might go a long ways to supporting a family, or helping a family get some of its infrastructure in place (like transportation) to enable access to work. Or medical care, you name it.   $642K of this $1Million plus was given away to other organizations.  Father-friendly ones only, I”m sure . . .  $217K was, again, salaries and benefits to do this; $31K in travel (wouldn’t YOU like to have a $31K travel budget?) and in IRS form Part IX, “Statement of Functional Expenses” they have nothing under “Professional Fundraising” (who needs it, with this kind of a HHS grant backing!), but  $162K in “other program expenses,” meaning, expenses directly related to doing their program.  Of course, their “program” is to transform the culture of (whoever they interact with) to become more father-friendly to start with . . ..    

Their “Program Accomplishments” are generic, and out of $1,189,089 expenses for accomplishing them, $1,054,454, or over50%, were via government grant, and in the process, said “program accomplishments” produced around $5k revenue as well.  Details for this $1.1 million of expenses (note, the average Circle of Parents(tr) HHS grant was $1 million, so if I were the HHS (and thought anyone was watching), I would want some account of where it went.

990 reads:  “See Schedule O” (usually attached to the end of the tax return).   “

Did the organization complete Schedule O — is checked “No.”

AS SUCH — this is a TYPICAL GRANTEE . . . .  Incorporated shortly before some new uptick in fatherhood / marriage funding, sustained and set up almost entirely by it, and with the primary emphasison “Technical Assistance & Training” which I translated as “PR” and “Web site support.” plus conferences, training, membership fees to do it YOUR way (insert brand name  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ).     990s are VERY interesting, and often tell a different story and the front face of the organization, although Karen Schrader was astonishingly honest about “just what” Circle of Parents(tr) really is.

Of course, I picked up on it immediately from their website, because they aren’t the only organization transformed into father-friendly by HHS infusions.

The newsletter – JUNE 2011 — was posted at the link “SMART START & NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, Inc.”

What is Smart Start?

Smart Start was created in 1993 as an innovative solution to a problem: Children were coming to school unprepared to learn.”

Their FUNDERS page speaks loudly — it’s basically a laundry list of organizations that also do fatherhood promotion, plus a pharmaceutical, a tutoring program (Kaplan), a school supply, and (last year) over $1 million from W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  Oh yes — and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation which Domestic Violence advocate & public policy influencer Ms. Starosek worked for, above . . ..


   USASPENDING.GOV — as I have to say, seems habitual — is not reporting one of these $900K grants (the 2006 one, even though USASPENDING.gov has time slots back to 2000 for its data), and only 4 out of 5 awards, resulting in:

  • Total Dollars:$3,900,000
  • Transactions:1 – 4 of 4
 However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.
The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now.  (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)
ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.
Its listed as a partner on this group:  “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC:   (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise).  I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.

FRIENDS is an acronym for Family Resource Information, Education, and Network Development Service.

FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) is a service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We are a federally mandated Training and Technical Assistance Provider for CBCAP lead agencies.

How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP (FRIENDS) is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Children’s Bureau to provide training and technical assistance to designated CBCAP Lead Agencies and Set-Aside Grantees. For more information about the Children’s Bureau, please see their web site.

SO, certain groups (probably including “circle of Parents” with its $4.8 Million “Promote Responsible Fatherhood” grant) are “SET-ASIDE GRANTEES” and the rest of you, good luck getting a foot in the door.   What is CBCAP?  Another acronym leading back to “CAPTA” which appears to lead back to welfare reform, or at least matches the time frame — 2006.   It was reauthorized in 2010, and I bet there are mothers all across the country, in these custody wars, still wondering “what happened?” and why are abusers getting access to children STILL, even when the visitation happens in a supervised visitation center (Trumbull County, OHIO recent:  Convicted juvenile sex offender Dad & Mom take “parenting classes” and get access to their 2nd baby (first one, removed at birth, was beaten to death in foster care before she turned 2), and the facility this happens in “just happens” to be a fairly direct (and statewide) project of — guess what — “OHIO.FATHERHOOD.GOV.”   Gives a whole new meaning to “access and visitation,” not to mention “Parental involvement.”

What is CBCAP?

CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.

What legislation supports CBCAP?

The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).

Why were CBCAP programs created?

CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.



 ** For “expert” read “head shield.”  I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.”   The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.”  A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.  

A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach:  It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system.  As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.    

 Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)

Note:  North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it?  For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?

WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well).  The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare.  And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either.  SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!

I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years).  Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants.   (OCSE comes under HHS).  OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed  — or at least “promoted” — through:  Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations.  I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case).  Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting).   She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice.  Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and