These are supposedly the “stake-holders.”    This list should be posted at every family court facilitators, mediators, parent educators, guardian-ad-litem’s and anyone else’s doorpost, so at least the general public KNOWs what the good ol’ boys and girls’ clubs are specializing in, and where the interbreeding (sorry, “collaboration”) really is.

If I had more time, I’d highlight uses of the words “alienation” or “conflict” etc. 

I think that the deliverables are in exact inverse proportion to the claims. 

The web is full of angry men and women both, at this venue.  This one appears to be from a father, and HE doesn’t like supervised visitation, either.  This deals with a professional whose credentials turned out to be spurious, and more.  Check out the rest of the link too — why not?

Supervised Visitation Centers And Monitors

The lack of results from the psychological evaluation is often an excuse to not correct unfair and unjust custody situations for extended periods of time. The judges pretend they can address these problems by ordering “supervised visitation” in which a parent is watched and often videotaped while with their children. They must use supervised visitation centers or monitors approved by the court at rates often well in excess of $50 per hour to see their children. While some of these centers vary rates based upon income of the parent, it is as if the rates are chosen to consume the parent’s entire income. A order for 5 to 10 hours of supervised contact per week is not unusual. The cost per hour typically is anywhere from $30 to $100 (or more) per hour depending upon the supervising party and the parent’s income.

It’s not unusual for supervised visitation for a parent to cost several thousand dollars per month, leaving the parent with having to decide between having money to live, money to fight the court battle, or money to pay for seeing the children. Often there’s simply not enough money to pay for any more than one of these, unless perhaps the parent is blessed with relatives who are willing to help. The San Diego family law system is happy with that option when it occurs. It gives them hundreds of thousands of dollars more to swallow up, feeding a monster that is hurting many people.

Crime Rewarded by Family Law Courts

Litigants in this system often feel that in San Diego family law courts, crime pays. The courts reward the crimes of false accusations against good parents. Government agencies such as the police and CPS frequently involve themselves in these cases, too. When they can’t find any criminal activity, they virtually never go after the falsely accusing party. Instead, they sometimes punish accused parents without a trial or due process by helping to deprive them of custody for months or years and to financially and emotionally destroy them.

THIS one, I suspect, is probably female (I may know by whom).  She’s nailing conflict of interest, especially financial, among other things:

http://www.familylawcourts.com/countymarin.html

Nothing can change until it is first, accurately described.

There is assault, battery, attempted murder and murder.

There is Not domestic violence.

Family law is where criminals are detoured around the criminal justice system, in favor of, “anger management classes.”

Also a link worth reviewing….  It gives names, numbers, details, and principles.

I just had an idea today.  Since, everyone is so upset with the family law courts (except those making a living in them, or around them, who assert the real danger is not enough money going to them….  yeah, right ), why don’t we start a campaign something like this (men and women both):

“BOYCOTT THE FAMILY LAW VENUE.  FIGURE IT OUT YOURSELVES.”  (Whether by conversation or weapon, or bribes, the results could hardly be less devastating to families and society than what we have going on currently).  You could call it something like:

“Yes Family Violence IS a Private Matter.”  or “Keep your extortion, bribes and fraud local.”  Of course, certain categories of professionals would then flood the job market, driving wages down.  Anyhow, it’s an idea…..

Things are already being settled “behind closed doors” anyhow — how many parents, devastated financially and emotionally, can actually afford to attend these conferences?  And they are the ones we most need to hear from.  I’ve talked myself into a few; the powerpoints and refreshments were nice, and as far as I can tell have not made any significant changes in court practices.

The other thing women might want to consider boycotting is simply giving birth.  That would simplify matters also, at least for them… 

Well, I realize this was a very bitter comment, above.  Anyhow, we still ought to review some of these personnel.

http://www.afcc-ca.org/california_annual_conf_2010_bios.html

Battered women in custody battles in particular should review the types of people, and do some further research, whether or not you can attend.  I think WHo’s Who in this field is simply important to know.  Now’s your chance to read carefully.

I hope to update this post later today or tomorrow; this is a simple paste for now:

Alphabetical order (some bolding was lost in the paste….)

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
AFCC-CA Annual Conference
The Challenge of Diminishing Resources in Family Law:
A Clear and Present Danger to Our Children.
February 12-14, 2010

Rhonda B. Barovsky, LCSW earned her Master’s Degree in Social Work in 1982.  Before working at Family Court Services she worked at two different shelters for battered women, at San Francisco Rape Treatment, and was the Director of the San Francisco Juvenile Sex Offender Treatment Program, which she founded in 1986.  Ms. Barovsky worked at the Contra Costa County Family Court Services for nine years and was the Director of the San Francisco Family Court Services in 2001 before starting her private practice.

Lynette Berg Robe is a certified family law specialist, certified by the State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization, in private practice in Studio City, California. She is a member of the Board of AFCC California, and she has served on the Family Law Executive Committee of the Los Angeles County Bar Association since 1998. She also served on the State Bar Family Law Executive Committee for three years from 2006-2009 and was editor of the Family Law News during 2007-2008. A graduate of UCLA Law, where she served on the law review, she offers services in her law practice in all aspects of marital dissolution, paternity matters, premarital and other agreements, including mediation and collaborative law.

Steven F. Bucky, Ph.D.
California School of Professional Psychology / Alliant International University San Diego
(1972 – present)

Steven Bucky, PhD, is a full professor, the Director of Professional Training, Chair of the Ethics Committee, Executive Director of the Addictions Institute and was the Interim System wide Dean at the California School of Professional Psychology at Alliant International University.

Dr. Bucky was on California Psychological Association’s (“CPA”) Board of Directors from 1996 to 2000, on CPA’s Ethics Committee from 1990 to 1997, Chair of the annual convention from 1999-2000 and was President of CPA in 1997. He is President/Chairman of the Board of the McAlister Institute, which consists of twenty programs throughout San Diego County that focus on the treatment of alcohol and other drug problems of women, their children and adolescents.

Dr. Bucky has published more than 150 papers, presented at major conventions such as the American Psychological Association and the California Psychological Association and has edited the book The Impact of Alcoholism.

Dr. Bucky is the recipient of numerous awards, including the Silver Psi Award and the Distinguished Service Award from the California Psychological Association. He is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association and of the San Diego Psychological Association.

Dr. Bucky also maintains a private practice that focuses on children, adolescents, families, substance abuse, forensics, and the assessment and treatment of professional and college athletes.

Dr. Bucky is a consultant to California ’s Board of Psychology, Medical Board, Board of Behavioral Sciences, and the Attorney General’s office, has consulted with the District Attorney’s office, the US Attorney’s office, the City Attorney and numerous attorneys who specialize in the defense of mental health professionals. Dr. Bucky is also a consultant to the NFL, the San Diego Chargers, and the Athletic Department at San Diego State University

Paula Savage Cohen is a senior attorney in the family law unit of Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles where she has worked since 1995. She coordinates the Domestic Violence Clinic at the Long Beach Courthouse, which offers free legal services and representation to victims of domestic violence. Paula counsels clients in all areas of family law with a focus on domestic violence, child custody and child abduction. Paula just completed a 3-year appointment to the Family Law Executive Committee of the State Bar of California. She received the 54th District “Woman of the Year” award (2006) from Assembly Member Betty Karnette.

Honorable Judith Craddick was admitted to the Bar in 1980.  In 1998 she was appointed to the Contra Costa County Superior Court by Gov. Pete Wilson.  From 1980 until 1986 she was an associate at a law firm specializing in defense of medical malpractice litigation.  From 1986 until her appointment to the bench, Judge Craddick was a principal and managing attorney at the same law firm Craddick, Candland & Conti.  Judge Craddick worked on the Family Law bench for seven years, six years as the Presiding Judge and five years as the Presiding Judge, Post-conviction Misdemeanor Domestic Violence Court.

Leslie M. Drozd, Ph.D. is clinician, teacher, researcher, and forensic expert with expertise in issues related to child custody including partner violence, alienation, substance abuse, and attachment. She has written a myriad professional books, chapters, and articles, and is the founding editor of the international peer-reviewed Journal of Child Custody. She has served on advisory councils for the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Dr. Drozd performs custody evaluations, co-parenting therapy, parenting coordination, reunification therapy, and expert consultations to attorneys.

Sandra Etue has been a Family Law practitioner in Woodland Hills, for over 11 years. In addition to her representation of Family Law litigants, numerous Judges throughout Los Angeles County have appointed Ms. Etue as Minor’s Counsel, in high-conflict custody disputes. Ms. Etue believes it is important for all Minors’ Counsel to understand the developmental stages of children and to keep current with the psychological research in the area of custody and visitation. Ms. Etue is also a trained Family Law mediator.

Judith R. Forman
Listed in: Best Lawyers in America; Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers; Southern California Super Lawyer, 2004-2008; Top 50 Female Super Lawyers, Southern California, 2005-2008; Top 100 Los Angeles County Super Lawyers, 2006-2007.

Author: “The Impact of Parental Alcoholism and Related Substance Abuse Issues in Custody Determinations,”; “The Effect of Parental Alcoholism in Custody Disputes,” Los Angeles County Bar, Family Law Symposium Books, 1992-1993; “Force of Habit,” Los Angeles Daily Journal, July 27, 1995; “Copyright Custody,” Los Angeles Daily Journal, Nov. 30, 1995; “Identifying and Dividing Intellectual Property: Practical Considerations at Marital Dissolution,” Aspen Family Law Update (Aspen Law and Business, New York City, 1999).

Co-Author with Patricia Phillips: “Custody and Support of Children,” California Transactions Forms: Family Law (Westgroup, 1998).

Stephen Gershman’s practice was founded in 1984 and is limited to family law including custody litigation, domestic violence, dissolution, paternity and complex property and financial issues in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties. Represent men and women with extensive experience in domestic violence defense including cases with accompanying criminal charges. Custody matters include experience with move aways and children with special needs. I work with and make use of mental health professionals in several areas of my practice.

Albert R. Gibbs, Ph.D., is a psychologist practicing in Los Angeles County. He earned his Ph.D. in 1976 from the California School of Professional Psychology in Los Angeles and is currently director of Co-Parents Solutions providing divorce and co-parent education classes. He is a frequent lecturer on co-parenting issues.

Commissioner Reva G. Goetz was appointed to the bench in November 1991. She sits in Department 9, one of three Probate Departments, in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. Her calendar consists of Conservatorships, Guardianships, Trust, and Estate matters. Previously she sat in a Family Law assignment for 5 ½ years. When to the bench, Commissioner Goetz was a Deputy District Attorney assigned to the Major Fraud Unit. Prior to practicing law, Commissioner Goetz worked as a Financial Analyst and Accountant. Commissioner Goetz received her law degree from Whittier Law School where she was an Editor on the Law Review.

Diane M. Goodman is a partner in the law firm of Goodman & Metz in Encino. She received her J.D. from the University of La Verne School of Law in 1984. Ms. Goodman is a family law practitioner, with an emphasis on representing the gay and lesbian client. Ms. Goodman has handled many child custody and adoption matters in the Los Angeles and surrounding areas. Ms. Goodman is President of the Academy of California Adoption Lawyers/Academy of California Family Formation Lawyers. Ms. Goodman volunteers at the Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center Legal Clinic. Ms. Goodman served as a commissioner on the Los Angeles City Commission on the Status of Women from 1980 – 1990. Ms. Goodman is also a member of Congregation Beth Chayim Chadashim, American Civil Liberties Union, Lawyers for Human Rights and the Los Angeles County Bar Association.

Scott Gordon is a Commissioner with the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He is currently assigned to the Family Law Department where he presides in Department 88. Prior to his election to the Los Angeles Superior Court, Mr. Gordon served with the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office for sixteen years and as a police officer and detective for the Santa Monica Police Department for eight years.

While a deputy district attorney Mr. Gordon served in a variety assignments including: Central Trials, Sex Crimes and Child Abuse Division, Stuart House, Special Investigations and the Stalking and Threat Assessment Team.

Mr. Gordon has served as an Adjunct Professor of Law for Southwestern University School of Law for the past fourteen years. He teaches Trial Advocacy, Advanced Criminal Procedure, Forensic Evidence, and the Criminal Response to Terrorism Seminar.

Mr. Gordon was named “Prosecuting Attorney of the Year” by the Los Angeles Bar Association, “Humanitarian of the Year” by the Los Angeles Commission on Assaults Against Women and received the “Excellence in Teaching Award for 2003” from Southwestern University School of Law.

In 1997, Commissioner Gordon served as a Legal Expert for the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in The Hague, Netherlands.

His first book, Shadow Enemies: Hitler’s Secret Terrorist Plot Against the United States, was recently published by Lyons Press.

Dianna Gould-Saltman is a certified family law specialist, first certified by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization in 1992. She has been selected as a Los Angeles Magazine Super lawyer numerous times and named as one of the Top 50 Woman Lawyers in Southern California twice. She is a fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. She has been active in the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts for many years and currently serves on the Board of Directors of the Parent organization. She has served on the Los Angeles County Bar Association Family Law Section Executive Committee since 1997, was Chair 2004-2005 and now serves as a chair emeritus. She has been a frequent lecturer for continuing education of the bar at many events. She has written extensively for family law publications and currently serves as an editor for the Journal of Child Custody.

Elise Greenberg has dedicated her legal career to the practice of dependency and family law. Since 1996, she has represented thousands of children in cases of divorce and other complex custody issues arising in paternity, adoption, and guardianship disputes, frequently serving as minor’s counsel. She also has extensive experience in representing children in extra-judicial arenas such as the LA Unified School District, the California Department of Developmental Services, and the Department of Child & Family Services. She was a co-founder of the Birthday Project, which raises funds from corporations and individuals to celebrate the birthdays of children in foster care. She received her Juris Doctor from DePaul University College of Law in Chicago.

Daniel Harkins, Esq. was admitted to the Bar in 1981.  He has been practicing Family Law since 1982.  He has a lot of experience with complex litigation, is frequently appointed by the Court to represent minor children, and has led seminars educating attorneys who are appointed to represent children.  He serves as a Special Master/Referee, and has sat as Judge Pro Tem in CCC Superior Court.   Daniel Harkins has been president of the Family Law Section of the CCC Bar Association.

Carol Hirshfield is a Licensed Psychologist with over 25 years experience working with children, adults and their families on both the East and West Coasts. She has special expertise in child development, populations with special needs (such as learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, developmental disabilities, and autism), and services for families who are engaged in high conflict divorce.  Her private practice in West Los Angeles includes the following: psychotherapy and family therapy, social skills groups – for children ages 8-15, Collaborative Divorce & Custody Mediation, and teaching Co-Parenting for Divorce (COPE) – a course for parents. She is especially interested in helping children navigate the difficulties of living with separated/divorced parents, and her high conflict divorce work is done in that context.

Dr. Hoppe has been using psychological tests as part of his own and others’ comprehensive child custody evaluations. He has tested some four to five thousand individuals involved in high conflict custody evaluations for dozens of other custody evaluators.  Since 1987 he has compiled average scores of test results of custody litigants on several of the most widely used psychological tests. These results comprise the largest known database of different personality measures done on the same custody litigant.  He has spoken about the use of tests and these custody norms in comprehensive Custody evaluations since the 1980s and has disseminated the average scores on tests at national professional meetings since 1993.  Dr. Hoppe was trained in Child Psychology as a Post Doctoral Fellow of the National Institute of Mental Health in Child psychology.  He is member of the International Psychoanalytic Association as well as national and local psychological associations.

Karen Horwitz is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist in the South Bay of Los Angeles, California. She has a private psychotherapy practice in which she specializes in working with children ages 4 and up as well as with couples and families. She also works as a Parenting Shadow and Therapeutic Monitor. She does co-parent counseling and child custody mediation. She trained in “The Mindful Parenting Program,” at the Maple Counseling Center in Beverly Hills and holds certificates in Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy for both adults and children from the Psychoanalytic Center of California.

Mr. Jenkins is an attorney whose practice emphasizes family law issues. Known
for his encyclopedic knowledge and easygoing demeanor, Mr. Jenkins spent five
years as a research attorney prior to bringing his estimable skills to private
practice. Mr. Jenkins has extensive experience as a litigator and has been
instrumental in the drafting of family codes for Indian tribal courts throughout the
country.

Honorable Judge Juhas was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court in 2002 and
has sat in family Law since then.  He is the assistant Supervising judge
for family law in LA County.  He currently sits on several committees
for the Administrative Office of the Courts, including the Elkins Family
Law Task Force.  He has taught on several occasions for the Center for
Education and Judicial Research, the Los Angeles County Bar Association
and AFCC.  He currently sits on the AFCC-CA board.

Judge Wendy L. Kohn was appointed to the Los Angeles County Superior Court in 2003 and has presided over a family law courtroom for six years. She is currently assigned to the Northwest District in Van Nuys, CA. Prior to her appointment to the bench, she worked as an arbitrator and mediator (with an emphasis on securities industry disputes), as a volunteer attorney for Bet Tzedek Legal Services, as General Counsel for a local certified public accounting firm, and as a business, estate planning and probate attorney in private practice. Judge Kohn received her law degree from San Fernando Valley College of Law, and her Masters in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine Law School.

Alyce LaViolette, MS, MFCC is a pioneer in the field of partner violence. She has worked with battered women since 1978, with six of those years in the Long Beach Women Shelter. In 1979, she developed Alternatives to Violence, one of the first programs in the country to work with men who abuse women in intimate relationships and also one of the first men’s programs to originate as a shelter program. Ms. LaViolette developed the first domestic violence training program for the Los Angeles Department of Probation and provided that program statewide. She has also developed training programs for the Los Angeles and Orange County Departments of Children and Family Services. She is a frequently requested conference and keynote speaker both nationally and internationally. She has consulted with the Japanese Government on the creation of domestic violence policies.

S. Margaret Lee, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist whose work focus is providing services to divorcing families. Dr. Lee performs custody evaluations, custody mediation, co-parent counseling and expert consultation to attorneys. Dr. Lee has done research regarding psychological testing in child custody evaluations. Dr. Lee is a frequent presenter at conferences in the area of psychology/family law.

Renee Leff, MFT, JD is both a Juris Doctor on Law and a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. She is also Board Certified as a Diplomate-Fellow in Forensic Science. In addition to providing psychotherapy for individuals in transition, her specialties are pre and post divorce issues, including custody/visitation, parent-child re-unification, and blended families. She is a former child custody evaluator and currently co-creates parenting plans for custody arrangements with couples undergoing divorce. She coaches high conflict couples and individuals undergoing divorce and child custody evaluations. Additionally, she offers court mandated education, privately or in groups, for high conflict couples with respect to co-parenting skills. She also provides group psychotherapy experience for children and adults of high conflict divorce. Ms. Leff also works as a team with attorneys, and she treats people undergoing the depression, anxiety, and other psychological components that arise from legal cases: e.g., sexual harassment cases, employment issues, family law issues and personal injury cases. She has a private practice in West Los Angeles, Tarzana, and Woodland Hills California, where she treats individuals, couples, and families from an attachment, inter-subjective, and relational theoretical perspective. Ms. Leff achieved her undergraduate degree from California State University at Los Angeles, her Masters Degree from Phillips Graduate Institute, and her Juris Doctor Degree from Southwestern University College of Law. She has completed the Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy and Advanced Program at the Institute for Contemporary Psychoanalysis in Los Angeles. She is the past president of the San Fernando Valley Chapter of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists; an adjunct faculty member of Phillips Graduate Institute and California State University, Northridge; and a board member of the of the Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association. She is also a member of the Los Angeles and San Fernando Valley Bar Associations.

Honorable Thomas Trent Lewis, Judge Los Angeles County Superior Court, Certified Family Law Specialist, State Bar of California, Fellow American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, and Vice President-AFCC- California Chapter.

Anne Lintott, LMFT, is a mediator, evaluator, and licensed psychotherapist, working for the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles , in Family Court Services. Anne has 16 years of experience in working with parents, children, and families dealing with separation and/or divorce issues, with expertise in facilitating parents in conflict management, child development education, and in addressing communication and co-parenting strategies. Anne is also a parent educator, and has taught “Parents and Children Together” and “Parenting Without Conflict” for several years. Anne also is in private practice as a psychotherapist and consultant in Los Feliz , California .
Mary Elizabeth Lund, Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from UCLA, did a postdoctoral fellowship at University of Cambridge, England, where she did research on divorce and children.  She started a mediation and divorce therapy practice in 1985.  In 1990 was chosen by Los Angeles Superior Court judges to do custody evaluations.  She has been doing collaborative law cases for the last seven years.  Her articles include original research and theory on effects of divorce on children, parental alienation, divorced fathers, custody evaluations, and mediation training. She trains incoming California Family Law judicial officers and is on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody.

Karin Manger is a Licensed Clinical Social Worker. She has more than 25 years of experience working with children and families. Prior to joining Family Court Services in 1991 as a child custody evaluator, she was the Program Director of the Aviva Center, a residential treatment program for adolescent girls and the Clinical Director of the Germaine Lawrence Intensive Residential Treatment Program in Massachusetts. She has expertise in working with children and adults with a wide range of psychiatric disorders, as well as situational reactions. She has conducted over 700 child custody evaluations, both full and solution focused, and has taught the Parenting Without Conflict Program. Currently, she maintains a small private practice in West Los Angles.
She also provides education groups for parents of children facing social and developmental challenges.

Diana Mercer, Esq. is an Attorney-Mediator and the founder of Peace Talks Mediation Service in Los Angeles, CA. (www.peace-talks.com). A veteran litigator she now devotes her practice solely to mediation. She is the co-author of Your Divorce Advisor: a Lawyer and a Psychologist Guide You through the Legal and Emotional Landscape of Divorce (Fireside 2001) and When Divorce Works (Penguin 2010). She’s an Advanced Practitioner Member of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) and is admitted to practice law in California, New York Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and before the Supreme Court o f the United States.

Forrest “Woody” Mosten is a collaborative attorney, mediator, and author who provide training to professionals in workshops and seminars around the world. As a Certified Family Law Specialist who handles matters involving substantial assets, delicate parenting issues, and high family conflict, he never goes to court. He is the author of four books, Collaborative Divorce Handbook (2009, Jossey Bass), Mediation Career Guide (2001, Jossey Bass), Unbundling Legal Services (2000, ABA) and Complete Guide to Mediation (1997, ABA) and numerous articles. He is Editor of the Family Court Review’s Special Issue on Collaborative Practice to be published in April, 2011 and he is recognized internationally as the “Father of Unbundling..” He can be reached at http://www.MostenMediation.com.

Amy Neiman, CFLS received an undergraduate degree from San Francisco State University, and received her juris doctorate degree from the University of California at Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law in 1985. Ms. Neiman is a certified Family Law Specialist and has been practicing in the area of family law for close to 20 years. She currently works almost exclusively as minor’s counsel in high conflict custody proceedings. Prior to practicing in the area of family law, Ms. Neiman was a civil litigator at Latham & Watkins and Folger & Levin.  She also worked extensively in the area of art law, emphasizing public art destruction.

Nancy W. Olesen, Ph.D. graduated in psychology from the University of Wisconsin, Madison with a Ph.D. in clinical psychology from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. She teaches, researches, and works in private practice, with a particular emphasis on child abuse and neglect, custody and access disputes and the interface between clinical and forensic psychology. She has collaborated on a number of professional articles about custody evaluation, alienation and domestic violence and has served on national advisory councils for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Judge Amy Pellman is a Judge for the Los Angeles County Superior Court and is currently assigned to a family law trial department at the Stanley Mosk courthouse in downtown Los Angeles. Prior to her appointment as a judge in 200 , she was elected a Commissioner in July 2005. During her tenure as a lawyer, Judge Pellman was a nationally recognized advocate for children’s rights. She served as the Legal Director for the Alliance for Children’s Rights for over five years, a nonprofit legal organization devoted to providing free legal services to children living in poverty. She received the esteemed Child Advocacy Law Award in 2003 from the American Bar Association. Prior to joining the Alliance for Children’s Rights, Judge Pellman spent seven years at Dependency Court Legal Services serving a senior trial attorney and appellate counsel representing children in foster care. She has authored numerous articles on issues related to children from a training manual for new judges and lawyers to a law review article addressing the complexity of planning for children in foster care. Judge Pellman received a Juris Doctorate from City University of New York Law School, which has a commitment to train lawyers interested in public interest and public service.

William Spiller has been involved in representing children for over 15 years. He has been a frequent lecturer at continuing education programs for minor’s counsel and family law issues. He has also served as a referee for the Los Angeles Superior Court of California Juvenile Court for over ten years. A member of AFCC and the National Association of Counsel for Children, Mr. Spiller also serves as a mediator.

Kyle Pruett, M.D. is a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Nursing at the Yale School of Medicine’s Child Study Center, where he received the Lifetime Distinguished Teaching award. He has been in the private practice of infant, child and family psychiatry since 1974. As president of Zero to Three: The National Center for Infants, Toddlers and their Families, he headed one of the nation’s most prestigious multi-disciplinary training programs for infant/family professionals. Both clinician and scholar, Dr. Pruett conducted a landmark study, which demonstrated the powerful, positive impact which early care giving by fathers can have on a young child’s social and intellectual development. Dr. Pruett’s writings include the classic The Nurturing Father, winner of the American Health Book Award, and the more current Fatherneed: Why Father Care is as Essential as Mother Care for Your Child and Me, Myself and I: The Child’s Sense of Self, which won the Independent Book Publisher’s Award. He makes frequent contributions to national and international print and electronic media, and television appearances, serves as consultant to Sesame Workshop, was chosen by Peter Jennings to co-host the Children’s Town Meeting on ABC News the Saturday after 9/11, and by Oprah Winfrey to co-host with her the award winning video for new parents, “Begin With Love”.

Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., M.S.L., is the Maconda Brown O’Connor Professor at Smith College and School of Social Work. Dr. Kline Pruett has trained legal and mental health professionals throughout the country, and served as commentator on radio and television news. She has more than twenty years of clinical experience with individuals, couples, families, and children, and has been trained in both Family Therapy and Divorce Mediation. Nationally noted for her research regarding child adjustment to divorce, joint custody, school interventions, and work/family conflicts, Dr. Kline Pruett has written over 50 articles, chapters and reviews, has co-edited two books, and is the co-author of Your Divorce Advisor: A Lawyer and a Psychologist Guide You through the Legal and Emotional Landscape of Divorce (2001). Her new book on co-parenting, written with her husband, will be released in September 2009. She trains lawyers, judges, and mental health professionals in family law topics related to father involvement, young children, parental conflict, and child adjustment to family transition.

Jane Shatz, Ph.D., practices in Beverly Hills, California, specializing as a custody evaluator, mediator and parenting plan coordinator. She is past president of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts California Chapter. She was an assistant professor of psychology at University of Wisconsin, a lecturer in psychology at U.S.C. She has numerous publications including Shatz, J.E. and LaViolette, A. (1998), “For Our Children: Helping Parents Help Their Kids: A 12 Week Curriculum for Never Married, Separated or Divorced Parents Where Domestic Violence Has Been an Issue.”

Lynn Rosenfield, LCSW brings 30 years of clinical social work experience, specializing in individual, couple and family therapy and the treatment of divorce issues, to her private practice in Los Angeles. She first became involved in alternative dispute resolution 25 years ago, when she developed and coordinated a divorce mediation program for Jewish Family Service of Los Angeles. Since 1990, she has been a mediator with Pulling. Together Mediation Center, a partnership she shares with an attorney and a Rabbi. She specializes in divorce issues in all aspects of her work: as a psychotherapist, mediator,
collaborative law coach, reunification therapist and consultant. Lynn is an active member of LAWCDP (Los Angeles Westside Collaborative Divorce Professionals, LACFLA (Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association, IACP (International Academy of Collaborative Professionals) and the California Society for Clinical Social Work. She is an adjunct faculty member of Smith College School for Social Work. You can visit her website at http://www.lynnrosenfield.com.

Leslie Ellen Shear, J.D., CFLS.
Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.

Dr. Simon is a forensic and clinical psychologist with over 25 years of experience
as an evaluator, mediator, reviewer and litigation consultant and therapist and.
Dr. Simon’s professional work focuses exclusively on the issues of divorce and
co-parenting. He is current authoring two books on divorce – one dealing with
trial consultation and expert review in child custody litigation and the other on the
unique issues of remarriage and second divorce.

Tamar Springer, LCSW, is a psychotherapist, mediator and parent educator in private practice in Los Angeles, California. Tamar formerly trained in and worked for the Superior Court of California, in Los Angeles, as a family mediator and parent educator. Tamar works with parents and families in developing effective communication and conflict management skills, as a co-parenting counselor, and as a supportive and educational resource during the separation and divorce process. Tamar is a frequent lecturer on clinical topics to both professionals and laypersons and was a featured speaker at the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists’ (CAMFT) Annual Conference in May 2008.

Dr. Matthew Sullivan earned his Ph.D. in 1985 from the University of Maryland. He is currently a licensed Psychologist in private practice in Palo Alto, California providing psychological services and specializing in child forensic Psychology

You see that little “feedjit” gadget on the website?  Well, we can also look at whose looking at us.  Kinda like, “we see through a glass darkly” procedure, at this level. 

Anyhow, I’m in a funky mood today and so am dedicating this post to one of the more faithful and frequent visitors to my site, alongside of San Antonio, Texas, and occasional visits from HHS, I suppose to see what we are saying.  …Oh yes, the blogsters to the right and I were going to have a Plano Day, but we got busy, what with covering the Elkins Family Law Task Force, trying to regain access to our children, and stay housed, or doing jail time, in an instance or two, for failing to get a kid to agree with the Designer Family court order (Wisconsin, Kansas), or trying to scrape together funds to pay the supervised visitation fee assigned on us for reporting abuse — or allowing a minor child to — of him or her-self by the other parent.

Or for just getting too uppity — or nosy — in general, a sin which I confess to.

Or trying to figure out how the “trickle down” theory now in place — with most of the family violence explication interventions and judicial education conventions, and nationwide demonstration programs testing one social theory, or another, or sometimes both at once — which is good business for the mental health professionals for sure — on the general population — which seem pretty dang Democrat and, well, ya’ know, “CONCERNED,” on the face of them — why this trickle down wasn’t trickling ALL the way down. 

I think that trickle down technical/educational/social change assistance help got soaked up in the printing presses, the hotel room conferences, the Technical Support for replicatable website and saleable services concepts throughout the land, and somewhere Deep in the Heart of the word “Discretionary.”  

For example:

Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter – Comprehensive Three Day Training, Christian Focus

This training reflects our Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter – Comprehensive Three Day training but with an added focus on working with Christian men who batter. This training is a collaboration between Changing Men, Changing Lives Ministry, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project and the Christian faith community. [[Well, THAT’s specific, ain’t it?]] Although the tactics that men who batter use are similar across cultures, {{Oh, are they? **}} the reasons for the tactics can differ. This training takes our Duluth Model Curriculum and grounds it within a Christian cultural focus. The training focuses primarily on how to facilitate men’s nonviolence educational classes but also includes guidance on how clergy can partner with domestic violence agencies and support services for women. The training is open to batterer intervention program facilitators, women’s advocates, clergy and anyone in contact with Christian men struggling with abusive behaviors. Completion of this training will entitle participants to purchase the Duluth Model Curriculum Creating a Process of Change for Men Who Batter along with our Changing Men, Changing Lives supplement text and DVDs

Chain Of Fools by Aretha Franklin

Play song from Lala.com Soul Queen – 2007 – 2:43 Li

 

OH, My, that would not be just another post, but another entire blog.  Call in the experts for this one — and I’m one…Can’t say more without revealing precise identity, sorry…

“Changing Men, Changing Lives Ministry?”  You mean these guys from Anderson Indiana?

Are those trainers going to overlap — same organization with these ones?  Because i assure you, there are some Christian Battered Women who might want to sign up for THIS training:

In Our Best Interest – Working with Battered Women

A two-day training for battered women, advocates, women’s group facilitators, and community activists on the Duluth curriculum In Our Best Interest. Participants will learn how to use an educational model for facilitating groups for women who have been battered. The teaching method examines personal, institutional, and cultural action to end violence against women. Discussions include how racism, sexism, homophobia, and classism contribute to violence against women

 

I assure you THAT one would go over real “big” with “the Christian community” (you mean the whole 9 yards of it?).  I have a recommended reading list, starting with “Battered into Submission,” … 

http://www.man4manministries.com/

Man4Man is a local ministry based at 1010 West 8^th street. in Anderson, Indiana. Starting in 2001, we continue to seek to reach men coming out of prison and assist them in establishing new productive lives in society…

Man4Man Ministries has a vision to build a nation-wide network of Christian men to welcome, disciple, and include Men In Transition from incarceration to freedom. Establishing these men as fruitful members of the local congregations will greatly reduce the number of men returning to prison. Once these men are able to be accepted with their dedicated Christian lives they can become responsible productive members of society.

That sounds good, but I’ve also seen — in action — where this discipling teaches how to put a woman in her place…and it ain’t any prettier than whatever probably got them in prison to start with.

I think the line is starting to blur, but I assure you it isn’t yet, between Christian men who batter, Jewish men who batter, or Muslim men who batter. . . . . At least according to:

How Afghan Captivity Shaped My Feminism :: Middle East Quarterly‎ – Feb 23, 2009
Review of Muslim Women Activists in North America: Speaking for …‎ – Feb 22, 2009
Honor killings: When the ancient and the modern collide :: Middle …‎ – Jan 23, 2008

You know how it goes, ‘Train, Train, Train…” will stop the violence, for sure, yeah, this time.  If not, it’s good for the economy, at least parts of it.

Chain Of Fools by Aretha Franklin

Play song from Lala.com Soul Queen – 2007 – 2:43 Li

Excuse me, I meant “Chain, Chain, Chain.”  Freudian slip, I guess. Sorry. 

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Anyhow, Hello, Plano, Texas (and San Antone),

Are you happy about the new mayor of Houston?

I hope my “outing” y9ur visiting here is not a problem; maybe it’s a spouse, like I used to be.  Well, not quite like.

I know I like to be recognized when present, and thought you might be also.  Since you haven’t introduced yourself through a comment, (sometimes called lurking — but I guess that’s just in on-line groups) (off-line, it’s called stalking, but in this world, it’s OK and called “surfing.”  No problem), 

I resort to Wikipedia to start:

Plano (pronounced /ˈpleɪnoʊ/) is an affluent northern suburb of Dallas, Texas. Located mostly within Collin County, the population was 222,030 at the 2000 census, . . .

In 2005, Plano was designated the best place to live in the Western United States by CNN Money magazine. In 2006, Plano was selected as the 11th best place to live in the United States by CNN Money magazine.^[4] Plano schools consistently score among the highest in the nation. It has been rated as the wealthiest city in the United States by CNN Money^[5] with a poverty rate of less than 6.4%. In 2008, Forbes.com selected Plano, University Park, and Highland Park as the three “Top Suburbs To Live Well” of Dallas.^[6] The United States Census Bureau declared Plano the wealthiest city of 2008 by comparing the median household income for all U.S. cities whose populations were greater than 250,000.^[7] The annual Plano Balloon Festival is the city’s premiere cultural and entertainment event.

{{Out here, we tend to Bay to Breakers, and earthquakes, and students taking over campuses protesting fee hikes, and such like.}}

By 2000, the population nearly doubled again to 222,030, making it one of the largest Dallas suburbs. The city’s population now is stabilizing. Plano is completely locked in by other municipalities and cannot expand in area. There is little undeveloped land remaining within the city limits. By 2005, its population was estimated at 250,096.

 I hear you have a terrific school district (seriously, I have heard good things about Texas public schools as opposed to, say, for example, my own Golden State’s)…        Plano schools consistently score among the highest in the nation.

Perhaps these ACF Head Start (Discretionary) grants have helped:

(1995-2009, you do the math…)

The Presbyterian Hospital of Plano was a Fatherhood Resource Grant recipient (2008 site).  Congratulations.

In fact (same URL), LOOK at the wide variety of fatherhood grant recipients here — LOTS of Head Start, churches, some military, of course any organization with the word Children or Family is on there (“mother” being a sort of disappearing word, in general), Children & Family Services groups, and even the Coalition to End Domestic Violence out of Oxnard, CA.

{{Is it ended yet??}}

Fatherhood Recource Center Award Recipients
Posted September 5, 2008

<!–

National Fatherhood Initiative announces a Request for Proposals (RFP):

Fatherhood Resource Centers Now Available
(click here for more information)

Your organization may be qualified to receive almost $3000 worth of quality skill-building fatherhood resources – curricula, brochures, posters, and interactive resources!

–>http://www.fatherhood.org/RequestsForProposals/(to fill in the missing last few geographies which didn’t copy well).

Is there anyone [[any category of organization or government]] NOT in on this?

Please put this in your pipe and smoke it, the next time you hear the fatherhood whine, and Fathers4Families passing the plate to pay for their full-time lobbyist, OK?

A most definitely “under-represented” group in the family law venue.

The progression of the Coalition to End Family Violence in Oxnard California may be of interest.  I’m not sure (and I’m a bit concerned) about what types of programs a fatherhood funding grant would provide, or influence.  Y ou can see when this parenting program started in 2006

Well, I warned you (all) I was in a funky mood today. 

Here’s the timeline, with name changes (title is the URL/link)

What I’d like to see (or do) is a timeline comparing the groups like Duluthmodel (and its parent company, Minnesota Program Development, Inc. — check out the funding of this group and DAIP (Duluth Abuse Intervention Progframs) under whom we find the well-known Battered Women’s Justice Project (“Train, train, train….), Mending the Sacred Hoop, and the Family Visitation Center (established 1989?).

Family law (think “conciliation, transformational language, (re)framing domestic violence, etc.) really got going — in California — in the 1980s.  The Center for Policy Resarch and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC; I may have the nouns for which it stands off) go back at least that far.

1994, VAWA  (and National Fatherhood Initiative) — those all came later.  So let’s take a look at our Roots, OK?

Did I forget THIS organization?

PSI, Denver, Co.

Like Christian men who batter, this would be a separate post.  It shares personnel with Center for Policy Research (or used to, at least) — see my last post on Who’s Supervising Whom?).  It was one of the first things that helped me connect the (financial) dots in the larger picture.  After all, if HHS is going to Design our Families, SOMEONE has to do the job, right?  So groups like this position themselves to receive grants to get it done.

Of course it helps if you have personnel also advising the government which studies NEED doing (i.e., framing the questions), evaluating and reporting on the studies after they’re done, and then expanding nationwide, without telling the custodial (or now, noncustodial) moms, or necessarily all of the fathers either, what just hit them upside the head — or why he did, not getting what he wanted in family, or divorce or custody, or child support arrangements.  (sorry about that reference)…

Policy Studies Inc.

You name it , in these fields, they are in it:

We’ll work together to achieve your vision for your program. To stay focused on exceptional customer service, our outsourcing solutions focus on three lines of business:

(1)

October 22, 2009 – Public Comments hearing before Elkins Family Law Task Force in San Francisco, CA

Below is Dr. Sidiakina’s first speech on October 22, 2009 before the California Elkins Family Law Task Force. The copy of this speech with attached article (reference [1]) was given DIRECTLY to the Task Force members.  

Family Courts’ Reliance on Parental Alienation Syndrome Theory Turns Normal Children Into Mental Retards.

(2)

Below is Dr. Sidiakina’s second speech on October 22, 2009 before the California Elkins Family Law Task Force. The copy of this speech with attached article (reference [1]) and calculations was given DIRECTLY to the Task Force members.

 The Family Courts’ System in CA Turns Children Into Slaves

 By Dr. Natalia A. Sidiakina for Elkins Family Law Task Force meeting on 10/22/09 in San Francisco, CA

By Dr. Natalia A. Sidiakina for Elkins Family Law Task Force meeting 10/22/09

{{THIS SPEECH & the 2nd speech (title below) IS POSTED AT THIS SITE:  To access it, click on the link to left called:

Free Legal Education and Community Events. 

 

(3)

Not to be outdone or ignored, here is a response by “Fathers & Families” as posted on THIS site:

Fathers & Families Files Official Response to Elkins Task Force Recommendations on California Family Law Reforms « Fathers & Families

December 7th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA, Executive Director

I’m posting links and titles without excerpts, so readers can actually go there and read the entire thing.  I will comment that Dr. Natalia Sidiakina’s site as a whole addresses how in pro per [self-represented, i.e., impoverished] litigants, and the Glenn Sacks article notes that:

Fathers & Families is the only family court reform organization with a fulltime lobbyist working inside the capitol of California or any other major state, and we probably have the only fulltime family court reform lobbyist in the country. This important work costs money–please support it by giving here.

And further notes that they wish to emphasize COLLABORATIVE law…

Many of the issues the Elkins Commission is taking up, such as conflict reduction, improving transparency, and protecting all parties’ due process rights, were first addressed by Fathers & Families’ legislative representative Michael Robinson during his work on AB 402 in 2006.

AB 402, a family law bill sponsored by then-California Assemblyman Mervyn M. Dymally, codified collaborative law practice into our family law codes. The current adversarial litigation process escalates conflict between divorcing parents instead of reducing it. Collaborative Law is a better option.

Among other provisions, AB 402 mandated a written statement of decision in all hearings or trials involving child custody. While this provision was already part of the Codes of Civil Procedure, it was not always being followed.

[[As to the last item, it seems they passed a law to tell the judges to actually follow the code of civil procedure…  We requested a statement of decision, specifically in my case (where I lost custody of my children).  The judge complained about it, protested it, and finally BURIED it.  I never got one. ]

Fathers & Families want collaborative resolution of family conflict.  So do the AFCC, as I blogged earlier, and as they plainly say.

 However, there are sometimes problems where mediation (collaborative) intersects with domestic violence — for example, mediation presumes a kind of dialogue between equal parties and an “adult” way to solve troubles, with a neutral helper. 

Where there has been domestic violence, probably if there are still two parties alive, considerable negotiation has already taken place, but it’s not quite the same concept as proper mediation. . . .

In googling “mediation and domestic violence,” it’s hard to know where to start.  But this obscure-looking reference says a lot.  Source is below the quote:

 Purpose of the Study:

 

     As mediation becomes more common in the court system, and as the widespread nature of domestic violence becomes more apparent, the appropriateness of divorce mediation in domestic abuse cases has become an issue of increasing national importance. While the strongest criticisms have been directed toward the practice of mandating abused women to participate in divorce mediation, some battered women’s advocates object to the use of divorce mediation when there has been any domestic assault. Concerns about divorce mediation in cases where there has been domestic abuse include the following: [[I’ll separate the numbers for easier reading]]

(1) Mediation decriminalizes domestic abuse and encourages a conciliatory approach that does not hold the abuser accountable for his behavior, and the abuser may learn there are no adverse consequences to violence.

(2) Victims might be made to feel partially to blame for the abuse.

(3) Ensuring the safety of the victim during a process that allows the abuser to know the time and place his or her partner will be present for mediation becomes an important issue.

(4) Power imbalances introduced by domestic violence may render mediation inherently unfair.

(5) The conjoint and compromising nature of mediation may discourage abused victims from expressing their anger and deny them the benefits that expressed anger can bring.

(6) Joint custody arrangements favored by mediators may run counter to what is best for the victim and their children.

(7) Mediation may erode the victim’s financial status and deprive him or her of the economic advantages they may have won through divorce litigation.

(8) Questions arise regarding the caliber of court-based and community-based divorce mediation programs and the ability of staff to properly screen and handle cases with domestic abuse. However, most mediators and their supporters believe that mechanisms such as screening, individual caucusing, and the use of advocates in mediation sessions can help mitigate safety and fairness concerns in domestic violence cases.

This study provides information on mediators’ and court administrators’ handling of these situations by focusing on: (1) whether and how mediators and court staff attempt to gauge the level of domestic abuse and the capacity of divorcing parties to mediate, and (2) common adjustments to the divorce mediation process made to enhance safety in cases with domestic abuse.

You notice “This study?”  Now that I’m no longer a family court virgin (and our family — what’s left of them — are veterans of the mediation process, each time totally upending lifestyle and job situations on the word of the mediator, in a mandated jurisdiction) I check WHO is saying what, and where else they are saying what else, and possibly WHY.  So here’s who did this particular study:

 

Bibliographic Description
ICPSR Study No.:	2561
Persistent URL:	http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02561
Title:	Divorce Mediation and Domestic Violence in the United States, 1993
Principal Investigator(s):	Jessica Pearson, Center for Policy Research
Funding Agency:	United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice.
Grant Number:	93-IJ-CX-0036
Bibliographic Citation:	Pearson, Jessica. DIVORCE MEDIATION AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1993 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research [producer], 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1999. doi:10.3886/ICPSR02561

Here’s who they interviewed (Scope of Study):

. . . Data collection involved a collaboration with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in the administration and analysis of this survey. Court programs providing divorce mediation and/or custody evaluations in 1993 were targeted. The questionnaire was mailed in late 1993 to 200 institutional members of the AFCC and active providers of family and divorce services in the National Center for State Courts database. A total of 149 public-sector divorce mediation and custody/visitation counseling providers responded.

The AFCC already has assumed the position of pro-collaboration.  Battered women’s advocates assumed a position pretty much against it.  If that’s not enough conflict of interest, my sources say that Dr. Pearson is one of the incorporating members of AFCC to start with.  Then, as also one of the six members (and probably the lead one) of Center for Policy Research, she heads a study is done — at government expense — of the effectiveness of mediation and reports on it.

Where are the litigants actually asked?  Where are the kids who went through mediation actually asked?  Who is tracing who is paying for the mediators in the court system (well, for one, I am.  Another who is:  NAFCJ.net….  You should too). 

Beyond that, our government (USDOJ grant) is funding a study with an inherent conflict of interest among the people providing the services (also at government expense, sometimes, or at parent expense) who profit from the practice.

The Center for Policy Practice is also very influential — all over the country — in matters regarding child support; (see my last post), researching, advising, recommending, reporting.  That obviously is a FINANCIAL issue.

(5)

MY SUMMARY:

That’s what I call WHILE YOU, the public, WERE SLEEPING. . 

For a few years, I read the material on the inadvisability of mediation in cases of domestic violence, and marvelled at the apparent disconnect in the court system, year after year.

Every time we went through mediation, I ended up — within the next month, almost — losing valuable things I’d built up after separation and needed to physically survive — primarily work.  Being a custodial single mother, work was extremely important.

Only when I saw the money trail did it make sense.  These court personnel were, and are, marching to the tune of a different drummer, which I didn’t hear.  Now, I pick up on its traces better.  Who is paying Whom?, and whose professions are at risk if practices were changed to actually save lives or livelihoods?   

Now, I am almost out of time to blog, but let’s go back to the

Elkins Family Law Task Force:

(This is a California group, incidentally): 

They are going to report to the California Judicial Council, that sets policy for the rest of the state, and we are the state with the largest court system in the country, to my understanding.  From the F&F site, above:

The Elkins Family Law Task Force is conducting a comprehensive review of family law proceedings and will recommend to the Judicial Council of California proposals that increase access to justice for all family law litigants.

And the judicial council will then, judiciously, consider all alternatives fairly with a view to the best interests of the children or the state of California who come through this family law system, for which the “Clear and Present Danger” in the eyes of the AFCC is not a spousal batterer (as the california code says clearly) but underfunding of the courts.  They will also of course not be swayed by mere money, either, to swerve either TOWARDS more collaborative measures or AWAY from them (and back towards due process, evidence, and clear statements in the criminal law of what is and is not a crime, and from that understanding, deciding whether or not a crime was committed, and so forth and from THAT determination, think clearly about what criminal behavior — as defined by existing criminal laws, and not as RE-framed and RE-defined by the family law advocates and proponents (who stand to profit from reframing violence as conflict and anyone who can’t resolve conflict with a batterer as needing a check up from the neck up…):

USASPENDING.GOV, searching California Judicial Council, FY 2000-2010:

Top 5 Programs  93.586: State Court Improvement Program $16,056,967  93.597: Grants To States For Access And Visitation Programs $8,863,750  93.556: Promoting Safe And Stable Families $1,296,460 Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance  HHS – Administration for Children and Families $13,790,409  HHS – Secy. of Health and Human Services $12,426,768

The grants for access & visitation programs, though poorly monitored (from what I understand) but contain a stipulation of a REQUIRED OUTCOME of more custodial time with the noncustodial parent.

The Health and Human Services  is where the fatherhood programs reside. That’s another post (sorry), along side promoting responsible marriage and abstinence, and so forth. 

Therefore, I’m sure the Elkins Family Law Task Force reporting to this judicial council will indeed be “heard” clearly by the judicial council, and women and children will continue to be protected, including their assets, as well as due process through the courts.

That said, I believe you will find both posts informative, and I particularly recommend Dr. Sidiakina’s link also on the neurological abuse of power, which (unrestrained) can be like a cocaine fix.  Too much power resides in the hands of the collaborativei and mental health professionals in this venue, and too many loopholes for violation of due process each time one more is called in. 

What we were sleeping on was the creation of layers and layers of professionals whose job is to handle problems created BY the crisis in the courts, which are a self-perpetuating institution themselves. 

If you don’t understand the constant creation of crisis while maintaining the goal is peace, you don’t understand the basic concepts of war., one of which is transformative language to cloud the hard facts.  Another thing about war — it’s always costly. 

But some things are worth fighting for:

• Life
• Liberty
• Pursuit of Happiness
• Due Process
• Legal Rights.

 I’ll speak as a musician.  Some drama and tension is normal in life, as it is in any musical phrase, not counting muzak.  Some conflict is bound to happen, after which potentially there is growth and learning.   Conflicts which never get resolved can be handled by one of two ways:

Resolving them, based on facts and adjudication with a clear standard and a clear process of gathering the facts.

OR

Separation of the parties. 

The Government is not qualified to design families from above, or legislate the make up of them.  Clearly it’s not doing a real good job of protecting individuals within the families either; they are still killing each other, male, female, boy and girl, and sometimes after some horrible events including assaults and molestation.  There is retaliatory killing for leaving, or threatening to, for reporting abuse or for, sometimes money.  Can government really change human nature, and is this its job?

Since when?

Supervised Visitation is supposed to be helping families experiencing domestic violence, to prevent injury, death, kidnapping, or other horrible events from happening, while still maintaining that ever-important connection with a father (typically), that supposedly cannot control himself without supervision.

It also happens to be a handy replicatable and saleable business model, and profession.

It also happens to be used, frequently, to spank mothers who report abuse, as in Claudine Dombrowski, who testified in Kansas on this recently and has been participating in an international case against the United States for violation of human rights in the family courts:

(You need to read this one to understand how it’s used against women for speaking up…)

I have made my opinion (and qualify it as that) on this matter clear enough by citing Jack Straton’s 1990s commentary on the issue, which made sense to me, but has been ignored by the courts.  Why?  Probably doesn’t lead to more federal funding, and a whole class of children, family, relationships that can become the subject matter of MORE federally funded studies of — families, and DV:

What About the Kids? Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence
National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota 

from the Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues*
of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism
Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001)
c/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751
503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX) , straton@pdx.edu

---

What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?
by Jack C. Straton, Ph.D.

In the process, I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. I know that it is popular these days to de-gender family conflict, to talk about “spouse abuse” and “family violence” rather than “wife beating” and “rape.” I know that we want a society in which men nurture children to the same extent that women do.

I know that fathers and mothers should both be capable parents. But if you ask “What about the kids?” I want to give you a serious answer. I cannot seriously entertain the myth that our society really is gender neutral, so to consider “What about the kids?” while pretending such neutrality is to engage in denial and cognitive dissonance. I cannot hope to arrive at an answer that will positively affect reality if my underlying assumptions are based on fantasy.

So I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. As I cite examples, some of you may hear your internal voice saying, “But women do that, too.” As this happens I would ask you to be aware that such voices are often the voice of guilt that try to distract us from what we really know about men’s violence so that we need not take responsibility for this violence.

…

You may notice that this references:

Duluth Domestic Abuse Project

which I have also blogged on (I think) and where, possibly, this concept originated, starting as far back as 1989.  They market a database for it.  I don’t think Jack Straton’s sense is about to be exercised (unfortunately) when there is SO much potential for $$ in this field….

He continues, regarding children speaking up (a hot topic, I know):

Children’s right to choose vs. abuser’s manipulation of a child. 

I want to talk about the question of children advocating on their own behalf. As one who would like to see the rights of children recognized and affirmed, I am tempted to say that, yes, a child should have some input into a decision about with whom they will live.

Yet in the present case we have a man who, though he beats his wife, is often very charismatic to the rest of the world, and perhaps to his kids. And even if he beats his kids as well, it is known that intermittent affection can be a stronger binding agent than consistent affection. We also have a man who has demonstrated his power over another human being through brutality.

It is known that older children will sometimes join in the abuse of their mother. Since it is the older children to whom we might be tempted to accede some measure of choice, I find this mirroring of the father’s brutality disquieting. I do not ask you to take one side or the other of this question, but to be cautious until someone more wise than I can resolve the knot for you.

 

At any rate, here is some of the funding behind some of this issue.

NOTE:  My time is out, the post is incomplete, but I’m going to still publish it here.  I believe we ALL need to start studying this database and start looking up who is doing what with our scarce federal dollars, as the headlines continue to show more and more domestic violence deaths, and some very traumatic and dangerous behavior from the next generation of children.  Perhaps the failure to protect is related to this. . . . .     When will the studies be done?  When will the effectiveness be shown?  WHO is accounting for it?

This is NOT someone else’s business, it’s yours, at least in this nation!

As I’ve promoted on this website, this is one tool for tracking government spending — at least in the Health and Human Services department:

Tracking Accountability in Government Grants (TAGGS) Web Site

GrantsNet Home

The Department’s Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) is the Department’s central repository for all HHS grant transaction data. Much of this data is available to the public at the TAGGS internet site http://taggs.hhs.gov. This site allows users to view standard TAGGS-generated reports or query the database for current and past grant award information. Congressional district, grant program name, recipient (grantee) name, recipient location (state, city, zip, and/or congressional district), awarding OPDIV, transaction amount (or sum of transactions), and fiscal year are some commonly searched TAGGS fields. The TAGGS Annual Report can be found at http://taggs.hhs.gov/annualreports.cfm.

URL: http://taggs.hhs.gov

Now, when I key in the words “supervised visitation” and search the 85,000 grants that actually have abstracts (vs. the about 500,000 on this database), I come up with only 3

Number of rows returned: 3
Rows 1 through 3 displayed.
Records Searched: 147753

Award Number	Award Title	OPDIV	Program Office	Sum of Actions
90EV0356	DEMONSTRATION OF ENHANCED SERVICES TO CHILDREN AND YOUTH EXPOSED TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	ACF	FYSB	$ 353,948
SM058554	FAMILY SERVICES OF GREATER WATERBURY	SAMHSA	CMHS	$ 118,886
90EV0355	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR	ACF	FYSB	$ 355,648

http://www.hhs.gov/grantsnet/TrackingWebsite.htm

As you can see, the grant numbers are themselves interactive.  let’s look at this one with the colorful (sic) descriptive title “Executive Director.”  Notice, the OPDIV is “ACF,” a key player in this field (I”ll leave its typos in, but have separated the objectives 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5….)

Here it is:

Award Funding Details

 It is always good to enhance services, right? 

Anyhow, then you can click on the recipient name, also interactive.  For some reason here, it only shows the 2009 grants to this organization, the NY State Coalition Against Domestic Violence:  (NCADV):

Recipient:	NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC
Address:	79 CENTRAL AVE, WOMEN’S BLDG ALBANY, NY 12206
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	ALBANY
DHHS Region:	2
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2009	0901NYSDVC	1	1	ACF	06-11-2009	$ 241,087
2009	US4CE001530	1	000	CDC	02-02-2009	$ 321,234
2009	US4CE001530	1	001	CDC	08-26-2009	$ 41,184
Fiscal Year 2009 Total:						$ 603,505

Here’s an advanced search (on that name) with a few more fields.  It will probably exceed the margins in my post, but you can copy it (or search on similar fields) and notice how many awards are either NEW or NONCOMPETING CONTINUATION, meaning, once you’re in, you’re in.  We also see that (though these awards are, I admit, modest overall) they stretch back to 1996 in time.  You also then see several investigators, and can look them up, if you wish:

Now, in 2007, it appears some more research is being done in “applied health.”  I am a domestic violence survivor (though not East Coast), and am glad to know that my experiences are somehow contributing to health research, although it’s a little distressing to not yet be free from the situation, so many years after I filed the initial restraining order.  Perhaps I can nab a government grant to put my two bits of data in….

US4CE222482

Fiscal Year

OPDIV

Grantee Name

Grantee Class

Grantee Type

Award Number

Award Title

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

2008

CDC

NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC

Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

Other Social Services Organization

US4CE222482

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ENHANCEMENT & LEADERSHIP THROUGH ALLIANCES

93061

Innovations in Applied Public Health Research

HEALTH SERVICES

SUPPLEMENT FOR EXPANSION

JESSICA VASQUEZ

$ 205,436

2007

CDC

NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC

Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

Other Social Services Organization

US4CE222482

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ENHANCEMENT & LEADERSHIP THROUGH ALLIANCES

93061

Innovations in Applied Public Health Research

HEALTH SERVICES

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

PATTI J NEWELL

$ 194,706

What are they doing with this? Who else is functioning under this CFDA code 93061?

The TAGGS database doesn’t (appear) to list anyone but these two, NYSCADV, so I went to my other database “usaspending.gov.”

I think you need to click on this one:  The charts speak louder:

http://www.usaspending.gov/faads/faads.php?cfda_program_num=93.061&sortby=u&detail=-1&datype=T&reptype=a&database=faads&fiscal_year=&detail=-1&datype=T&submit=GO

Trend

Assistance for 93.061: Innovations In Applied Public Health Research
(FY 2000-2010)

Summary

Although this is obviously conclusive, I simply don’t have time to post more today. 

My conclusion:

Supervised visitation is an outgrowth of the unresolved conflict between letting women actually leave abuse, and father’s rights to their kids as property.  PERIOD.  Rather than allow the first, the feds are funding the second, and supporting a bunch of professionals in the process.  HOW does this help the kids? 

Abuse?  Separate from it.  Period.  it’s a role model.  Don’t force the non-offending parent to be strung out in this year after year, at public expense!

Now HOW many $$ going to NY state for:

• DV prevention
• Abstinence counseling
• Marriage promotion?

Let’s practice what we pass funding for, OK?

NY Senator gets off easy

Monserrate and Giraldo have been under a court order not to see each other since shortly after their violent encounter was caught on video last December. She sought to have the order lifted and said Friday that the two planned to marry, but the judge kept the protection order in place. Giraldo once again said it was an accident when Monserrate smashed a glass into her face, causing bloody injuries that required 40 stitches. “I want to be with him, and I want to continue to be with him,” she said through an interpreter. During the unusually long four-hour sentencing, Erlbaum pointedly questioned Giraldo about what happened, about her contradictory statements during the trial, about the health of their relationship and about her mental health. He said she seemed submissive to a jealous Monserrate. Erlbaum said he would be willing to lift the protection order if the couple could prove that they could address their problems. He also suggested that Giraldo seek therapy. “I hope the time will come that Karla Giraldo will have the self-respect to stop acting like a slave,” the judge said. Erlbaum sentenced Monserrate to three years on probation and 250 hours of community service, and ordered him to pay fines of more than $1,000. He’s also required to enroll in a one-year counseling program on power and control.

His attorney, Joseph Tacopina, said he would appeal the conviction and would start working on getting the protection order lifted. Monserrate was acquitted of intentionally smashing Giraldo’s face with the glass on Dec. 19, 2008, in a jealous rage. Both said it was accidental, but statements she made to hospital officials indicate she changed her story.

How’d you like to confront a powerful Senator?