Archive for the ‘CRC Childrens Rights Council’ Category
Outstanding in their Field. Now, about that Field… (Fatherhood Grantees/Practitioners)
Again, I am only sampling a field that was sent in place decades ago, has major foundations supporting it (one should ask WHY) as well as the many resources of the HHS, and the “yeah, man — right up our alley!” of one too many tax-exempt religious foundations. Or, as you will, faith-based.
TAGGS.hhs.gov on this group (I searched by its EIN# — which is below).
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | 20019 | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | $ 2,549,350 |
Before we get too far into the economics of this field, I’d like to post a sample of what some of the DYNAMICS of it are about. This 2001 Appeal is interesting because it incorporates how the court responds to evidence of injuring a child on visitation and severe violence (breaking a woman’s sternum and grabbing her by the throat) — that woman being the 2nd wife // stepmother — and because the man in question is on the board of (another — not the above) Fathers’ rights group based in WDC (ACFC). This is one child — a girl, born in 1989 (divorce, 1991, first evidence of post-separation bruising of the girl, ca. 1996) and it covered two states, Michigan and Louisiana. It’s a short-double-spaced read, and I hope you do. Because at least in part — no offence to non-abusive Dads — this is also what the “FR’ movement is about — that FR are FR even when these things happen:
Lauren Hollingsworth v. James Semerad,
Appeal from 3rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Lincoln, Louisiana Trial Court No. 43,428~ Honorable R. Wayne Smith, Judge.
(Dad, see very far below same photo, looks like a very upstanding man):
Similar personnel to the ACFC group (far below) found on this one also: Baskerville, Semerad, Mike McManus (who wants to do away with no-fault divorce), etc. Click on link:
Dads of Michigan Related site, it says (read to see the spheres of influence involved & connection with another WDC organization, “ACFC”):
Rebuilding heterosexual marriage as the social norm is the necessary structural foundation for successful American socioeconomic reconstruction.
Among this testimony we can see both parents being court-ordered to attend a class, one of the (3) experts calling “parental alienation” but the testimony of the others (who felt the child to be credible, and not coached, esp. with the bruises) were concerned. Moreover, it appears that the same father had literally broken the stepmom’s sternum and grabbed her throat’ they were divorcing. he lied under oath about that event and had a new girlfriend to whom apparently the daughter was exposed. It appears that the court’s response is simply to adjust the supervised visitation, not terminate it! This Appeal in question comes fully 10 years after their divorce. Get the picture?
Seriously, it’s a short read and covers many typical issues in family court these days in a case which divorce pre-dated welfare reform but still had the PAS charge…
SHARE THIS POST on...
Does It Matter Who Baked the Pie, so Long as It’s Eaten? Well, That Depends on the Cook(s).
What About that 66/34 effect?
Several times on this blog (and another forum or so), I have promoted the “AbuseFreedomLive” blogtalk Tuesday Night radio show, (and been on it once, called in sometimes) because there are simply so few people around actually that actually seem to understand the role played by the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system.
And to understand this to get a pretty good measurement of where this country is overall. It’s a HUGE issue. It is also part of how the well-to-do and corporations exert control over the poor (and make sure there are plenty of poor around) to help regulate the middle class and employ (for now) a large sector of said middle class, including white AND blue-collar professionals, in regulating and administratively studying, tabulating (etc.) the huddled masses that either started in the US, were imported in the bottom of ships for free labor (see “corporations”), or fled bloodshed, famine incited by theocracy and religious prejudice, in other countries. And their descendants.
As the rich tend to understand money (and more forms of it, and more ways of accumulating it, and more ways to not pay income taxes, and more ways to write off taxes, and more tax shelters) than people raised, drilled, and limited to ONE form of (above-the-radar) income production called JOBS, which the rich are supposedly always creating more of, which is why Congressmen should continually give them more tax breaks. And let them pass adjustments to welfare requiring the poor to get and/or stay married (etc.).
MSM agrees with this on me. I didn’t hear it on Dr. Phil (because I don’t watch Dr. Phil), however, for once I agreed with Michael Moore (on Tavis Smiley, recently) a show with about a dozen guests that I caught a fragment of. Mr. Moore pointed out that, f the wealthy wished to get rid of poverty, they could — however it’s handy to have the poor around to keep the middle class in line (and vice versa — my opinion). So no, this is not too esoteric a subject. It cuts to the heart of “whose kids ARE they?” and for that matter, “Whose am I? Do I belong to myself?” Most people would say yes — or wish to say it, which then puts them in conflict with others who have.
So when I am talking about federal incentives, meaning what the IRS distributes, to something as basic as the States and what they do with it to handle the poor (which allegedly is what welfare and child support are THERE for), I am cutting to the heart of the American experience, and to any matter dealing with child custody, visitation — including visiting by parents when the state has the child, or visiting with parents when parents don’t cohabit, and so forth.
This 66/34 matter has so many influences on our culture, it qualifies as PRIMAL .
And we know which sectors of society baked up: once married always married, joint custody recommendations, and the pro-marriage/anti-feminazi movement– and how. Well, at least I do and if not totally, at least the picture is fairly clear, and these are father-friendly organizations, so-called. The “few prominent thinkers” and “Close to Washington D.C.” and Think Tankers. The Heritage Foundationers, Family Research Council-ers, Focus on the Families-ers, and so forth, plus the parallel on the progressive side (there IS a parallel to the fatherhood movement in the non-faith-based sector). AFCC/CRC etc.
These are the “Expensive Remedy In Search of a Legitimate Problem” that certain mothers (primarily) groups have been protesting for years, and protested again in front of the ways and means/ appropriations subcommittee in June 2010 (Liz Richards article, re-blogged recently here).
- Typically fathers protest VAWA and Some mothers protest Fatherhood Funding/Access-Visitation/Marriage (etc. promotion). You do not have, typically, fathers groups PROtesting the fatherhood funding — which sometimes comes with pro bono help to increase noncustodial (father) parenting time. More typically, while vigorously protesting bias against men in the family courts –and doing something about it — these are standing in line to form groups to get more grants to preach this gospel. Or just evangelize in general, when it comes to “faith-based” only through marriage counseling and relationship classes. etc.
- Activist Fathers’ groups also lobby alongside conservative groups (married women and second wives as well) against anything removing children from their home, or forcing them to, in their eyes, pay exorbitantly to support the mothers of their departed (or in some cases abandoned) exes. That’s the general breakdown.
- Although some of us (I’m never quite sure where my “us” begins and ends, but I have a flexible concept of the juicy center of it) wish to inform some of the fathers’ groups who’ve been extorted (for real, not for “if I can’t see my kids I sure as heck am not going to support them” group) that there is a middle ground here, and we have more in common in wishing to eject program fraud from ALL sectors, and in fact to reduce, curtail if not STOP TANF diversions to Designer Family Building programs.
- In other words, not every father is a Jeffrey Leving, a Glenn Sacks, or a Warren Farrell (or, for that matter, a Richard Warshak, although I don’t know if he’s a Dad). Some Dads are simply living their lives, or trying to, and are not out for blood & guts fame in reforming government.
I’ve blogged plenty on the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system, and on the Federal/State % incentives built into it. I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed’s ex), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups.*
(*I’ll repeat the italicized part several paragraphs later to connect this point below to my concerns, below):
This post addresses a concern — or question — I have about the direction of the 66/34 Effect show, and particularly one section of it seen in today’s news alert. I think it’s relevant, because it’s showing up as new light on a difficult situation; high-profile speakers from various industries (not only court-related, although that’s the focus) are producing a lot of information and food for thought. And in an information age — no information is neutral, it all has values attached. And above all, it should be honest. No one is 100% accurate (and I try to correct my factual mis-speaks when I see them or it’s brought to my attention. Not typos, but where I got my facts wrong, due to error in recall, or error in attribution — but never is it intentional.
I don’t state the issue until near the bottom of the post; scroll if need be, or read the post for context, reasoning, explanation. Then again the troublesome part is at the very, very bottom of the email alert, and probably most people missed it. But it seems to be a clue.
And while here, I’ll drive home this two-thirds/one-third (66/34) matter, which I think bears teaching, re-teaching, and explaining the import of, weekly (at least) until people get it: Stop Federal Incentive Welfare-related Diversionary Programs (in order to stop widespread waste & fraud) and Face It — this is Fascism in the Making, if not just about ready to come out of the oven!
(“Fascism” meaning, the combining and centralization of government by degrees — hey, Obama wants to merge agencies, but ALL agencies are already to encourage fatherhood promotion (Clinton, 1995), pay for more noncustodial FATHER involvement in the families (Welfare reform 1996, see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative for how to jumpstart a statewide program) and Faith-based Inclusionary Activities (see Bush, 2001 January). Don’t ever forget, Hitler considered himself a Christian, too. So did pastors on BOTH sides of the Rwandan massacre (see “Left to Tell” or the book on which “Hotel Rwanda” was based). Christian groups from United States –including some on the marriage movement take — had to quick, dissociate themselves with a “kill-the-gays” law in Uganda, but I assure us (and it’s seen) that some of these US evangelical groups love to test their material on sub-Saharan Africa, or other places too distressed to properly resist. . . .I distinguish “fathers” from “fatherhood” the way I distinguish “religion” from spirituality, which is a lot closer to ethics and what’s in the center of a person.)
This phrase (and its position, likely not to be noticed, on the very bottom of the email alert) really concerns me:
|
|||||
Which then shows the link to a “Change.org” petition posted by a noncustodial MOTHER who is now paying her ex child support; this petition (I also have the link on blogroll, or did for quite a while) was originally assembled by Athena Phoenix (prior to that username which is associated with the blogtalk radio show) anyhow — who is also female, not male and not a father.
|
||||||||||||
This is an excellent petition, and speaks in detail of some of the areas of consistent program mismangement and waste. I feel it is very well written. However, it’s not whichever responsible father hosted the show’s petition — it was written by a very smart woman who’s become famliar with this material through research.
It goes, in part, like this (no link to the budget is provided, but people can look the data up) (in pink font):
Why This Is Important
This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry—no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:
1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)
2. ID Code 75-1552-0-1-609, lines 0005 and 0009 [$990 million] (p. 473)
3. ID Code 75-1501-0-1-609 lines 0002, 0003 [Access and Visitation] [$1.7 billion] (p. 474)
4. Discretionary “Child Support Incentives” to States [$305 million] (p. 475)
5. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Healthy Families” [$1.7 billion] (p.476)
6. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Abstinence Education” [$1.7 billion] (p. 477)
7. Line 0129 “Faith Based Initiatives” [$1 million] (p.479)
Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.
Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.
Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.
This petition was posted by Liora Farkowitz on Change.org, who also presented at the last BMCC conference (July 2012):
See “Cut TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4Billion of waste.” While Ms. Farkowitz may be very responsible, it’s evident she’s not a father. Was this just a mistaken link?
The wording indicates that a responsible father asks people to sign “this” (not “his”) petition. Yet no mention is made of the responsible mother who posted it or its actual author, who also is female. The programs they re protesting specifically are stated to target and help noncustodial fathers increase custody share (whether or not this actually takes place); is it more true and more credible in the eyes of men if a man points to it? Well, probably — but is that the important message?
Is anyone on the program tonight (which includes a number of nonprofits in the juvenile corrections and preventing human trafficking practices, with an emphasis on Georgia) receiving possible program funding from HHS?
Possibly: And in fact two posts (from the last two days of blogging) I’ve been drafting in regards to the organization ALEC, showed me how that even in this matter of very legitimate problems related to racist lockup policies (harsher sentencing for males of color) and the attendant (multiple) nonprofit juvenile justice foundations focusing on DIVERSIONARY programs — has some overlap, but a lot of conflict — when the same principles affect custody courts — which they do. And they affect custody courts the MOST when it comes to matters of attempted separation from abusive parents, including some parents in lockup rightfully, from violence.
For example (see program flyer for tonight, if you’ve received on, or if my last link was accurate):
LOCKING UP KIDS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME COULD COST GEORGIA MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDS, By Jim Walls, JJIE Journal, 1/12/2012
Original content found here.
Every week, Georgia locks up juveniles who’ve committed no crime. A new study contends Georgia risks losing millions of dollars in federal funding if it continues doing so at the current rate.
They are runaways, truants, curfew violators, underage smokers and drinkers. They’re called status offenders because their actions are only an issue due to their status as juveniles; if an adult did the same thing, it wouldn’t be a crime.
Now, a report commissioned by the Governor’s Office for Children and Families warns that the practice could cost the state about $2 million a year in federal funding, particularly if Congress follows through with plans to tighten guidelines for placing status offenders in secure detention.
Let’s look at the HHS grants to this office: I see two streams, one which has no DUNS#. Although I suspect that the funding they are referring to is more likely to be DOJ funding, let’s see what the same office is getting, here:
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | DECATUR | GA | 30032 | DE KALB | 000000000 | $ 4,045,342 |
| GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | DECATUR | GA | 30032 | DE KALB | 828115951 | $ 3,946,786 |
If you click on both those, you’ll see grants that (I’ll wager — and see if I can check quickly here) sound like “AE” Abstinence Education and FR (Fathers Rights), one from a FYSB (Youth bureau) and the other from CB (Children’s Bureau):
| Program Office | Grantee Name | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| CB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 0802GAFRPG | 2008 FRP | 1 | 05/21/2009 | 93590 | Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants | CLOSED-ENDED | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 862,805 | |
| CB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 0902GAFRPG | 2009 FRSS | 1 | 09/17/2009 | 93590 | Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants | CLOSED-ENDED | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 1,091,492 | |
| CB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 1002GAFRPG | 2010 CBCAP | 1 | 09/09/2010 | 93590 | Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants | CLOSED-ENDED | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 1,073,087 | |
| CB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 1102GAFRPG | 2011 CBCAP | 1 | 09/02/2011 | 93590 | Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants | CLOSED-ENDED | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 1,017,958 | |
| FYSB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 0902GAAEGP | 2009 AEGP | 1 | 05/21/2009 | 93235 | Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program | BLOCK | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 1,100,934 | |
| FYSB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 0902GAAEGP | 2009 AEGP | 1 | 07/30/2010 | 93235 | Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program | BLOCK | SOCIAL SERVICES | $- 824,398 | |
| FYSB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 1002GAAEGP | 2010 AEGP | 1 | 09/27/2010 | 93235 | Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program | BLOCK | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 1,810,331 | |
| FYSB | GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families | 1102GAAEGP | 2011 AEGP | 1 | 09/01/2011 | 93235 | Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program | BLOCK | SOCIAL SERVICES | $ 1,859,919 |
|
Results 1 to 8 of 8 matches.
|
Going to USASpending.gov with the one DUNS# we have here, it seems that this DUNS# could refer to either the above office, the office of “Children and Youth” (see “Abstinence Education”) or simply the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget. The DOJ/OJJP projects show up there (some, close to $2 million) under delinquency prevention. ALSO clear is that this DUNS dates to 2009 and no earlier (on this database anyhow). For example (that’s just one award):
| 1. |
$1,897,000
|
 |
Or, a slice of these grants (26 in all, total receipts $23 million, with largest sector in 2009 — which tells me, “ARRA” or “recovery.gov”
Transaction Number # 24
Federal Award ID: 2010JFFX0026: 00 (Grants)
|
Date Signed: July 13 , 2010 Obligation Amount: $1,897,000 |
|||||||||||||
While the AbuseFreedomLive 66/34 Effect host show claims (clearly) it may not share all the viewpoints of the guests, the host also selects the guests. I take it with a grain of salt — the HHS also disclaims some of the viewpoints of groups it links to on its site, but it still links to them!
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page
Notice the paragraph at the bottom, following all the various ways readers can get to fatherhood promotion pages: This is just for reference, if you don’t like it, caveat emptor – don’t blame us!
Responsible Fatherhood GrantsThe Claims Resolution Act of 2010 provides funding of $150 million in each of five years for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood. Each year, $75 million may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability. |
Healthy MarriageHealthy marriage services help couples, who have chosen marriage for themselves, gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. |
|
Effective ParentingInvolved fathers provide practical support in raising children and serve as models for their development. Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior compared to children who have uninvolved fathers. Committed and responsible fathering during infancy and early childhood contributes emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills. |
Economic StabilityResources for helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities, such as Work First services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, and job enhancement; and encouraging education, including career-advancing education. |
|
Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child SupportAbout half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father. The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but the Federal Government does provide states with funding to assist in the development of programs that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children. |
IncarcerationThe Department of Justice has estimated that over 7.3 million children under age 18 have a parent who is in prison, jail, on probation, or on parole. Given these numbers, it is important to understand how children and their caregivers are affected by the criminal activity of a parent and their subsequent arrest, incarceration, and release. Additionally, it is important to know which services and assistance might be available to those under criminal justice supervision to help them be better parents and to return successfully to the community. |
|
Research, Evaluation, & DataGood research and program evaluations assess program performance, measure outcomes for families and communities, and document successes. Information on previous and current research and evaluation efforts can help programs and researchers to direct limited resources to where they are most needed, and most effective, in assessing results. |
Program DevelopmentThe principal implication for fathering programs is that these programs should involve a wide range of interventions, reflecting the multiple domains of responsible fathering, the varied residential and marital circumstances of fathers, and the array of personal, relational, and environmental factors that influence men as fathers. |
|
Assistant Secretary for Planning & EvaluationASPE is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on policy development, and is responsible for major activities in policy coordination, legislation development, strategic planning, policy research, evaluation, and economic analysis. Pertinent Fatherhood topics found there include: Child Welfare, Employment, Family and Marriage Issues, andViolence. |
Other Research ResourcesFederal information relating to fatherhood research is spread throughout multiple departments and agencies. This area includes other websites that have federal sponsored research related to responsible fatherhood. |
|
Disclaimer:
|
||
Nevertheless, this is a US Government Agency page, and its sustenance paid for by the public. The same standards also go for MONITORING the program funds and effectiveness after it’s distributed. The GAO, or the HHS/OAS/OIG gets in their sporadically, but basically once started, they’ll sample audit, they’ll report back, but there’s so little teeth — that this black hole of (for example — only one example) program fraud and “undistributable child support collections” is –unknown in extent. Don’t blame us — we’re only overseeing.
This “we’re only overseeing” rebuttal has also (call and ask) been used repeatedly to people investigating grant usage as individual citizens, i.e., particularly members of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice. I’ve seen some of the letters discussing how to deflect inquiry on the funds usage; they may show on a discussion group (yahoo) or you can contact the website owner for more info. The point is – NO ONE is really responsible, which is bad news for John and Jane Doe.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The “66/34” reference refers to the Federal/State relationship towards programs. This excerpt comes from a brief written (years ago) by an attorney (I think it’s the same one, at least) found receiving a diversionary child support award in California. The brief explains:
PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SURVIVES SUPREME COURT’S BLESSING V. FREESTONE DECISION by Leora Gershenzon
The United States Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in Blessing v. Freestone1 that custodial parents may not sue in federal court to force a state to comply substantially with the general requirements of federal child support law found in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.2 Significantly, however, the Court refused to limit in any way the right of individuals to sue government officials who deprive them of statutory or constitutional rights while acting “under color of state law.” The right to bring such lawsuits, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is commonly referred to as a “private right of action.”
The plaintiffs in Blessing v. Freestone had filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona’s Department of Economic Security, the state’s child support agency, contending that it operated the child support program in violation of federal law
Statutory Framework
Under federal law, any state that receives federal funds to operate a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program3 also must operate a child support enforcement program. To be in compliance with statutory requirements, states must locate noncustodial parents and their assets; establish paternity; and establish, modify, and enforce child support orders. These services must be provided to families receiving TANF benefits and, for a nominal fee, to all other families who choose to participate in the program.
The detailed statutory and regulatory scheme contained in Title IV-D sets strict time limits for performance of the specific duties imposed on the state child support agency. For example, states must open a case within 20 days of an application or a referral from the welfare office, use appropriate locate sources to search for a noncustodial parent within 75 days and repeat every three months, if necessary, and, within 90 days of locating a noncustodial parent, establish paternity and obtain a support order or attempt to or complete service of process on that parent.
The federal government pays over two-thirds of the costs of the program in every state, and up to 90% in some states. Due to welfare savings resulting from child support collection as well as to other factors, more than half the states experience a net gain from their child support collection programs
[{OTHERWISE EXPRESSED: THIS WORKS IN BARELY OVER HALF THE CASES, DESPITE FEDERAL SUPPORT APPROACHING 2/3 OF THE COST. TRY AND RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS LIKE THIS, AND YOU’D BETTER HAVE PLENTY OF CAPITAL FOR START-UP. WHICH OF COURSE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, IT JUST EXERCISES ITS PRIVILEGES TO INCREASE FEDERAL DEBT LOAD, HENCE WE ARE NOW TALKING IN TRILLIONS, WHEREAS THE CHILD FAMILY SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM COSTS “ONLY” IN TERMS OF BILLIONS, AT LEAST THE PART THAT WE’RE COUNTING…}]
.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is responsible for reviewing and evaluating state child support programs to ensure compliance with federal law and regulations. In general, a state will be found to be in substantial compliance if it provides necessary and timely services to 75% of the families (90% in some instances) who seek child support assistance. If a state is found to be out of compliance, the Secretary can impose a penalty of up to 5% of the state’s TANF block grant. However, a state can avoid the penalty by submitting a Corrective Action Plan, and only a couple of states have ever been penalized.
The Arizona Litigation
By any objective standard, Arizona’s child support program has been failing children and parents. Between 1985 and 1991, the state failed every federal child support audit. With each failure, the agency submitted a Corrective Action Plan and the Secretary waived any penalties
Child Support itself if a highly contentious issue, with some damaging afterglow when pursued, or modified:
Sometimes they kill, sometimes they just abduct, sometimes they engage in prolonged custody litigation, and sometimes (far too much and far too often), the money is collected, held (collecting interest for the agency — not the household the child support is for) and for each and every scenario, there is an option which profits court-connected professionals, including judges, and increasingly impoverishes families. Having thus collected sufficient funding (and being salaried, without judges causing THEM to lose their jobs with unfair or frivolously ridiculous rulings), these court-connected professionals have a system enabling them to fly around the country to various vacation locales to communicate with each other about how to do it better next time.
Some of these tax-write-off, public-funded (i.e., dues for the professional membership AND travel/hotel can be written off under one from or another of education, including continuing CLE education (providers and or participants, probably). For example, I read (and yes, it’s on the blog here) about a Task Force or commission in Indianapolis which was considering flying their membership out to an AFCC conference. The decided instead to simply approach AFCC about holding a nice conference IN Indianpolis next time, saving the air fare, and putting it into hosting. I believe this has already happened.
One of the most demonstrative states around in pushing parent education, fatherhood promotion, all kinds of diversionary programs around openly on the website, and I’ve repeatedly referenced it here, is the Kentucky Courts. On examination of SOME of their 11 divorce education programs (which is only part of the offerings), we can find one company based in Scranton, PA area (where the FBI is examining case-steering, overbilling, or whatever evidence they hauled off for Lackawanna County) marketing through Kentucky books written (many of them) in California, and some in Massachusetts, or recommended by a nice AFCC Massachusetts Judge.
California, where much of this baloney originated, IS truly the “Golden State” if you’re in control and in the right profession (or three) within government. Ask Mr. Gwinn, the Lockyers, the Thorns (Kids’ Turn), Dr. Carolyn Curtis (Sacramento Healthy Marriage, or whatever its current title), the Past, Present, and Future Boards of Director Judges of some of these Access Visitation Subgrantees (Kids Turn San Diego being one), ask almost anyone in the Los Angeles Court System, and ask those cycling between positions in the legislature, and CEO of domestic violence organizations. Ask the heads of Futures Without Violence, etc.
The system is FAIRLY straightforward in operation, though diverse in execution. Form a nonprofit. It’s not necessary to completely stay incorporated, file tax returns with the IRS OR the State annually, as required by law. To fire up the ignition a little further, call yourself Faith-Based, and connect up with the NARME or other chameleon organization to study how to Take the Money and Run. For an example, see Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Initiatives, which is still around, and see how the original staff did it, and got some CYA report from Baylor University Texas, from a person who just also happens to be a member of the nationwide “CJJDP.”
For an example of how to double-bill and wipe your mouth saying, “I see NOthing,” even after you’re caught at it, this has been going on so long, we can now reference old-school and new-school versions of this, most of which involves switching a child from a known decent parent to the other one, often abusive, thereby causing the decent one to fight for custody, rather than simply abandon the child. I’m naturally thinking of situations of over-billing and program fraud such as is reported in:
Visitation Fraud Reported in Amador County(Complaint filed 9/7/99)
The following is a copy of a complaint filed to the Judicial Council of California regarding federal funding fraud by Amador County Superior Court. It exemplifies how federal “family” programs are mis-used to protect incest offenders/batterers in the family law courts. Liz Richards, of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice has contacted you regarding these abuses in the courts. These family programs, and those who abuse them, need to be fully investigated by competent persons who have no vested interest in protecting any involved in the abuses. . . .
(the Karen Anderson case) . . .
Through an initial contact with Senator Jackie Speier’s office, I was directed to Lee Mohar (sp?). During my conversation with Mr. Mohar, I explained to the best of my ability my concerns about how the public funds of the state Family Law Facilitator Program (hereinafter “Facilitator”) and the Federal Access to Visitation Program (hereinafter “A/V”) were directly involved in my private family law matter before Amador County Superior Court (“Court”). At Mr. Mohar’s request, you contacted me about this issue to more fully understand my concerns.
During my conversation with you, I explained the following: The Program Director for the federal Access to Visitation grant, Helen O. Page, represents my ex-husband in my private family law matter 98 FL 0084, and continued to do so through all of the dates inclusive, in which the Court was accessing A/V funds through this program. I have obtained records from the county auditor, as well as from the Court, in the form of payment vouchers, the grant application, and the grant contract. These documents declare that that the intent of the A/V program is to “encourage contact between children and both parents,” to “facilitate contact between non-custodial supervised parents and children” with a criteria for a “step-down” in supervised visitation.
{She then goes on to relate how custody was reversed to her, and she was put on Supervised Visitation based on “PAS”, the collusion of a minors’ counsel with a supervised visitation business owner, and how she was forced to pay cash for it! To see her kids!}}:
During the term of the A/V contract, the program director, Helen O. Page, under the authority of the Court, violated the entire intent of the program and specific terms of said contract for the gain of her private client, who is my ex-husband. Payment vouchers to herself and to other participants who are/have been involved in the private litigation of case 94 FL 0084, namely Larry Leatham, Marsha Nohl, and Nohl’s supervised visitation program A.F.T.E.R., prove that while mandated to comply with the terms of the A/V contract, all the forenamed have collectively engaged in accessing these public funds under a conflict of interest, thus violating the terms of the contract.
Here’s a few more of the players and the interrelationships – notice, some were made grant sub-contractors. All of this comes under “Access/Visitation” grant programs — which are only a fraction of the other diversionary programs coursing through the system, and diverting parents from their primary purposes in life, which is to raise children, provide an inheritance of possible for them, and to be able to focus their lives on their kids — not on self-defense from abusive systems and program fraud by people working (some, as public employees aka “civil servants”) IN those system. Remembering this is from 1999 — 12+ years ago!
The court orders which have obstructed my liberty interest in parenting my children and left my children at risk of continued molestation, along with the continual harassing litigation perpetrated by Page for her private client, cause the case to be categorized as “highly contested” for which Page/Court is able to access the A/V funds according to the grant application. While Page fights through private litigation for her client, my ex-husband, to keep me on supervised visitation, this also causes the case to fall into the category that provides the necessity for the A/V funds according to the grant application, which in turn personally benefits her financially through payments she receives from the grant. In order to maintain the case in the category that provided access to the A/V grant money, Page used Marsha Nohl (who Page made into a grant sub-contractor) and Larry Dixon (state funded minor’s counsel), as allies in support of the original grossly negligent evaluation and testimony of Leatham (who Page also has made a grant sub-contractor). I have been maintained on supervised visitation and the case itself is maintained as highly litigated, through acts of perjury, misconduct, intentional misrepresentation, willful obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, by Page, Nohl and Dixon
It’s known — and has been known for years, but not blogged enough for “the common women” (fathers’ groups tend to be told this) that the funding can come from BOTH the parent (in cash, as per Karen Anderson, and now parents in Lackawanna County, PA have been protesting the same issue, as I recall, with both supervised visitation, and/or parenting coordinator). They had to pay cash for services. To a decent parent, not seeing one’s offspring after removal from the home is NOT an option, so they paid AND the federal government funding stream, which is OCSE diversion.
And I showed readers recently that for FY2012, the HHS requested that — in light of how important continuing to promote “fatherhood” (whatever this is), they want mandatory access visitation orders for EVERY child support order, which then moves custody and visitation matters further out from a judge’s decision based on facts (allegedly, or at least potentially) to an administrative boilerplate (generally speaking) managed by a court-connected program manger or designated professional.
This is called Double-Billing. “Don’t Ask. Just Do it for your Kids.”
In years since, others have continued to research the same topic upwards and downwards, namely, taking it to the source: The funds come from the HHS (grantees recorded in TAGGS database, and some other places), and child support TANF diversions. At around the same time (post-1996, late 1990s, early 2000s) California along with other states was under a federal “centralize into a Statewide Distribution Unit (“SDU”) system for child support distribution — or give up your welfare assistance. Of course, if you don’t need food stamps, cash aid, (Medicaid?) and other help from Big Brother, then don’t. YOU put up 34$, we’ll put up 66% (not mentioned: this 66% comes from funds previously collected through taxes etc. from the public, or interst/investment gains on it).
So yes, it does matter who baked THAT cake, because it’s got a little “leavening” in it which makes it a high-rise profit system for those in the system, and a debt production machine for stressed-out parents who eat from it. How many people know going IN to the courts that any child support order, and EVERy child support order, and I’ll hazard a guess, in EVERY State and US territory, has as 66/34 effect called INCENTIVE. In fact one of the hard lessons I learned (obviously) was to find out WHO is speaking to you whenever help or relief from injustice or danger is offered, in response to one’s cries for help, or without even those cries.
Who Bakes the Domestic Violence Group Cakes? The same supplier — it may not be the 66/34 effect as to DV programs, but we’ve seen they are heavy into HHS funding (not just DOJ) and collaborating with fatherhood-oriented groups when protective mothers aren’t watching, while teaching them distracting information lest they DO watch. See Loretta Frederick, who I’ll bet did NOT highlight her connection with AFCC (or teach women who AFCC was) at the last BMCC (“Battered Mother’s Custody Conference”). In 2011, access visitation was mentioned from the podium by someone WITHOUT some product to market (after the conference was — like it appears to have been this year, too — well over an hour behind schedule on the last segment of the conference) but as soon as the speaker went to the podium, a lunch break was called. Un believably, I saw the same thing happen again this year — a break was called, and a woman’s voice at the mike (Ricky Fowler, search my blog) was surrounded by noise of coming and going, but when someone protesting what she said spoke up, another grabbed the mike and told everyone to quiet down and listen, because “this is important.” (like the previous comment wasn’t?) and tried to counter it.
So, your Domestic Violence Advocacy and Protective Mothers Advocacy groups have, as it were, pre-baked cake mixes from pretty much the same source. They have — amazingly coincidental — the same blind spots; which a little experience has shown is not blindness – it’s a “no-fly-zone.”
My Para. from above:
I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed, ex-wife of D.C. Sniper, “Scared Silent” ca. 2002/John Muhammad, a Devoted Dad?
Connecting the Sniper case to family court corruption and federal fatherhood program fraud. (Part 1)
by Cindy Ross © October 28, 2002), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups, plus trials that follow).
It is VITALLY important, in other words, that more people understand and protest the continued funding of a system of “evolving purposes” all labeled’ family” which are resulting in habitually increasing scenarios involving roadkill. This scenario claims that the family is the basic unit of society, anything that threatens “family” is itself (by definition) a threat to society, and women’s right to live alone versus live with constant domestic terrorism based on the fact that they’re female, or vulnerable and happen to get paid less per $$ then men overall — and are not represented even halfway proportionately in our primarily white male Congress & Senate. Sorry to put it that way, but one hellish marriage, and an equally long hell in the court system simply leads me rationally to acts of Congress designed to promote fatherhood. I didn’t promote or pass these at the time, and am simply reporting their existence, and in part, their costs. Plural.
This is the rationale which (if it’s bought & believed, or tolerated) which priorities “family” over Bill of Rights in EVERY case where there is a custody dispute. That philosophy then enables passage of programs in which we find fraud, and incentives — which have zero (NO) place in promoting justice. If courtrooms are not neutral — meaning, they are bribe-free — and they are “OUT-COME based” versus PROCESS-based” — they are kangaroo courtrooms. So we need to report honestly — Let’s get Honest — about this facet in particular. At the annual price tag of approximately $4 billions, and for the Jessica Gonzales’ the Dawn Axsoms, the Catalina Torres’, and the Officers shot in the line of duty during domestic dispute hostage situations, let’s defuse the need for the Federally Sponsored (with corporate help) “Special Interest Resource Centers” Publish, Design a Logo, Link to GroupThink, or We Perish industry.
It’s important. Look at the site (probably not most current, for general idea only):
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
[HHS/ACF — and ACF is one of the largest OpDivs [Operational Divisions] of HHS)
PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FY 2012
BUDGET PAGE APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 269
AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270
APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… 271
AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION ………………………………………………………………………… 273
OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 274
SUMMARY OF CHANGES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275
JUSTIFICATION:
GENERAL STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ……………………………………………………… 276
BUDGET REQUEST……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278
OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES TABLE ……………………………………………………………………………… 280
RESOURCE AND PROGRAM DATA ………………………………………………………………………………… 282
STATE TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 287
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Here are selected states (fairly whimsical, but I tried to honor Republican Primary Candidates, and Kansas gets a mention because it so recently re-organized the SRS department (which gets the OCSE funding) and is recommending women marry their way out of poverty, too bad for domestic violence (see Topkea) and as advised behind closed doors by some ultra-conservative experts, i.e., Wade Horn, etc. Marriage & Fatherhood promotion are diversionary programs enabled under welfare law, and typically recruiting or program enrollment often happens at the child support level). Look at some of the program titles and which branch of government gets the funding (or most of it), which varies by state:
| Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS | KS | 11IAKS4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 535,121 | |
| KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES | KS | 0904KS4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 698,875 | |
| KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES | KS | 1104KS4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 27,012,837 | |
| Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services | KS | 90FD0145 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MONICA REMILLARD | $ 15,469 |
| PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS | KS | 11IBKS4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 250,000 |
IOWA, TEXAS, UTAH
| Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 0904IA4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 2,535,162 | |
| IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 1104IA4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 18,224,176 | |
| IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 90FD0183 | MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS | 1 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JOE FINNEGAN | $ 95,214 |
| Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services | IA | 90FD0144 | LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | HAROLD B COLEMAN | $ 50,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 0904TX4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 1,735,514 | |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 1104TX4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 193,122,346 | |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 0 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 50,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | TX | 90FD0169 | URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 75,000 |
| UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | UT | 0904UT4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 446,019 | |
| UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | UT | 1104UT4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 22,067,247 |
|
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.
|
MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA:
| Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 0904IA4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 2,535,162 | |
| IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 1104IA4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 18,224,176 | |
| IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES | IA | 90FD0183 | MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS | 1 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JOE FINNEGAN | $ 95,214 |
| Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services | IA | 90FD0144 | LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | HAROLD B COLEMAN | $ 50,000 |
| LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE | MN | 11ICMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 143,405 | |
| MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE | MN | 07IDMN4004 | 2007 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 14,098 | |
| MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE | MN | 11IDMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 217,386 | |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 0904MN4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 490,616 | |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 1104MN4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 101,786,892 | |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0127 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | PATRICK W KRAUTH | $ 0 |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0127 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | PATRICK W KRAUTH | $ 0 |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0140 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JILL C ROBERTS | $ 0 |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0140 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | JILL C ROBERTS | $ 69,684 |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0147 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | KAREN L SCHIRLE | $ 0 |
| MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | MN | 90FD0147 | OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | KAREN L SCHIRLE | $ 50,000 |
| OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR ** | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | $ 198,000 | |
| OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 0904OH4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 2,961,680 | |
| OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 1104OH4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 111,207,241 | |
| OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 90FD0142 | OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE | 3 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | ATHENA RILEY | $ 50,000 |
| OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES | OH | 90FD0174 | OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU | 2 | 93564 | Child Support Enforcement Research | DISCRETIONARY | ATHENA RILEY | $ 75,000 |
| PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE | PA | 0904PA4004 | 2009 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 4,560,291 | |
| PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE | PA | 1104PA4004 | 2011 OCSE | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 150,800,949 | |
| RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS | MN | 11IAMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 403,801 | |
| WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL | MN | 11BIMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 307,298 | |
| WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL | MN | 11IBMN4004 | 2011 OCSET | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | OPEN-ENDED | $ 230,371 |
|
Results 1 to 25 of 25 matches.
|
**This “demonstrates” that at least browsing where money from the Dept. of HHS/OCSE is going from time to time, can be illuminating. When one sees an unexplained acronym, it may be worth a closer look. I figured “HMHR” had something to do with “Healthy Marriage” and was right. Here’s the rest of the Ohio “HMHR” grants (spent for What? Ohioans should look up) and found $198K per year for several years. I also figured this is going on in more than one state, i.e., it’s some federal policy — and was right:
OHIO only (see grant award number has “OH” in it)
| Fiscal Year | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2011 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
| 2009 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
| 2008 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
| 2007 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | $ 198,000 | |
| 2006 | 0604OHHMHR | 2006 HMHR | 1 | 93563 | Child Support Enforcement (CSE) | CLOSED-ENDED | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
|
Results 1 to 5 of 5 matches.
|
 |
$1.194 million so for — hope it’s a good program!
From the web:
-
Chapter 2: Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids …
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/eval…/grand_ch2.htmlThe HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement … TheHMHR project proposes to reach at least 2500 people over 5 years with direct …*
-
More Specifically (and predictably):
-
Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids (HMHR) is a community-based initiative that delivers relationship skills-building services intended to encourage healthy relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, and to increase the financial well-being of children in a low-income urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver in October 2003. The Federal funding required a non-Federal match, and HMHR received a private grant from the Grand Rapids Community Foundation in November 2003. Community needs assessment, recruitment, and relationship building with partners and service delivery planning led to the delivery of relationship skills-building services starting in June 2004.
2.1 Project Goals
The HMHR project proposes to reach at least 2,500 people over 5 years with direct family-strengthening activities such as training in parenting and relationship skills. The initiative has established goals that are broad-based and comprehensive—they encompass improving couple relationships and the parenting skills of low-income parents in the community. Ultimately, HMHR aims to “enhance the financial and emotional well-being of children” (Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004a; Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004b). The specific goals of the initiative are to
- increase the number of prepared healthy marriages among low-income couples in Kent county.
- decrease the divorce rate among low-income couples in Kent county.
- increase the active, healthy participation of noncustodial fathers in the lives of their children.
- increase the responsible and effective coparenting skills of married and unmarried parentsto include improvement of the relationship between low-income adults parenting children.{{I.e., Marital Counseling = Child Support Enforcement (diversionary waiver…) philosophy — typical!!
- facilitate, in Kent county, the measurable increase in agreement with the perspective that healthy marriages, healthy relationships between parents, and responsible parenting are criticalto the financial well-being of children.***SERIOUSly?? ????? Governor Gray Davis (abou 2002 or so) vetoed an attempt to endorse
Kids Turnprograms to help children navigate the rocky terrain of divorce on the basis that he (as Governor of California) didn’t feel — although the legislature (which probably had a better idea of how this system works) that it was the place of the California Judicial Council to measure mental health matters. Obviously persistent program promotion works.{{I.e.,brainwashing,excuse me, attitude adjustment, typical favorable to religious views of independent mothers as dangerous more as wombs than full-status humans. “HERE: Take my classes, and afterwards sign this agreement (survey) saying you believe this stuff, so we can get our grant next year, too! Hungry? well, go to the childs upport office and seek a modification, or to get it enforcement; that’s not a service we offer (directly) here”}}
Taken together, achieving the above objectives are intended to support** the following Title IV-D child support enforcement goals:
- Improve compliance with support obligations by noncustodial parents, when needed.
- Increase paternity establishment for low-income children born to unwed mothers (HMGR, 2004a; HMGR, 2004b)
**the road to hell has always been paved with “good intentions.” It’s only in recent times? that merely expressing intent to “facilitate” attitude adjustment in order to reduce poverty (i.e., by increasing sales of relationship skills programs has been so well (federally) rewarded with so little justification. See “Smartmarriages.com” and acknowledge how very smart that corporation’s founder indeed was! (place of incorporation, Washington, D.C., which is where conferences are also held yearly, or were? from 2000-2010, as I recall).
About these SIP programs (from HHS) — This is another place for marriage/fatherhood programs to come in. For the novice, a marriage promotion program (as we’ve seen the HHS organizations doing this, not one of which is truly feminist) IS a FATHERHOOD program. the same is practically true of programs called “CHILD” any more.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support_past_projects.html
ACF-FUNDED HMI DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND GRANT ACTIVITIES:
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)2003 SIP Grants (see above link for active links to these).
2005 SIP Grants
2006 SIP GrantsThe Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) facilitates State and Tribal development of programs that locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity when necessary, and obtain and enforce child support orders..
Special Improvement Projects (SIPs)
{{isn’t that “special”?}}
SIP grants fund faith- and community-based organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal agencies, to improve child support outcomes such as paternity establishment and child support collections and improve the well-being of children.These grants are authorized through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. During 2003-2006, the following projects received funding to provide child support and marriage education services to improve outcomes for children.
While it reads “to provide child support services” we can see the “roundabout” reasoning, meaning, Tour de Marriage Enhancement, and possibly — well, we hope — this will result in more child support payments.
Several States (award goes directly to states) got these awards, all are marked “budget year 1” all are “Demonstration” and none have a “principal investigator” listed. MOST of the funding is as “Administrative Supplement” and this has been going on since 2003 or 2004. Here’s a list omitting grantee institution so it’s alpha by state, “NEW” only, which is 27 awards out of 68 (a little less than half of them):
All of these are under straightforward CFDA 93563, “Child Support Enforcement” (although a separate category even exists for “research and demo). These relationship mongering skills are Special Project Waivers.
| State | County | Award Number | Action Issue Date | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Sum of Actions |
| CO | DENVER | 0604COHMHR | 01/06/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 276,726 |
| FL | LEON | 0504FLHMHR | 07/15/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 333,333 |
| FL | LEON | 0604FLHMHR | 07/14/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 333,333 |
| GA | FULTON | 0504GAHMHR | 05/27/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 192,000 |
| GA | FULTON | 0604GAHMHR | 07/14/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 192,000 |
| ID | ADA | 0404IDHMHR | 10/03/2003 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 110,880 |
| ID | ADA | 0404IDHMHR | 12/01/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 110,880 |
| IL | SANGAMON | 0504ILHMHR | 11/29/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 273,003 |
| IN | MARION | 0804INHMHR | 07/16/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| KY | FRANKLIN | 0504KYHMHR | 07/15/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 333,333 |
| KY | FRANKLIN | 0604KYHMHR | 07/14/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 333,333 |
| LA | EAST BATON ROUGE | 0404LAHMHR | 09/10/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 308,000 |
| LA | EAST BATON ROUGE | 0504LAHMHR | 08/11/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 308,000 |
| LA | EAST BATON ROUGE | 0604LAHMHR | 07/14/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 308,000 |
| MA | MIDDLESEX | 0504MAHMHR | 11/29/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 324,939 |
| MI | INGHAM | 0404MIHMHR | 10/03/2003 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| MI | INGHAM | 0404MIHMHR | 12/01/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| MN | RAMSEY | 0404MNHMHR | 09/10/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| MN | RAMSEY | 0504MNHMHR | 08/11/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| MN | RAMSEY | 0604MNHMHR | 07/14/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| MN | RAMSEY | 0704MNHMHR | 08/07/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| OH | FRANKLIN | 0604OHHMHR | 07/14/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| TX | TRAVIS | 0604TXHMHR | 10/11/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 499,092 |
| WA | THURSTON | 0604WAHMHR | 03/15/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 200,000 |
| WA | THURSTON | 0605WAHMHR | 04/20/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
| WA | THURSTON | 0704WAHMHR | 08/08/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 200,000 |
| WA | THURSTON | 0705WAHMHR | 08/07/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 198,000 |
|
Results 1 to 27 of 27 matches
|
For comparison — in ONE year (nationwide) 772 OCSE grants (including, but not limited to these), totalling:
| Total of 772 Award Actions for 171 Awards | Total Amount for all Award Actions: | $ 3,176,826,043 | |||||
This doesn’t include important federal programs like abstinence education, either. . . . . .
Anyhow, click around TaGGS some, look at CFDA 93564 and find out just how much experimentation is really going on — plus get at least a few principal investigator’s names together to figure out what’s up. Here’s a segment (no years selected) showing just how active TENNESSEE & TEXAS are, not to mention showing that sometimes people write “TEXAS” or “TX” or “State of” when it comes to state name format and sometimes, unbelievably, the word “Mr.” is entered under the name category, as I found out as to California, “Principal Investigator” for a $29,000 grant to help connect Title IV-A (TANF) and Title IV-D (Child Support). I hope the person making all these clerical errors (?) isn’t earning much more than $29,000 of my money to do so. Who’s training the database submission personnel at HHS, anyhow? Howsabout some basic filing protocol, eh? For reference, see phone book.
What this tells me is that these states are fairly busy in “Child Support Research and Demonstration” These are all CFDA 93564 (not 93563, and not 93597, which is Access/Visitation — which also promotes some of the same things.
California:
| CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | 90FD0003 | PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYST | 3 | 09/15/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | OTHER REVISION | PEGGY JENSEN | $- 73,983 |
| CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | 90FD0083 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4 | 1 | 09/15/2003 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | LEORA GERSHENZON | $ 60,000 |
| CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | 90FD0114 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS | 1 | 08/24/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DANIEL LOUIS | $ 150,000 |
| CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | 90FD0114 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS | 2 | 09/19/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DANIEL LOUIS | $ 75,000 |
| CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | 90FD0114 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS | 2 | 08/29/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | LESLIE CARMONA | $ 0 |
| CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | 90FD0114 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS | 3 | 09/09/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE CARMONA | $ 75,000 |
| CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | 90FD0114 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS | 3 | 10/22/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | KATHY HREPICH | $ 0 |
| CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | 90FD0158 | SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORATION | 1 | 09/24/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MR BILL OTTERBECK | $ 29,000 |
| STATE OF TENNESSEE | 90FD0108 | TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 | 1 | 06/23/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 82,853 |
| State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services | 90FD0125 | OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-2) | 1 | 08/23/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | ROBBIE ENDRIS | $ 59,983 |
| TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0113 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 1 | 07/20/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | GILBERT A CHAVEZ | $ 108,112 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0077 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 | 1 | 08/26/2003 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 60,000 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0102 | TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES | 1 | 09/16/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | LINDA CHAPPELL | $ 62,300 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0108 | TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 | 2 | 07/31/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 101,427 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0108 | TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 | 3 | 07/27/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 100,688 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0108 | TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 | 3 | 03/06/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 0 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0108 | TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1 | 3 | 02/24/2010 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 0 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0129 | SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 | 1 | 09/20/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 54,612 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0129 | SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 | 2 | 08/09/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 52,034 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0129 | SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 | 2 | 07/12/2010 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 0 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0129 | SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 | 2 | 05/13/2011 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 0 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0129 | SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 | 3 | 09/01/2010 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 50,000 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0129 | SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1 | 3 | 05/18/2011 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 0 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0139 | FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD | 1 | 09/01/2009 | OTHER | NEW | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 100,000 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0139 | FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD | 2 | 09/01/2010 | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 71,240 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0139 | FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD | 2 | 03/14/2011 | OTHER | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 0 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0139 | FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD | 3 | 08/08/2011 | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 47,500 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0148 | TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 1 | 09/01/2009 | OTHER | NEW | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 49,300 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0148 | TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 2 | 09/01/2010 | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 49,300 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0148 | TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 2 | 03/14/2011 | OTHER | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 0 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0148 | TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE | 3 | 08/14/2011 | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MR CHARLES BRYSON | $ 49,300 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0171 | BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES | 1 | 09/25/2010 | OTHER | NEW | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 85,000 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0171 | BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES | 2 | 08/14/2011 | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 75,000 |
| TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES | 90FD0177 | INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE | 1 | 09/24/2011 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CHARLES BRYSON | $ 55,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0052 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III) | 1 | 09/15/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | OTHER REVISION | WILLIAM H ROGERS | $- 8,058 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0073 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-P.A. 2 | 1 | 09/15/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | OTHER REVISION | MICHAEL HAYES | $- 6,976 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0078 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5 | 1 | 08/26/2003 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 80,040 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0085 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4 | 1 | 08/26/2003 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 60,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0088 | SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 | 1 | 08/29/2003 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | WILL ROGERS | $ 196,555 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0088 | SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 | 2 | 09/27/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | PATRICIA CAFFERATA | $ 196,555 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0088 | SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 | 2 | 01/08/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | KAREN HENSON | $ 0 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0088 | SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1 | 3 | 08/16/2005 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KAREN HENSON | $ 196,555 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0092 | TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 1 | 09/09/2004 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MICHAEL D HAYES | $ 125,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0113 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 2 | 07/27/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | GILBERT A CHAVEZ | $ 108,400 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0113 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 2 | 03/19/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | GILBERT A CHAVEZ | $ 0 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0113 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 2 | 06/26/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | GILBERT A CHAVEZ | $ 0 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0113 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 3 | 07/31/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | GILBERT A CHAVEZ | $ 108,400 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0113 | OCSE SECTION 1115 | 3 | 06/27/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | GILBERT A CHAVEZ | $ 0 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0124 | OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) | 1 | 08/29/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HAILEY KEMP | $ 60,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0124 | OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) | 2 | 08/11/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TED WHITE | $ 60,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0124 | OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) | 3 | 09/01/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TED WHITE | $ 50,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0124 | OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3) | 3 | 03/30/2010 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | TED WHITE | $ 0 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0134 | OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER | 1 | 09/29/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 703,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 1 | 08/16/2009 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | KAMMI SIEMENS | $ 100,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 2 | 09/07/2010 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 75,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 2 | 01/13/2011 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 0 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0137 | SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE | 3 | 09/25/2011 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 50,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0169 | URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT | 1 | 09/25/2010 | OTHER | NEW | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 85,000 |
| TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL | 90FD0169 | URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT | 2 | 08/29/2011 | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MICHAEL HAYES | $ 75,000 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS | 90FD0141 | FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD | 1 | 09/01/2009 | OTHER | NEW | MARILYN R SMITH | $ 99,348 |
| UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS | 90FD0141 | FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD | 2 | 09/19/2010 | OTHER | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARILYN R SMITH | $ 75,000 |
| US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES | 90FD0115 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 | 1 | 09/01/2006 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOHN BERNHART | $ 150,000 |
| US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES | 90FD0115 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 | 2 | 09/26/2007 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN BERNHART | $ 75,000 |
| US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES | 90FD0115 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 | 2 | 08/10/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | JOHN BERNHART | $ 0 |
| US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES | 90FD0115 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 | 2 | 06/15/2011 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | JOHN BERNHART | $ 0 |
| US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES | 90FD0115 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 | 3 | 08/31/2008 | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN BERNHART | $ 75,000 |
| US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES | 90FD0115 | COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2 | 3 | 06/22/2011 | DEMONSTRATION | EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS | JOHN BERNHART | $ 0 |
| UT ST DIV |
RE:
The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out o[u]r mission to improve the way the family courts do business. He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:
The shows bring up consistently valuable speakers, and it’s true some segments have featured the effect of the TANF budget, and the 66/34 effect. The press-releases prior to show are jam-packed with links and information and shows in themselves.
My perspective and purpose differs somewhat, and I believe that given the urgency of the times, it is vERY necessary to locate people (particularly mothers) who are willing to blow the cover on the DV industry sellout AS MOTHERS in custody challenges, and FATHERS who are willing to blow the cover on how these program diversions are actually conceived with intent to divert profits to already profiting individuals in various institutions, and expand welfare until it blankets the United States with relationship education, whether or not this entails poor and needy families on the “take our program” side. I have a general idea of what kind of people are drawn to the “give me a grant, I’ll push your product” side — whether at the professional level (the two professors from UDenver who have PREP, Inc. thing going), and other contracting organizations (MDRC, Maximus, etc.) who defraud (allegedly, judging by how often they get sued) and the judges etc. with their retirement plan & income supplementation at public expense plans (the Kids’ Turns and Family Justice Centers of the world) and the “let’s do a NICE conference business.
In recent days/weeks, I’ve had an absolutely wonderful looking, articulate, attractive intelligent mother (a widow) and grandmother in her sixties come up to me, at a loss regarding finding work. She was downsized after twenty-nine (29) years in what sounds like very responsible, executive responsibility support staff in an engineering firm for a huge company. What is she to do? I looked at her with my court-custody-DV-strewn work life scenario and was thankful that at least this disaster prepared me for handling more of the same; my disadvantage working to my survival advantage in a rapidly changing world.
And I prefer to bake my own cakes at many points. Years of having social / community relationships compromised by court filings and sudden disappearance of my kids (I don’t think a mother EVER gets over that, no matter what else she does in life), not because they served in Iraq, but because they were born in this country and in that decade of Jim Crow times regarding civil rights for women, too.
(and here’s the end of my 11,000 — so far — word post. That includes the tables, of course): A person working to stop child slavery in California is on: here is the nonprofit description of HOW children girls are kept in line:
Director of this Chino, California organization, The Faces of Slavery, is “Juana Zapata.” It’s site has tremendous graphics, and “FACES” is an acronym: Fight Against Child Exploitation And Sexual Slavery of AMERICAN CHILDREN. “Amber’s Story” deals with a runaway (my mind immediately thinks of reasons a child might run away, one of which is violence or abuse in the home, including molestation. So why not do better at stopping that to start with?)
Please read this site. The problem is real! (see “Franklin Coverup” also)
|
||||
See the bullets above? Sometimes many of those features happen WITHIN nuclear families — sometimes even within families that have biologically related Mom, Pop and Kids. And yet still the building block of society has to be families?
for the healing process — imagine this:
How We Can Make a Difference
What does a child like “Amber” need to heal from the deep mental, emotional, and physical scars that have been inflicted upon her? She needs a warm, safe, peaceful, place. She needs to be surrounded by people who will gently guide her, support her, encourage her, and show her what real love is. We can provide these very things.
Our property in California is tucked away in a beautiful, quiet and safe place. We are surrounded by trees and ponds and mountains. We have the ability to provide fun and “normal” activities such as hiking, swimming, other water sports, museums, dining out, movies, playing games so she can regain her childhood.
Similarly, after severe violence IN the home — although surely this must be worse — children who grew up “Exposed to Violence” including watching one parent beat the other (adjust to accommodate step-parent, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.) — they too need a healing and detox period.
But they are not getting it for long — and primarily they are not getting this because the custody courts, with their AFCC, their Access Visitation (CRC theory), their incentives to prolong war (while claiming they stop it) and their assets-stripping, bone-chilling, never ending encouragement of the worse parent when “worse” is obvious — will not allow for, our society is just not ready to accommodate and SAY NO TO custody — ANY type of custody and particularly not joint, and not shared — when one parent has already demonstrated assault and battery, threats, economic oppression & “pimping” (this happened to me. I worked, he got the checks, I got threatened and slapped, kicked, choked, etc., sleep-deprived anyhow. I provided the job reference for the credit application — he got the credit! etc. Once you start one of these relationships, if you are not committed to IMMEDIATELY terminate it, it’s very hard to get out.
And in this climate, once you get out, here comes “conciliation code” and a bunch of people who are not “rich enough” yet to defraud people of their rights to exist, legally and simply live, as INDIVIDUALS in this country. See “Ohio Fatherhood Commission” (targeting counties with single mothers) for a nice example. It is ONLY going to get worse until this is stopped, and I know that I alone cannot stop this.
Here is a facebook page which states Government Agencies are looking to F.A.C.E.S.S. but we also need your donations
REGISTRATION, Secretary of State? I don’t know: I see these (after FACESS and “Fight Against” searches didn’t turn up a registration) or “FACESS” with or without the periods:
http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx
Results of search for ” F.A.C.E.S. ” returned no entity records.
| Record not found. |
As to those initials for Charities (i.e., nonprofits) in California, the only ones I see (both delinquent) relate to Autism, i.e., that’s what the “A” in the acronym stands for. Our F.A.C.E.S.S. doesn’t show in California as a nonprofit:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(facebook logo’ FB shows 392 followers on the page)
These would be the corporate registrations. Only one (formed about a year ago) is left standing here in California:
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2439255 | 03/01/2004 | SUSPENDED | CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION | DAVID REPLOGLE |
| C1229360 | 10/12/1983 | DISSOLVED | FAMILY AWARENESS OF CHILD EXPLOITATION – IN-TRUDERS | CHARMAINE DENNIS |
| C3367022 | 03/17/2011 | ACTIVE | FOUNDATION AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION & HUMAN TRAFFICKING | ERIC BUSH |
| C1195950 | 03/06/1987 | SUSPENDED | PEOPLE AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION | JAMES D DAVIES |
So far, I see a facebook page. The website direcst people to the Facebook page, and the law enforcement link (on the website) is by password only, understandably.
Just that if someone is seeking donations, we seek an EIN# and registration. It’s that simple. So perhaps I will call in and simply ask — is there an umbrella organization?:
There are “10 people” names Juana Zapata in California, and 1 (with 1 connection only) on LinkedIn. There’s the mother of a young man whose car crahsed into and killed a police officer in Freson, listed as his 47 year old mother (the young man not living at home at the time, and being the youngest of 5 at age 19)
http://www.kristieslaw.org/fresno.htm This is a hard story to hear, and probably a different woman involved, as apparently this mother needed a translator. It’s undated.
Featured here, protesting (it seems) an “adult” page in a paper, or on-line, from “The Majestic Dreams Foundation”
http://www.themajestic.org/blog/2011/10/07/Press-Release-The-Daily-Titan.aspx
”The advocates of anti-slavery held signs that read, “Hey Ortega! Real men don’t buy girls” and “I am the key to free,” while protesting Ortega and the conglomerate which owns BackPage.com.Lizeth Sebastian, 21, pioneer of the anti-human trafficking club at Chapman University called Set Captives Free, said many people are unaware that sex trafficking is happening in local areas.Juana Zapata, from Faces of Slavery, said for the past three years her organization has been rescuing and protecting girls who have been victims of human trafficking and who were advertised on BackPage.com, averaging one girl every six weeks.“We are a permanent residential place for them (the victims),” said Zapata, who was invited to the protest by Cenedella. “For us it’s very important that the public knows that this is actually happening right here; it’s not international. Students have to be fully aware what’s happening with their generation and they are the voice.
This is a GRIPPING story of Aimee, and what happened after she reported abuse from the ages of 8 to 12 by a priest, a friend of her aunt. She reported it at age 17 to a minister, then to law enforcement, and was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, a 51-50 psychiatric hold (without her mother’s knowledge) with resulting lasting damage, and in general was treated as the criminal .
Her report went from minister to law enforcement to hold, to hospital in short order. Her family which refused to believe the story are estranged — BUT she was able to make a film.
The Majestic Dreams Foundation is a nonprofit organization located in Southern California. It was formed and created byAimee Galicia Torres on January 8, 2010.
The Majestic Dreams Foundation aims to provide aide to sexually abused survivors as well as promote awareness for all forms of abuse. The Majestic Dreams Foundation teams up with film production company, Trinity Alliance Films to provide films that reflect this growing epidemic so that we as a society can bring about a change.
This day forever changed the rest of her life. That very day, Aimee underwent hours of questioning by the local police department as the suspect, Honesto Bismonte, was placed immediately in jail. After a long interview, receiving scrutiny from the police department, Aimee was sent to undergo a psychological evaluation by a county psychologist. However, to her surprise, when she was being escorted by two police officers, they admitted her into the hospital without her knowledge. She was placed on a 51-50, hold, which means she legally must remain admitted for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours. . .
When Aimee was 16,** she fell into an abusive relationship with her boyfriend of 3 1/2 years. He would physically abuse her and attempted to kill her on various occasions. Through the numerous years of psychological, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse Aimee has received, she decided to turn everything into a positive learning experience. She wanted to show abused victims and survivors, that despite any obstacle, you can succeed. Aimee is proud to say, that throughout it all, she has never smoked or taken any drug of any kind. “Just because horrible things happen in our lives, we must be strong to not let it get the best of us.”
Relationship, much? from sexual abuse ages 8-12 by a priest, and from 12-1/2 through 16, sought “refuge” in another relationship with at least a non-priest, but another abuser?
Aimee has been a strong advocate for victim’s rights. She is an avid supporter of RAINN (Rape, Abuse National Network), Rescue & Restore Victims of Human Trafficking, ACF Trafficking, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Perverted Justice and more.
This young woman is a graduate of the NY Film Academy, apparently her mother also was a producer? Here’s a company she founded in “2004” (January 2005). I did not find the foundations, yet, but I see the high energy that sometimes people who get OUT of abuse have afterwards; they/we are simply so excited to be free, and creativity is at an all-time high, plus speaking to the cause.
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 200501110252 | 01/10/2005 | ACTIVE | AIMESTER PRODUCTIONS LLC | AIMEE GALICIA TORRES |
?? Aimee is the registered agent; the “jurisdiction” (which street address I looked up — I always try to look up street addresses ) is for “New America Foundation” — the California Office. this is supposedly where the LLC business is, and Ms. Torres’ address (or, Studio City, CA) is the “registered agent” address:
Main OfficeNew America Foundation |
California OfficeNew America Foundation |
This is a very interesting corporation (and not the subject of today’s post); ties to the council on Foreign Relations, and a board of 21 people, about 5 women, and some extremely high-achieving ones, too. I am not sure how this ties into “Aimester Productions, LLC” of — as of yet — where “FACESS” actually resides as a corporation, other than on facebook and a website. Such are the times we live in; we’d best deal with it!
one-half hour to the radio show, if you are planning to call in it’s 1-646-595-2134. Again, I feel the focus is far broader than the pressing need in the family courts and child support (etc.) business entails at this point. But it will be informative.
There is going to be a Judge from Georgia, we should ask what he thinks about (1) the Nancy Schaefer alleged murder/suicide while investigating CPS; (2) how nice to have a Georgia Judge on a Nationwide CCJJDP commission (“CC” standing for “Coordinating Council”:
These being the (appointed) “Practitioner Members” in addition to heads of various agencies:
Laurie Garduque
Adele L. Grubbs
Byron Johnson
Steven H. Jonesen
Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Pamela Rodriguez
Deborah Schumacher
Trina Thompson
Richard Vincent
The Hon. Adele L. Grubbs, as I recall, made an in absentia appearance on a previous show, when one of the callers related being incarcerated for 18 months around something regarding the sale of her home AFTER she’d been forced into bankruptcy (through custody matters, what else?) and it had already been foreclosed. I can’t recall ALL the details. I also know a woman in Georgia in terror in that her ex-kidnapper had done his time, and was stalking again. And people in Pennsylvania have been made aware of the dynamic duo Parent Coordinators (Susan Boyan & Ann Marie Termini, the latter working out of Lackawanna County), with the expired associations their names are associated with, and the invisible (to me, at least) anywhere “Cooperative Parenting Institute” advertised at parentcoordinationcentral.com or whatever that site’s name is.
Georgia must be a beautiful (landscape Geography) state, I have a feeling. It is also known in some circles for the (in)famous Georgia Fatherhood Initiative, a statewide deal organized out of the DHS, OCSE I guess:
The Georgia Fatherhood Program, created by the Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) in 1997, works with non-custodial parents who owe child support through DCSS but are unable to pay. Georgia’s Fatherhood Program is the largest state-operated fatherhood program in the country. Several thousands of non-custodial parents received services through the program during the past year. Gainful, stable employment enables these parents to provide regular financial support for their children. Fatherhood Program participants paid $18.7 million in child support during FY 2005.
Georgia recognized early on that many non-custodial parents wanted to pay their court-ordered child support, but lacked the economic capacity to do so. DCSS has partnered with other government and community agencies to develop a comprehensive network of services for this group.
The Fatherhood Program:
• Generally takes three to six months to complete.
• Serves both fathers and mothers who are non-custodial parents. . .
The Georgia Fatherhood Program is implemented by the Fatherhood Services Network, sponsored by the Department of Human Services’ Division of Child Support Services. The Network includes:
• Georgia Department of Human Services
• Child Access and Visitation Program
• Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program
• Georgia Family Connections Partnership** (a nice nonprofit including a Juvenile Court judge on its board…)
• DCSS, which contracts with:
• Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education
• Georgia Department of Labor
• DeKalb County Fatherhood Initiative Network
Anyhow, it sure should be interesting.
SHARE THIS POST on...
An Interlocking Directorate of Associations and Foundations, AFCC forward….[Publ. Dec. 12, 2011]
This post came up in my own 3/25/2018 blog search for Open Society Foundations. It wasn’t the top search result but because this post’s contents from 2011 are still so relevant I decided to add some formatting to make for better viewing.
The blog appearance (background color especially, border, and width limits especially) changed years later during an upgrade, so I am adding those formatting changes to this older post for better viewing. Another habit I also developed later was adding complete post title with “shortlink” to it at the top of posts, and including for clarity, the publication date in the actual title itself. The shortlink is for convenience of blog administrator and anyone else who might be copying a link to the post for use elsewhere under full (or shortened) title.
This is not a complete post review for broken links or images that don’t display (If image was provided by a link to an on-line url, that link has probably changed since. I now do this differently so it happens less often…//LGH 3/25/2018.
Post formats now (March 2018) look more like this, including full title with link, date published and approximate length typically at or very close to the top:
An Interlocking Directorate of Associations and Foundations, AFCC forward….[Publ. Dec. 12, 2011] about 9,900 words; case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-WA”
Readers (such as you be) no doubt realize I’m pretty jaundiced about how many associations are simply duplicates of each other, and how many of the same types of associations were, somewhere in their murky origins, related to Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Children’s Rights Council (or both), associations for mediators, dispute resolution practitioners, and now– (association for) conflict resolution.
(The terms have to be refreshed periodically to reflect the expanding purposes of the same basic set of people). Parent coordinators obviously fits in here somewhere (it’s an AFCC project) and because it takes money to do all this — and not all money going THROUGH the courts comes FROM the courts — we can see today where a particular foundation played a role in expanding AFCC.
For this post, I’d meant to fill in some of the background for this ACFLS (see yesterday’s post) and relate it to AFCC. Then I felt it would be appropriate to look at the AFCC tax returns, in general — and next thing you know, in explaning Peter Salem’s $130K salary, I ended up looking more at — first the AFCC/Peter Salem / Andrew Schepard Hofstra University Connection.
After which a simple look at the elements of the AFCC description of Mr. Salem’s credits revealed a certain award (John M. Hayne) from the “Association for Conflict Resolution.” . . .. Because I read so (damn) much, I picked up that “ACR” is the new “ADR”. And that organization appears to have been following true AFCC style –issuing awards to people on its own board, and sho ’nuff at least one of them was in trouble with the state for nonfiling of tax returns. (Kenneth Cloke, below).
And we take a look also at one of the (many) corporations funding the field of “Conflict Resolution” (plus fatherhood promotion), who happen to be SF Bay ARea based — and pack a lot of clout, too — the Hewlitt Foundation.
All in all, I find it fascinating, and like to engage in conversations with — the material. However, the format of this blog is less than fascinating. I’m actually very tired of looking at it and dealing with its idiosyncrasies (plus techniques I don’t know yet to how to handle — for example, around issues of pasting information from other sites, and the ever-disappearing paragraph spacing.
SO — FamilyCourtMatters is not about to get a facelift — it’s about to get pre-empted by another blog platform, or simply dropped. I have a mental deadline of the end of January 2012, just to handle what comes up at the next BMCC conference.
I am much (MUCH) more interested in the “hard sciences,” than social sciences! The social science shepherds have a pretty limited vocabulary, which is continually elaborated — but not that solid to start with. This vocabulary and mindset are at odds — at “high-conflict” as it were — with the language of the US Constitution, concepts of freedom of choice, liberty and justice as a process. They do not deal with the spiritual matters central to humanity, but instead set up more and more demonstration projects to test their theories, forcibly, on others, and at public and corporate expense.
It’s not NATURE:
This is absolutely not true when one begins to examine the sky, the ground, the water, or things with a microscope. Those things become more fascinating. The closer I look at these “corporations” and nonprofits, the more they behave similarly — and crooked. This is also true with the writing — it’s not even good writing, but mostly rhetoric borrowed from each other. Then, as if to give it more merit, citing each other. I don’t know when the last individual in the whole field had an original idea. It’s mostly groupthink. Where the real creativity comes in is ways to hide the flow of finances among and between the different corporations.
It’s not ART:
It’s also for the most part, not that true when one deals with (the best of) the arts: music, literature, drama, architecture, dance, etc. There is enough interest and genuine expression in there for a lifetime of experience, study,and participation.
Even the study of MONEY is more interesting, when viewed as how it circulates and affects others over time, and in different forms There’s something of a mathematical principle to this.
it uses Technology, but it’s not Technology:
But the Family Courts + Federal Funds + Faith-Based Pooh-Bahs + various Institutes (etc.) are Basically CROWD CONTROL, Population Management from Afar. It reminds me of the Nazis discussing what to do with the inferiors, and this comes through in the language also. The one thing that is NOT taking place in the multiple conferences, and tax-evasion and supposed public benefit operations — is a fair and real engagement with any of the public supposedly benefitted.
Those talking conciliation, conciliation, are actually engaged in a hierarchical manipulation — they wish to rule and change the world, they promise heaven (and demand support to bring it to pass) while delivering — as to the family courts at least, plus the squandering of public funds — hell and in justice. And I know men and women both will agree on this.
One Promise of “Heaven” as follows, and grandiose aspirations:
NATIONAL PEACEMAKER MUSEUM:
Not to be confused with the B36 Peacemaker Museum in Ft. Worth Texas (a 501(c)3) which concept is about maintaining a balance of powers
National Peacemaker Museum |
||
Mission Statement (Approved June 29, 2009)The National Peacemaker Museum Constellation will encourage peaceful conflict resolution between human beings in every corner of the world. It will honor those courageous and innovative individuals and institutions who work toward peace rather than conflict, foster harmony amongst humanity rather than division, and embrace the rich tapestry of human difference while building bridges upon our commonalities. The National Peacemaker Museum will challenge, inspire, educate, and enable visitors from around the world to be peacemakers themselves, to contribute as they can to the ability of the human race to solve our problems creatively and collaboratively, and to craft solutions that are fair, compassionate, and wise. National Peacemaker Museum will accomplish this mission through a diverse array of partnerships and outreach techniques, both virtual and tangible, in an ongoing effort to reach the full diversity of humanity, speaking in a way that each listening ear can hear. The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is supporting a coalition of organizations to establish a National Peacemaker Museum. In November 2007, ACR Immediate Past President, Marilyn S. McKnight established a Taskforce to launch this effort and appointed Forrest (Woody) Mosten to serve as Chair. This Taskforce recognizes that there is an exciting, vibrant peace community comprised of a diverse array of organizations and individuals. The Taskforce is committed to reaching out to these organizations and individuals and to exploring the possibilities building a coalition comprised of a broad array of partners. Since its inception, the Task Force has established dialogue with the United States Institute of Peace which is building a Peace Educational Center on the Mall in Washington D.C currently in construction (opening scheduled for 2010-2011) and is exploring funding for on-line exhibits as a first step to a web-based museum as well as regional and traveling exhibits. |
The Goals of the National Peacemaker Museum Taskforce (of the organization, Association for Conflict Resolution — see below) shall be to (partial list):
- Support Development of Model Peace Education Courses, Modules, Writing Contests and Other Public Peace Education Activities
- Support ACR Conference Keynote or Plenary Program for ACR 2010 ACR Annual Meeting in Chicago. Keynote/Plenary with following workshops would be a call to action and formation of a concrete agenda by the field for increased Public Education on Peacemaking.
- Identify Potential Partner Organizations
- Build a Coalition of Museum Partners and Supporters
- Identify and Cultivate Potential Funding Sources
The Task Force:
Who is on this Task Force? here’s the list of 23 individuals. Notice most of the affililations. Number 23, I ran across below and it turns out while his organization “Mediators Beyond Borders” seems legitimate, his own “Center for Dispute Resolution” — incorporated in California in 1987 (per Secretary of State) has NEVER filed — til threatened in the year about 2011 — its annual returns, either with the state or with the IRS. When threatened with a hefty fine by the states’ Office of Attorney General/ Charitable Trusts Registry, it appears he forked over a bunch of RRF (state-level returns) stating the organization made absolutely nothing — 0 – since its inception. It has no assets or income.
This didn’t stop (Mr. Cloke) from referencing his “Center for Dispute Resolution” all over the place, and having a website up that is advertising, in the year 2011, some expensive trainings he is to be holding through its website registration and contact. Moreover, in the year 2010, this organization (that’s sponsoring the Peacemakers Museum) ACR gave him an award, in a series of awards since 2001 designed to puff up the groups’ credibility and public image.
Quite frankly, as a “commoner” watching all this, I’m getting real tired of it. Anyhow, here are the 23 “taskforce” members:
- Michael Aloi, ACR President
- Doug Kleine, ACR Executive Director
- Forrest Mosten, Chair, Task Force
- Jerome Barrett, Author and ACR Archivist
- Mark Bramford, Public Policy Mediator
- Guy and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors, Colorado Conflict Research Consortium
- Rita Callahan, ACR Board Member
- Marci DuPraw, Facilitator and Mediator
- Katrina Everhart, Museum Consultant
- Fernaunda Ferguson, ACR Board Member
- Francisco Laguna, International Legal and Business Mediator
- David Matz, Professor of Dispute Resolution, University of Massachusetts, Boston
- Marilyn McKnight, Past President, ACR (see immediately below here**)
- Josh Moore, Associate Director, International Education at Beloit College in Beloit, Wisconsin
- Catherine Morris, Director, Peacemakers Trust, Canada
- June O’Connor, Professor of Religious Studies, University of California, Riverside
- Jim Rosenstein, Immediate Past ACR President
- Jocylen Wurtzburg, Mediator, Memphis, Tennesee
- Lela Love, Liaison, ABA Dispute Resolution Section
- Ronald Supancic, Liaison, International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
- Andrew Schepard, Liaison, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
- Ken Cloke, Liaison, Mediators Beyond Borders
**Marilyn McKnight, I just found: (missing image. <==Broken link updated to “Mediators & Staff” submenu March 2018, but the quote is from earlier website)
Marilyn S. McKnight, M.A.
Marilyn S. McKnight, M.A., director and co-founder
Marilyn is a mediator, trainer, parent coordinator and author who has practiced exclusively in the field of mediation since 1977 after an extensive career in public social work.
In the early 1980s Marilyn began workshops on mediating divorces where there is domestic violence. She received a Bush Leadership Fellowship Award in 1987. In 1988 Marilyn was elected to the Board of the Academy of Family Mediators where she began work toward the voluntary certification of mediators and later, served as President of the Academy.
{{Timing: In 1994 the VAWA, Violence Against Women Act, was passed, and around this time it was becoming clear that medation is NOT advisable (due to power imbalance) when there’s been assault and battery, in effect, domestic violence. IT was fought hard against, and made mandatory in certain areas, as partially enabled by access/visitation grants during welfare reform. It was identified as a way to get more NONcustodial parenting time — when other means, such as the legal process, or the fact that one parent may have been a criminal, which possibly caused separation — wouldn’t get the same result. In short, Mediation was viewed and funded as a PAID SOURCE to turn justice into an OUT-COME BASED proceedings, with one party (the custodial parent) not knowing what hit (her) in the proceedings! It also turned anyone who’d been on TANF and involved in this, into an at-risk for supply social science material for the head of HHS — and what litigants even thinks about checking a federal agency for information on WTF happened to their due process rights, or other Constitutionally provided Bill of Rights!}}
In 1996 she and her partner Steve Erickson were awarded the Distinguished Mediator Award by the Academy for their outstanding contributions to the field of mediation.
Marilyn has been an adjunct professor teaching divorce mediation at the University of Minnesota Graduate School of Social Work, and at the William Mitchell College of Law.
In May 2006 Marilyn was elected to the Board of Directors of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
UPDATE/2018 INSERT: Images of other “Mediators & Staff” at this Minnesota-based organization shows McKnight, Steve Erickson (his daughter?), Solveig Erickson, two other (male) mediators, and an office manager/client services specialists (scheduling and taking calls mentioned) who is a woman: The font size is uneven in the home page, and Steven McKnight’s (though listed second) has larger font and longer bio blurb. Viewing: Click any image to enlarge, and navigate from one to another with arrows or (I think) another click. This is a four-part “image gallery.”
-
- Erickson Mediation (MN) image update for 12/11/2011 post “Interlocking Directorate…” /FamilyPeacemakers Museum task force, ACR, etc.
[[Returning to 2011 post text:]] Apparently the Task Force (above) was her idea too (see description). A little more:
Articles and Video:
Marilyn McKnight: Belief that Mediation Needs to be Separate from Courts – Video
Marilyn McKnight discusses how court-connected mediators’ first duty is to the court, not the client.
{{Clients go in unawares, believing that their first duty is to the truth — facts of the case, rules of civil procedure pertaining to them, and honesty. Usually, we are sorely disappointed. I’ve yet to run across a mother whose custody mediator showed evidence of having even read the case file…. Mine even admitted he didn-t — but still made recommendation to the courts.}}
McKnight, Marilyn: Mediate.com Interview
This is the complete interview with Marilyn McKnight, former President of the Academy of Family Mediators and Association for Conflict Resolution, filmed as part of Mediate.com’s “The Mediators: Views from the Eye of the Storm” Series.
(Interesting; “a Vibrant Community of Peacemakers.” )
So that’s where this Mother, Woman, and Person is, in my almost 20th years since the first blows started landing on me pregnant, all the way through to fighting the second half of my kids’ minority through this system, only to find, partly through, that almost every group and professional I stood before, hired, or dealt with, has been a liar, and simply perpetuating their own particular job in their own particular system — while this same system destroyed lives and jobs for those it was supposedly helping.
Give me an honest enemy any time than such a system of helpful people and institutes! I will respect the enemy for honesty in his/her/its position and then engage (and ideally, defeat).
To go into a family courtroom and confuse what’s supposed to happen in there (you think) with LAW, or that it somehow relates to whether one was a good or not so good parent — is a serious mistake. These seem far less relevant that which programs the practitioners are jacked up on, these days, and which rhetoric.
I accept there are plenty of cases where mediation — real mediation, not what we see in the family law racket — is important and useful. But until one recognizes WHO has been pushing this, and just how much most of their talk is about each other (in glowing terms, complete with awards and honors, and long lists of professional accomplishments), but when it comes to the parents, their clients (without whose distress and troubles, the fields wouldn’t even exist), then the terminology switches (when talking to each other) about “managing difficult parents in the court system” or similar phrases.
Of course it helps the speciality of family law if one of your promoters long ago was a legislator, then a judge (or vice versa) (Pfaff), not to mention sizeable donations in THIS century from the William and Flora Hewitt Foundation to increase membership, as a Five-Year Retrospective of the AFCC claims (2002-2007 years).
FIVE-YEAR REPORT
Bear in mind this report is now 4 years old, and if it’s news to you, you are seriously behind whassup in the courts. Don’t feel bad, most people follow the mainstream and the veteran reporters on the AFCC are most definitely not welcome in mainstream — unless they collaborate. Which of course would likely compromise the message, and has (cf. Battered Women’s Justice Project et al.)
| Association of Family & Conciliation Courts | WI | 2005 | $929,894 | 990 | 17 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family & Conciliation Courts | WI | 2004 | $636,483 | 990 | 17 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | WI | 2010 | $2,192,367 | 990 | 28 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | WI | 2009 | $1,720,844 | 990 | 27 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | WI | 2008 | $1,743,428 | 990 | 26 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | WI | 2007 | $1,403,917 | 990 | 25 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | WI | 2006 | $1,158,339 | 990 | 20 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | WI | 2003 | $467,421 | 990 | 16 | 95-2597407 |
| Association of Family and Conciliation Courts | AZ | 2005 | $19,149.31 | 990EZ | 9 | 86-0578107 |
2018 UPDATES/INSERT: A search on the bottom row above’s EIN# 86-0578107 shows this is the Arizona Chapter of AFCC (AZAFCC.org), with last three tax returns showing its very small size. This happens to have been over time, however, a very active chapter (it seems) and with its proximity to California, well, interesting. For example Philip Stahl (formerly of Northern California and well known for his promotion of “parental alienation” remedies — i.e., standard AFCC purposes) at some point had moved to Arizona. I DNK where he presently is, but probably still an active member):
Total results: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARIZONA CHAPTER-ASSOC OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS | AZ | 2016 | 990 | 32 | $4,273.00 | 86-0578107 |
| ARIZONA CHAPTER-ASSOC OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS | AZ | 2015 | 990 | 25 | $38,378.00 | 86-0578107 |
| ARIZONA CHAPTER-ASSOC OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS | AZ | 2014 | 990 | 26 | $54,867.00 | 86-0578107 |
(Below: exact same search results, but in image form (I provided copy & paste above table so interactive links could be clicked on) as it shows in actual search results. The database provider changed its color scheme years ago, but because I’d already manually (boilerplate copied into each example) maintained the above color scheme to represent Form 990 tables in this blog (which now has 769 posts and over 50 pages!) as opposed to charity registration (California) tables which have similarly light-blue, gray, white colors, I maintained the color scheme from earlier…). (Back in 2011 I obviously didn’t know how to “paint” background colors into tables).
Search of EIN# associated with AZAFCC.org, done 3-25-2018 by blog author LGH
Don’t let the small size of top row (FYE2016) mislead you. It still received $73K revenues, claims to have spent over $111K on “Other expenses” (mostly conferences), despite having only 3 independent board members (all unpaid, and some of the with the title “Hon.,” i.e., likely judges), and “0” employees, it (a) left page III (which is not optional to leave blank) blank — except to say “Program Services” this year — none. However, under “functional expenses” page, it listed a grant of $1,500, which should be reported on that Part III (page 2). Under “Board Members” section, despite only three independently voting, it said “see additional table” thus keeping the existence of judges (and current AFCC — parent organization — President? Annette Burns) further away from the top of the tax return (i.e., less visible) and not on any IRS form, pre-printed or electronic. (click any image to enlarge. I annotated but did not “caption” the next three from AZAFCC.org.
I should probably blog this in a current year; have other posts since (use “SEARCH function on the blog to find, enter the word “AFCC chapters” to find) have more detail on these chapters than I listed here in just December 2011.//LGH 3/25/2018
[Back to Dec. 2011 texts, and referring to the table above showing the same organization name but different EIN#s in that columne, not the one on Arizona I just provided].
(from the Foundation Center. I always wonder why some years don’t show in chrono order, does it relate to when the organization filed?)
Something was prospering: 2003__$467K;
2004 __$636K
2005___$929K
2006___$1158K 9 ($1.158 mil)
2007_ _ _ $1.403 mil;
2008___ $1.743 mil, …2010____$2.192 mil, and so forth. And that’s income that IS reported…..
Tidbits from the tax returns (one really should browse some of these — very informative). For year 2007: Two of the Board members are judges. The Exec Director Peter Salem makes $130K.
- $790,306 = Program service revenue, including government fees and contracts
- $512,473 = Membership fees.
- $65K = dividend interest from securities;
Under Parts VII & VIII, Analysis of income-producing activities, & Relationship of Activities to the Accomplishment of Exempt Purposes
- (lines 93a, 93B, 93C & 94 on the tax return)
- REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF PUBLICATIONS ON DIVORCE, SEPERATION AND FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION ($74,970)
- REGISTRATION FEES TO ATTEND CONFERENCES AND TRAINING SEMINARS TO SHARE IDEAS ON RESOLUTION OF FAMILY DISPUTES AND TRAININGS TO ASSIST CURRENT PROFESSIONALS ($703,976)
- MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES FOR SHIPPING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS ($11.400)
- MEMBER DUES RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR DISCOUNTS ON CONFERENCE REGISTRATION, MEMBER NEWSLETTERS AND OTHER MEMBER BENEFITS ($512,473)
Judges on the board (that year) included the Hons. William Fee *(IN), Emile Kruzick (Ontario, Canada), Hugh Starnes (FL), and Graham Mullane (Australia, ret. 2008, now consulting) — all listed at the WI address, although, not their home courts.
INDIANA AFCC 2007 Board Member Judge Wm. Fee — Positioning:
*The Hon Wm. C. Fee happens to currently chair the Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judiciary. “The Domestic Relations Committee is working on revisions to Indiana’s Child Support Guidelines. They previously completed a Domestic Relations Benchbook and child-centered Parenting Time guidelines. They also established recommended standards for countywide domestic relations ADR plans.” Let’s hope (?) He kept his AFCC agenda and motivations (to help families resolve disputes by selling them — or other government entitities — products & services) separate from the oath of office, which I presume has something to do with uphold and preserving the state constitution. As AFCC has openly stated its intent is to change the language of criminal law, there would seem to be a built-in conflict of interest. But I have noticed that when money, and children, are involved, concerns about conflict of interest tend to go out the window.
For a glimpse at types of inbound grants to courts, see “Grant Programs Administered by State Court Administration and the Indiana Judicial Center“
FLORIDA AFCC Board Member 2007 Judge Hugh Starnes — 2010, 2011:
Judge Starnes (among many other things, such as forming a nonprofit group Association of Family Law Professionals with local lawyer, and being infamously involved in Foreclosure Rocket Dockets, where some judgments were signed before the hearings, and so many hearings scheduled in one day that it was foregone that they’d not all be heard: ” More Perverse Procedures in Ft. Myers” This article talks about over-scheduling of dockets, fully knowing they won’t all be tried, in a “total lakc of respect for the parties and their lawyers . . . These judges have elevated their own desire to clear the dockets a bove all else…Judge Starnes likes to talk about how the foreclosure crisis has forced courts to employe procedures like this. ” (but only his county does it){{Same reasoning — and results — used in the family law arena also.}} “
LEE COUNTY (FL)— For the past few years, Lee County’s busiest court docket has also been the most notorious in the state. Dubbed the ‘rocket docket’, the county’s foreclosure track cruises through several hundred cases daily, many ending in judgments for the lender and the subsequent scheduling of a foreclosure sale.
In the process, critics say, the docket tramples basic rules of civil procedure and due process. They point to the speed with which judges move cases along, and the emphasis on an expedited trial or summary judgment versus discovery. “It’s just a lack of, I don’t know, respect for the defendant by the court,” Naples attorney Todd Allen said.
Bear with me — this article (cited by Stopa — but I don’t see from where) tells how a clever attorney tried to get a judge to commit to a verbal statement — by the head judge — that they don’t follow FL rules of civil procedure. The opposing side OK’d the draft, too. As it turned out, the head judge didn’t sign it — but Judge Starnes did!
His case turned heads last year after a clever order drafted by Allen made local news and several foreclosure blogs. Frustrated when Lee (Lee County, FL) Senior Judge James Thompson rejected a motion in December to toss what Allen considered a flawed affidavit by a bank employee, the attorney drafted the resulting order to explicitly state what he says Thompson told him — that Lee County does not comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. The attorney for lender HSBC signed off on the draft, Allen said, and it went to Thompson’s office.
“I knew one of two things was going to happen,” Allen said. “Either he was going to read it and sign it, which is bad because it means it was policy, or he wasn’t going to read it and sign it, which is even worse.” Instead, the other senior judge on the docket, Hugh E. Starnes, signed the order. “Blown away,” is how Allen described his reaction.
(further anecdotal shows the traffic there. In family law hearings (those that aren’t ex parte) a custody decision could be switched in 20 minutes or less; the child goes to the other household, stamped, ordered. signed & sealed. THat is not justice, and the other parent (til broke or defeated in spirit not just in the issue at hand) is going to come back for another attempt at it — that’s another reason the dockets get crowded!)
Around 11:40 a.m., Starnes completed the docket, more than 100 cases by his count. With another 104 slated for the afternoon session and little time for lunch, he postponed Shinneman’s trial. “I’ve got to object,” Allen protested. “That’s completely prejudicing my client.” “I understand,” Starnes replied.
Here’s another nonprofit this Judge was involved with, which a mother in a custody battle from Florida (not Linda Marie Sacks — not her line of approach!) asked me to research: (link provided, image updated, by text search + memory of having been asked to look this up, plus specific participating professionals (Judge Starnes, Shelly Finman, etc.) I know it’s the same one. (2011 post originally had a large blank image here, and no link):
http://aflpnetwork.com/history/
Association of Family Law Professionals website (viewed 3/25/2018)
History of the above group:
“We are Judges, lawyers, mental health and financial professionals, Judicial Assistants and Court staff members, mediators, school counselors, educators, and other professionals working to help families through the maze of marital and family law matters.”
YES — and many of you are already public employees. So why form more nonprofits than AFCC — which already meets this definition — to do your jobs? Did the families ask your help in navigating the custody maze (your groups helped create by trying to put psychology on a par with law)?
Well, the motive was obviously helping and public service:
- A committee formed {{spontaneously?}} in the mid-1980’s with a diverse membership, co-chaired by Mary Robinson, Solomon Agin and (Family attorney) Shelly Finman, tasked {{by whom?}} with determining whether or not our community was in need of Court sponsored mediation. After 2 years of regular morning meetings at the old Snack House Restaurant at the Collier Arcade, it was decided we did. {{ANY OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS INVOLVED?}} However, there was no budget. Therefore, with the support of a “shoe string” budget from the office of Court Administration (Doug Wilkinson) and Judge Hugh Starnes, we began training volunteer mediators at the HRS offices in the evenings.
- A committee, called the “cooperation committee” consisting of Judge Lynn Gerald, Judge Starnes, Steve Helgemo, George Kluttz, Gail Markham, and Shelly Finman met at the Veranda Restaurant in the mid to late 80’s, discussing ways to change some of the adversarial methods, resulting in local orders and posturing the Bench and Bar with non-adversarial, more conciliatory methods of practicing in Court
Gee golly ding, gosh darn, gee whiz — where did they get THAT radical concept from (and how long were the members also AFCC members??) etc.
(One can search Starnes & Finman @ Florida’s sunbiz.org — I did — for more info. Probably blogged it here somewhere, too. Groups like RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROJECT, INC. (never got an EIN, dissolved for failure to file), the family law association in question (shelly finman shows on earliest on-line report, 1995). Clearly restorative justice is an ongoing field, to be countered, however, with awareness of places like Luzerne County, PA in which kickbacks were involved, violation of due process extreme, and finally some judges caught in RICO over the matter, — or 2008 Congressional Oversight of the HEAD of the OJJDP (Flores) because of grants-steering to faith-based professionals. In this context, forming a nonprofit to get a grant is like — pretty much what they do.
Or, in the case (TBA _- I haven’t checked all 50 states, only some of the states in which they are advertising trainings..) institutes, like “Cooperative Parenting Institute” etc. simply post the website references, with glorious self-referential credits & titles, and skip the incorporating part entirely, which would require filing tax returns somewhere along the way, and conceivably letting the public look at them, without the subpoena, FOIA and all that.
RE: Peter Salem – the Hofstra Connection:
2007 Exec Director of AFCC — Peter Salem, and his ($130K) = $10,00+/month salary in that capacity:
He has many accomplishments, including teaching mediation at a law school — but he is not an attorney; he has an M.A. Lets review this again: the head of the AFCC is not an attorney, his specialty is NOT law.
Before I go into this too much, let’s look at the “Hofstra Connection” which I feel too few people notice, when it comes to AFCC. Of course, most people complaining about problems with family law – – – – – – – – – – are so busy with that narrative they completely ignore the existence of organizations where the people running it plan their Standard Operating Procedure. In otherwords, they completely ignore the AFCC as well.
However, when I found out it was publishing most of the materials in local courthouses (self-help centers, etc.), not to mention that as an organization, it began in a corrupt manner, and many of its members continue in that corruption — I got fairly more interested!
Hofstra University in NY has a School of Law and as of 2001, it also has a CCFL, similar idea to UBaltimore’s School of Law “CFCC” (which I blogged):
The Center for Children, Families and the Law was established in 2001 in response to the urgent need for more effective representation for children and families in crisis.
Its unique interdisciplinary program of education, community service and research is designed to encourage professionals from law and mental health to work together for the benefit of children and families involved in the legal system.The Center’s training program is one of the most comprehensive child and family advocacy curricula offered in the United States. Its interdisciplinary approach is designed to better prepare a new generation of legal and mental health professionals to promote appropriate and effective justice in both the juvenile and family court systems. The Center’s community service programs provide direct assistance to New York area children and families in need and serve as models for states across the country.
To carry out its mission, the Center partners with the University’s Department of Psychology, and health and human service agencies and law associations, including the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), and the New York Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children.
AFCC cannot be considered a “law association,” given its membership and its stated intent to change the language of criminal law into a more “therapeutic” framework. But where does Peter Salem & AFCC fit in? Which came first — the (AFCC) chicken, or the (Family Court Review joint-published with AFCC) the egg?
Welcome
Family Court Review (FCR) is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal published under the auspices of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). Family Court Review is an international, interdisciplinary family law journal — a forum for the exchange of ideas, programs, research, legislation, case law and reforms. The journal’s editorial staff, under the direction of Faculty Editor-in-Chief Andrew Schepard*, is based at the Law School. Its fundamental premise is that productive discussion of family law is facilitated by a dialogue between the judiciary, lawyers, mediators, mental health and social services communities. AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association of judges, counselors, evaluators, mediators, attorneys and others concerned with the constructive resolution of family conflict.
Schepard, Parent Education Promoter, AFCC-approved.
| Professor Schepard is a founder and project director for Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness (P.E.A.C.E.), an interdisciplinary, court-affiliated education program for parents to help them reduce the difficulties their children experience during divorce and separation. P.E.A.C.E. has produced an award-winning video for parents, and has been recognized by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts for its “ongoing contribution to improving the lives of parents and children. |
He and Mr. Salem are on an AFCC Task Force together.
After all, if one wishes to entirely develop and steer the field of family law, one must definitely get to the education of family lawyers. One cannot change practices from the outcome end only; obviously one has to get a the new, fresh-faced graduating class of attorneys, in fact get to them before they graduate and are faced with the bedrock of experience, which may counter some of that theory before it’s solidifies.
Well, so does this group: from the AFCC site:
Task Forces and Initiatives Family Law Education Reform Project (“FLER”)
Co-sponsored by the Hofstra Law School
Center for Children, Families and the LawAndrew Schepard, J.D., Co-Chair
Andrew SchepardPeter Salem, M.A., Co-Chair
Peter SalemProject Information: Family Law Education Reform Project Final Report (PDF)
They work together. Apparently he joined AFCC as staff in 1994; two founders (Meyer Elkin, 1994 and Stanley Cohen 1995) died around this time. It seems Mr. Salem was working in Wisconsin in the same fields. This summary from AFCC History seems so relevant. In maroon font:
1993—AFCC’s 30th Anniversary
AFCC celebrated its 30th Anniversary in New Orleans in May 1993. The conference theme and opening night videotape, “The Economic Impact of Divorce,” provided an opportunity for more than 700 delegates to look at the big-picture impact of divorce and celebrate the largest conference attendance to date.
In 1993, the association received a major grant from the Hewlett Foundation that enabled AFCC to add additional staff and absorb some of the work of AFCC’s many hard-working volunteer members. In 1994, Peter Salem joined the AFCC staff to become AFCC’s associate director. Conference planning was centralized in the administrative office and AFCC began to offer additional training and consulting services.
Database records from usual sources don’t go back that far. But obviously the Hewlett Foundation has some similar interests in family matters. Their history page can be read; sons managed it until 1981, In 1974 that they hired an executive director, and this gives a scope of the influence (like, having the President of the University of California as President of the Foundation, etc.) (section here in BLUE)
By the time Roger Heyns retired in 1992, the Foundation’s assets had increased more than thirtyfold – to more than $800 million, and the Hewlett Foundation was highly respected for its work in the fields of conflict resolution, education, environment, performing arts, and population, and was a key source of funding to a host of institutions that provide vital services to disadvantaged Bay Area communities.
In 1993, former University of California President David P. Gardner succeeded Roger Heyns as president of the Foundation, and served for six years, during which time the Foundation’s assets increased to more than $2 billion, and annual grantmaking rose from $35 million in 1993 to $84 million in 1998
Sooner or later we all have to ‘fess up to (admit, to ourselves and each other) how great an influence foundations (personal corporate wealth transferred into foundations) have upon this country and what its government and nongovernment programs and culture looks like.
This foundation was interested in conflict resolution and helped develop it as a field, and (in AFCC’s 5 year retrospective, 2002-2007, below, it acknowledged their help. Sounds like they got in on the last round of Hewlit Foundation grants in this field):
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation played a major role in developing and supporting the conflict resolution field for nearly two decades. During that time, the field grew and matured and achieved considerable acceptance and self-sufficiency across various areas of practice. While recognizing the continuing value of conflict resolution and peacemaking in the United States and internationally, the Foundation decided to wind down its support for this area and to deploy its resources to other pressing social issues. The Conflict Resolution Program made its final grants in 2004
They are also big on promoting and enabling fatherhood involvement, as is AFCC also:
Responsible Fatherhood and Male Involvement. The Foundation supported programs that enabled fathers to participate actively in the emotional and financial support {{CHILD SUPPORT, got it?}} of the family and that promote adult male involvement in teh lives of children and youth from father-absent environments.
Someone has to deal with the domestic violence issue sooner or later. This organization did so by funding Family Violence Prevention Fund (already deep into fatherhood as a tool to prevent violence, sure, that’ll work) and funded a report on preventing teen violence, with phraseology like this:
Other gaps must be closed as well. More attention and resources should be focused on men, on the low-income communities that have disproportionate experience with abuse, on promoting economic independence, and on ending the exclusive reliance on punitive responses such as incarceration, which is intolerable to many communities of color and immigrant communities.
With characteristic “modesty” FVPF introduces its 2003 report:
Foreword
The Family Violence Prevention Fund is proud to issue this unprecedented Report, which provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the status of domestic violence prevention efforts. This Report does more than examine our nation’s considerable progress in understanding and stopping domestic violence. It takes a close look at what strategies have and have not worked, identi- fying the most promising approaches and making recommendations for how to expend energies and allocate resources in years ahead.
(I just searched. There is zero mention of family law, custody, visitation, fatherhood barely, and/or access visitation, even though many teens have children, as mothers or fathers. The word “fatherhood” (incl. programs) shows up 5 times, and it’s somehow suggested that Child Support Enforcement is a means to provide opportunities and incentives for DV prevention. (p. 19). I have already blogged on this group (see “About this Blog”), but as I have been living and working in the same general area, am more aware than most of just how much they are (deliberately) ignoring; actually the more people drop like flies in the immediate neighborhood (and often this is around the divorce issue or a custody battle), the better it looks for justifying more grants of this sort. )
Back to AFCC describing itself:
Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children and Youth
In 1997, AFCC partnered with Australia’s World Congress, Inc. to host the Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children and Youth. Chaired by AFCC’s first non-North American president, Hon. Alastair Nicholson, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the three-year planning effort involved hundreds of AFCC volunteers and culminated with more than 1,500 delegates from more than 50 countries participating in the five-day extravaganza. The lengthy list of luminaries included First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who served as honorary chairperson; renowned pediatrician Dr. T. Barry Brazelton; San Francisco Mayor Hon. Willie Brown; Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Dr. Jose Ramos-Horta; and former U.S. Congresswoman Hon. Patricia Schroeder.
By 1998, mediation had established itself as a professional field of practice.
NO field of practice establishes itself. Fields of practice have people promoting them, through membership associations (very often) which then solicit funding. As I showed above, the Hewlitt Foundation was one promoter of “conflict resolution” (which includes mediation) as a field of practice and takes credit for it. This is so typical of AFCC prose — they like to claim that some field established itself, like the flowers come out in spring, just naturally. There’s nothing further from the truth!!
Executive Director
Peter Salem, M.A.
Peter Salem has served as Executive Director since 2002 and was Associate Director from 1994-2002.
I’m guessing he didn’t join AFCC and immediately become Executive Director; i.e., the involvement is longstanding (1994-2011 is 17 years), and either he has influence it, or its agenda and operations– including emphasis on mediation — are in agreement with his life’s work.
He taught mediation at Marquette University Law School for ten years and served as mediator and director of Mediation and Family Court Services in Rock County, Wisconsin. Mr. Salem is a former president of the Wisconsin Association for Mediators and is co-editor of Divorce Mediation: Models, Techniques and Applications. He has provided training and technical assistance to family court service agencies throughout the United States since 1990. {{Probably also for free. . …}}
He is author of numerous articles and videos on mediation, domestic violence and divorce. He received the [[1]] John M. Haynes Distinguished Mediator Award presented by the Association for Conflict Resolution** [[2]] in 2008 and received a William T. Grant Foundation Distinguished Fellows award in 2009. He holds an M.A. in Communication and Mediation Management from Emerson College in Boston [[3]] and a B.A. in Political Science from McGill University in Montreal. [[4]]
I decided to look these up. Fnotes in order in text, but below, out of order, they are filed in chrono order, i.e., undergraduate comes before graduate references. The biggest “find” is the (ridiculous) Association for Conflict Resolution. I’ll back up the “ridiculous” under that footnote. I have found that when AFCC (and related organizations) begin to pile on the titles and awards, well-earned though they may be, it pays to look up who’s awarding what, to see if it has some significance. Most people know awards like Nobel Price, Fullbright or Rhodes Scholarship, etc. — but as almost every new nonprofit in the courts (schools, etc.) mediation fields tries to pump up its credibility by setting up awards, they need more scrutiny.
[[4]] McGill (see link) is more wide-ranging; it’s undergraduates (now) are 417 women/164 men). Apparently Mr. Salem is from Canada? which may explain AFCC’s large Canadian component? Looks like a well-respected university, with a variety of programs, but my point is, Mr. Salem’s interest was political science, i.e., interest in how society works and potentially changing it. See next degree:
[[3]] Emerson College in Boston:
Emerson College, located in the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, is the nation’s premiere institution in higher education devoted to communication and the arts in a liberal arts context.
Emerson is internationally recognized in its fields of specialization, which are communication studies; marketing communication; journalism; communication sciences and disorders; visual and media arts; the performing arts; and writing, literature and publishing.
I don’t see any legal, or any really “hard sciences” study — here’s the list of science course minors for “communication sciences” majors.
Here’s a typical “Political Communication” UNDERgraduate coursework (understanding it must have changed over time, I wonder what year Peter Salem got his M.A. in….):
A major in Leadership, Politics, and Social Advocacy will prepare you for such careers as communication advisor, press secretary, governmental relations officer, nonprofit leader, and cultural affairs advocate, among many others. The program’s core curriculum balances the theory and the practical skills necessary for effective, ethical communication in a changing and complex media environment.
And GRADUATE coursework:
Communication Management
The Master of Arts in Communication Management provides students with the knowledge, theory, and skills necessary to design and execute strategic, integrated communication plans for public and private organizations. In addition to honing your speaking, writing, listening, and negotiating skills, you will develop expertise in web-based communication and learn how to adapt to and utilize new media to the advantage of your future employers or clients. The program is divided into two academic tracks:
- Human Resources & Employee Communication
- Public Relations & Stakeholder Communication
Our graduates have achieved professional success in a variety of industries including pharmaceuticals, political communication, event planning, travel and tourism, public advocacy, health care, among many others.
And this is the current Emerson graduate program director’s background, with degrees from Texas and North Carolina, heavily into social science, and mediation.
[[1]] John M. Haynes Distinguished Mediator Award :
The John M. Haynes Distinguished Mediator Award is presented annually to a prominent and internationally recognized leader in mediation who demonstrates personal and professional commitment to finding mediation solutions to conflict while balancing therapeutic and legal perspectives. John M. Haynes was a pioneer in the field of family mediation, a respected author and practitioner, an international trainer, and the first president of the Academy of Family Mediators.
(sigh). Mediation, having a problem with “conflict” and trying to balance therapy (outcome based, analysis = psychology, pathological emphasis) with law (process based, with reference to written standards voted into law by citizens in various states, to protect them from EXACTLY what happens when institutionalizing and labeling/medicating are used to oppress and control unruly reformers or those who challenge the status quo, i.e., Archipelago. In short, these characteristics basically define AFCC to start with.)
The list of recipients speaks loudly, lots of them are simply AFCC hotshots:
- 2011: Christine Coates, J.D. [[AFCC]]
- 2010: Kenneth Cloke [[Santa Monica, Center for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine, you name it]] SEE ~**~, I looked this one up
Why should this one get an award when the state of California OAG/Trusts had to chase him down over zero income, or filings, for the past 24 years? After they threatened him with $800 fine and more, he responded. …. Yet the nonprofit website is still advertising some very pricey trainings! ($200, $1,000, etc.)
- 2009: Robert D. Benjamin [[Currently in Portland. Pepperdine. Mediation etc. since 1979, and he practiced law. Columnist and advanced practitioner in ACR]]
- 2008: Peter Salem [[AFCC]]
- 2007: Jim Melamed, J.D. [[Oregon Mediation Center, which he founded in 1983, he is CEO of “Mediate.com,” ADR, etc. See “history” at N2N, here — shows they borrowed the idea from SF, and eventually got funding]]
- 2006: Arnie Shienvold, Ph.D. [[AFCC. Scranton, PA parents had this name on posters recently protesting family court corruption. I blogged it recently, see tags]]
- 2005: Nina R. Meierding, MS., J.D. [[FT private mediation since 1986, former family law attorney, Certificate in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine (like others on the list) and — get this — yet another who is per mediate.com now, past board member of ACR!
- 2004: Zena D. Zumeta, J.D. [[From Michigan, since 1981, ADR, and get this — she gets the award from ACR and “She is currently on the Association for Conflict Resolution’s Membership Committee, and sat on the Advisory Council to its Family Section.” Works from a Dispute Resolution Center (one of several in state) that takes business from courts, gov’t, social service etc., and has two judges on its advisory board and is a trainer]]
- 2003: Barbara Landau, Ph.D., LL.B., LL.M. [[Worked in Toronto Court, has a business, ADR, Mediator, Trainer, etc. “Dr. Barbara Landau’s company “Cooperative Solutions” continues to expand. Please see information below on our two Associates, Daryl Landau, and Mary-Anne Popescu.”]]
- 2002: Donald T. Saposnek, Ph.D. {{since 1983, appears to have made a good living off the family courts as mediator & trainer, typical}}
- 2001: Larry S. Fong, Ph.D. (2005 AFCC conference on Solving the Family Court Puzzle shows him as President of the ACR, and Canadian, another conference in 2011 on Advanced Mediation Issues — when one parent is Gay))
DIVERSION: A Nonprofit around since 1987, high-profile speaker, zero income reported?
~**~ re: Kenneth Cloke, Center for Dispute Resolution (How many more fit this description? It was Calif, so I looked it up quickly. “Center for Dispute Resolution” search brought up 5 corporations, only 2 of which were active. This one, b. 1987, was active. Its title includes the word “foundation.” I hopped over and looked up the charity and found it hadn’t been filing IRS forms and its Dissolution is “Pending” — an usual situation. EIN# 546565246
(FYI, Santa Monica is within Los Angeles County)
After a particularly stern letter from the OAG (Kamala Harris, Jan. 2011), Kenneth writes in response:
This is a request to obtain a dissolution waiver and to dissolve a California nonprofit corporation, the Center for Dispute Resolution Foundation, #C1583109.
The corporation was never operational, and neither raised, received or spent any money at any time. There are no assets to be distributed. There are no financial statements, and the corporation never had any income or assets since incorporating.
If you have any questions or 1 need to do anything further, please contact me at. . .
I just looked up the address at the bottom of the letterhead — which is “Kenneth Cloke Law Offices.” His DisputeResolutionCenter claims to be very much up and operating (perhaps it’s just not getting any takers, any customers?) It lists Training for FALL 2011:
http://www.kennethcloke.com/training.htm
Kenneth Cloke will conduct a four day training for beginning, intermediate and advanced mediators who are interested in improving their conflict resolution skills. Please see the printable course description, registration form and book list here.
Classes begin at 9 am and end at 4:30 pm
Classes are held at the Center for Dispute Resolution, 2411 18th St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (310) 399-4426 | FAX (310) 399-5906
Each participant will receive a Mediation Certificate on completion of the training, along with a Training Manual that includes basic forms that are useful in starting a mediation practice.
Cost is $250.00 per class or $1000.00 for the series.
Click here to print the Registration Form with Course Description and Book List
For a group that began with several people on the board in 1987, that’s quite an accomplishment!! to earn absolutely nothing while having such a fine website. Kind of reminds me of the Termini/Boyan combo — only it looks like they actually had some takers.
What does it say about ACR to give this person its 2010 award? Yet in January 2011, the OAG got on their case. Perhaps the award is what drew its attention — who knows? Note: this 2009 speaker engagement as co-founder of “Mediators Beyond Borders” lists the above outfit first in his credits. I wonder how many of the other fantastic credits below check out. Either he is doing that all — and earning no money at it, so not filing taxes– or he’s doing all those things, making a living and too busy to comply with state charitable registration laws, while promoting himself and his work & books.
Join us as Kenneth Cloke discusses his most recent publication titled “Conflict Revolution: Mediating Evil, War, Injustice and Terrorism.”
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
12:00 PM
Public Affairs Room 2355
Los Angeles, CA 90095As Director of the Center for Dispute Revolution, Kenneth Cloke has served as a mediator, arbitrator, attorney, coach, consultant and trainer.
Mediators Beyond Borders incorporated in PA in Oct. 2006, per Corporations search:
Name Name Type Mediators Beyond Borders International Current Name MEDIATORS WITHOUT BORDERS Prior Name Mediators Beyond Borders Prior Name
Non-Profit (Non Stock) – Domestic – Information Entity Number: 3686096 Status: Active Entity Creation Date: 10/19/2006 State of Business.: PA
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Mediators Beyond Borders | PA | 2009 | $40,949 | 990EZ | 18 | 20-5716275 |
| Mediators Beyond Borders | PA | 2008 | $38,013 | 990EZ | 30 | 20-5716275 |
| Mediators Beyond Borders | PA | 2007 | $13,946 | 990EZ | 16 | 20-5716275 |
Robert A. Creo (attorney) (hover cursor over link for a sample) seems the professional heavy-lifter in this relationship, and business is registered out of his law offices. MBB International has a project to rehabilitate child soldiers of Liberia. . . . Creo and associate McKay operate “Mastermediators.com” and of course a Master Mediator Institute to go with it, much of which deals with training. It says, he has an ability to “create, organize and lead” ADR organizations (which seems obvious). Mediators Beyond Borders and Master Mediators Institute both show his office address, i.e., he’s operating a number of nonprofits out of his own offiice:
About MMI
A belief that conflict resolution requires an integrated knowledge of law, neuroscience, neurobiology, psychology, economics, communications and other disciplines led to the creation of the Master Mediator Institute. MMI offers Immersion Courses to allow mediators, advocates and other professionals to connect with leading scientists and academics to explore cutting edge knowledge about the mind, the brain and the science of decision making.
The website looks great (both websites); better than average and easy to negotiate, and professional in design and color. MMI has only been around for two and a half years; it was incorporated in 6/2009. I wonder what nonprofit is next!
The Master Mediator Institute 3889281 Non-Profit (Non Stock) Active 6/22/2009 R
Colleague Monique MacKay (I found through linkedin) shows up in Virginia — so the corresponding LLC to the nonprofit is in a different state and was incorporated the same month, 6/3/2009. So let’s say they had a plan up front, and the websites plus testimonials show it as (unlike Mr. Cloke’s) a going concern:
The Master Mediators LLC
| SCC ID: | S2941864 | |
| Business Entity Type: | Limited Liability Company | |
| Jurisdiction of Formation: | VA | |
| Date of Formation/Registration: | 6/3/2009 | |
| Status: | Active |
He seems less interested in family law, which means I’m less interested in this case, other than what it says about the Association for Conflict Resolution.
[[3]]Association for Conflict Resolution:
**”Association for Conflict Resolution” is an expansion of, &/or where “Alternate Dispute Resolution” went, linguistically. That’s a planned language shift, necessary because periodically people start to catch up faster with what groups named after the prior AFCC-linguistic-labels have actually been doing. Including with their money.
The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is a professional organization enhancing the practice and public understanding of conflict resolution.
We are the nation’s largest professional association for mediators, arbitrators, educators and other conflict resolution practitioners. ACR works in a wide range of settings throughout the United States and around the world. . . .Our multicultural and multidisciplinary organization offers a broad umbrella under which all forms of dispute resolution practice find a home.
This group maintains a “special interest section” called ADR, which reads the typical fashion and like AFCC, and the ADR groups, seeks to promote their own interests and profession, including to judges and legislators:
ACR Court Section
The Court Section provides information and best practice information for resolution of court disputes ranging from small claims to family.
MISSION STATEMENT
The mission of this section is to foster and facilitate the development and implementation of quality court-annexed ADR programs throughout the country and to provide support to all individuals interested and involved in Court ADR programs such as Court ADR administrators, judges and dispute resolution practitioners working in a court setting by providing a forum that addresses issues concerning court-annexed ADR programs through information sharing, networking, identification of resources, development of model practices, and training programs.
Kind of a run-on, redundant sentence, much? But of course let’s focus on COURT-annexed programs, because this is guaranteed income. if not from the parents themselves (etc.) — from a federal program. MUCH better chance of selling this as in the public’s interest. But in reality – -it’s in the profession’s interest.
OBJECTIVES
- To promote the development of court-annexed dispute resolution programs around the country, at all levels of court.
- To serve as a clearinghouse of relevant information and resources for court administrators, dispute resolution practitioners, and judges.
- To assist in educating the public, attorneys, judges, legislators and other constituencies about the value of court-annexed dispute resolution programs.
- To provide a venue for communication and networking opportunities [[AWAY FROM THE PARTIES MOST AFFECTED BY THE PRACTICE!!]] among court ADR administrators, dispute resolution practitioners and judges.
- To identify policy issues important to court-annexed programs and provide guidance/best practices with respect to those issues.
This organization wants to feed information direct to judges. They want to be a “clearinghouse.” They want to facilitate the communication with judges. Flattery will probably facilitate the process, accordingly AFCC’s Peter Salem gets a 2008 award from this group. AFCC (which already does this – -not to mention has plenty of judges IN it and some running it, too) then proudly adds another credit to it’s director’s cap, which is a win-win situation for those involved.
The ACR “Family Mediation” special interest section looks all up and running, and has avery detailed, neatly tabbed, web presence with the same types of activities the AFCC does — publication, training, conferences, budget, member committees, plus facebook page, etc. And Marketing Mediation Training
So — let’s go to Virginia and look up the corporationSo — let’s go to Virginia and look up the corporation (it lists a virginia address). OK, here we go:
SCC ID Business Entity Name Entity Type Entity Status 05660642 ASSOCIATION FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION – VIRGINIACHAPTER, THE Corporation Terminated
(none with just the name alone — vs. “Virginia Chapter” — shows up. Last registered agent, 2007. Don’t see any filing history(i.e., annual reports) beyond the initial filing, and there are no “efiling” transactions registered.
The Association for Conflict Resolution -Virginia Chapter
| SCC ID: | 05660642 | |
| Business Entity Type: | Corporation | |
| Jurisdiction of Formation: | VA | |
| Date of Formation/Registration: | 10/11/2001 | |
| Status: | Terminated |
A 990-finder (i.e., nationwide search for a nonprofit) search shows it in several states, as well as the same EIN in two states and name, in more than two.
| Association for Conflict Resolution | VA | 2009 | $336,780 | 990 | 51 | 23-7251385 |
| Association for Conflict Resolution | DC | 2008 | $503,647 | 990 | 21 | 23-7251385 |
same name, different states and separate EIN#s:
| Association for Conflict Resolution | TX | 2008 | $0 | 990ER | 5 | 20-2124912 |
| Association for Conflict Resolution | MA | 2007 | $24,629 | 990EZ | 13 | 04-3465101 |
| Assoc… |
After click on dropdown option just above orange section, more fields (like EIN#) and ZIP now display [“990 Finder Widget This (pretty precisely) dates URL redirect by FoundationCenter to Diff’t User Interface….]“WHY IT MATTERS: Names are so often wrong on this database! Use EIN#, although occasionally even a filing entity will get it wrong by a # also.
New look and URL, click on dropdown just above orange section for more fields (like EIN#)!! [“990 Finder Widget This (pretty precisely) dates URL redirect by FoundationCenter to Diff’t User Interface. Must use DropDown menu to access other options (such as EIN#)]“
{{2018 UPDATE: NOTICE THE DIFFERENT EIN#s. THIS TIME, I HADN’T CAUGHT UP TO JUST HOW OFTEN THE DATABASE PROVIDER (nonprofit now called simply “Foundation Center”) search results get entity names wrong. I don’t know how these odd results continue to show so often, and whether it’s a matter of software, or human error/data entry (unlikely…). A letter should be written them; I just haven’t yet. (See nearby added images with orange-background captions):User interface field for this now looks different and to get to the (more accurate) EIN# searches requires use of a drop-down (“more fields”) indicator. Name search ONLY on this website can’t be trusted. (“990finder.foundationcenter.org” which I’ve used for years, currently redirects to their new site..)Tbe Virginia one, above, “ACR EMBRACES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THE FULL SPECTRUM OF PEACEFUL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND RECOGNIZES THE VALUE OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARY AND CROSS-CULTURAL CONNECTIONS TO ENHANCE CONFLICT CHOICES UNIVERSALLY.”(and with just a few grants, over 700 volunteers, and 13 employees, has over $1 million of revenues yearly. Executive Director Douglas M. Kleine (address WDC) gets $95K salary (moderate) and I think — but don’t know without more checking– this is him, too: Worked in HUD, Train the trainer activities, Virginia Legislature Congressional Agency (staff positions), plus Democratic Precinct caption. Expert nonprofit management experience, highly placed.Here we go — the ACR wants to erect a National Peacemaker Museum and nominated Family Law Collaborative Professional Woody Mosten (who?) to chair that taskforce. Maybe Futures without Violence (ca. 2010 formerly family violence prevention fund) was simply competing with this group for THE most grandiose, pretentious and let’s not forget, nonprofit,noble purpose around — and so practical, too!
Mission Statement (Approved June 29, 2009)
The National Peacemaker Museum Constellation will encourage peaceful conflict resolution between human beings in every corner of the world. It will honor those courageous and innovative individuals and institutions who work toward peace rather than conflict, foster harmony amongst humanity rather than division, and embrace the rich tapestry of human difference while building bridges upon our commonalities. The National Peacemaker Museum will challenge, inspire, educate, and enable visitors from around the world to be peacemakers themselves, to contribute as they can to the ability of the human race to solve our problems creatively and collaboratively, and to craft solutions that are fair, compassionate, and wise. National Peacemaker Museum will accomplish this mission through a diverse array of partnerships and outreach techniques, both virtual and tangible, in an ongoing effort to reach the full diversity of humanity, speaking in a way that each listening ear can hear.
The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is supporting a coalition of organizations to establish a National Peacemaker Museum. In November 2007, ACR Immediate Past President, Marilyn S. McKnight established a Taskforce to launch this effort and appointed Forrest (Woody) Mosten to serve as Chair.
🙂 Just felt we should get a picture of some of the influence that our AFCC Board Member Judges (the US ones) wield, and some local feedback.
So what is this membership trade nonprofit private nonprofit group AFCC — with many of its influential members holding public office, like judgeships and county-level work such as custody evaluators, mediators, and of course Parenting Coordinators, doing with this income? . . . .
Besides inventing new terms and providing an on-going membership role model for how to form lots ‘n lots of nonprofits, while on public payroll or getting referral business from the courts, and lobbying legistors to do things like running Justice Initiatives to “Change the Culture of Custody“** (Pennsylvania) and trying to get states to mandate parenting coordination appointment — lots of it. In Pennsylvania, they are Initiating, but I guess here, they are describing the “New Frontier” as if it just developed and showed up all by its wild-west lonesome, see 2012 AFCC-California Conference images for: “The New Frontier: Exploring the Possibilities and Challenges of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts“***
[[**in which the AFCC is only directly cited a few times, but “parenting coordination” 14 times, “parent education” 10 times, “high-conflict” (with hyphen) 4 times, “high conflict” (no hyphen) 11 times, “dispute resolution” 63 times, a plug for a parent education “Kids First,” (used in 8 PA counties at the time, and already likely part of an FBI of investigation financial abuse in billing & multiple service referrals by a GAL in one of those counties) and the first person mentioned in the “Chairman’s Introduction” just happens to be (now) President-elect of AFCC]]
[[***Gee, who changed it?]][[check out item 12, presenter. Same individual from ACFLS — yesterday– who declared that a few hours on-line would qualify someone to write a great appellate brief about domestic violence, and maybe even save a client’s life. Tell that to Michelle Fournier’s son when he grows up, without her. Tell that to the relatives of the 7 other people that died as collateral damage in her “custody dispute” this past fall. On the other hand, when the boy grows up, maybe he could do a speech on what such violence is like OFF-line….]]
Well, read on, to see some of the strategic planning from 2002-2007:
FIVE-YEAR REPORT
{{This is most of the first page of the report, for reference:}}
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report chronicles the development of AFCC for the fiscal years 2002-03 through 2006-07, the first five years of the current administration. It addresses AFCC initiatives and special projects, organization- al development, membership, conferences, resource development, publications, administration and finance, Web site, technology and collaborating organizations. Comparative data and narrative are offered to provide historical context.
AFCC Initiatives and Special Projects
Between 2002 and 2007, AFCC initiatives and special projects played a growing role in the day to day activities of the association. Eight special projects were initiated between 2002 and 2007, funded through a mix of contracts, small grants, the operating budgets of AFCC and its collaborating organizations and participating individuals and organizations.
(1) Connecticut Family Civil Intake Assessment Screen (2) Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (3) Court Services Task Force (4) Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (5) Family Law Education Reform (FLER) Project
(6) Educator’s Guide to Working with Separated and Divorcing Parents
(7) Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project (8) Developing Nations Libraries Project
The Family Law Education Reform Project and Domestic Violence and Family Court Project were anchored by the first two AFCC-sponsored conferences at the Johnson Foundation’s prestigious Wingspread Conference Center.
Organizational Development
AFCC completed three major projects in the area of organizational development:
• • •
A five-year strategic plan An organizational effectiveness project, funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Identity branding
And from a little further in the report:
Web Site and Technology
• Redesigned Web site to enhance usability and member benefits.
• Google grant increased average monthly Web visits from 16,500 to 42,700.
• The bi-monthly AFCC eNEWS debuted in February 2006 and now has more than 10,000 subscribers.
• Parenting Coordination Network (group email) implemented.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
And so on, and so forth. . .
SHARE THIS POST on...
ABOUT THIS BLOG (@11/2011) There’s (still) No Excuse For Abuse, Including Economic Abuse of Taxpayers to Allegedly ‘EndAbuse.’
A Few FAQs, but first
let me invite readers to something normally beyond my social media skillset: a Tuesday Night Blogtalk Radio show
My email alert said
“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):
|
||||||||||||||
(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, 2011By Jack
Find out from special guest Fred Sottile why father’s rights groups are joining the fight to cut $5 billion in wasteful spending on IV-D TANF programs, including fatherhood programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS]. Also learn about Fred’s work on judicial reform and transparency with activists like Richard Fine, Full Disclosure Networks, and Judicial Watch.
Liz Richards will educate listeners on the politics of HHS Fatherhood and Healthy Families program funding, and how these funds are used to effect the outcome of court cases. Are grant programs administered through child support enforcement agencies, such as Responsible Fatherhood programs and Access and Visitation programs meeting their funding and accountability requirements? Is there a connection to the Penn State scandal and Occupy Wall Street?Please join us, and feel free to call in and join the discussion as we find ways to improve the system.Sincerely,
Jane Boyer & Josie Perez
Abuse Freedom United
| IF HHS PROGRAMS ARE FAILING FAMILIES, WHY DO WE KEEP FUNDING THEM? What can we do to reform them? |
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 
9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
4:00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time
5:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time
6:00 p.m. pacific Standard Time
7:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time 8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time
Or tune in on the web http://www.blogtalkradio.com/abusefreedomlive
|
I believe this 11/15/2011 show is now available to hear, and it will be weekly (though with which guests, I don’t know). However, the “64/34 Effect” — which has nothing to do with what most “expose the impact of domestic violence” or Train The Judges to recognize it — movements talk about. That 64/34 effect, however, has had greater influence in preventing families from getting out of it.
You’ll also note that there are both men and women on the show, and (for the record) that’s not men and women who are all pro-feminist, or pro-father. Rather, at least some people have started figuring out it’s time to stop playing the Good Cop Bad Cop (Men v. Women) themes that have been fed us by media campaigns — and instead look at some of what I have begun to (for some years now) report on this blog. I report on organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and funding behind the policies that messed with my family (yes, even my ex, who was also a batterer) and compromised our futures –badly.
(I hope the show is helpful//for the record, I’m not a regular listener and don’t know about previous episodes), or the hosts Boyer & Perez)
NOW —
ABOUT ME (& the Let’s Get Honest BLOG)
I am What I am, which is changing with time. . .. (so is the blog, only it’s an it).
- I don’t tag consistently, so if you’re hunting for something, use the search field.
- I don’t proofread, copyedit, and once the thing is off my chest and published, usually that’s it’s format (love it or leave it).
- I know — and deduce, from who’s watching it — that this blog has information on it you will NOT typically find elsewhere. I know that, because I’m a diligent person and voracious reader, and I explored the usual alternatives –consistently and hard — during a seven-year period (and thereafter) between filing a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, and watching my children have a custody-switch overnight (not getting to say goodbye to them, or vice versa) after which they basically disappeared out of my life. This was a planned event, and an enabled event — and in this blog, I am going to talk about the CONTEXT in which planned and enabled events of this sort take place.
- I quit dealing with nonprofits, or asking them for help, after I realized who they are actually answerable to — and that’s their funders, NOT their clients, who represent warm bodies that come and go through their doors, justifying the funding. This includes all kinds of nonprofits.
- The most important things needed for a mother (specifically, but it can also help nonabusive fathers) to know in the court system — to possibly stop getting screwed with (pardon the French) will NOT be found on domestic violence prevention sides, family court self-help sites (naturally), or even protective mothers sites.
- I can document a family law case (Sacks v. Sacks) that had all of the above type groups backing it from Florida to the Supreme Court of the USA (where it was declined for a hearing) and back, which chose to ignore what I blog, and think that the case was “about” their individual judges, custody evaluators, attorneys, or situation. It’s not. Get over it. Deal with it. Grow up. What happens in the courtroom — in the bottom line — is NOT about you, and in many cases, the outcome is often settled before you get there (if you have the privilege, which some don’t).
(Sample of the language — notice the drama — and people are supposed to write the judges about all this:) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
WE ARE ALL WITH YOU LINDA MARIE
We thank you Linda Marie for your courage, faith, and strength to speak for those who have been silenced by their abusers and the courts.
CASE UPDATE: JUNE 27, 2011 CASE
US SUPREME COURT: “WE DONT DO FAMILY LAW”
THE US SUPREME COURT DENIED LINDA MARIE SACKS PETITION FOR CERTIORARI IN SACKS V SACKS. WE ARE DISSAPOINTED BUT NOT SHOCKED AT THE US SUPREME COURTS COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR WOMEN AND CHILDREN. DESHANEY V WINNEBEGO, CASTLE ROCK V GONZALES, TITELMAN V TITELMAN ARE PRIME EXAMPLES OF OUR NATIONS HIGHEST COURT IGNORING THE PLEAS OF PARENTS TRYING TO FIND JUSTICE FOR THEIR CHILDREN WHO ARE SEVERELY ABUSED OR MURDERED. OVER AND OVER AGAIN THE STATE SUPREME COURTS AND THE US SUPREME COURT REFUSE TO PROTECT VICTIMS AND POLICE THEIR OWN. WHY HAVE SUPREME COURTS THAT ARE DEAF TO THOSE MATTERS THAT REALLY COUNT. IS BURNING OUR FLAG, STRIP SEARCHING OF SCHOOL CHILDREN, SCHOOL PRAYER, AND THE LIKE-MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE RIGHT OF PARENTS TO PROTECT THEIR CHILDREN FROM ABUSE AND MURDER?
- NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF WOMEN: FACTS FOUNDER ADELE GUADALUPE INTERVIEWS LINDA SACKS ABOUT HER CASE
- Click on this link and then go to bottom of blue page to download and read full petition to the US Supreme Court
Battered Mothers-A Human Rights Issue
READ MORE www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org
Write the judges in SACKS V SACKS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ All the groups involved should thank her for free (negative) publicity at her children’s expense. However, ignorance — and this WAS ignorance, and pigheaded refusal to smell the coffee – – – – is no excuse, either. (I wouldn’t say this, but tried to present information to this mother as well.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
This Petition for Writ of Certiori, i.e., to be heard by the US Supreme Court under “Other Authorities” cites Dr. Phil and the O (Oprah’s) magazine, a SF online weekly, a radio interview of Linda Sacks, and basically a laundry list of the nonprofits and individuals that did NOT inform this parent about what just happened to her. Or why a Supervised Visitation Center — or having a person on her case (Dr. Deborah O. Day) who just happened to be a founding board member of the Florida AFCC, and a Certified Family Mediator and is big on Munchhausen’s by Proxy — might relate to the problems she, like others, has been having. Instead, she focused on being “squeaky clean” and how unfair the system was to her — rather than studying the system. The groups cited (see the writ) don’t talk about AFCC, either, nor does a recent tome called Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody (see the groups listed).
Meanwhile — in Lancaster, Pennsylvania very recently– a forum exists “Expose Corruption” exists, which reports on its local courts and potential corruption, and the moderator (I think it’s the moderator) simply sent off a “Right to Know” information request on one of the court personnel, and got payment vouchers,* (*it doesn’t look like Ms. Sacks ever did this) discovered no contract exists for the person in question, found out what a nice living she is making at public expense, as either Guardian Ad Litem or Parenting Coordinator. She sued him for inadvertently posting SS#s that the responding officials “forgot” to redact on the vouchers, and the game’s on. But it began with someone noticing that judges were steering cases to certain profiteers, and inquiring about the profit.
FBI searches court administrator’s office
BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)Published: November 15, 2011FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.
Mr. Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide The Times-Tribune a copy of the search warrant.
The visit lasted less than an hour. For a while, as agents worked in his office, Mr. Mackay was required to stand in a waiting room outside the suite that houses his office. An FBI agent stood near Mr. Mackay guarding the entrance to the suite. Eventually, four men dressed in plain clothes, only one of whom acknowledged being an FBI agent, walked out, with one carrying a box with white papers sticking out of the top.
. . .The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.
Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ms. Ross.
Now THAT’s how you investigate!
Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/fbi-searches-court-administrator-s-office-1.1232356#ixzz1e62IvTLL
Funny how Sacks’ coaches and/or centers of reference: Battered Women’s Custody Conference, Barry Goldstein, The Leadership Council, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Judicial Excellence, etc. But ordinary citizens (well, perhaps some “extraordinary” is involved here) on a forum can pick up:
-
(Kids 4 Kash, Lack. Cty) First Protest set for Friday, November 18 at 9:00 am at Family Court ( 
First … Last » )and
-
Family Court’s Co-Parenting Coordinator, Ann Marie Termini vs. Pilchesky, (Court documents posted here) ( 1 2 3 4 )
(etc.)(who you know I’ve been looking at too — as I can’t see where Termini & Boyan are currently incorporated — and I don’t think they are. Termini’s making a good living in Lancaster County at the courthouse, since (it seems) about 2008. Coincidentally? The “National Association for Parent Coordination” in Georgia got dissolved in about 2008 (same dynamic duo in charge). now they run advanced parent coordination training (for a stiff price) and well they should — because in Lancaster at least, it seems to net $60/hour, plenty of referrals (and without a contract even??). . . We, too, can do “right to know” or “FOIA” inquiries, and should do more.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
On the other hand, knowledge — and knowledge you can act on locally — is empowering, even if the scenario is daunting. I have learned so much by having all systems fail in the family law, family, (religious institutions), criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement), and a few more along the way. I know I am a better woman for it, though sorry it took so many years (i.e., I got older in the meantime) Forgot to add
- I’m longwinded. The posting has really gotten out of hand, and while it may be a warm blanket to me, I’m getting ready to let go of it and go Facebook, Twitter, or something else. I don’t seriously believe anyone reads the entire posts. It’s where I keep (SOME, FYI, not all), of my research, for the record. The research has borne out, and there IS a clearer picture (in my understanding) of what to ignore and what to pay attention to in these systems. And of the country I live in (shudder!) as a woman, particularly a woman beyond kicking out some more babies, or with an appetite for raising someone else’s. That frees up a lot of thought time .. … ….
- Oh yes — there are about 9 different pages on here. But only the main page, generally, is added to. It’s structured like this. I write until I’m done (and only a small portion of the screen is visible at a time; no hardcopy printouts or second drafts). When I’m done –or sometimes several paragraphs beyond that, then I stop, and usually hit “Publish.”
Whatever I am saying, visits are steadily coming from state & county & city governments, various court systems, law firms, the California Judicial Council,
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
|
Alaska Court System (209.165.166.194) [Label IP Address] 0 returning visits
|
||
|---|---|---|
 Anchorage, Alaska, United States |
||
|
(No referring link)
|
||
| 16 Nov | 13:00:29 | |
– – – – – or, say:
Total Visits:1
Location:San Francisco, California, United States
IP Address:City & County Of San Francisco (204.68.210.39) CA CityCnty of SF – KT artklReferring URL:
(No referring link)
Visit Page:
– – – – -or, say:
Total Visits:1
Location:San Francisco, California, United States
IP Address:American Lawyer Media (208.8.241.6) [Label IP Address]Referring URL:
(No referring link)
Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit/
– – – – – or …
State Of New Jersey (12.195.10.99) NJ State of (undistrib CS) 0 returning visits
(No referring link)
16 Nov05:35:30
familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/22/66-to-34-undistributable-child-support-collections-and-why-hhsoas-is-more-concerned-about-its-share-than-kids-getting-theirs/
Total Visits:
South Amboy, New Jersey, United States Show Full URLs
1Location:Baltimore, Maryland, United States
IP Address:Psinet (38.112.73.146) [Label IP Address]
Referring URL:(No referring link)
Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/tag/parents-day-comes-from-true-parentsunification-church/
[[that post has a lot of corporation / charitable regisration lookups on some well-known California Marriage Promotion groups — more on that later]]
or, ..
(No referring link)
15 Nov14:02:52
Long Beach, California, United Statesor … (i’m not sure if this is good news, or not good news….).
 Executive Office Of The President Usa (198.137.240.197) WDC EXEC OFC PRESIDNT! 9/2/11 0 returning visits |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Show Full URLs |
||
|
(No referring link)
|
||
| 2 Sep | 08:55:24familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/page/18/?pages-list |
|
|
(No referring link)
|
||
| 15 Nov | 05:53:57familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/ocse-child-support-enforcementfederal-grants-to-states-lets-look-at-the-taggs-hhs-charts-cfdas-93-563-93-564/ | |
|
Executive Office Of The President Usa(198.137.241.197)WDC Exec Ofc Pres!198137241197 0 returning visits |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
Washington, District Of Columbia, United States Show Full URLs |
|||
|
(No referring link)
|
|||
| 2 Sep | 08:55:17 familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/category/wheres-mom/page/2 | ||
|
(No referring link)
|
|||
| 15 Nov | 05:53:55
|
||
– – – – – Or (just one last one!):
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (I’m not going to keep posting visitors here, but the posts they chose to look at are an indicator of possibly something YOU might want to look at. Also, I believe we should keep certain public entities on their toes (if possible), particularly ones that have been on our HEELS, dogging us, driving us — and for what? For profit? For someone’s career track? To bring world peace or solve world poverty? |
|---|
So what is jurisdiction? It is the right, the power, and the control that the court will have over a certain legal issue or subject. Thus there is geographical jurisdiction (where can the case be heard?), subject matter jurisdiction (which court has authority to hear and decide this particular legal issue?), personal jurisdiction (does the court have the power to make a person obey its orders?) and there are other jurisdictional questions.
What we normally call FAMILY COURTS ( as I am understanding this) are actually by statue “CONCILIATION COURTS….Now the type of people going to the family law system are not typically the happily married couples, but couples with often “irreconcilable differences” this may come of a bit of a shock — while you are figuring out how to separate, the court is actually (by legal purpose) trying to get you back together, apparently (I’ll use that word a lot so no one thinks about accusing me of practicing law ….).
No, seriously …..
WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)
Conciliation Courts
California was one of the first states to establish conciliation courts. The purpose of a conciliation court is to encourage families to attempt reconciliation and reduce litigation in family law cases. In California counties with conciliation courts, parties may petition the court for help in resolving disputed family law matters prior to, or even after, filing an action for dissolution. While the matter is under advisement by the conciliation court, neither party may file an action for dissolution without permission of the court.
How many mothers or fathers are even aware that in having ANY custody dispute and going before a judge to settle it, they have entered “Conciliation Court Land” (I think. NOTE: I’m not an attorney, and reader is advised to consult, law, a licensed attorney or a better source before acting on any FYI information I post, from other sites, hereon!)
Basically when there is a custody DISPUTE (parents cannot work it out separately) in — I believe most counties in the US, but don’t know for sure — that opens the doorway for all THIS:
(CALIFORNIA LAW — which may explain where all the behavioral scientists get off in studying your children and collecting data from courthouses about this or that):
FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS (California Code 1800ff (part, below:)
1814. (a) In each county in which a family conciliation court is established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family conciliation court in disposing of its (ITS, not YOUR) business and carrying out its functions. In counties which have by contract established joint family conciliation court services, the superior courts in contracting counties jointly may make the appointments under this subdivision. (b) The supervising counselor of conciliation has the power to do all of the following: (1) Hold conciliation conferences with parties to, and hearings in, proceedings under this part, and make recommendations concerning the proceedings to the judge of the family conciliation court. (2) Provide supervision in connection with the exercise of the counselor's jurisdiction as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct. (3) Cause reports to be made, statistics to be compiled, and records to be kept as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct. (4) Hold hearings in all family conciliation court cases as may be required by the judge of the family conciliation court, and make investigations as may be required by the court to carry out the intent of this part. (5) Make recommendations relating to marriages where one or both parties are underage. (6) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations as provided in Section 281 of the Welfare and Institutions Code under the authority provided the probation officer in that code. (7) Act as domestic relations cases investigator. (8) Conduct mediation of child custody and visitation disputes. (c) The superior court, or contracting superior courts, may also appoint, with the consent of the board of supervisors, associate counselors of conciliation and other office assistants as may be necessary to assist the family conciliation court in disposing of its business.
Which, for the record, may or may not relate to YOUR business or intents in being there. In fact, the two purposes are often at odds. But did you know what its business was to start with? This is not told you in the basic self-help legal center, but it appears to be so....
The associate counselors shall carry out their duties under the supervision of the supervising counselor of conciliation and have the powers of the supervising counselor of conciliation. Office assistants shall work under the supervision and direction of the supervising counselor of conciliation. (d) The classification and salaries of persons appointed under this section shall be determined by: (1) The board of supervisors of the county in which a noncontracting family conciliation court operates. (2) The board of supervisors of the county which by contract has the responsibility to administer funds of the joint family conciliation court service.
OK, Let’s review this: COUNTY (financial) vs. STATE (pays judges) responsibilities and associations:
And State to Federal ….
The county commissioners (or, “Board of Supervisors of the County”) in which a conciliation court operates appoint the classification and salaries of people helping there work. Got that? (Judges, in California, are to be paid by the state — not the counties).
SO — when here comes the United States (federal) Child Support & Welfare System and says — “we will fund you, only it’s a $2/$1 relationship (or the 66/34% effect), …
provided you follow our rules — some of which includes, we want to do social studies on your families, (Just whatever the Head (Secretary) of HHS says to ….)
and we also believe that you should be running some marriage, fatherhood promotion, abstinence education, supervised visitation, mediation, counseling and parent education classes too, or other “access/visitation” programs — to reduce the overall divorce rate, which WE assert relates to the overall POVERTY RATE for which we are (see?? ) giving your state $XX b/million per year — if you want it that is…”
— GENERALLY SPEAKING, THE STATES (AND COUNTY SUPERVISORS OF CONCILIATION COURTS) ARE GOING TO LISTEN.
AND JUDGES ARE LIKELY TO ORDER SERVICES — THAT’S HOW WE GET THE INAPPROPRIATE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SOME OF THESE NONPROFITS AND INDIVIDUAL JUDGES ON SPECIFIC CUSTODY CASES THEY ARE TO HELP PARENTS SETTLE THEIR “DISPUTES,” and this JUST — PERHAPS — MIGHT INVOLVE FORCING THAT COUPLE TO GO SIT IN FRONT OF A COUNTY-PAID COUNSELOR (OR MEDIATOR), OR TAKE CLASSES BY A JUDGE- LAWYER-RUN PROGRAM THAT QUALIFIES FOR SOME OF THE GRANTS. . .
.Which may explain why American Lawyer Media — (or quite a few others visiting the same site) are somewhat interested in my post on “Kids Turn” . . . or why the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts (perhaps) may be interested in my reporting on the A/V grants, or OCSE — or “AFCC” which includes personnel with a penchant for ordering a whole lot of these types of income-producing programs:
(CODE, continued — but in more normal print so it will wrap to the margins right):
1815. (a) A person employed as a supervising counselor of conciliation or as an associate counselor of conciliation shall have all of the following minimum qualifications: {{NOTICE THE FIELDS}}
(1) A master’s degree in psychology, social work, marriage, family and child counseling, or other behavioral science substantially related to marriage and family interpersonal relationships.
(2) At least two years of experience in counseling or psychotherapy, or both, preferably in a setting related to the areas of responsibility of the family conciliation court and with the ethnic population to be served.
(3) Knowledge of the court system of California and the procedures used in family law cases. {{notice this is qualification #3, not #1}}
(4) Knowledge of other resources in the community that clients can be referred to for assistance.
(5) Knowledge of adult psychopathology and the psychology of families.
(6) Knowledge of child development, child abuse, clinical issues relating to children, the effects of divorce on children, the effects of domestic violence on children, and child custody research sufficient to enable a counselor to assess the mental health needs of children.
(7) Training in domestic violence issues as described in Section 1816. {{notice this is #7, not #2, although DV issues do result in disputed custody situations that come before this court!}}
(b) The family conciliation court may substitute additional experience for a portion of the education, or additional education for a portion of the experience, required under subdivision (a).
(c) This section does not apply to any supervising counselor of conciliation who was in office on March 27, 1980.
Does that explain why your life as a disputed custody parent (if that’s you) are now filled with these social science, behavioral modification, psychopathology & psychology of families & psychotherapist personnel?
NOW — a voice from 1977. I notice that it was published in the National Council on Family Relations. Who are they? Well not in this post, but this is the grant they got recently from our government (HHS) to keep marriages together or help persuade more people to marry| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS | MINNEAPOLIS | MN | 55421-3900 | ANOKA | 078679974 |
| $ 1,286,457 |
“CONCILIATION COUNSELING: THE COURT’S EFFECTIVE MECHANISM FOR RESOLVING VISITATION AND CUSTODY DISPUTES“
(excerpt)The Family Coordinator © 1977 National Council on Family RelationsThat’s how the counselors get in there. . . . Note the date –1972. The AFCC (which is an association of judges, lawyers, and exactly these types of counselors — must be coincidence!) didn’t actually finish getting caught and forced to incorporate (in IL) til around 1975. No-fault divorce was here or near, and FEMINISM was on the Ascent in America…. This caused some marital issues, obviously. ….Abstract
Counseling processes utilized by the Santa Clara County Conciliation Court in in resolving litigated visitation and custody disputes are described. The responsiveness of parents and their children is discussed as are the roles of both counselor and judge in these matters. A sample case reflecting a broad range of family dynamics is presented and the procedure by which cases are received and evaluated is reported. The practical and salutary features of this court-oriented program are set forth. (Excerpt): “It has been acknowledge for some time by judges and lawyers, as well as those inviduals affected (note order — judges & lawyers 1st, affected people, 2nd) that the process by which custody and visitation issues are decided is in need of change. With that in mind, THE CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (California) SUPERIOR COURT IN 1972 LAUNCHED A PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FULLY INTEGRATED INTO ITS FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES (caps & emphases= mine). PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM’S IMPLEMENTATION…. At the calling of the Family Court Calendar each morning and each afternoon, all those awaiting hearing on visitation matters are promptly and directly referred to the court’s Conciliation Service. (etc.)
WHAT I WAS NOT TOLD — EVER — BY ANY COURTHOUSE I ENTERED< ANYWHERE< OR ANY MEDIATOR:
WERE YOU? WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?
WHO HAS JURISDICTION IF YOU HAVE A CUSTODY DISPUTE?
THIS IS A 2009 blog from an attorney who works in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties. It’s not hard to understand, it’s fairly clear — but were you told?
L.A. Divorce Blog (Nov. 24, 2009)
When a controversy exists between spouses, or when a controversy relating to child custody or visitation exists between parents (regardless of their marital status), and the controversy might otherwise result in divorce, annulment, legal separation, or the disruption of the household, and there is a minor child of the spouses or parents whose welfare might be affected thereby, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, the parties to the controversy, and all persons having any relation to the controversy. Where the controversy involves domestic violence, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, whether or not the parties have a minor child.
The purpose of filing a Petition for Conciliation is to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to preserve the marriage, to effect a reconciliation of the parties, or to amicably settle the controversy to avoid further litigation over the issue.
While this is talking specifically about someone wishing to stop the divorce via a “petition of conciliation,” the existence of this code – has affected all “custody disputes” and also how domestic violence is adjudicated. Cindy Ross (also of California, and who writes better) described:
(notice — this is an older post, 2/19/2003) and talks more about the impact.
AFCC was originally established in California as the means to enact Conciliation Court Law (CA Family Codes 1800-1852), an obscure set of codes used to prevent divorce in counties where the court itself deems it necessary to “promote the public welfare by preserving, promoting, and protecting family life and the institution of matrimony“. [15] While the Conciliation Court identifies children’s rights to “both parents”, it is used only to assist fathers take custody away from mothers and/or to otherwise gain inappropriate or illegal “access” to children.
Enacting Conciliation Court Law gives the family court jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, in violation of appropriate family codes and “child’s best interests” laws. For example, in California, while Family Code §3044 establishes a presumption that sole or joint custody for a parent convicted of domestic violence is not in the best interests of children, Conciliation Court codes are used not only to assist abusive men get custody, but to help them avoid criminal prosecution. [16] Because blame is shifted to mothers by concealing evidence of paternal crimes against women and children, in the Conciliation Court, victims of abuse (not perpetrators) get convicted in accordance with PAS “threat therapy”. [17]
PAS court-ordered threats include jail terms for mothers and institutionalization of children to convince them that the abuse never occurred, but their mothers are crazy. [18] PAS threats have been linked to the death of at least one child. When forced to “choose” between visiting his violent father in a positive frame of mind, or having his mother jailed for his refusal, Nathan Grieco chose suicide instead. [19]
The Conciliation Court uses PAS methodology to give abusive men the legal upper hand. However, “shared parenting” has become the rallying cry of the fathers’ rights movement, primarily because joint custody also means no child support obligations. When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get custody and get out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases.
She hasn’t reported on a few others factors, but at least this explains why, when coming in for a divorce, the court seems more interested in assigning you a few (dozen) experts. As also explained (again, long ago) on
Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral
practices in the court
… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.
Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below.
To which I’d add — and related federal programs, as they may be available.
To people who file civil restraining orders — this information is not shown them (last I heard), but if children are involved, they are then escorted (at least in my area) to a quick run by the local family mediator –who just happens to be in this conciliation court. The place looks, acts, and sounds like a courthouse, but in fact it is a support service, under conciliation law, to a conciliation court. Funny that, when divorce actions sometimes read “irreconciliable differences” — and yet someone is going to give it a try, for public benefit. Or at least pretend to. Heck, it’s a job, right?
I know many women who filed for safety and ended up in this court before they knew what hit. Sometimes the actions are consolidated Ex Parte to get them into this venue. Then we wonder why, when we talk about matters of law, due process, (particularly DV law), or even crimiinal matters, the judges, GALs, and evaluators jsut cannot hear — and talk a different language (as above, see the code).
The entity which lobbied for conciliation code to start with, in California, is known as the AFCC (association of family and CONCILIATION courts — get it?). Their job is to extract as much wealth as possible for as long as possible (this may include from extended family, foster care situations, adoptive families, you name it) and try to convince — or force — you to believe that this is in the best interests of what you think are YOUR children, but they know (by knowing about this section of code) are actually NOT your children — not until you and the Dad can agree. Your judge or lawyer is bad? Your ex done you wrong? Start a blog and unload there — but I am more interest in system change and reporting how systems have changed over time. When I feel I’ve said this well enough (or as well as I can on this blog), then I’ll stop saying it. Don’t hold your breath.SO, ABOUT THIS BLOG:
Scroll down to “READ THIS FIRST” page for a history of family law starting from the consequences of it, back down to the shady beginnings, one generation after women got the vote and between the world wars. Yep, that’s when the first law was passed, which eventually morphed, evolved, or as one summary puts it, “metastasized” into what we have now. And, like Hollywood, and other exports, this one seems to have originated in Sunny California, Southern part…
- This post doesn’t contain any porn, graphic violence, or disgusting images (as I recall), but it is going to include plain talk on what comes from papering over these things.
- [2011 update]. I investigate and report on corporations and nonprofits taking business from the court system, and taking diversionary monies from needy families through the 1996 TANF welfare reform and OCSE loopholes.
- Originally the blog was intended to develop and report on matters covered (since ab. 1993) at http://www.NAFCJ.net and others, which at least gave a sensible explanation for weird behaviors by family court officials. I continued researching, observing, and learning.
- A good deal also covers the “Faith-Based Behaviors” which have been enabled to expand beyond even the “Fatherhood Factor Funding” of 1994 & 1995. In 2001, GWB began office with two executive orders, 13998 and 13999, which opened the door for these (crooks).
- Recently, articles are hitting the press about the scandalous “take the money and run” grantees, the “steer the money to our friends” process exhibited by program managers at the state level, and more. Not to mention, the black hole of undistributed child support collections, which (as reported in part by Richard Fine in 1999) shows a system of bribery and kickbacks are steering custody results, and kicking too many kids into bad situations — or state care.
I also note that tools available to the public to study these things are indequate and limited; that there exists — both on database and (some indications) literally, a dual-docketing system, such that decisions made with a parent’s or child’s name on them — which bring federal program funding opportunities — can continue without that parent or child’s knowledge. Some of these do not seem to require a judge’s signature. Others may have such signature, but litigants somehow can’t get a copy of their own files. The database TAGGS is not set up to produce truly flexible reports which would help track down who is doing what and for whom. It is there for an appearance of transparency, as far as I am concerned. Before I re-read NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’ site) and began my own research, I didn’t run into a single protective mother or DV advocate who even used this database, or told women — or men — about it.
Above all, it’s time to let the idols, the myths about justice hit the dust (which is where idols belong anyhow) and go roll up the sleeves and start looking things up.
My blog is dense to read, and shows affects of PTSD (many times) — BUT I’ll bet you will not find many others reporting what I do.
Fathers in custody battles need to know — it’s NOT about you, or your story, or a particular judge; it’s about the system. Fathers also need to know that SOME of us mothers, while we do not back up one inch on abuse is wrong, or buy your stories about how much false allegations of it exist, we do know that you, too, have been extorted by at least the OCSE system, and we will work along the non-rabid community of fathers to do something about the kickbacks and lack of accountability.
And I personally wish to tell leaders of domestic violence coalitions and certain other agencies receiving major HHS and/or DOJ funding that — we mothers exiting abuse do NOT appreciate our legitimate needs having been SOLD OUT by your groups, to take funding for speculative theories and PR/educational campaigns on what “prevents family violence” let alone “poverty.”
NOW –that’s the N.O.W. — has no excuse for basically dropping the ball, not when in 2002 an excellent Family Court Report laid out the roadmap, and 2005 your California Leader called for an investigation of HHS use of Fatherhood Funds. (What she didn’t realize then is WE have to do this investigation, then bring it to legislators). NOW is still active in matters of domestic violence, and has a Family Law Task Force — but other priorities. NOW has done a lot (and I think them), but here — for all to see — is a clear indication that (as with other DV groups) the “Family Law” issue is not seen as a Violence Against Women issue:
Key Issues
NOW’s Top Priority Issues: (the top 6, and the “other important issues”)
Other Important Issues:
- Affirmative Action
- Disability Rights
- Family/Family Law
- Fighting the Right
- Global Feminism
- Health
- Immigration
- Judicial Nominations
- Legislation
- Marriage Equality
- Media Activism
- Mothers/Caregivers Economic Rights
- Working for Peace
- Social Security
- Supreme Court
- Title IX/Education
- Welfare
- Women-Friendly Workplace
- Women in the Military
- Young Feminist Programs
Suffice it to say, I think a more singular focus is needed, and as NOW didn’t continue to report some of the material about Bush, Fatherhood, Welfare Reform, and other issues. I don’t even share 100% of those issues, or agree with all of them. I want to stay alive and exercise my rights, and my kids to NEVER have to repeat what happened and what they witnessed, while growing up, half in violence, and half in a custody war with a basis in extortion from more than one sector, with them, their distress, their simply being minors, as the bait. But we all need some NOW — because without a dose of them, it’d be The USA of Shari’a (Christian, Jewish, Muslim & Mormon versions, plus the same general themes among the agnostics and atheists). It’d be off the deep end and in over our heads. But they lost the focus on the HHS matters, which are also national matters because they involve the economy and systems change to push marriage and fatherhood programs (notice, I didn’t say to push marriage, or fatherhood — but to push the programs).
LIKEWISE:
The NCADV and Domestic Violence Statewide Coalitions have no excuse. Stop SELLING stuff (including conference attendances, memberships) and start reporting — for free– on welfare reform and what it did to battered women who are also mothers’ chances of EVER getting completely free from such dangerous relationships. You do NOT speak for mothers who have their lives or kids’ lives on their line.
Family Violence Prevention Fund is now “Futures Without Violence” (facelift, namechange, physical move to the SF Praesidio). I went up down and around the SF Bay Area looking for help, only to find out (once I got regular internet access and knew to look) that you, too, believe that the real way to prevent violence by men against women is to take funding from wealthy foundations who believe that the way to stop violence against women is to make sure that there is a man in all their homes, and a father in every abused child’s life. Then I learned you were a resource center for women like me, and I know lots of us in the area.
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | 94103-5177 | SAN FRANCISCO | 618375687 | $ 22,368,114 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | 94103-5178 | SAN FRANCISCO | 618375687 | $ 31,000 |
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 90XA0109 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT | 1 | 0 | ACF | 08-03-2005 | 618375687 | $ 496,000 |
That’s from Health and Human Services. Overall (not that this site is usually complete) USASPENDING.GOV shows the OVW funding as well:
- Total Dollars:$41,512,886
- Transactions:1 – 25 of 92
$34 million of this was straight grants, some was contracts…..
Somehow (when I check “Grants/HHS” at USASPENDING.gov — only $13 million shows up)
so often, “Discretionary”:
| Program Office | Recovery Act Indicator | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| CB | 90XA0109 | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT | 1 | 08/03/2005 | 93670 | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | DISCRETIONARY | ESTA SOLER | $ 496,000 |
|
Used to write up a report on yourself?
Title: International Center to End Violence: Addressing Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect. Final Report to: DHHS/Administration on Children, Youth and Families under CAPTA. Grant Number 90-XA-0109. October 31, 2007.
Published: 2007 Available from: Children’s Bureau
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/ Administration on Children, Youth and Families 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 Abstract: This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of the federally funded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), an organization committed to building safer and stronger families by ending domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse against women and children. Major activities and accomplishments of the FVPF are described, including: the development of an Interactive Learning and Exhibit Center, the development of the International Center to End Violence,** and the implementation of training programs and experiential learning for engaging everyday gatekeepers and young students. Activities of the FVPF’s Teacher Training Academy are also highlighted, as well as public educational and engagement activities and school-based programming.
Results 1 to 1 of 1 matches.
|
**
by Philip V. Scribano, Pediatrician
and here:
New International Center for Family Violence Prevention Fund
(in case graphic doesn’t show…)
“Violence against women is an issue that cannot wait . .. and we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women,we empower our greatest resource fro development; mothers raising children; lawmakers in parliament;chief executives; negotiators; teachers; doctors; policewomen; peacekeepers and more.”..Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General, United Nations
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?)
|
(OVW grant for this center includes a 2009 one of $2,000,000)
Yes you did engage boys and men — jumped on the bandwagon: Fatherhood as a tool to stop domestic violence.
I saw the funding surge behind the change of tune, too:
National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence
Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.
In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers
Did you train whoever trained Scott McAlpin? Scott DeKraii? Cody Beemer?
(yet — no mention, for the sake of the single, female-headed households in the State of Ohio, that it has a Fatherhood Commission, Fatherhood Practitioners, Fatherhood Summits, and that a Legislator is still running around strengthening fatherhood to stop child abuse (like that’s the solution); that it had an Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that is ripping off the public – in a large way — in an effort to turn back the clocks to the 1950s, pre-feminism and pre-VAWA?
in 2011, it’s up to $3,000,000
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | 90EV0401 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 2 | 0 | ACF | 08-04-2011 | 618375687 | $ 250,000 |
| 2011 | 90EV0414 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-17-2011 | 618375687 | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2011 | ASTWH110025 | PROJECT CONNECT: A COORDINATED PUBLIC HEALTH INITIATIVE TO PREVENT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN | 1 | 00 | DHHS/OS | 08-26-2011 | 618375687 | $ 1,650,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2011 Total: | $ 3,000,000 | |||||||
Never-Ending Education . . .
| 2010 | ASTWH090016 | FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM | 1 | 03 | DHHS/OS | 11-17-2009 | 618375687 | $ 1,500,000 |
And taking money and direction from Annie E. Casey Foundation, which virtually ensures that NONE of your media campaigns are going to tell women such as myself the relevant facts about 1996 Welfare Form, of the existence of the National Fatherhood Initiative (from the start, 1994, same year as VAWA) or how these funds have been used in family court situations. It sure has changed the tune — if, indeed, the tune ever was anything other than media campaign, technical assistance, and training since about 1997ff… While I am very thankful to be informed that strangulation, for example, is a high indicator of lethality, as a mother experiencing it in the home, I had that figured out (particularly in contexts of the talk that went along with it). Or that my dentist should’ve reported or further questioned (he didn’t) a certain suspicious & bloody incident involving my teeth.
Sample Annie E. Casey Fatherhood program (this is a small one)
“On Thursday, October 20th, eighteen men graduated from the Newark Y Fatherhood Program. Funded through the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 167 men have participated in our workshops during the past year. …A major highlight of theFatherhood Graduation was the presentation of awards from President Barack Obama to the Y’s CEO, Michael Bright and the Director of the Fatherhood Program, Daryl Brown. ThePresidential Award was given in recognition of their “devotion to service and for doing all you can to shape a better tomorrow for our great Nation.”
FVPF Program purpose (from the tax return, the 2009 Form 990, below):
“1. TO PREVENT VIOLENCE WITHIN THE HOME, AND IN THE COMMUNITY,
TO HELP THOSE WHOSE LIVES ARE DEVASTATED BY VIOLENCE BECAUSE EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO LIVE FREE OF VIOLENCE.”
4. Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the 3 largest program services by expenses:
- INTERNATIONAL AND SOCIAL JUSTICE – THE FVPF HAS HELPED CRAFT LANDMARK FEDERAL LEGISLATION, CO-FOUNDED A NATIONAL NETWORK TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST IMMIGRANT WOMEN , AND CONTINUES TO MUSTER THE FINANCIAL, POLITICAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE RESOURCES TO SAFEGUARD IMMIGRANT WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN – AMONG THE MOST VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. THE FVPF HAS FORMED PROGRAMMATIC PARTNERSHIPS AROUND THE WORLD IN REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CLINICS TO EXCHANGE WISDOM, IMPROVE HEALTHCARE, AND RAISE PUBLIC AWARENESS.
- HEALTH – THE FVPF HAS HELPED EXPOSE A CONNECTION BETWEEN HISTORY OF ABUSE AND CURRENT HEALTH,** FURTHER SPOTLIGHTING THE CRITICAL NEED FOR SUSTAINING ASSESSMENT, INTERVENTION, AND ADVOCACY IN CLINICAL SETTINGS. THE ORGANIZATION PROMOTES A HEALTHCARE RESPONSE THAT CONSIDERS THE ENTIRE LIFESPAN AND THAT INCLUDES PREVENTION. THE FVPF OPERATES THE NATION’S HEALTH RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROVIDING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INFORMATION TO THOUSANDS OF HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND OTHERS EACH YEAR. THE ORGANIZATION HAS ALSO DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED STATE-WIDE PLANS FOR A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
**astounding. And this was figured out when? …..
- (this is the “We Got Fatherhood Funding” segment) PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. {{yes, but this is 2009!}} NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2009 | $26,157,567 | 990 | 16 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2008 | $22,018,363 | 990 | 31 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2007 | $17,917,034 | 990 | 33 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2006 | $13,612,574 | 990 | 33 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2005 | $9,114,506 | 990 | 31 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2004 | $7,045,197 | 990 | 24 | 94-3110973 |
| Family Violence Prevention Fund | CA | 2002 | $6,261,569 | 990 | 22 | 94-3110973 |
EIN# 94-3110973
Grants — $11.5 million
Program income — $181K
Salaries this year — $4 million
One resource is ERI (Economic Research Institute or “http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com”) which runs comparisons on non-profit organizations salaries;
the search I just did shows their assets about $22million — and their contributions and expenditures similar, at around $13 million. It shows a nice chart (I searched by EIN#)and has nice summaries, bar chats, etc.
Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded. They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.
Except that this group — in an area where women are still being stalked, robbed of (their children, among other things), having child support reduced to nothing or being forced to pay their former batterers (innumerable), finding next to no response with law enforcement when this occurs, women have been burnt and found hogtied around a road sign (2006, unidentified, Oakland-Temescal), kidnapped from their homes, stabbed repeatedly, then dropped off on the side of the road to bleed to death in front of motorists (Oakland/Orinda Elnora Caldwell), shot at work while IN tollbooths (2009, Ross), shot in church parking lots on a weekday morning (2007, McCall, Oakland), doused with gas and burnt alive, murdered and put in car trunks, shot (along with 6 others in beauty salons (2011, Seal Beach, CA Fournier 8 killed, 2008 Torres, Martinez 3 killed including responding officer),. . .
killed at court-ordered weekend exchanges and buried in a shallow grave only to be found when the murderer father plea-bargained it down by agreeing to locate the body (Wife missing 2006, conviction 2008, Oakland Reiser). Children have been also kidnapped galore, sometimes being murdered afterwards by overentitled fathers, while D.A.’s are soliciting campagns to standardize their Family Justice Center model in D.C. and in the California Legislature. I haven’t even linked to children and bystanders in this list; nor is it complete — but a LOT of it happened around divorce, separation and child custody — and yet where is even a mention of the AFCC, CRC, or the welfare reform that funds “increased noncustodial parenting time” and forces women to try to co-parent with their batterers under fatherhood theory — such as you also have??
Here is the California Charitable Registration results for their 2010 filing (as “Futures WIthout Violence”):
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
(For the record, it was incorporated as a nonprofit in California, in a simple filing with Esta Soler and a few others, in August 1989. To get the VAWA passed in 5 years is indeed an accomplishment, or may reflect connections the women had initially, I do not know.)
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process C1648791 08/30/1989 ACTIVE FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE ESTA SOLER
- September 10, 2010 notice from California Attorney General — they forgot their fee:
- FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 383 RHODE ISLAND STREET, NO. 304 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5133
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
- LETTER from California Attorney General, who handles charitable registrations:
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT (August 26, 2011)
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.
Must’ve just forgot — I’m sure they can afford $225.
- Another notice says they forgot to attach a list of contributors; also 8/26/2011.
FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE CT FILE NUMBER: 077397 100 MONTGOMERY STREET, PRESIDIO – MAIN POST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129
RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors
We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.
The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.
Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of
Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.
I think that along with this many people earning over $100K per years, someone should’ve taken – I did — maybe an hour of their precious PR time to read some of the material put out by UNpaid mothers who have watched and documented what the family court systems is doing to their current safety levels. It’s not as though we aren’t on the web and aren’t talking !!!
2009 SALARIES OF FVPF, or, currently the ICEV: (Salary to left, “estimated other compensation from other organizations”) to the right of each name
$234,229 ESTA SOLER PRESIDENT + $71,069
$168,216 THOMAS FERGUSON CFO,CAO + $14,717
$ 166,265 DEBBIE LEE SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $34,928
(also a program director for a joint project with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Start Strong, Building Healthy Teen Relationships”)
“Start Strong: Building Healthy Teen Relationships is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in collaboration with Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Blue Shield of California Foundation* are investing $18 million in 11 Start Strong communities across the country to identify and evaluate best practices in prevention to stop dating violence and abuse before it starts.
Or — take a look at the assemblage of personnel on the campaign to end teen pregnancy, underneath this study of “What Research Tells Us about Latino Parenting Practices and their Relationship to Teen Pregnancy” starting with Thomas Kean, Chair of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (and former Governor of NJ). These are, basically, the rich studying and categorizing the poor — by ethnicity and about every other category — in order to better manage the population. They are particularly interested in breeding habits, which I think is borne out of fear of being outbred (take a look at the U.S. Congress by ethnicity and gender, and make an educated guess why….)
$ 163,251 LENI MARIN SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $50,806. (That would probably, with creativity, feed & house 3 families in the Bay Area on those benefits alone….)
$ 196,620 RACHAEL SMITH DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR + $21,418
$ 148,996, BRIAN O’CONNOR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC COMMU + 13,426
$ 148,841 MICHAEL RUNNER DIRECTOR OF LEGAL PROGRA + $20,176
$ 136,681 KIERSTEN STEWART DIR OF PUBLIC POLICY PRO + $18,891
$ 125,685 LONNA DAVIS DIR OF CHILDREN’S PROGRA + $16,601
$ 112,139 COLLIN CASEY DIR OF ADMINISTRATION + $29,491 (any relationship to the Annie E. Casey people?)
In addition, contractors over $100K included:
LAURA HOGAN, PETER D. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC., (WASHINGTON, DC), DEBORAH KARNOWSKY
@ $144,737. $143,855. $139,731. == for respectively: Project Building, Project Building, and Campaign Building.
Other projects on the 990 — grandiose in scope — described on Schedule O:
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4D, OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES:
WORKPLACE – THE NATIONAL WORKPLACE RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE FVPF, EMPLOYERS, AND UNIONS AROUND THE NATION THAT HAS REACHED MILLIONS OF AMERICANS. THIS PROJECT MAKES POSSIBLE EMPLOYER AND UNION DISSEMINATION OF HELPFUL, EASY-TO-FOLLOW INFORMATION TO EMPLOYEES AND UNION MEMBERS ON PREVENTING AND REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DEVELOPMENT OF WORKPLACE POLICIES ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND WORKPLACE SUPPORT OF EMPLOYEES WHO ARE VICTIMS. THE ORGANIZATION PROVIDES RESOURCES ONLINE THAT GIVE WORKPLACE LEADERS WHO WANT TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE CLEAR AND IMMEDIATE EXPERT ASSISTANCE.
EXPENSES $ 110773.
and for “CHILDREN / YOUTH / YOUNG FAMILIES: EXPENSES $709,895 (no description) and “PUBLIC POLICY / NEW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” exp. $80,900.
and the plan to end all plans:
- INTERNATIONAL CENTER TO END VIOLENCE – THE ORGANIZATION IS CREATING AN INTERNATIONAL CENTER IN SAN FRANCISCO AS A HUB OF EDUCATIONAL AND LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TO ADVANCE US TOWARD A VIOLENCE-FREE SOCIETY. THE CENTER SEEKS TO PROMOTE THE VALUES OF RESPECT, EMPATHY, AND RESPONSIBILITY; EXPOSE THE CYCLE OF VIOLENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON FAMILIES AND SOCIETIES THROUGHOUT THE WORLD; ASSIST THE PUBLIC IN EXAMINING ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE AND ITS INTERCONNECTIONS TO BIGOTRY AND HATE; AND ROUSE INDIVIDUALS EVERYWHERE TO TAKE A STAND AGAINST VIOLENCE, HATRED and BIGOTRY.
EXPENSES $ 220,101
and of course: another expense was “LEGAL $501,366
Well, I’ll find some of the descendants, if any, of the women mentioned above and tell them they didn’t die in vain, the
International Center to End Violence has a plan...
I believe a better use of time would for be for these directors to go hang out in homeless camps and at soup kitchens and ask the people how they came to be homeless, and in need of eating at soup kitchens. In the years that FVPF funds were doubling and increasing, I have noticed more and more women in those lines. Preach for hire in an open marketplace– not at their expense! While this group is not actually (that I can see) taking money direct from money dedicated to welfare, they ARE taking a helluva a lot from the HHS pot to forward the fund’s personal (shared by others, but it is personal to the fund) belief (or assertions) that more training will stop violence. Really? You just want my children and future grandchildren, currently this is in the USA, to fund your vision about fixing the WORLD? While in the entire time of their childhoods here, I can’t identify ONE thing that this group did to stop the battering in my home, or the family court gauntlet that followed. (And under what name is it doing business in San Francisco, anyhow?)
Incidentally (see TAGGS grants) — many of the grants which would otherwise go to shelters are going to this type of “training and technical support” activity – it’s lumped under the same labelThen.
To be fair, here is a 2010 statement with a California Assemblyperson naming FVPF (Futures without Violence) founder Esta Soler his 2010 Woman of the Year. It also says the organization was started — with a federal fund — in 1980 30 years ago. Perhaps in DC or Washington – the charitable and sec of state records in California both say about 21 years ago (as of 2010), i.e. 1989 – 1999 – 2009 -that’s 20 years.
Contact: Quintin Mecke @ (415) 557-3013
Sacramento, CA – Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) chose Esta Soler, the head of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as his 2010 Woman of the Year.
“I am proud to announce Esta Soler, one of the world’s foremost experts on violence against women and children, to be Woman of the Year for Assembly District 13”, said Ammiano. “Esta is a pioneer who founded the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) nearly 30 years ago and made it one of the world’s leading violence prevention agencies.”
Under her direction, the FVPF was a driving force behind passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 – the nation’s first comprehensive federal response to the violence that plagues our families and communities. Congress reauthorized and expanded the law in 2000 and again in 2005.
“It’s a tremendous honor to receive this award from Assemblymember Ammiano, a wonderful friend to all of us working to end domestic, dating and sexual violence and help victims,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President and Founder Esta Soler. “At a time when state funding for domestic violence programs is in peril, we especially appreciate champions like Tom Ammiano.”
Esta Soler first established the organization with a federal grant in 1980.
This 1980 is commonly cited — BUT unless it’s in Washington, D.C. (a corporations search page I can’t seem to sign into yet), the SF one was definitely 1989 — and thus the 1980 statement is an exaggeration. If the grant was received in 1980, I’d like to know how much, from which department and under what name. Most on-line databases don’t go back that far. I hope to research this a little further perhaps to better understand this organization.
It has become the nation’s leading expert on violence against women and children, the source of numerous trailblazing prevention and intervention campaigns, and a major force in shaping public policies that prevent violence and help victims in the U.S. and worldwide.
Soler, along with the honorees, was recognized today in the 2010 Woman of the Year ceremony. Each year, members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate honor a woman from their district who has distinguished herself in service to her community.
MINNESOTA-STYLE DV ORGANIZATIONS
The Minnesoh-tans (DAIP, MPDI, BWJP, Praxis, et al.) have done heroic things — but that’s no excuse for ‘taxation without representation” and the early-on insistence that your model CCR and its institutional ethnography become a nationwide model, without proof it works. And, it doesn’t. I hit on this particular set of nonprofits pretty hard throughout this blog, s am giving them a break today, except to mention that it took me a long time to realize that what “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT INC.” was actually about — (and which its name says) — developing (and selling) programs,
Not stopping domestic violence
and some pretty good grants behind that business, too….
STATEWIDE COALITIONS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Standardized & co-opted, used as heat shields for marriage entitites, didn’t include enough mothers leaving violence in their plans. DIDN’t PUBLICIZE FATHERHOOD COMMISSIONS, FAITH-BASED OPERATIONS, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES. Didn’t teach women the 1996 welfare reform information in its context.
This sounds harsh, so here’s an example:
Tim Carpenter reportedrecently some juicy details about a secret April meeting to design Brownback’s marriage agenda. The Topeka Capital-Journal uncovered some information on Brownback’s plans through a Kansas Open Records request.
The Kansas government spent $13,000 to bring together 20 mostly far-right marriage “experts” for the closed door meeting.
Organizations represented included the Heritage Foundation, Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, National Center for Fathering, Stronger Families, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Savers, Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, and National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting.
Thanks to information from Carpenter and sources, we know something of what Brownback has in mind, even though the details of the meeting remain confidential.
And (from a link in this article to another one) — ALL of these characters should be knowledgeable, household names, to anyone sitting under CADV state teachings or in their meetings. They deserve to know how things got started, and where they are going now, above the din of same-sex marriage and abortion rights issues. This affects mothers AND fathers:
Brownback program promotes marriage
July 2, 2011, Tim Carpenter, the Topeka-Journal
(listing attendees)
Wade Horn, who redefined President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, preached a gospel that encouraged poor women to marry their way out of poverty.
Marriage Savers creator Mike McManus said clergy members typically did a lousy job preparing couples for marriage and secular therapists were more likely to increase divorce among spouses in crisis.
This threesome was among 20 people who met behind closed doors in Topeka to share marriage program ideas with Brownback and executives at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.
…In his follow-up letter to Brownback obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, [[Mike]] McManus said Kansas should prohibit no-fault divorce unless there was proof of physical abuse or adultery. A Kansas law ought to be passed, he said, allowing judges to select a “responsible spouse,” which would always be the person opposed to divorce. The statute would allow the responsible adult to receive up to 66 percent of child visitation and 100 percent of family assets in the divorce.
Any idea what this exposes women to? (read on). They are already being used as disposable wombs in too many marriages; if the beatings or abuse or virtual slavery (it happens!) can be severe enough that SHE wants out, then in Kansas he doesn’t even have to go through the motions of fighting for most of the kids and ALL of the assets! This does not protect women or children!
Horn, who resigned from HHS to take a job with Deloitte Consulting, departed the Bush administration amid reports of cronyism in awarding federal grants to the National Fatherhood Initiative he founded.
Helen Alvare, a member of the law faculty at George Mason who also was invited to Topeka, said she admired Sarah Palin’s devotion to family and professional achievement. In 2008, Alvare said Palin was “what a lot of women aspire to be on their best day.”
California writer Christelyn Karazin, who had a child out of wedlock before marrying, believed so strongly in the power of a man and woman to raise children she organized an event called “No Wedding, No Womb.”
This is portrayed as spontaneous blogging “NWNW” — so what was she doing in a secret meeting in Kansas? Flown in at Kansans’ expense, and in the company of people such as David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn? !! She saw the light (is now married) and so everyone else must see it the same way? Listen to some ex-married women, girl!
It was primarily a call to the black community to take action against the birth of children without the “physical, financial and emotional protection” of a father and mother, she said.
Joyce Webb, who works with Catholic Charities’ Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, recommended SRS divert $1 million from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for a new marriage program. TANF money is earmarked for families living in poverty.
Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was included in one published list of participants but didn’t attend, said during a speech about the pro-marriage movement that Catholics and Christians had to be the “visible light” for people failing to grasp intricacies of the institution of marriage.
SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki, responsible for implementing the governor’s marriage initiative, said thousands of Kansans who divorce each year lacked the skills and knowledge to form sustainable relationships.* Brownback wants SRS to help fill that information gap, he said.
*that “lack the skills” phrase is a buzz word to bring on the marriage educators, which is also a growing HHS trend and probably public law by now.
Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who voted against confirmation of Brownback’s choice of SRS secretary, said he was intrigued by the governor’s simultaneous talk about removing government from the lives of the average Kansan and creating a state marriage program drenched in faith-based advocacy.
Siedlecki hired Richard Marks, the Jacksonville, Fla., director of the Marriage for Life, to join SRS and be involved in the initiative
(A little QUICK research on my part here See the URL above: He’s Baptist, Regent University, a Minister, adapted the PAIRS (which I think got HHS funding) curriculum for Christians, and just changed the FLorida nonprofit’s name to “CONNECTUS4LIFE, INC.” in 2002 (per Florida corporations search page called “sunbiz.org.” EIN#562283483. This is specifically incorporated as a “faith-based organization” and talks about the preachers involved. This one (I just looked) seems a tidy little income — $60K raised, he gets $16K as head of the nonprofit, and gets to write off $42 of expenses running marriage enrichment seminars.
“Believing that marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God,
we as pastors and ministers in the Greater Jacksonville area are committed
to ensure that these marriages (WHICH ones?) will endure til death.”
That’s a creed — not an incorporation!
“we are dedicated to strengthening marriages as we seek to”
I attended domestic violence support groups, being a Christian, towards the end of my “cohabitation” (with my spouse). Getting there was not easy; they were night-times. Want to know what % of the women there were pastor’s and deacon’s wives? I can’t name names, but the answer is — PLENTY. At least one had tried to kill his wife; the deacons knew, and it was a LONG time before he lost that position….
He also had a role in Florida Government: Served “four years on FLorida’s Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.” That commission name was a new one on me, so I just looked up, to find out, from “www.Floridafathers.org” that:
The 2003 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 480, replacing the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives as of July 1, 2003.
The new commission will take a broader approach to strengthening families by detailing comprehensive statewide strategies for Florida to promote safe, violence-free, substance-abuse-free, respectful, nurturing and responsible parenting; including connection or reconnection of responsible parents, both mothers and fathers, with their children.
From the Kansas article, above, we now know what is meant by “responsible” parent. It means the one that, if he resists divorce, will get 100% of the assets and (at least) 66% of the children. Mom can struggle to enforce 34% of her visitation after she’s kicked out of the house with 0% of the assets, which has already been the case when women FLED the home for safety (with or without kids). So, is this progress? But the CADVs should’ve been monitoring and reporting on these things — although I know that FL CADV had their hands full with FL-AFCC on “parenting coordination” matters, around this time as I recall.
The Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will each appoint six members to the commission by August 1, 2003, with at least half of the commissioners representing the private sector
The wording starts like this – and yes indeed, Florida did vote this Commission into existence in 2003:
383.0115 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.
(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. The Legislature finds that:
(a) Families in this state deserve respect and support. Children need support and guidance from both mothers and fathers, and families need support and guidance from community systems to help them thrive.
(b) There are many problems facing families.
(and it gets even more brilliantly deductive from there. I provided the link).
. . .
(e) Assisting states to end dependence of low-income parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage and assisting states in encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families are the two of four stated purposes of federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 which have been largely neglected by states and for which states are now urging Congress to designate 10 percent of all welfare funds, specifically for relationship education and skills development, responsible fatherhood programs, and community support as it seeks to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act in 2002.
. . .
(2) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.
(a) There is created within the Department of Children and Family Services, for administrative purposes, a commission, as defined in s. 20.03(10), called the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives. The commission is independent of the head of the department. The commission is authorized to hire an executive director, a researcher, and an administrative assistant. The executive director shall report to, and serve at the pleasure of, the commission.
This “independence within a department” is key to steering grants to cronies. I’ve seen it in Ohio and we’re (above) witnessing it in Kansas, 2011, as we speak.
To understand some of this subculture — and after I’d been looking at the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative website for a good long while I finally noticed who was pushing the statewide Marriage Initiative, starting with at GRAB of TANF funds, and this was held up to other states as an example . . . .
I noticed “Jerry Regier” — and, for an example, here is the Wikipedia Timeline of his Job Descriptions. He came from OK in 2002, and by 2003, Florida is voting for a Commission on Marriage and Families within the Children and Family Services. (Mr. Regier eventually had to quit this post in FL under some scandal about steering grants to his, as I say, cronies — but ended up, for our purposes, in yet a worse place — back at HHS as Assistant Secretary of the ASPE (evaluates things) where he presided over glowing reports about his former work in Oklahoma. That’s how the Bush-based Babies Cookie-cutter commissions (etc.) generally crumbles. Scandal, scoot to another state, repeat… So look at this chart with some care, OK?
| Jerry Regier | |
|---|---|
| Florida Secretary of Children and Families | |
| In office 2002–2007 |
|
| Preceded by | Kathleen A. Kearney |
| Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services | |
| In office April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002 |
|
| Governor | Frank Keating |
| Preceded by | Ken Lackey |
| Succeeded by | Howard Hendrick |
| Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs | |
| In office April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002 |
|
| Governor | Frank Keating |
| Preceded by | Ken Lackey |
| Succeeded by | Robert E. Christian |
| President of the Family Research Council | |
| In office 1984–1988 |
|
| Preceded by | Post created |
| Succeeded by | Gary Bauer |
So, Jim Marks’ “Marriage for Life” organization was formed (I just learned) in 2002 as a “faith-based” organization — i.e., in the wake of GWBush’s open door executive orders for faith-based organizations of 2001. Many of these groups form to get the grants, spend the money, and then RUN, disbanding, or being dissolved for failure to file with the IRS (or their state).
In Kansas (this is yet another article on the same issue):
SRS says Faith-based initiatives are still around, just not getting as much attention**
Oct. 23, 2011 by Scott Rothschild in “LJworld.com”
**I have 1 or 2 comments on there on these matters. You’ll recognize which ones (just submitted another).
In a pre-Memorial Day (2011) announcement, Siedlecki reorganized SRS, which included putting Anna Pilato in a new position called Deputy Secretary for Strategic Development and Faith-Based Community Initiatives.
Are you getting a feel for this yet?
Pilato had served for five years in the Bush administration, including as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
But Pilato, who is making $97,500 per year, says that in her job she wears two hats — strategic development and faith-based initiatives — and that the strategic development part of her job, which includes overseeing the design and development of staff for SRS, is by far the larger of the two.
. . .
Recently, SRS applied for a $6.6 million grant to pay for either faith-based or secular counseling that encouraged unwed parents to marry. Under the proposal, if the couple completed counseling, the state would pay the $86.50 marriage license fee.
But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the grant.
Kansas Health Initiative published the list of who attended. Recommend Memorizing. Coming to your state (or what’s left of it) soon. What’s kind of funny — Occupy Wichita made an appearance in the middle of a speech by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation. (Protestors Disrupt Governor’s Poverty Forum (apparently, today 11/16/2011, KHI News service. I’m starting to like KHI…)):
Protesters interrupted the second of Gov. Sam Brownback’s town hall meetings on childhood poverty Wednesday, standing up during the keynote speech and reciting some of their objections to Brownback’s policies.
One of the 14 protesters was arrested and another was detained for a short period.
The protest began as Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation fellow invited to give the keynote speech, delivered his remarks advocating marriage as a key way to end poverty. Protesters, most of them members of Occupy Wichita, stood silently with their backs to Rector for about 10 minutes, then began chanting their grievances once he completed his speech.
Organizers stopped the meeting for about 15 minutes, resuming after the protesters had left the downtown hotel where it was held.
That Rector should’ve had the podium at this second town hall, or the first, is a dire sign for Kansas: (article links to this):
By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Nov. 14, 2011KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Reducing the number of children born to single mothers is the most effective way to combat childhood poverty.
That’s according to Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation fellow picked by Gov. Sam Brownback to keynote the first of his administration’s three planned meetings on childhood poverty this week.
. . .
Strong reaction
Shortly after Rector finished his remarks, Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization for Women, left the meeting room in anger.
“I was offended in there,” Rinker said. “The things he said, the inferences he made about women and women’s worth were offensive. As I looked around the room, I saw many other people looking to each other in shock and amazement.”
Rinker said the steady increase in births to young, single women was a cause for concern. But she said making available low-cost birth control and improving the women’s self-esteem and education would more effectively address the problem.
“The silver bullet is not wedded bliss,” she said.
Ms Rinker (appears very young, no?) should — with Kansas NOW — have been on top of this situation, should be teaching women about welfare reform and how the fatherhood movement got its two bits in on the situation diverting programs to promote fatherhood and marriage. (The information has been available on the web since 1993). For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (the article says) was instrumental in Welfare Reform. The Congressional Record debates ON this welfare reform are framed in concern about too many women of color having babies ! (in other words, it has severely racist overtones). To let him get up there and spout off, the same rhetoric — which is PAID FOR INFORMATION!
The number one factor behind poverty here in the state of Kansas is the death of marriage,” he said, noting that 38 percent of children in Kansas today were born to unmarried women, compared to about 5 percent in the 1960s. “This is the most dramatic social transformation in the 20th century.”
OH? How about a few world wars (creating untold orphans) and women getting the vote, the creation of the personal income tax, taking currency off the gold standard, and the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.? How about the advent of the internet, the decline of public education, — and how about the 2001 enablements of people like Robert Rector to get up and speak at government functions and expect faith-based organizations to drive the primary institutions around?
Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW,
on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System
Kari Ann Rinker is the President of the Kansas chapter of NOW and she joins us to talk about the budget problems in Topeka that led to end of prosecuting domestic violence cases.
The protests illustrated how serious the issue of poverty is, said Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.***
“These people are using this as an avenue to voice their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech,” she said.
(***search her name on my blog. She supported the last round of fatherhood initiatives in Kansas…. I commented on this).
The Heritage Foundation in Kansas is neither surprising, nor to be ignored. It explains a whole lotta backwards movement when it comes to safety for women and freedom for Americans — both genders, all ages.
I remember this site from a long time ago on the Heritage Foundation.
POWER ELITES: THE MERGER OF RIGHT AND LEFT
A. K. Chesterton once said: “The proper study of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothing that happens could be understood.”
He added: “These elites, preferring to work in private, are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon events has therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ.”
Chesterton described those agencies: “Their goal was to work through such agencies, and financial support received from one or other or all three big American foundations–Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford — provides an infallible means of recognizing them.”
The Rockefellers made $200,000,000.00 from World War I. Henry Kissinger’s brother Walter heads the Allen Group. The super-wealthy (with the exception of some Du Ponts and the Fords) have long supported the Republican Party — the party of plutocratic oligarchy. “If not kings themselves, they are king-makers.” They have quick access to the White House no matter who is President. Other super-rich, such as the Rockefellers, affiliate with the Democratic Party. Politics in the U.S., no matter what party, is under the control of the super-rich, large corporations and the international bankers.
A 1995 Wall Street Journal observed the formidable influence of the Heritage Foundation on government policies since the Reagan era:
“WASHINGTON — With the Republicans’ rise to control Congress, think-tank power in the nation’s capital has shifted to the right. And no policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation.
“When GOP congressional staffers met in June with conservative leaders to help map current legislative efforts to cut federal funding for left-leaning advocacy groups, the closed-door meeting took place at Heritage headquarters. The group’s involvement wasn’t unusual. ‘Heritage is without question the most far-reaching conservative organization in the country in the war of ideas.’ House Speaker Newt Gingrich said early this year.
“Think tanks have long churned out studies that have wound up in official policy proposals. During Democratic times of power, the more liberal Brookings Institution has been a leading player here. Now, the 21-year-old Heritage Foundation, which rose to prominence in the Reagan years, is taking academic involvement to a new level.
“Over the first 100 days of the current GOP Congress, Heritage scholars testified before lawmakers 40 times–more than any other organization, Hill staffers say. Its scholars are credited by congressional members and staff as key architects of the House-passed welfare-overhaul plan and with inspiring some provisions in the GOP balanced-budget plan. ‘They talk to me sometimes 12 times a week,’ said Heritage budget analyst Scott Hodge earlier this year, explaining his ties to the staff of the House Budget Committee. ‘We–I mean House members–are putting together a final list of cuts.'”(5)
FACIST CONNECTIONS
Paul Weyrich – considered the architect and mainstay of the conservative revolution – calls for “reclaiming the culture” and a “second American Revolution.” A look at the inflammatory, extremist rhetoric with racial and Inquisitorial overtones on the Free Congress Foundation web site should alarm Christians as to Weyrich’s real intent:(etc.)
I encourage people to read this write-up on The Heritage Foundation from “SourceWatch.org” and understand (as I am beginning to)its relationship both financially and in purpose (ending TANF completely and eliminating the public education system in the United States) follows up on some serious international influence in the 1980s and 1990s. It took me a while to keep running across the information and understand it — but the Heritage Foundation, The Unification Church and its leaders’ intent to establish ONE world religion with him at the top (yep!) and the means by which the “faith-based operatives” (as I call them) move in and out of state-level, national-level posts and agencies, restructuring them IMMEDIATELY upon being hired (as happened with the Kansas SRS, above) – these are related. The fight is on. Read a segment — but don’t forget to go to the site and consider the international influence in covert wars by the US as well:
HERITAGE FOUNDATION – SOURCEWATCH
The Foundation also leaped to the defense of Ronald Reagan’s description of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” a description that generated wide global rebuke as potentially inviting nuclear conflict and, at the very least, further poisoning East-West relations. But with strong support by Heritage and other influential conservatives, Reagan stood by the statement, refusing to retract it until the Soviet Union began to crumble.
In an attempt to build on its foreign policy influence, the Foundation also engages in domestic and social policy issues, but its effort in these two areas has never quite matched the influence it wielded (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in altering the debate over American foreign policy. Yet, the Foundation continues to weigh in on these topics with varying levels of success. One of its undeniable successes has been serving as a breeding ground for many of the nation’s leading neo-conservative activists and intellectuals.
The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:
(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:
They are just — and this whole divert welfare into marriage promotion and abstinence education and “responsible fatherhood” etc. — are just “helping families thrive.”
(The individual, especially not the individual female or mother, does not exist.…)
Whereas the truth is a lot closer to this:
2009-02-2
God’s Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows
The Washington Post | On Faith blogby Rev. Susan Brooks ThistlethwaiteEvangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress “submission” as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.
Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”
In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering.
2006 Budget
In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.
While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giantMicrosoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). [2]
Historical funding
Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:
- Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
- Scaife Foundations: Sarah Mellon Scaife, Scaife Family, Carthage
- John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
- Castle Rock Foundation
It goes on — but these are foundations that are to be found behind (funding) so many fatherhood and responsible marriage studies, “Fragile-families” “Strengthening Families” etc. type projects.Whether or not these projects produce as they are supposed to, they continue getting funding and supporting Ph.D.s (Sarah McLanahan of Princeton? comes to mind) to justify more of the same.
When Dobson told Dick Armey that Focus on the Family (& friends, no doubt) “Delivered” the Christian conservatives, now they want something in return — he was probably telling the truth: Look at the amounts:
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2006 | $94,999,184 | 990 | 45 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2005 | $97,414,767 | 990 | 59 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2004 | $107,423,724 | 990 | 38 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2003 | $102,442,464 | 990 | 35 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family | CO | 2002 | $98,175,843 | 990 | 37 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2010 | $79,825,383 | 990 | 53 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2009 | $90,996,703 | 990 | 61 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2008 | $93,072,558 | 990 | 45 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus on the Family | CO | 2007 | $92,427,223 | 990 | 43 | 95-3188150 |
| Focus On The Family Action | CO | 2008 | $3,565,169 | 990O | 23 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action | CO | 2007 | $2,452,377 | 990O | 20 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action | CO | 2006 | $3,035,923 | 990O | 21 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action Inc. | CO | 2009 | $3,953,111 | 990O | 39 | 20-0960855 |
| Focus On The Family Action Inc. | CO | 2005 | $4,286,071 | 990O | 19 | 20-0960855 |
RIGHTWING WATCH partial bio of James Dobson gives an idea of the scope of influence and pull:
- Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army’s Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography, 1985-86.
- Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters.
- In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
- James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation.
- James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California.
- Read PFAW’s in-depth report on James Dobson.
The Family Research Council (nndb listing of who’s on the board.)
| Erik Prince | Business | 6-Jun-1969 | Founder of Blackwater Worldwide |
Military service: US Navy (SEAL Team Officer, 1993-96; Bosnia, Haiti)
Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire fundamentalist Christian, who co-founded the security and mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide in 1997 with Gary Jackson, a former Navy SEAL. He is a major Republican campaign contributor, who interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher, campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.
His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right — married to the son of Richard DeVos(Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.
Father: Edgar Prince (d. 1995, billionaire)
Dobson’s family background (He’s on the board too, obviously) included:
Dobson’s own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father’s fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God’s forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. “It makes no sense, but I know it happened,” Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.
Families will fall apart, Dobson argues, if homosexuals have the right to marry, adopt, or raise children. For this reason, Dobson and FOTF support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one women. Dobson and FOTF are also against abortion, against feminism, against pornography, against the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, against Oregon’s law allowing euthanasia, against Take Our Daughters to Work Day, etc.
(yes, women should stay home, that’s their business, really….)
He has proposed an innovative end run around “liberal” judges. The Republican-controlled Congress should, Dobson suggests, simply stop funding courts where judges make too many “liberal” rulings — stop paying salaries, stop sending security guards, stop paying the electric bills. “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson says. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”
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 |
Under Blackwell:
State Treasurer Ohio (1994-98)
Council on Foreign Relations
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
Federalist Society
Freemasonry (!!!)
The Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow
(etc.)
Well, in case you want to know why I’m becoming more and more activitist — these are the stakes. The principles of
- LIFE
- LIBERTY
- PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS
Bear a slightly different tone when one is dealing with the corporate giants and conservatives complaining that the republican congress and presidency they’d helped deliver weren’t delivering their constituency enough of the “goods” they wanted. While these people (most of the time) themselves have become unbelievably wealthy through corporations, foundations, or simply being born into it (Erik Prince, for example) — the society they are structuring is how to create “responsible fathers” who are willing (like them) to tweak the judicial AND legislative process, go get jobs — most likely low-paying ones — in (whose???) corporations and make sure they don’t let their females get too uppity. When legislative restrictions get in the way, they figure out an end-run around them. I have been seeing this in state after state (thanks to the internet, and networking with others).
I also witnessed this philosophy completely destroy 3 generations of my family line when I fought for the right not to be battered in the home AND the right to work independently to support what was left of this household in a profession of my choosing and for which both my own parents sacrificed to get the college training in. Throughout the court craziness — that would put any normal business underground within a year, without being propped up artificially — I had situations where a 20 minute hearing, or a short rubberstamping by an official who didn’t know our family, obviously hadn’t read the court record, and didn’t respect the existing laws (or court orders), even ones in his own hand — would completely restructure my, and my children’s lives.
We should be aware that the act of going before a “Conciliation Court” is going to expose people — your family & friends — to this treatment.
We should be aware that the act of taking ANY form of welfare (whether for food, cash aid — or, Moms, child support) is also exposing you to the same thing. I tried to get out – -and was pulled back in, as are others. We need forms of living which enable us to fight back against the complete undermining NOT of “Family Values” but of the US Constitution (which is probably in suspension by now, but it should not be so easily forgotten).
The public pays — and I have blogged this, after becoming aware — for public employees to pay membership in private nonprofits designed to help them run the child support business. At these meetings — in my state it calls itself a “COALITION OF EXPERTS COLLECTING BILLIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN” — the collaborate and plan how to EXPAND the welfare state, not reduce it. They look for ways to have more families become “Title IV-D” families, which brings on the programs, brings program funding to the counties, and etc.
It’s a ridiculous state of affairs — and as far as I can tell the groups in this chart below have not been reporting on it or doing anything about it:
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | MONTGOMERY | AL | 36101 | MONTGOMERY | 004344078 | $ 3,793,073 |
| ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Phoenix | AZ | 85012-1263 | MARICOPA | 867401366 | $ 3,204,336 |
| CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | EAST HARTFORD | CT | 06108 | HARTFORD | 088978429 | $ 3,204,334 |
| D.C. COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WASHINGTON | DC | 20013 | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | $ 35,000 | |
| DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WASHINGTON | DC | 20001 | DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA | 942435124 | $ 3,204,341 |
| DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WILMINGTON | DE | 19899 | NEW CASTLE | 025256293 | $ 5,391,930 |
| FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | TALLAHASSEE | FL | 32301-2756 | LEON | 053274101 | $ 7,878,370 |
| HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HONOLULU | HI | 96819-2391 | HONOLULU | 160292587 | $ 3,214,275 |
| ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | BOISE | ID | 83712 | ADA | 129850590 | $ 4,104,341 |
| ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | SPRINGFIELD | IL | 62703-1716 | SANGAMON | 168547040 | $ 3,204,337 |
| INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | 46202-1002 | MARION | 024387230 | $ 1,184,809 |
| INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | 46205-2460 | MARION | 105913375 | $ 2,019,532 |
| IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Des Moines | IA | 50312-5259 | POLK | 942559469 | $ 3,204,336 |
| KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Topeka | KS | 66603-3706 | SHAWNEE | 179971957 | $ 5,646,199 |
| LOUISIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | BATON ROUGE | LA | 70879-7308 | EAST BATON ROUGE | 837763630 | $ 3,204,339 |
| MICHIGAN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | OKEMOS | MI | 48864-4209 | INGHAM | 027986889 | $ 7,025,767 |
| MISSISSIPPI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | JACKSON | MS | 39296-4703 | HINDS | 927529420 | $ 3,204,340 |
| MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Jefferson City | MO | 65101-7801 | COLE | 184477318 | $ 2,438,927 |
| MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Jefferson City | MO | 65101-7801 | COLE | 868492646 | $ 718,239 |
| MONTANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HELENA | MT | 59624 | LEWIS AND CLARK | 036541035 | $ 5,648,340 |
| NEW MEXICO COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Albuquerque | NM | 87102-3842 | BERNALILLO | 847508405 | $ 3,274,336 |
| NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | ALBANY | NY | 12206 | ALBANY | 009343934 | $ 5,453,061 |
| NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC | ALBANY | NY | 12206 | ALBANY | 790031702 | $ 1,814,609 |
| NH COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE | CONCORD | NH | 03303 | MERRIMACK | $ 35,000 | |
| NORTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | DURHAM | NC | 27701 | DURHAM | 957020266 | $ 5,926,704 |
| Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc. | HEMPSTEAD | NY | 11550 | NASSAU | 947923397 | $ 381,000 |
| OREGON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE | PORTLAND | OR | 97202 | MULTNOMAH | 790033500 | $ 2,921,826 |
| PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HARRISBURG | PA | 17112-2669 | DAUPHIN | 156527558 | $ 39,965,461 |
| PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | HARRISBURG | PA | 17112-2669 | DAUPHIN | 166527558 | $ 945,000 |
| RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | WARWICK | RI | 02888-1539 | KENT | 025869715 | $ 5,688,523 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | COLUMBIA | SC | 29202-7776 | RICHLAND | 035406367 | $ 3,204,339 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Sioux Falls | SD | 57103-7029 | BROWN | 556435980 | $ 718,239 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | Sioux Falls | SD | 57103-7029 | BROWN | 614771058 | $ 2,486,098 |
| SOUTH DAKOTA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | PIERRE | SD | 57501 | HUGHES | $ 34,271 | |
| TENNESSEE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC & SEXUAL VIOLENCE | NASHVILLE | TN | 37212-0972 | DAVIDSON | 787712454 | $ 3,204,339 |
| WASHINGTON COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | OLYMPIA | WA | 98501 | THURSTON | 059534409 | $ 3,254,000 |
| WEST VA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | CHARLESTON | WV | 25302 | KANAWHA | 192491629 | $ 3,204,338 |
| WISCONSIN COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | MADISON | WI | 53703-3517 | DANE | 171537392 | $ 6,931,703 |
(this has been rather an exhausting page to put up… but… it may prevent some detours in understanding the FAMILY courts specifically — which, after all, are really conciliation courts.)
Just a few words on the NCADV which is a Denver, Colorado-based nonprofit, and what they are marketing:
http://www.ncadv.org/membership/MembershipBenefits.php
It is a membership organization (you don’t see it on the above states list, right?). It has sliding scale membership fees — but the public IS paying its dues, because the state organizations pay by % of their budget or — well, as it goes:
State Coalitions and National Organizations—0.1% of your annual budget, ($500 minimum) . . .
I think you can deduce at least some things they are selling, along with memberships — and it’s information and conference attendance, plus some other perks:
Programs and Agencies:
Non-Profit DV, SA or Dual Program—0.1% of your annual budget, ($250 minimum)
- 15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
- Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
- NCADV electronic newsletters
- Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
- One National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs for $84.95 (reg: $99.95)
- Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
- Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
- Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
- Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website
Other Non-Profit* or Government Agency** (includes law enforcement and military)—$250*/$300**
- 10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
- Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
(etc. etc.) Great deals — if you’re in the business. As you can see, they are marketing to DV PRACTITIONERS. . They also do the conferences, where more speakers can also cross-market to attendees. Here’s 2012:
NCADV’s 15th National Conference Domestic Violence
and
NOMAS’ 37th National Conference on Men and MasculinityPreserving Our Roots While Looking to the Future
July 22-25, 2012
Denver, COSpecial Keynote Speaker: Ellen Pence
The fact that Ellen Pence is speaking (who is a Duluth person) shows the similarity of approaches.
Denver Registration: NCADV has been around since 1992 in Colorado (as a “foreign” corporation):
|
|||||||||||||||||
and in 2008 picked up another trade name (good to check out where one can):
| # | ID Number | Document Number | Name | Status | Form | Effective Date | Comment |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20081544805 | 20081544805 | Domestic Violence Protection & Prevention Coalition | Effective | FNC | 10/13/2008 03:53 PM |
I found a group called “CFC” which lists (that new name) as “Best of the CFC” and links to an automated payroll deduction for contribution to it.
WHAT I WiSH TO SAY:
Our kids were not your kids to bargain their rights away for supervised visitation, batterers intervention, parent education classes, or for that matter the more recent “Family Justice Centers.” I personally am recommending a boycott of Verizon (which helps fund these) for that very reason, after a season of being unable to even obtain a single cell phone to help replace the last lost job through the “HelpLine” or anywhere locally that promised this.
I am not very hopeful for the USA, but I live here, so this is part of my contribution as a citizen to report, and part of the legacy I could NOT leave my daughters because they were taken overnight, illegally, and with no remedy: primarily to satisfy someone’s too-large ego, and enabled by what law enforcement, in our case, was not. What was the price? They don’t even have all the facts in their own case, yet, or why society wouldn’t let me simply live and let live after throwing out, or why pro bono legal services for women basically won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole; they are focused on the low-income noncustodial males, and their career tracks, while enabling the rich ones to torture insubordinate exes through the courts. (Note: not my situation, but I see the cases).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017]
Post title with short-link (and to explain the 2011/2017 references in the title):
Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017] (with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ending “-Qp.”)
This long (18.7K words) post featuring among others examples in HOW TO and features from various places to check in the process of doing the lookups, the two nonprofits Kids’ Turn San Diego and Kids’ Turn (in San Francisco), both of which after being hit repeatedly in 2011 with simply talking about it, posting boards of directors (plenty of whom were judges), at some point one of them later submerged itself under another nonprofit running training classes to prevent child abuse, in a networked, proprietary-program sort of way across the country. As I recall, and referring (as I recall at the close of 2017 — which is many years ago!) but will double-check, the surviving entity it merged into — thereby “disappearing” its California OAG charitable details record, some of which I posted herein, is SFCAPC (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center or “Council”). For more details look this up at (now it’s called) BusinessSearch.SOS.Ca.Gov or “Verification” page at California OAG/RCT. ( Go to those sites for more details). California OAG search results have added an EIN# field, but are not otherwise changed in a major way; however the California Secretary of State Business Search website (formerly “kepler.sos.ca.gov”) has been radically revised in both initial level search results, and possibly in reporting requirements.
I do not claim personal — I’ll call it — “credit” for having driven one of two California-based “Kids’ Turn” 501©3s underground, but at least one of them did go underground. It may be just coincidence, BUT the possibility that maybe I did (in addition to the general public-interest purpose of calling attention to how family-court-connected, and business-referrals-taking nonprofits organize and reproduce themselves over time) provides some minor compensation in terms of a sense of making an impact in the behavior of the court cultures nationwide,but in no way compensates for the damages the process inflicted upon my family line, and the legacy for my own children which this process re-directed away from them, and towards the professionals who make their livelihoods speaking on behalf of abused women (who apparently can’t speak), noncustodial fathers (for whom “fatherhood.gov” is still not enough help to “even out” the unfair advantage women supposedly have as mothers in divorce, or the public at large in (allegedly) reducing public debt through Post-PRWORA (1996) Welfare Reform policies scapegoating single motherhood itself and pretending to take into account that one cause of “single motherhood” is abusive fathers. No, encouraging and promoting RESPONSIBLE fatherhood will handle the danger situation, with appropriate and ever-more interventions and court-order therapies/treatments for the abused and the non-abused. etc.
One of the commissioners I stood in front of post-child-stealing event, in order to negotiate how to retroactively reduce my ex-batterers child support arrears (which I’d just been told in person in the child support offices right before, could not happen), I years later learned had been on a Kids’ Turn Board of Directors. As with AFCC, it seems that the nonprofit gave everyone a shot at being listed on the board, which helps those who choose to do so, cite proudly to that community service. That ruling was no favor to our children, who pre-abduction at least had one stable, and consistently working parent (with whom they lived, namely me) although that work life was increasingly under attack once the restraining order had been stripped off and an apparently underemployed (and later admitted in court, wasn’t actively looking for work because he was “depressed” about not having a wife and supportive partner — an excuse I hardly was making at any point).
I worked on a re-formatted version of this post (under separate “cover” — title) earlier this season and am thinking it might be my charitable contribution (of a sort) for 2017. This post is entertaining, and gets into layered foundations and venture capitalists directing their grants to groups like these which don’t even bother to stay current at their state level filings.
I see in hindsight from the part of the post dealing with San Diego Foundation (Gross assets in August 2011 shown as $666M) which in 2007 formed the Carlsbad Community Foundation (which then donated several thousand dollars to Kids’ Turn San Diego), and with the various dbas under which various Kids’ Turn (either SD or SF in this case) donors operated (referring to Taproot Foundation, a dba of “TapFound, Inc.”), with its (Taproot, Inc.s) third-generation venture capitalist startup funding, that the topics covered are still relevant even though many links no longer are intact. Any more commentary from this perspective will be found on the updated, reformatted post.//LGH 12/29/2017…
For some of the flavor — after many of the lookups — a screenprint from the post below. It’s in my voice, not a quote from some other website; “me” = yours truly…
Image from my 8/31/2011 post, complete with some typos and more sarcasm.
…Just describing what I was seeing…
Below this line is August 31, 2011, writing. If you want a better-looking version of the same information (with some, though not 100%, updates on the organizations mentioned below), wait for the 2017 update. //
Donor advised funds allow you to be actively involved in the granting process. Through an agreement with The San Diego Foundation, a donor’s contribution establishes a fund named by the donor. The Fund is managed and administered by The San Diego Foundation, but the donor may be the fund advisor and advise The Foundation about preferences regarding grant recipients and gift amounts. Distributions are made in the fund’s name and the donor receives regular financial statements. As the fund is considered part of The San Diego Foundation’s holdings, it receives the maximum tax benefits and the donor is not responsible for the tax filings.
Designated funds are gifts that provides a source of support to a nonprofit organization selected by the donor. Often this gift is made in the form of an endowment fund. In an endowment, the principal is invested and only a portion of the income is paid out. The remaining income is returned to principal to protect the value of the endowment over time. This option provides support for your fund now and forever.
Solicitation of Contributions
Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
SOME COURTS AND COMMENTATORS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT LONG-TERM SUPERVISED ACCESS IS INAPPROPRIATE
And moreover, what about all these grantor/grantee relationships with corporations that don’t seem (note disclaimer) to be even operating legally in California? While the promise is that 25 SF courthouses must be shut because of budget cuts….
And I don’t just mean Kids’ Turn / San Diego, which at least were incorporated here legally, but is now (per the databases) on suspended status, charity registrations delinquent.
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1657442 | 12/29/1989 | SUSPENDED | KID’S TURN | CLAIRE BARNES |
| C1970774 | 06/05/1996 | ACTIVE | KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO | JAMES REYNOLDS DAVIS |
Incorporation status suspended for the SF branch (top row), but not the San Diego (which was a spinoff nonprofit).
| Organization Name | Registration Number | Record Type | Registration Status | City | State | Registration Type | Record Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KID’S TURN | 075606 | Charity | Current | SAN FRANCISCO | CA | Charity Registration | Charity |
| KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO | 102902 | Charity | Delinquent | SAN DIEGO | CA | Charity Registration | Charity |
| 1 | |||||||
Minor note: The organization’s name is KIDS -apostrophe, so one must move the apostrophe (making it Kid, singular, apostrophe, S) to find on either database.
Also, California, unlike some other states doesn’t tell the on-line viewer WHEN the license was suspended, i.e., before or after outreach such as this:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 20, 2011:
Dateline: San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.
Yes I do believe swallowing some of this would indeed call for release from “Attachment to the facts” such as that this organization has some really strange financial liaisons.
Or, I wonder if Linda Brandes was able to claim her $10,000 donation to Kids’ Turn San Diego, as their charitable status is delinquent, still, also in 2011:
Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes gives Kids’ Turn San Diego a $10,000 grant
(Posted May 25, 2011 in the Rancho Santa Fe Review)
Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.
Linda Brandes
Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.
Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.
“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.
For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.
March 2, 2011 letter from the California Department of Justice (in file, on-line):
[From:] State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I STREET P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO CA 94203-4470
Telephone: (916)445-2021×5 Facsimile: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail: RRF1@doj.ca.gov
[TO:] KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 16935 W BERNARDO DR NO. 234 SAN DIEGO CA 92127
March 9, 2011
CT FILE NUMBER: 102902
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $50 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.
Sincerely,
Tony Salazar Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts
for: KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General
Now that they have another donation, they can afford the $50 check. I see no “our check is in the mail” response, perhaps one was sent. And another letter:
Another letter a week later, same file# (CT 102902) reminds Kids’ Turn San Diego, California needs KT to fill out (not just send partial details) their list of donors, i.e., a “Schedule B,” just like you have to file with the IRS (“oops!”). Too busy with international expansions of the programs, or is list of donors too hot to touch?
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 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.
While you and I don’t get this private information (barring anything on the web), it’s nice to know someone is keeping track.
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 learned this from “Don Kramer’s Nonprofit Issues” (i.e., I looked up the IRS form # footnoted on the KT San Diego letter) and learned:
Is a nonprofit required to report anonymous donors to the IRS? Several colleagues have said that it is illegal for a nonprofit to not disclose an anonymous donor to the IRS. Schedule B of the Form 990 provides a listing of major contributors but I have seen 990s that list the amounts without disclosing names.
You are both right. Nonprofits of all types, not just 501(c)(3) charities, that file a Form 990, 990-PF or 990-EZ tax information return are required to identify substantial donors (generally donors of $5000 or more) to the IRS on Schedule B, and must include the names and addresses of the donors. But organizations other than private foundations and Section 527 political organizations may eliminate the names and addresses of donors when they make the Schedule available for public inspection. Therefore, you are undoubtedly correct that you have seen Schedule Bs without names of donors, and your colleagues are correct that the names must have been disclosed to the IRS.
this suggests (but of course doesn’t prove) that the charity in question here (helping kids and parents deal with divorce, right) may have failed to disclose donors of over $5,000 — possibly the figures didn’t add up to the grants received, I don’t know.
The fact that 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and 501 (c)(6) trade associations are not obligated to publicly disclose the names of their donors has made them a very attractive vehicle for people who want to engage in political campaign advertising anonymously. In theCitizens Unitedcase, the U.S. Supreme Court said corporations could engage in campaign advertising. Since (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s are permitted to support or oppose candidates in election campaigns—unlike 501(c)(3) charities that can lose their exemption for electioneering—many have opted to use anonymous donations for this new activity.
6/14/2011
Someone should maybe also contact the “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” who awarded KTSan Diego $20,000 to do at least four workshops for about 100-120 families in Carlsbad “experiencing” divorce and child-custody “disputes.”
13 months ago | 449 views | 0 
| 2 
| 
| 
| 2 | | From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo
CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awarded more than $44,000 to Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services for their efforts in promoting a more civil society in Carlsbad. The awards were presented at CCF’s third annual Grants Award ceremony at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Discovery Center in Carlsbad on June 29.
Kids’ Turn San Diego will receive $20,000 to provide no less than four workshops, each lasting four weeks, for approximately 100 to 120 families in Carlsbad experiencing divorce or child-custody disputes. The workshops address the emotional impact that these issues have on children and provide guidance on more effective communication techniques for all members of the family, such as anger management.
And what’s more, they reduce parental alienation, right?
Interfaith Community Services will receive $24,545 to assess resources, existing programs and specific opportunities for social outreach at each Carlsbad faith center. ICS will conduct one-on-one meetings to identify discussion points for Carlsbad’s faith-based community and spearhead at least two community-wide town hall meetings to further galvanize all faith communities/congregations around specific issues.
CCF Grants Chairman Tom Applegate noted that collective resources of Carlsbad’s 40-plus faith communities will be more effectively utilized to help persons in need. . . .
with all those faith communities and enough finances to go around, one might think that there’d be fewer divorces and out-of-wedlock births to start with. (:
CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Finocchiaro said that grants were made possible through the contributions of the members of The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation. “We’re extremely honored to support Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services commitment to our community,” she said. “The intent of these donations is to support activities and programs that unify and inspire Carlsbad residents to make a positive difference in the future of our city.”
Kids’ Turn SD has great reasons to be committed to Carlsbad’s Community — see median household income.
Carlsbad’s median income (per its site, whatever date), $92, 249, and there are 2.55 people per household. I can see how that would be stressful, custody of that extra burdensome 0.55 child, occasioning many divorce “disputes.” The Top 10 employers of this 65,000 population city & average employee salary of $49K, with 40 faith communities, 1% African-American residents, and almost every other adult having a bachelor’s degree, plus 12% master’s or higher, being:
Top 10 employers (2007)
| 1,429 | Callaway Golf |
| 1,172 | Life Technologies Corporation (Invitrogen Corporation) |
| 1,169 | Carlsbad Unified School District |
| 1,014 | La Costa Resort and Spa |
| 874 | Park Hyatt Aviara Resort |
| 862 | LEGOLAND California |
| 854 | ViaSat, Inc. |
| 797 | Gemological Institute of America |
| 714 | City of Carlsbad |
| 694 | TaylorMade (Adidas Golf) |
The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation is an affiliate of the San Diego Foundation, apparently (nothing is listed directly under that name, as my searches below show):
703 Palomar Airport Rd , Carlsbad , CA 92011 | 760-269-3882
www.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org
The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation’s mission is to “advance philanthropy in Carlsbad in order to build community excellence, stimulate innovation and enhance the capacity of nonprofits.” Every year the foundation splits the total amount of donations in half. One half goes to grants for the year; the other goes specifically to the Carlsbad endowment, which is for the advancement of the community. CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation.
Or, in their own words:
Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation in 2007. This community-specific effort helps meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.
1. What is the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation (CCF) in 2007. This community-specific effort would help meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.
4. What is The San Diego Foundation?Founded in 1975, The San Diego Foundation was created by and for the people of the San Diego region. Its purpose is to promote and increase effective and responsible charitable giving. The Foundation manages nearly $500 million in assets, almost half of which reside in permanent endowment funds. Since its inception, The Foundation has granted more than $600 million to nonprofits serving the community.5. What does it mean that CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation?As an affiliate, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation benefits from the experience and management of The San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Foundation provides such back-office support as investment management, staffing, marketing and expertise. In return, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation shares with The San Diego Foundation its local knowledge of the emerging needs and causes important to the Carlsbad community.
DOES IT HAVE TO REGISTER AND FILE TAXES SEPARATELY, WITH THE HELP OF The San Diego FOUNDATION EXPERIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, OR NOT?
6. Who may participate in the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation encourages everyone who lives, works, and plays in Carlsbad to participate in the Foundation.7. What is an endowment?
(on the SAN DIEGO SITE):
For Nonprofits
The San Diego Foundation is honored to be able to claim $60 million in grants to community causes last year, but we cannot take all the credit. Over ninety percent of our annual grants are driven directly by our donors. These are individuals, families, and corporations recommending grants from Donor Advised Funds to the organizations and causes that are important to them.
In addition to Donor Advised Funds, The San Diego Foundation’s program grants fund nonprofits through a competitive application process. Program grants cover subject areas such as arts and culture, civil society, the environment, health & human services, and science & technology.
. . .
Donor Advised Funds
Donor advised funds allow you to be actively involved in the granting process. Through an agreement with The San Diego Foundation, a donor’s contribution establishes a fund named by the donor. The Fund is managed and administered by The San Diego Foundation, but the donor may be the fund advisor and advise The Foundation about preferences regarding grant recipients and gift amounts. Distributions are made in the fund’s name and the donor receives regular financial statements. As the fund is considered part of The San Diego Foundation’s holdings, it receives the maximum tax benefits and the donor is not responsible for the tax filings.Designated Funds (note the photo chosen — things “kids” are great fundraiser causes).
Designated funds are gifts that provides a source of support to a nonprofit organization selected by the donor. Often this gift is made in the form of an endowment fund. In an endowment, the principal is invested and only a portion of the income is paid out. The remaining income is returned to principal to protect the value of the endowment over time. This option provides support for your fund now and forever.With a designated fund, at the outset, the donor designates one or more charities who will receive the earnings on the fund in perpetuity. Grant checks are mailed automatically once or twice a year, with the donor choosing the best time or according to The Foundation’s schedule of March and/or September. Donors may also opt to reinvest the earnings until the fund grows to an amount desired by the donor. Fees associated with the designated fund are particularly inexpensive, at 0.5%.
To establish a designated fund, or to learn more information, contact our charitable giving team at GivingTeam@sdfoundation.org or 619-235-2300.
The San Diego Foundation holds raffles, and registered for one in 2009 which raised “$42,564.66.”
It’s filings (under the OAG site) show this for 2002 (earliest year shown):
| Annual Renewal Information | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
and this for 2009 (latest year shown): (notice difference in revenue, but increased assets):
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Organization Details | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| EIN: | 952942582 | ||
| Name: | The San Diego Foundation — Google | ||
Location:  |
2508 Historic Decatur Rd Ste 200 San Diego, CA 92106 |
 Report Address Change |
|
| County: | San Diego County | ||
| Ruling Date: | 1975 (Approximate year when founded) | ||
| IRS Type: | 501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations… | ||
| Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD): | 15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public | ||
| NTEE: |
T31 – Community Foundations | ||
| Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) | 06/2010 | ||
| Total Revenue | $63,742,314 | ||
| Total Assets: | $466,087,961 | ||
|
Organization Mission Statement and Purpose
|
|||
| The San Diego Foundation improves the quality of life within the San Diego community by promoting and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy. | |||
In 2003, it Amended its bylaws on two points:
2. Article VIII is added to the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation and shall read as follows:
The Corporation is specifically authorized to obtain licensure as a grants and annuities society pursuant to California Insurance Code Sections 11520 through 11524 and to conduct a grants and annuities business once licensed.
I. of The San Diego Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit
3. been duly approved by the Board of Governors.
The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has
4. The Corporation has no members.
Grants and Annuities means one can receive transfers of property, provided the business agrees to pay out to the Transferror — or the Tranferror’s Nominee — an Annuity. Not just anyone can do it, an organization has to have been in operation for 10 years or more and qualifies according to this code:
INSURANCE CODE
SECTION 11520-1152411520. The following organizations and persons may receive transfers of property, conditioned upon their agreement to pay an annuity to the transferor or the transferor's nominee, after obtaining from the commissioner a certificate of authority so to do: (a) Any charitable, religious, benevolent or educational organization, pecuniary profit not being its object or purpose, after being in active operation for at least 10 years; provided, nevertheless, that 10 years of active operation shall not be required in case of: (1) A nonprofit corporation organized and controlled by a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health Services as a general acute care hospital pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; and (2) An incorporated educational institution offering courses of instruction beyond high school, organized pursuant to Section 94757 of the Education Code, and which is, and for at least one year has been, qualified pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 94700) of Part 59 of the Education Code to issue diplomas or degrees as defined in Sections 94724 and 94726 of that code; (b) Every organization or person maintaining homes for the aged for pecuniary profit. . . .
This can be problematic, I imagine, if when elders are receiving public guardianship or being placed under a conservator’s care against their will or improperly, for the sake of access to their property.
What is an Annuity? Investopedia explains:
What Does Annuity Mean?
A financial product sold by financial institutions that is designed to accept and grow funds from an individual and then, upon annuitization, pay out a stream of payments to the individual at a later point in time. Annuities are primarily used as a means of securing a steady cash flow for an individual during their retirement years.
The root word represents “yearly,” as in “ANNUAL.”
Women’e Enews puts in a few words about Annuities, their types and their purpose:
Annuity Funding Explained
When it comes to annuity funding and annuities in general many people are confused. The problem is often because there are so many different kinds. There’s single or flexible-payment, fixed or variable, and deferred or immediate.
Regardless the type of annuity funding you’re ultimately interested in, all annuities are financial contracts which have been created to provide you with a good source of income in your retirement years & …..
You can choose from a number of annuity options which include a lifetime income, a guaranteed period income where your beneficiaries would receive any remaining payments, a joint and survivor option for couples as well as many other options that a financial advisor or insurance representative can tell you about
In many cases, options can be mixed and matched to provide you with the best kind of annuity funding possible.
The money contributed to any annuity funding may be in post-tax dollars. The advantage to this is that you can contribute as much money as you would like. However before you put any after-tax savings into any kind of annuity funding, it’s often advisable for you to put the maximum pre-tax amount into a retirement plan.
When an annuity is used to fund a retirement plan, contribution limits usually apply. Federal tax laws also generally require that you begin taking minimum distributions by April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which you reach age 70.
Annuity funding earnings are taxed as ordinary income.
A few more comments on annuities, endowments, and related financial/investment terminology;
I’m a novice in this and I’ll BET that Title IV-A people and others impoverished through violence (or the court battles) or just life, are not educated about these things. That we aren’t is a factor of our school systems and family systems, most likely.
How interesting, because what the child support / fatherhood systems emphasize is getting everyone into a low-income job, garnishing the wages for child support (or don’t) and then, as I like to point out, lose track of it at the state or county level, while splitting the difference with the Feds 66%/34% for a well-behaved State SDU (Statewide Distribution Unit), or failing to report interest income — which can be considerable — if they are not.
How the HHS/OIG/OAS responds to the un-accounted for collected child support is a concerted attempt to get their 66% but a hands-washing response to, they’re only overseeing, not controlling operations, when the situation is pretty much in epidemic proportions country-wide. Where the child support programs WORK is when groups like Maximus, Inc. & MDRC, CPR and PSI etc. get their contracts in, their CEO’s get paid (a LOT) and stock values for shareholders manages to stay above water, even if it loses some value. Meanwhile, what the children are getting, if they’re lucky is a child support allotment that makes it through, is not too substantially compromised, and may represent wages at (judging from what they program materials say they are aiming to help with) perhaps $8.00 to $12.00/hour, not including taxes withheld.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
While there are all kinds of plans for certain types or classes of people (including financially savvy and/or endowed, or sucessful businesspeople or investors) to figure out how to have monthly income — enough to live on, plus some — til they breathe their last breath, even at 80 or 90 years old — and typically its WOMEN living much longer — the philosophy for the vast masses being coached and think-tanked/policy-driven by people that live like this, is that the real cause of widespread poverty includes only one income earner in a household, i.e., fatherlessness and single-motherhood.
I do believe that even my children in elementary school (at least MY kids at that age) could figure out that if one wishes to end up with the number “5” one might add 2+ 3 or 4 +1. Or one might even go, if x=4, 3x-7 and come up with 5, meaning what one needs to live on. The factors can be adjusted.
But somehow we are not to calculate the possibility of variety in income when it comes to marital dissolution and fatherhood movements, or child support program evolution, and the need of judges and attorneys to run nonprofits teaching parents anger management, and (once we learn the background of this) giving them plenty of opportunity to practice, although not regarding the other partner so much as who is forcing this on couples already under financial stressor called divorce? and dealing with the family court’s elimination of the concept that a crime is a crime, even if it was committed by someone you previously had a sexual relationship with.
No mention of where that income comes from; the presumption is always jobs only, or possibly jobs and child support. Not, for example, ANY form of passive income such as may come from a trust, a foundation, investments, annuities, assignment of rents, royalties on books, or virtually anything that would NOT involve being easier to find and control (and/or threaten) by the IRS. Not on any form of initiative taking by the single parent(s), or for that matter low-income married parents.
In other words, “wealth” knows how to consolidate, aggregate, distribute according to wealth’s understanding of how not to pay taxes, after which it can tell significant others (like employees in some of their corporations) how to work jobs in which taxes ARE paid. Last I heard, such things are NOT taught in the public schools K-12; they are still working on reading, period, and basic math, plus how to stand in line without bullying someone else.
So, in 2003, The San Diego Foundation (still solvent, on the books) gets into the grants and annuities business around 2003. They have every right to. I’m just pointing it out they did….
The New York Times Reports:
Promising security, U.S. annuities business takes on a new life
By Paul Sullivan
Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007
- BOSTON — Wall Street swings between fear and greed. With U.S. stock markets hitting record highs this month, greed seems to be back in the saddle.
Still, the current wave of retirees, the first of the baby boomers, is as fearful as any group leaving the work force has ever been, many still shell-shocked from the bursting of the technology bubble five years ago, which wiped out huge paper gains.
This group is now looking at a future without gainful employment and only their often diminished portfolios to fall back on.
They do not like what they see.
“People are more fearful and realistic,” said John Diehl, head of the retirement solutions group for the Hartford, an insurance company. “There was no fear in the late 1990s. Being respectful of the markets is a good thing. People have started to think the market doesn’t always return 20 percent.”
Enter the annuities salesmen. The once-stodgy insurance product is having a resurgence. New York Life, one of the largest providers of annuities, has had an annual growth rate of 75 percent from 2003 to 2007, according to Mike Gallo, senior vice president in the guaranteed lifetime income department.
The growth in annuities has tapped into this fear. In the old days, people were wary of annuities because they locked up assets and distributed a payment only as long as the policyholder lived. But the industry has become more sophisticated. New products have guarantees for life, adjust for inflation and, at their most sophisticated, allow people access to some or, in extreme cases, all of the principle.
[Meaning “principal,” I think, right?]
ALL YOU NEED FOR $5,000/month in retirement is to put down $100,000, sure!
(not including what a $$ will buy at that time…..)
The difference, he said, is that the most popular annuities now offer a living benefit drawn from an income stream, which can rise with any increase in the value of the underlying principle, while carrying a guarantee that the payout will never fall below the initial amount.
The guarantee is financed by building derivative-style collars into the structure of the underlying portfolio to cap potential losses.
Yeah, like we all know what is a derivative-style collar. Some people in alternative lifestyle, about dog collars, from dog-walking & pet-sitting….
With such a variable annuity plan, “people aren’t as worried about inflation as they are with a traditional payout annuity,” he said. While the payout may remain constant in percentage terms, the cash amount will rise if inflation – or skillful investment – swells the amount of the underlying fund.
And this is what today’s retirees – without the pension plans their parents had, and uncertain of the continued existence of Social Security – want.
“The top concern of the baby boomers nearing retirement is, ‘Do I have enough money to last for the rest of my life,’ ” said Doug Wolff, vice president for business development at Security Benefit, a provider of annuities in Topeka, Kansas. “We’ve seen a major shift from ‘Who can develop the best death benefits?’ to ‘Who can develop the best product to guarantee some minimum investment amount?’ “
Quite different from some people, with more than 0.55 child per household, whose concern is staying alive & housed/fed til next week.
Providers of annuities today encourage people to buy enough coverage for basic expenses, from food to taxes, plus a little bit more. The average portion of a portfolio placed in annuity is 25 percent to 33 percent and most insurers limit a 65-year-old to 75 percent, to ensure the retention of sufficient liquid assets. Coverage of basic expenses can be achieved with either a traditional immediate annuity – the buyer puts $100,000 in and receives a fixed percentage of the initial value, typically 5 percent, every month – or with a variable annuity that guarantees a minimum withdrawal benefit.
. . . Can get a little complicated . . . . .
Something similar can be accomplished with a joint-survivor annuity – essentially paying out for two lives. A further refinement can be added in the form of a cash-refund feature that pays to the heirs whatever principle is left at death.
The next wave of innovation is expected to produce annuities that look to address the large health care bills that many retirees will face as they age, Wolff said.
Pricing all of these permutations of annuities can be complicated. There is one constant, however: The more guaranteed features that are attached – from joint-survivor to inflation adjustment – the higher the cost and the lower the percentage payout.
Jack Lemery, a former chief investment officer for Paul Revere Life Insurance, which sold annuities, maintained that this should dissuade people from putting any money at all into an annuity. Lemery is now a portfolio manager at Emerson Investment Management in Boston, where he has sworn off annuities.
Well, in 2006 “The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was founded (same EIN# as San Diego) and began raising some money, part of which they obviously gave to Kids’ Turn to run classes in THEIR neighborhoods, too. Sounds from the description at around around $200 per four-week session per family ($20,000 for four-weeks for 100 – 120 couples).
http://www.sdfoundation.org/CommunityFoundations/RecentNews.aspx
|
|||
|
|||
BEFORE I FOUND OUT tHAT THE “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation, I went looking for it, unsuccessfully, in the usual places and found a few more interesting groups.
I cannot locate any business, or charity, called “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” on either site where they are to be registered. There are 20 results to “Carlsbad Foundation” search.
Apparently this contribution was made, or at least announced, “13 months ago.” In the interim, Carlsbad Foundation’s charitable status seems to have held:
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
Actually, that’s fairly strange as there is only ONE annual RRF (charitable registration) form on file, and for the first 6 years, no IRS filings, then after that approximately just about zero (or close to, relatively speaking) assets OR gross (not net) revenue. For example, Apr 2009-March 2010, they reported a whopping $220.00 (so how did the $20,000.00 get to Kids’ Turn? I am such a novice in this field, I don’t see it..) From April 2010 to March 2011, they had zero revenue.
Carlsbad Foundation’s President (at least in 2010), Jim Comstock, (and the foundation’s address is his office, Comstock & Associates,) is a tax, financial and estate planning professional, so I assume he knows better than I how to pull that off legally:
There are also least 75 Marriage and Family Therapists (probably some overlap with the 40 Faith Communities) in Carlsbad, including two in the suite right next to Mr. Comstock and, including them, 15 on the same street, perhaps within two blocks (judging by street #s only). There are fully 20 foundations incorporated in Carlsbad (Search “Carlsbad Foundation) only 4 (and not this one) with “suspended” status:
| Entity Name: | CARLSBAD FOUNDATION |
| Entity Number: | C2530851 |
| Date Filed: | 04/24/2003 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | CARLSBAD CA 92008 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | JIM COMSTOCK |
| Agent Address: | 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102 |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | CARLSBAD CA 92008 |
Though it incorporated 2003, the ruling date shows (NCCSDataweb) as only 2007. In 2004, however, they filed with the IRS — only tax return showing here:
There are a lot of blanks and “x”s up, including (NOT checked)< “Check here if your receipts are normally under $25,000.” There are 3 officers, Jim & Linda Comstock, plus Glen Blavet, who appears on Corporation Wiki (for what that’s worth) associated with 2 other corporations.
I looked under “CCF,” but don’t feel like laboring through the entire list. However, under “Carlsbad Foundation” again, this entry is interesting:
| Entity Name: | CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION |
| Entity Number: | C2980846 |
| Date Filed: | 02/13/2007 |
| Status: | SUSPENDED |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | CARLSBAD CA 92008 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | ** RESIGNED ON 12/02/2010 |
| Agent Address: | * |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | * |
(see address).
| Organization Name | Registration Number | Record Type | Registration Status | City | State | Registration Type | Record Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION | Charity | Not Registered | CARLSBAD | CA | Charity Registration | Charity | |
| 1 | |||||||
There are, like, 3 people involved in this one, apparently. I’m not going to track them down, now that I know the Kids’ Turn grantor was under some other umbrella.
It does make me wonder whether a Donor couldn’t just set up funding and then somehow direct it towards certain charities and not get very well monitored, so long as they keep the amount low enough not to call attention to itself (read on):
SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION:
The San Diego Foundation, having been started original (it says) with 11 people, is still active corporate status: (There are 269 results for “The San Diego Foundation”), which shows you what good management can do.
| Entity Name: | THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION |
| Entity Number: | C0735981 |
| Date Filed: | 05/09/1975 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | SAN DIEGO CA 92106 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | MICHAEL PATTISON |
| Agent Address: | 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200 |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | SAN DIEGO CA 92106 |
And, yes, their 2010 IRS 990 does indeed acknowledge a grant of $22,500 to Kids’ Turn San Diego for “Human Services” (the form is 99 pages long, search the name!) the grantees (for under $100,000) are asked, in return, to inform the foundation of their “Successes and Challenges” in meeting the conditions for the grant. As KT is all about communication to start with, and the nonprofit clearly is very good with PR, I’m figuring they did this (although it doesn’t seem the registered as a california charity correctly). FOr Donor Advisedgrants over $100,000, IF the Donor advisee requests, the foundation can do some more monitoring. I don’t see that the IRS shows which funds were donor advised or not. There are several to churches & religious schools, $8,500 to Focus on the Family and (interesting)
$10,000 to the “Los Angeles Family Law Help Center” 205 S. Broadway Suite 500, EIN# 26-1252578, filed under “Civil Society.” and
$7,750 to the “National Conflict Resolution Center,” 625 Broadway, Suite 1221, San Diego, EIN# 33-0433314
($15,000 to Oral Roberts University in Tulsa) and many more groups, obviously. The directors (mostly, but not all, unpaid) would not fit on one page, but those who were paid, salaries (not including retirement or benefits plans) was over $1,000,000; understandable for administering so much.
2006 (formation of Carlsbad Charitable…) was not a good year in San Diego,
at least in government circles:
Report calls San Diego’s finances reckless, ‘Enron by the Sea
[08-09-2006, found under USAToday]SAN DIEGO (AP) — The city recklessly and deliberately mismanaged its finances for years, exhibiting disregard for the law and becoming “Enron-by-the-Sea,” according to consultants who investigated how it created a $1.4 billion pension fund shortfall.San Diego “fell prey to the same type of corruption” that ruined companies including Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. and prompted Orange County to file for bankruptcy protection in 1994, said a report by the risk management company Kroll Inc.
“The evidence demonstrates not mere negligence but deliberate disregard for the law, disregard for fiduciary responsibility and disregard for the financial welfare of the city’s residents,” the report concludes.
Good thing there are foundations to pick up the slack….
The $20 million report, presented at a City Council meeting Tuesday, offers one of the most detailed accounts of how San Diego created its $1.4 billion pension shortfall that has crippled its ability to borrow money.
The shortfall — the gap between the value of its pension assets and its obligation to retirees — soared after the City Council in 1996 and again in 2002 skipped payments to the pension fund and, at the same time, enhanced retirement benefits.
The fiscal meltdown that resulted sparked investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and the SEC in early 2004. Five former city and pension fund officials were charged with federal fraud and conspiracy in January.
The report outlines a series of recommendations, including creation of an independent audit committee and more authority for the city’s chief financial officer.
“You got a second chance here, folks,” said one of the authors, former chief SEC accountant Lynn Turner. “I think it’s a marvelous city, but you need to change it from being Enron-by-the-Sea to Emerald-by-the Sea.”
The report found that several former city officials likely violated federal securities law and others were negligent.
It says former Mayor Dick Murphy and members of the City Council failed to disclose the extent of the city’s problems to bond investors and for “knowingly and improperly” causing the city to violate state and federal law in its collection of sewage fees.
Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was involved in Kroll’s investigation and said the city overcharged homeowners for sewage to subsidize large businesses.
Wow. Reminds me of the Los Angeles issues with the Department of Water and Power, but that’s another subject.
ANYHOW, Kids’ Turn SAN FRANCISCO, states on its 2010 Annual report (December? 2010) that half its attendees are court-ordered, that it applied for a grant from the FY 2011 AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) and is pushing a new curriculum, as well as teaching charities in the UK how to operate like itself, presumably:
The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:
• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered
That’s efficacy, or that’s a court-connection? ! ! Who’s on the Board of Kids’ Turn, generally speaking?
However, the first thing readers are told on this report is:
Program 1. Kids’ Turn sustained its very specialized services in five Bay Area Counties serving 700 participants over twelve months. Kids’ Turn enrollment is down slightly, likely attributable to the economy. It is our impression families are struggling to pay our fees and we are making every effort to negotiate reasonable tuition costs based on the particular needs of each situation. We still do not charge children to attend Kids’ Turn, and parents pay on a sliding fee basis depending on their income. Workshop records verify 60% of the families attending Kids’ Turn are in the low- to moderate-income range.1
(the footnote explains that this is because more wealthy people have less tendency to divorce, because there’s more money to support their families…In fact, let me quote it here: “As per the Huffington Post’s new DIVORCE page (www.huffingtonpost.com), families with higher incomes have a lower divorce rate, likely attributable to the supporting resources available to them to sustain their marriages (therapists, counselors, mediators).**”
Which just goes to show that **It takes a a Village — of AFCC operatives — for couples to stay married….. Or so, those operatives believe! Those who can’t afford it, might end up needing subsidy to attend Kids’ Turn classes by out-of-compliance nonprofits during their breakup. I would just love to take classes on a sliding fee with people who attribute marital breakup among the not-so-wealthy to inability to pay for a therapist, quoting the Huffington Post…
Seriously now, how does the world manage to keep turning without the advice of these professions?
Other factoids (again, this is the SF, not the San Diego, group):
Development
Kids’ Turn Development activities have been shaped and modified in order to accommodate the recent recession while simultaneously continuing projects that will help improve and develop our trade mark.
1. Kids’ Turn launched its new logo in January, 2010. Development of the logo was the result of a grant from the Taproot Foundation and we are very satisfied with the universal image which emphasizes the protective role of parents for the children in their families.
Although it’s quite likely that many people come to Kids’ Turn after violence- or abuse-related separation, followed by family court involvement, court orders for child support, access/visitation grant diversion for fatherhood promotion, and voila — a parent education project….
2. Kids’ Turn launched its new website in December, 2010. This project was also the result of a partnership with the Taproot Foundation. The new website is cleaner and consistent with the unstated emphasis offered by the logo.
ORGANIZATION NAME |
STATE |
YEAR |
TOTAL ASSETS |
FORM |
PAGES |
EIN |
| Tapfound Inc. Dba Taproot Foundation | CA | 2003 | $436,604 | 990A | 13 | 91-2162645 |
| Tapfound Industry Dba Taproot Foundation | CA | 2004 | $350,319 | 990 | 15 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation | CA | 2003 | $187,547 | 990 | 13 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation | CA | 2002 | $56,366 | 990EZ | 7 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation | CA | 2002 | $56,366 | 990ER | 6 | 91-2162645 |
| Taproot Foundation, Inc. | CA | 2009 | $2,156,525 | 990 | 24 | 91-2162645 |
(Wow. The earliest 2002 is missing page 1; the other, parts are handwritten (on forms), parts typewritten (on blank sheets, for example, the listing of Board Members).
The last board member listed is Jenny Shilling, who works for The Draper Richards Foundation, which apparently started Tapfound, Inc. (The Taproot foundation) with $50,000. The group started with $79,000 assets, not including -$32,000 of “undeposited assets,” for a net assets of $48K. Its “Liabilities & Equity” just about cancelled each other out, and program service accomplishments for this year were “Service Grant Program awarded 18 nonprofits (not shown) with volunteer teams” — $23K.
An “updated July 6, 2003” board of directors is attached.
The 2003 filing (at least the one above I clicked on) shows the act is rather more together, and service program accomplishments reads:
Service Grants were awarded to 63 nonprofit organizations with a total estimated value of $2.5 million (I’ll tell the IRS my return was “close enough for jazz also….”) 582 volunteers were recruited to deliver these services. (at a cost of $148,872 Program Service Expense).
STATUS WITH CALIFORNIA (AS OF TODAY)?
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type TAPROOT Charity Not Registered SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity 1
and (I searched the EIN)
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type TAPFOUND, INC. 120759 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity 1
I guess the OAG’s office maybe is behind in their database entry, because for a “current” charity, including tax returns showing revenue over $4 million in 2007, the only year the group’s RRF shows up is for 2008; they only reminded of an unpaid registration fee of $150 in 2010. There is revenue of over $100K on IRS forms from 2003 through 2009, though. OAG’s (then Edmund G Brown’s) office respectfully requests they send in their $150 fee in September 2010:
September 8, 2010
TAPFOUND, INC. CT FILE NUMBER: 120759 466 GEARY ST STE 200 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT
The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):
1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.
In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, 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.
We’re coming up on a year from the date of this letter, so presumably they did, or they didn’t and OAG hasn’t noticed yet, or doesn’t care. Secretary of State has corporate status active, too:
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Status | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C2374009 | 01/18/2002 | ACTIVE | TAPFOUND, INC. | AARON HURST |
| Entity Name: | TAPFOUND, INC. |
| Entity Number: | C2374009 |
| Date Filed: | 01/18/2002 |
| Status: | ACTIVE |
| Jurisdiction: | CALIFORNIA |
| Entity Address: | 466 GEARY ST STE 200 |
| Entity City, State, Zip: | SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
| Agent for Service of Process: | AARON HURST |
| Agent Address: | 466 GEARY ST STE 200 |
| Agent City, State, Zip: | SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102 |
An independent audit states that for 2010:
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tapfound, Inc. dba: Taproot Foundation as of September 30, 2010, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
The Taproot concept, from which Kids’ Turn benefitted, sounds great:
MAKE IT MATTER
Most organizations tackling social problems don’t have access to the marketing, design, technology, management or strategic planning resources they need to succeed. Without this talent, few are able to have their intended impact on critical issues like the environment, health and education.
Taproot is a nonprofit organization that makes business talent available to organizations working to improve society.
(is it also registering anually as a charity within California, or not?)
We engage the nation’s millions of business professionals in pro bono services both through our award-winning programs and by partnering with companies to develop their pro bono programs. One day, we envision all organizations with promising solutions will be equipped to successfully take on urgent social challenges.
DOWNLOAD OUR 2011-13 STRATEGIC PLAN
OUR MISSION
Our mission is to lead, mobilize and engage professionals in pro bono service that drives social change.
LEAD NATIONALLY BY ACTING LOCALLY
While working to expand the impact of pro bono services nationally by leading the pro bono movement, we concentrate our efforts for social impact within five metro areas where we have offices: Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C.
Today, we offer three core programs to increase nonprofits’ access to pro bono services. Through these programs we provide millions of dollars in services annually aimed at best enabling organizations to address local social issues.
Service Grant Program
Our signature Service Grant program operates in five cities and, since its inception in 2001, has engaged professionals in over 780,000 hours of pro bono service on over 1,300 projects.
GET A SERVICE GRANT
DONATE YOUR SKILLSAdvisory Services
With our Advisory Services and leadership resources, we support companies and organizations in designing and developing their own customized, high-impact pro bono programs. We apply expertise garnered through our Service Grant Program to design pro bono programs best meeting our corporate clients business needs while ensuring their employees’ service makes a meaningful impact in their communities.
LEARN MOREAdvocacy
We partner with leading foundations, universities, companies, coalitions and associations to host convenings and run campaigns where we collaborate to design innovative solutions bringing pro bono service to bear for progress on issues facing our cities and society
(July 2010 letter from founder Aaron Hurst….)
There are certain core values that I have made a point of formally celebrating at Taproot. We close the office on Election Day to stress the importance of civic engagement and democracy. We honor civil rights, and in addition to MLK Jr. Day we close the office for Matt O’Grady Day, commemorating the marriage of long-term Root Matt O’Grady to his partner in 2008. The anniversary of every Root is also marked by giving them the day off showing our appreciation for their involvement in our shared success.
We also value the diversity of backgrounds and interests of our Roots and give the team three days a year to create their own holidays. For some people, they use these days for traditional holidays like President’s Day and others use them for their birthday or culturally meaningful days like Chinese New Year, Rosh Hashanah or Cinco de Mayo.
Draper Richards — which provided the first $50,000 for TapRoot (Tapfound, Inc.) is a venture capitalist company, also interesting — in high tech.
Draper Richards L.P. is a venture capital firm investing in early-stage technology companies. We fund entrepreneurs with the energy, vision, experience, and desire to build great companies.
I’m not so sure about making themselves the TapRoot being a great idea, although it’s great market positioning for nonprofits. Are they as focused on screening who taps into them as they are on making the connections? And I’ll just point out, this does spread tax benefits around nicely between foundation and nonprofits.
WHY TAPROOT?
A “taproot” is the core root of a plant. It gathers nutrients from lateral roots and delivers them to a plant to enable it to flourish.
We see ourselves as a taproot for the nonprofit sector, drawing nutrients from the community and delivering them to nonprofits to enable them to thrive.
A bit more on the background of Draper Richards, that helped start Taproot, that helped revamp the logo of 1989 court-connected, court-official run (basically), CCSF nonprofit vendor and access/visitation grants beneficiary “Kids’ Turn” (“Kid’s Turn” on the state search sites…) update its logo. NOtice all the companies involved.
History
Three Generations of Venture Capital
The Draper name is well known in the venture capital industry. Bill Draper’s father,General William H. Draper, Jr., became the first professional west-coast venture capitalist when he founded Draper, Gaither & Anderson in 1958. Formerly Undersecretary of the Army, General Draper was responsible for economic reconstruction of Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan.
Bill Draper began his venture capital career in 1962 with Pitch Johnson, when he started Draper & Johnson Investment Company. In 1965, together with Paul Wythes, he founded Sutter Hill Ventures which was managed with great success until 1981, when he was appointed Chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 1985, he was selected to be Administrator and CEO of the United Nations Development Program. While in the venture capital business, Bill Draper was a founding investor in Apollo Computer (acquired by Hewlett Packard), Dionex, Integrated Genetics (Genzyme), Quantum, Qume (I.T.T.), Activision (Mediagenic), Xidex (Eastman Kodak), Measurex, Hybritech (Eli Lilly), and LSI Logic. In 1995, he returned to venture capital by founding Draper International which focused on venture investments in India. In 1996, he turned his attention to technology companies in the U.S. and co-founded a new domestic fund,Draper Richards L.P., with his partner, Robin Richards Donohoe.
Bill Draper’s son, Tim Draper, left Alex. Brown & Sons in 1985 to become the third generation of venture capitalists in his family with the formation of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Tim restructured a family-owned Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) that had been set up by his father in 1979 and then created a highly successful early-stage venture capital fund. Draper Fisher Jurvetson has become synonymous with early-stage venture capital. Among other successes, Tim Draper was a founding investor in Parametric Technology, Digidesign, Parenting Magazine, Upside Publishing, PLX Technology, Four-1-1, Hotmail, and Skype.
> > > > > > And Mr. Draper’s Partner, Robin Richards Donahue’s background:
Robin Richards Donohoe
General Partner
Robin Richards Donohoe has over fourteen years of experience in international venture capital. She has served on the boards of many portfolio companies including Kana Communications, Selectica and Digital Impact. Prior to managing the Draper funds, she served for four years as Managing Director of Seaboard Management Corporation, a venture capital firm based in Atlanta, Georgia investing in media and technology companies. Ms. Donohoe has also worked in Prague, Czech Republic for a venture capital fund and in Paris for an investment bank. Ms. Donohoe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina and has a Master of Business degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She currently serves on the boards of the Stanford Business School Trust, University of North Carolina College of Arts and Sciences, Advisory Council of the Gladstone Institute at UCSF, Bay Area Discovery Museum, and Gateway High School. She is the Secretary for her Stanford Business School Class and an Advisor to Room to Read.
It seems obvious to me — if we really want to end “welfare as we know it” and eradicate poverty, we should encourage kids to get on the venture capitalist in high tech media track, starting with a college degree that will help them get on board, and perhaps take people out of inner city classrooms and let them see how the other half puts together a deal and structures a nonprofit corporation, possibly one doing business in grants and annuities, or catering to the grants-based marketplace.
This might cut down on “enrons by the sea” as we all begin to realize that the social services segment of the public-employee sector cannot be trusted (which, in truth) it can’t! to those setting policy and deciding who is naughty and who is nice in distributing contracts, business, and other grants. Of course i could be entirely wrong, but I also would suggest that the white collar sector who have their noses to the grindstone for (venture capitalists and the risk-takers with more money to play with) start taking some personal holidays to figure out where their taxes are actually being spent, and do it with a KID old enough to understand watching…
But the two parallel sets of infrastructures — the tax-supported and the tax-exempt — both working together, and seeking clientele among the tax-paying low and moderate income, will help drive their incomes lower, and someone else’s wealth higher, leaving credibility in the dust. Of course, with appropriate assets to spin off payments into old age, this may not matter, and if the US goes bankrupt, a b/millionaire can afford to live somewhere else, whereas a person living on social security alone, most likely can’t.
This of course would be a little messy at times, actually teaching ALL children (not just the offspring of venture capitalists and others where business knowledge including about the function of taxes and corporate identities, is absorbed from an early age) how to deal with the invisible, or at least underlying, intangible principles and skillsets, that are the scaffolding sustaining significant, life-supporting wealth (barring extravagances that lead to early death, such as pharmaceutical or other addictions).
OH WELL, more Kids’ Turn turnabouts:
3. Kids’ Turn took dramatic steps to downsize and reduce event expenses. We downsized the May, 2010 event to a cocktail party (not a sit-down dinner); all invitations were sent electronically (eliminating the need for an expensive invitation mailing). We exceeded our event net goal and will build on this success for 2011.
Yep, that would probably be good. I’m looking at the 2006 return, and for fundraising activities (“Golf Tournament, “SF Event” (whatever that is), and “Other”) the ration of revenue raised to expenses is rather interesting:
(GOLF — someone contributed $25K, expenses were $24,423, leaving net income of $12,802 out of $62K receipts. I’m sure golfing was fun. The “SF Event” (great descriptor) gross receipts of $44,475, expenses $10,752, is it fair to say about 25%? or 11/44ths; “Other fundraising events” (plural), raised $1,140, COST $13,618, resulting in a net loss of $12,478. Essentially whatever those other fundraisers were wiped out the golf tournament’s profit completely, except for $530. And there’s a CPA on the Board of Directors, too.)
Perhaps next time they should simply start raffles — of course this would require REGISTERING those raffles and providing signed receipts from the recipient that the funds were indeed distributed. But they could also run raffles for themselves and the overhead is pretty low, right, on that….)
4. Kids’ Turn is developing its presence on electronic social networking. We have an active Facebook Fan page (currently 335 Fans); a Board member ‘tweets’ regularly and posts on our behalf on linkdn. Just recently, we began actively posting comments on the Huffington Posts’ DIVORCE page. Interestingly enough, our Facebook fan count has increased exponentially since raising our profile visibility on social networking sites.
5. We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. (??) This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.
The “AOC” like “KT” contains AFCC members — and actually represents the “Administrative Office of the COurts” which is charged with administering FEDERAL grants to the states from which KT is likely to benefit. As such, it’s not money from the AOC, it’s money via the IRS from taxpayers.
“The Rally Project” – found in a 2006 obituary of architect Allan Levy
I am posting in August 2011, and this is a FY2010 Annual report, so I’ll just hazard a guess that they mean 2011. I hope there’s more accuracy when it comes to decimal points.
the “rally project” is actually a Family Visitation center, apparently at UCSF. I remember trying to find this before. There are still few references to “the Rally Project’ because that’s not what it’s name is. And this nonprofit is teaching communication skills, too!
Allan M. Levy Died on Thursday, February 16, 2006 after a five-month battle with throat cancer. He was 60 years old. He died at home and in peace, in the company of family and friends. Allan was born and raised in Memphis, TN, and embodied all of the lovely qualities we Northerners associate with Southerners: he was kind and gracious, inclusive, an attentive host (no one ever left Pam and Allan’s house underfed or thirsty), and an avid storyteller. Allan was a creator of community. He had a small army of friends of all ages, sizes, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds from every conceivable corner of the globeHe had definite opinions. About everything. He gave quietly and generously of his time and energy to non-profit organizations like Kids Turn and the Rally Project. …Allan is survived by his wife, Pam; mother, Mrs. Emily Davis; sister, Diane and brother-in-law, Arnold Eger; brother, Donald and sister-in-law, Shelley Levy; brother, Steven and sister-in-law, Betsy Olim; sister-in-law, Kate DiGiacomo; six nieces and nephews, a whole bunch of cousins, the above-mentioned army of friends, and last, but not least, his dog Maggie. A Memorial Service is being planned for Thurs, April 6, 2006, 3pm, at the Officer’s Club at the SF Presidio. In lieu of flowers, it is suggested that donations be made to Kids’ Turn, Rally Family Visitation Services, UCSF Palliative Care Group, and The Women’s Community Clinic.
I should note here, as it came up, Rally Family Visitation Services is listed twice when it comes to “SVN” (Supervised Visitation Network) which I imagine is (yet another!) nonprofit — and people from “Rally Visitation Services” are mentioned on BOTH SVN Standards and Guideline Committee Chairs & on the SVN Board of Directors, right next to the AOC. I’m sure having a Kids Turn Friend & Rally Visitation Center friend who is networked with the people distributing the access visitation grants and setting standards for who gets them (ideally) — would probably help in obtaining this grant, even if someone can’t figure out which year they applied for it in and proofread their (taproot-foundation-assisted) new website to get it up there right.
Supervised Visitation Network Worldwide
SVN, Supervised Visitation Network, is an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families.
SVN was Founded in 1991 to provide opportunities for networking, sharing of information, and training for agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free access to parents with whom they do not reside.
Providing resources for members and families in need of supervised visitation services
That 1991 date is kind of interesting; NCCSDATAWEB says the ruling date was 1997. So far I see it in Tennessee (for about 5 years) and then off to Florida (as of 2007ff) so presumably it started somewhere else, or AS someone else from 1991 to 1996. Assuming it actually began in 1991…
| Most Recent Tax Period | EIN | Name | State | Rule Date | IRS Sub- section | Total Revenue | Total Assets | 990 Image |
| 2010 | 521831498 | Supervised Visitation Network | FL | 1997 | 03 | 218,620 | 31,703 | 990 |
A service of the National Center for Charitable Statistics at the Urban Institute
As of 2009, it self-describes (on the 990) as PURPOSE:
PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH EDUCATION AND SUPPORT THAT PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN TO HAVE SAFE, CONFLICT FREE ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS THROUGH A CONTINUUM OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES IN ADDITION, THE ORGANIZATION IS DEVELOPING AND DISSEMINATING STANDARDS FOR PRACTICE OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES, MAINTAINING A DIRECTORY OF SUPERVISED CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS, AND PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES AND FORUMS FOR NETWORKING AND SHARING OF INFORMATION PRINCIPALLY, MEMBERSHIP DUES AND ADMISSION FEES TO THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR ORGANIZATION And like many nonprofits, simply repeats that paragraph when asked to describe its accomplishments, and then adds a figure — how much it cost: in 2009 filing, specificallly $218,590 — funds raised from “Contributions” 67,409, “Program fees including govt contracts” $82,875, and “Dues” 62,307.” This ALMOST adds up to what they spent, however, there’s that $92K of salaries and $5K of fees for contracting independent professionals, plus printing, occupancy ($10K) and did I mention “$143K” of “OTHER” expenses, a section I always enjoy looking at…… meaning they operated this year at a $37K loss despite all the help. (The $143, unfortunately, displays sideways if I select & paste, but is predictably mostly on travel ($27.3) Conferences ($65.1), Committee meetings ($14.87) and a regional training ($14.68), plus a few other items. Which makes me think that one great way to travel is to start a new professional, start a nonprofit (dues-based) in which we could meet to figure out how to promote our profession in pleasant locations across the globe, while doing business with the US government (if not a few others), soliciting from the public and/or grants, and write it all (plus some) OFF.SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee Co-chairs:
Shelly La Botte, J.D., California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, and Nadine Blaschak-Brown, former Program Manager, Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, CA.SVN Board of Directors (Fiscal Years 2004-2006):
Jody Bittrich, Rainbow Bridge Safe Exchange/Visitation Center, Moorhead, MN, Barbara Flory (see above), Nancy Fallows (see above), Jane Grafton, (see above), Ona Foster, Faith and Liberty’s Place, Dallas, TX, David Levy, Children’s Rights Council, Hyattsville, MD, Teri Walker McLaughlin (President), Della Morton, Merrymount Children’s Center, London, Ontario Canada, Joe Nullet, Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, Vayla Roberts (Vice-President), Sharon Rogers, Judge Ben Gordon, Jr., Family Visitation Center, Shalimar, FL, Virginia Rueda, Family Visitation Center, El Paso, TX, Rob Straus, (see above), Georgia Thompson, LA Wings of Faith, Los Angeles, CA., and Beth Zetlin, Forest Hills, NY.
I think it’s time to get another crack in about the field of “Supervised Visitation” and the “SVN” network.
First, it is a nonprofit incorporated in Tennessee. These altruistic people (including David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council, which helped push the term “access /visitation” to start with, and which nonprofit includes several such centers, not to mention some close connections in philosophy with AFCC founder, it would seem, Jessica Pearson (see my recent posts trying to track down AFCC incorporations over the year, including one time it showed up in Colorado at the same address as Center for Policy Research (I believe) at the time: Emerson Street, Denver).
This is a 2003 IRS form 990-EZ for “Supervised Visitation Network,” a TN nonprofit of moderate means and large influence:
90~IZ~~ Part III:
Primary Exempt purpose: Public education and awareness;professional development
28.SVNwebsite-provides information for both the general public and for professionals, averaging over 150 hits per week on the pages for parents and over 400 on the pages with information for professionals.- Expenses : $15,000
This blog — which is free, except for my time — gets close to that on a good day, and has been steadily for a few years — including from some sources I know are professionals (like the ones I report on) and others. Note: as with the field of “Parent Education” (court-supported) the interest is higher among the providers than the clientele….i
29.Conference-Trainingfor150professionalprovidersofsupervisedvisitationservices Expenses-Netgainof$14,410
30. Publications -Distributed 500 Handbook for Parents, 160 Handbooks for Professionals; 80 Sexual Abuse Curriculums;850 informational brochures;2 Newsletters, primarily forprofessional training, to 600 individuals;.
Expenses -$7.700
Its revenue is about $40,000 Program Service Revenue including government fees & contracts, and about $37,000 membership fees. Their highest expense is “Products and Promotions.”
Most interesting is the variety of states (plus Canada) the board of directors are drawn from: If you can’t see the graphic, the pdf is on-line for viewing:
(Karen Oehme also directs a family violence studies institute at Florida State; many of these names are well known) in family law circles, obviously.
At least one of these address shows up as the Office of the Attorney General (445 Golden Gate, SF) — no office given, though.
Shelly Glapion (at that address), 6th floor, at least in 2004, (as we speak?) was Senior Program Analyst for
-
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Shelly Glapion, J.D.. Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator. Senior Court …
As far back as 2004, there were concerns about financial embezzlement/fraud, shifting financial requirements for supervised visitation, at least in California. This is part of a (available on-line) group email (I’ll post complaint and one reply) about the behavior of a supervised visitation monitor, from a mother, criticized for wearing flip-flops (in California…..) and giving her daughter a birthday cake. it appears that the mother was under supervised visitation, although the typical auspices of this is increased noncustodial (FATHER) parent access, which was how Ron Haskins helped sell it to Congress to start with, as I understand:
Supervised Monitoring Message List
In a message dated 11/27/04 10:06:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXX@… writes:
Is she private or with a supervised visitation center?
Especially if she is connected to a supervised visitation center, you should make a public records request for all payoffs she is receiving, and also ask for her tax returns for the duration of time since she has been providing you “service”.Then, go very public with the fact that what she is doing constitutes fraud, illegal and criminal misconduct, so that she will dump you as a client in order to try to conceal what she is doing wrong.
After she dumps you, go to the press with evidence of financial and other fraud operative through your case, saying that this is another example of the type of Access to Visitation Enforcement program fraud that is rampant as the means to promote a pro-abuser agenda in the guise of fatherhood and custody programs. Use this article from NY– re: Viola Stroud of CRC being under investigation for embezzlement — to bolster your case: Click here: Guardian under scrutiny
Next, send a summary (brief and objective re: criminal misconduct and financial fraud) to Shelly Glapion, the CA adminstrator of the SAVP: shelly.glapion@…, asking her, as the person overseeing the AV program in CA, who has been monitoring your supervisor to ensure the integrity of the “service” she is providing. Be sure to tell Ms. Glapion that you hold her personally responsible and legally liable for the kickbacks and illegal payoffs you are sure were being used to cause intential and malicious harm to you and your child on behalf of your ex, using government program funding.
Be sure to send me a copy (use XXXXX not the FCR board) of your complaint, along with the name of the supervisor, the county you are in, your case number, the judges, lawyers and other appointees involved (especially any mediators or custody evaluators) and I will incorporate it into the complaints that we are putting together that are addressing AV program fraud and corruption at the federal level.
Cindy Ross
CA Director
National Alliance for Family Court Justice
To this woman, who says she does not have a criminal record, and apparently CPS was told she was some sort of perp, but closed the case — she is being treated like one, which she reports as basically being cursed (spoken evil of) by the supervised visitation monitor. The other point of view — particularly from someone on this nonprofit SVN group and probably also running a program that provides these services, it’s not a curse, it’s a blessing! Barbara Flory, in THIS message exchange (file under “PR”) The URL is a Florida State University address: http://familyvio.csw.fsu.edu/messageboard/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BB_winter_04.pdf
The supervised visitation and exchange programs have truly been a blessingfor so many families.
First of all, monitored visitation provides yet another level of protection for the victim and the children. This
protection is essential to victims!
(not mentioned — often, the victims ARE children…. this happens when there’s molestation also):
Second, it allows contact between the perpetrator and the children, which would not have
occurred without said programs.
{{now that’s food for thought…… “contact between perp and children = good.” (?)}}
This is especially important for those perpetrators who are truly trying to improve their lives and those of their children.
And the way to tell if a perp is REALLY sincere and wants to improve his(her) life is ….. ask a supervised visitation professional?
Or a judge on the board of a nonprofit benefitting from access visitation (or other) grantsmanship?
It is also extremely important for the children who sometimes do not understand why they cannot see one of their parents, but want to see that parent.
And one tells which children DO and which children do NOT want to see their perp parent? (See Jack Straton; I get tired of reminding us….)
In many cases it is also the hope of being with the children and helping their children that motivates a perpetrator to understand the cycle of domestic violence.
It’s HOPED that HOPING to see one’s kids will produce character change for a perp. I’m not even sure we can find definite validation that batterers intervention programs do that…..
These programs provide a safe environment for all involved and they further provide hope!
Yes, hope of virtually guaranteed (court-ordered) income for supervised visitation providers who pay into the system!
Other than that —
No they don’t. That’s false! They can become and have obviously become nightmares; moreover, some people have been killed at or around supervised visitation, or while the family was utilizing supervised visitation! See this chart from 2001 (i.e., in recent memory of the above message), particularly 3rd from bottom row: The chart is from “MNCAVA” something reasonably accessible to the people involved above:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/commissioned/strategies/strategies.html
Staff of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation collected examples of behaviors commonly displayed by alleged batterers who were referred to supervised visitation programs in Florida in 2001. As the examples in the following table indicate, the same behaviors of batterers described in the literature, are observed in supervised visitation programs.
Table 1. Common Behaviors of Batterers Seen at Supervised Visitation Programs
| Behavior | Manifestation at Supervised Visitation Program |
|---|---|
| Denial of Abuse/ Minimizations | Children may ask parent, “why did you hit mommy?” Visiting parent may deny hitting child’s mother, say it was accident or minimize his action. Or he may say it’s the fault of mother he has to see child at visitation program. One program reports a 12 year old asked his father why he chased his mother with a knife. Father denied doing it saying the mother told him to say that. This occurred despite witnesses to the knife incident. |
| Blaming partner | Frequently supervised visitation staff report that a batterer will tell staff “this is all my wife’s fault,” “she’s the one who brought this on.” |
| Control/ Manipulation | Often batterers will question, or challenge program rules or suggest exceptions to rules should be made of them. This is seen in examples of refusing to arrive or depart per requirements, bringing unauthorized individuals to visits, bringing gifts or food to visits which may be disallowed, attempting to take videos or photographs. Tearing up rules or throwing intake forms across room. |
| Attacking Parenting Skills | Involving staff in apparent false allegations of child abuse against parent who has been abused, trying to use staff to call Abuse Registry. Makes disparaging remarks about mother, “you need to clean up better than mommy.” |
| Making Covert/ Overt Threats | Program staff report incidents of batterers showing a weapons permit when asked for identification, driving around visitation site at time of scheduled visits but not coming into program as well as verbally threatening to harm staff, volunteers, judge, partner, etc. during visits. Law enforcement officers referred to programs have come for scheduled visits in full uniform wearing their weapons despite instructions to the contrary. |
| Involving Children | During scheduled visitations, batterers may attempt to question children about their current living arrangements (particularly if they are staying at shelter or another undisclosed location); inquire about what their plans are, where they are attending school; or, may try and find out who the child’s mother is seeing. Additionally batterers may utilize visitation times as a vehicle to get children to convey messages back to other parent. |
| Stalking | Following a parent who is leaving a program, recording information about parents car. One program reports two examples of cases when the perpetrator had custody. In one case he left with the child prior to his wife (non-custodial) but waited for her in a nearby parking lot. In another, a non-custodial mother picked up her child for a monitored exchange and was followed to a neighboring city by her abuser. Perpetrators may reveal stalking incidents during conviction with their children during visit Questions such as Where were you all last night? or Why weren’t you in school yesterday? |
| Financial Abuse/ Manipulation | Refusing to pay for scheduled visits, not going to pay to see my kids. Paying in pennies or other small coins. Saying they will not bring food for visits because they’re paying child support to mother and she should make sure food is available for father’s visit. |
| Animal Abuse | Batterers may inform child during visit that a beloved pet has died or had to be given away since the child was not longer in the home. One program reported a father bringing the child’s pet rabbit to the program knowing the child would not be able to take it back to the shelter where he was staying. |
| Physical Violence | At least three murders of [WORD missing — Freudian slip?] have occurred on-site or in parking lots of supervised visitation programs in recent years. Other programs report murders or physical assaults by non-custodial parents off site but while family was utilizing services. |
| Suicide | Visiting parent telling child and/or staff how depressed he is and how he might just end it all. |
Not to mention, see Joyce Welch / Brian Tippe case, where the supervised visitation monitor was in a bestiality relationship (criminal!) with DOGS and a slave/master relationship (as the slave, i.e., fairly “deviant” behavior for someone involved with children, and around the field of domestic violence, which is itself characterized by inappropriate slave/master behaviors, only without the designated slave deriving (?) sexual enjoyment from the degraded status). The mother was ordered supervised by a commissioner who was at the time on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too….
Guess under what banner I found that:
Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation Services in Domestic Violence Cases
M. Sharon Maxwell, LCSW, Ph.D.Karen Oehme, J.D.authors commissioned by
Copyright © 2001 Violence Against Women Online Resources
AbstractThe Evolution of Supervised Visitation: From Child Welfare to Domestic Violence Case VisitationRecognizing Common Batterers Behaviors In Supervised Visitation SettingsStrategies to Improve Supervised Visitation in Domestic Violence Cases
![Violence Against Women Online Resources [logo]](https://i0.wp.com/www.mincava.umn.edu/images/comdoclogo.jpg)
Barbara Flory, MSW, LFMT (or whatever) and 2003 at least SVN board member, wrote the above glowing recommendation of supervised visitation; Karen Oehme, here, chairs the FLorida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation. They are talking about strategies to have less abuse and murder occurring around supervised visitation (no mention made of financial fraud, etc., although it’s been found repeatedly) — and not whether it’s a good or bad idea, based on the fact that murders and further abuse HAS occurred around it!
ACTUALLY, Familylawcourts.com has a page on the “AOC” and says it better than I do; it’s funny, but right:
2. The Elkins Task Force, which was headed by the AOC supposedly to promote accountability and listening to children, was an expensive and expansive white wash.
How else to explain why the AOC commissioned a 50k research project to ask family court litigants questions for the entire state; and the results featured only 53 litigants and 83 AOC staff personnel?
3. One lasting, inept brainchild of the Judicial Council, again working in conjunction with the AOC, was to decriminalize crime via a “Supervised Visitation,” form in which kidnapping becomes the more civilized “parental abduction.”
Thus, 12 years after the Judicial Council working in conjunction with the AOC, created the non-professional field, there remains no oversight. Which con artists have discovered. Which explains how suspected pedophiles are now serving on the boards of some Supervised visitation agencies; and why Supervised visitation monitors are awarding custody to the suspected pedophiles.
As such, if the AOC wasn’t so damaging to the point of lethal, it would be listed as a sub-category to Comic Gold.
Is there anything where AOC excels?
Yes. The AOC excels at wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer funds for slick, expensive conferences, most of which are designed to continue prohibiting access to any real justice in the courts, such as the one below.
http://www.familylawcourts.com/aoc.html
(note: I don’t agree with author in GPS issue, though).
She sarcastically notes:
Practice Hint: Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department. Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest. The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.
Actually, I experienced so-called “parental abduction” (call it what you will) AT a law enforcement station, after having asked (in vain) previously for supervised visitation or something to prevent this (as I recall the LONG case history). Apparently the problem is I wasn’t willing to cut some deal with CPS and let my children go into foster care needlessly to get revenge on my ex. So, they did nothing, knowing it would be off their plate and safely in family court anyhow. This custody-switch kept the case going, which also (FYI) meant a significant delay in child support matters, probably resulting in a little interest accumulation (at least from program funds) on the side, too. The possible profitable (except to the children) permutations are endless in this system.
I figured I’d just hop on over to Tennessee to look up this nice nonprofit I learned was incorporated there: Surprise:
| Search: | 1-1 of 1 | ||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||
| 000454811: Corporation Non-Profit – Domestic | ||||||||||
| Name: | SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC. | |||||||||
| Old Name: | ||||||||||
| Business Type: | ||||||||||
| Status: | Inactive – Terminated | Initial Filing: | 09/29/2003 | |||||||
| Formed in: | Putnam County | Delayed Effective Date: | ||||||||
| Fiscal Year Close: | June | AR Due Date: | 10/01/2007 | |||||||
| Term of Duration: | Perpetual | Inactive Date: | 01/11/2008 | |||||||
| Principal Office: | 2804 PARAN POINTE DR COOKEVILLE, TN 38506 USA |
|||||||||
| Annual Report Mailing Address: |
1223 KING STREET JACKSONVILLE, FL 322040000 USA |
|||||||||
| AR Exempt: | No | |||||||||
| Public Benefit Corporation: | Yes | |||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
WELL, they apparently kept it going about 5 years — with the exception of AFCC, that’s pretty average for nonprofits catering to therapeutic-jurisprudence professions in the courts, which is probably why new ones (such as COllaborative law practice) must constantly be created. …. Maybe the moved to Florida… or just went extra-USA terrestrial…..
TypeDateImage #DetailTermination01/11/20086178-2677Articles of Dissolution01/11/20086178-2675Administrative Amendment12/05/20076164-2457Detail
Notice of Determination12/03/2007ROLL 61612006 Annual Report Due 10/01/200612/19/20065902-1491Notice of Determination12/01/2006ROLL 58932005 Annual Report Due 10/01/200510/07/20055578-01582004 Annual Report Due 10/01/200409/14/20045233-08802003 Annual Report Due 04/01/200402/10/20045032-2914Detail
Registered as a Charity in Tennessee?
Financial Reports for Registered Charities
(I didn’t find out whether or not).
I THINk the first address listed as c/o Nancy Fallows, who shows up as someone probably good at getting grants, and on the board of a substance-abuse-prevention group, “Putnam (County) Power of One”
Nancy Fallows Secretary,
(Grant-Writing Sub-Committee Chair)
Tennessee Community Services Agency,
Upper Cumberland Director
1000 England Drive, Suite F,
Cookeville, TN 38501(work) 931-646-4087; (fax) 931-520-0080
Nancy.Fallows@tncsa.com
Joe Nullet (also on Board, and the registered agent? in Florida for the TN corporation also) is Harvard, JFK School of Government, father of 3 boys, and:
and obviously someone who knows how to obtain funding for a program. This one is selling educational curriculums, isn’t everyone these days?
Joe Nullet
Joe Nullet, a graduate of Harvard University, is the Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network, an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families. Joe was also formerly the Executive Director of the Family Nurturing Center of Florida, *** an organization committed to creating a community of nurturing care for our children.
As recognized Trainer/Consultant for the Nurturing Parenting programs, Joe’s area of strength is in the administration, support, and successful implementation of the Nurturing Parenting programs. Since 2001, Joe has successfully obtained financial support from the Jaguars Foundation, the Community Foundation of Jacksonville, the Reinhold Foundation, the Rice Family Foundation, UPS, Publix, the Martin Foundation, and others for the implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs.
As a father of three beautiful boys, Joe is passionate about nurturing his family and the world in which they live. Joe is available to train your agency staff to facilitate the Nurturing Parenting programs or as a consultant to develop innovative strategies to foster community collaboration, solicit financial support, and manage the effective implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs within your organization and/or community.
Joe Nullet, Executive Director
Supervised Visitation Network
*** per ‘SUNBIZ.org” -a site I really appreciate where you can look up florida organizations — actually, this was incorporated in 1993 as “Family Visitation Center, Inc.” and in 2000 they did a name change (adding the “nurturing”) as we can see in 2001, Mr. Nullet helped them expand the concept, or at least get funding for doing so. The group’s current address, 2759 Bartley Circle (same city) is apparently owned by the City of Jacksonville (a community center) and listed with the courts, or taking business from them:
Family Nurturing Center of Florida
Supervised Visitation, Dependency and Family Law
2759 Bartley Circle
Jacksonville, FL 32207ServicePhone:
Fax:(904) 389-4244
(904) 389-4225
Provides a multifaceted supervised visitation center for children to visit with their non-custodial parents when there have been allegations and/or confirmation of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.
Services: Information and referral; Other Victims Served: Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims Counties Served: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns Circuits Served: 4, 8, 7 Fee: Yes; sliding scale for Family Law clients. Hours of Service: Please see website for hours of operation. Web Site: http://www.fncflorida.org
That site shows them in the 2 primary businesses supported by A/V grants: Parent Education and Supervised Visitation and yes, they are a nonprofit; their “For Parents” link hopefully points to the SVN, and has a hastily (or at least crookedly) scanned “handbook” coaching parents on how to pick the right type of visitation center, i.e., one of ours, listing the SVN at 1223 King Drive (although it’s not been there for a while…..)
FNC is proud to partner with a number of local service providers to offer comprehensive services to clients. We have relationships with each of the certified domestic violence centers within the Fourth Circuit, and we also partner with Family Foundations, Youth Crisis Center, and many others. If you have a question about additional resources which may benefit your clients, please contact us or you can conduct your own search using the 2-1-1 system.
Like Kids’ Turn (etc.) it is described as the 1993 brainchild of a judge — only this one, responding to complaints from parents with children in foster-care:
We opened in 1993 as the Family Visitation Center, the first of its kind in Florida. It was the brainchild of the Honorable Judge Dorothy Pate, who was moved to act after hearing frequent complaints from parents who were not being allowed to see their children who had been placed in foster care.
Representatives from the Department of Children, the Children’s Home Society and the Junior League of Jacksonville met with Judge Pate to discuss a new concept called “supervised visitation.” Since that meeting, we have expanded our agency to include three programs at four locations and changed our name to reflect this growing commitment to improving the lives of families throughout Northeast Florida.
(NoTE — that predates the 1996 welfare reform, the 1994 national fatherhood initiative and violence against women act).
GONE SOUTH — literally, to FLORIDA — or at least here’s another corporation by the same name, in the same city (Jacksonville) that decided to get started up around the time the Tennessee incorporation shut down (or was shut down):
| Florida Non Profit Corporation | ||||||||||||
| SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC. | ||||||||||||
| Filing Information | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
| Principal Address | ||||||||||||
| 3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE JACKSONVILLE FL 32205 |
||||||||||||
| Changed 01/06/2010 | ||||||||||||
| Mailing Address | ||||||||||||
| 3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE JACKSONVILLE FL 32205 |
By the former address, yes, this is the same corporation (see files):
EIN# 521831498
IT’s purpose (see sunbiz.org if this doesn’t show, click on bottom link below Annual Reports) is fairly clear — business promotion and collaboration on how to obtain access visitation funding, basically:
Article III ” The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized” — “Provide a forum for networking and sharing of information
between CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS and OTHER PROFESSIONALS. Advocate for adequate public and private funding for Child access and visitation programs.”
Others at the first Jacksonville Address (1223 King STreet) address include a window-washing service. Now, 3995 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL appears to be a particular real estate group, “Bo Bridgeport Brokers“) which I only figured because google-mapping zooming in on the address contained that label.
Bo Bridgeport Brokers is the premier Commerical and Residential Real Estate Firm in Jacksonville Florida. We specialize in residential and commercial real …
Jacksonville, FL 32205-3312
(904) 358-3955
It’s also listed in “Family and Child Services” in a VERMONT (how’s that for the other end of the east coast?) Child Support / Commission on Women office. Cute:
Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women
women.vermont.gov/…/family-court-and-office-of-child-support – Cached1223 King Street Jacksonville, FL 32204 904-389-7800 http://www.svnetwork.net/ . SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a …
1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204
http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223–King–St–Jacks… – Cached
1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204. Companies at this address: Vision Window Washing, Inc. Alzheimer’s Care, Inc. Supervised Visitation Network, Inc. …
As explained nicely on the VERMONT government site, after one reads about the child support contacts:
Family Division and Office of Child Support
Vermont Office of Child Support
800-786-3214
http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/Provides free assistance to those paying and receiving child support. The office keeps track of child support payments, can help with getting a child support order, collects overdue payments, locates absent parents, helps change child support amounts, can help determine paternity, and offers help to child support payers
http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/Provides free assistance to those paying and receiving child support. The office keeps track of child support payments, can help with getting a child support order, collects overdue payments, locates absent parents, helps change child support amounts, can help determine paternity, and offers help to child support payers
Vermont Parent Representation Center, Inc.
77 Charlotte Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401
802-540-0200
http://www.vtprc.org
An interdisciplinary team of an attorney, a social worker, and a peer navigator (a parent who has direct experience with child protective and foster care systems) represents parents at risk of experiencing the removal of their children into state custody and foster care or kin-care. A Community Action Team (CAT) works with the custodial parent to address issues that threaten the children’s safety to prevent a petition from being filed in court (Family and Probate).
VPRC is a {{YET ANOTHER…..}} not-for-profit public interest law and policy organization. VPRC’s goals include:
To reduce the number of children removed from their families into state and other out-of-home custody; to shorten the length of stay in state and other out-of-home custody for children who have been removed, and to reduce the number of children re-entering state and other out-of-home custody after being reunified with their families.
This says nothing about “custody-dispute” Parental alienation situations, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t handle such things and get some grants or contracts to do so.
This is clearly more directed at CPS & Foster Care uses, but notice how SVN can springboard that into “custody dispute” or “estranged from the other parent” situations . . …
National
Supervised Visitation Network
1223 King Street
Jacksonville, FL 32204
904-389-7800
http://www.svnetwork.net/
SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a network of agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free {{AFCC code language; not ‘High-conflict”}} access to parents with whom they do not reside. Some of the children who need these services live in foster homes or with relatives. Some live with one parent who is estranged from the other.
Wonder what the percentages are. Notice, it doesn’t even pretend to be a grass-roots organization, or even parent-originated. “The “is-estranged” could be either, has a restraining order on because of criminal conduct, or is judged to be guilty by allegation — from a PAS-saturated official — of the “crime” of parental alienation. See in New Hampshire, parent coordination association (and my posts on it) for HOW to allege parental alienation and cut the children off from their mothers, after obtaining parent coordinator status.
6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.
I presume they are probably meaning the year 2011; someone has a little data input trouble here….. If the SF Courts ever pay off what it is SFTC has a lien for (see my other Kids’ Turns posts) perhaps they can hire a proofreader for their new website, and get their license back. Oh, this may be a little difficult though, because so many SF Courtrooms are being closed, soon, for lack of funding, budget cutbacks, etc. . . . . You know how it goes….
I think that MOST businesses and charities understand (as well as shouldn’t most attorneys who are going to be sometimes doing business with them, or incorporated themselves as an LLP) that one has to register as a nonprofit with the state, and also file annual reports with the secretary of state whether for-profit or not, if doing business in that state. But here it is stated explicitly:
Florida Charity Nearly Ruined
Sun Coast Law Enforcement Charities (Sun Coast) is a police charity benefiting police officers and their families in several Florida counties. Recently, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) served the charity’s president with a lawsuit.
Why? Because the charity failed to renew its registration with the Department, even though it had sent letters and made phone calls reminding the charity to do so. In Florida, any charity that asks for donations in the state mustregister with the department each year. It costs between $10 and $400, depending on how much money the charity raises. Sun Coast’s registration fee was $75.
The Department’s lawsuit wanted to impose a $10,000 fine against Sun Coast. Paying that fine would have ruined the charity. According to its IRS filings, the charity’s 2008 total revenue was only $11,000. Luckily it avoided the problem.
It explained to the Department that a former bookkeeper had ignored calls and letters from the Department. The Department took into consideration that Sun Coast had been registered since 2000 and kept up its renewals until the 2009 incident. In the end, Sun Coast paid a $1,000 fine and remains in operation.
Registration Laws
Many states are like Florida and require registration of charities. Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, and Pennsylvania are good examples. The rules usually are different in each state, though. For example, in some states, a charity must register:
- And pay a fee each year if it “does business” in the state
- And pay a fee only the first year it “does business” in the state, but must submit financial and other records each year
- Before it accepts donations, before it asks for or “solicits” donations, or both
- By completing forms provided by the state, by submitting a copy of the charity’s IRS form, or both
(Courtesy “Charities.lawyers.com“)
Apparently being able to look it up on-line is new? http://www.800helpfla.com/socbus.html
Solicitation of Contributions
Information for Businesses
The Solicitation of Contributions Act requires anyone who solicits donations from people in the State of Florida to register with the Department and renew annually. This applies to charitable organizations, sponsors, professional solicitors, as well as professional fundraising consultants. The Department collects registration fees and has authority to impose penalties for non-compliance. The Department provides financial disclosure regarding organizations on the online Gift Givers’ Guide or you can obtain information about a specific charity by calling our Consumer Assistance Call Center at 1-800-HELP-FLA (435-7352), or out of state 850-410-3800.
Looking at the SVN site, describing the backgrounds of its current Board of Directors, here’s a nice connection to “responsible fatherhood” if you don’t get it yet:
Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD
Cambridge, MA
A psychologist and lawyer was Senior Psychologist of the Family Service Clinic from 1982 to 1988, conducting custody and visitation evaluations for the Middlesex County Family Court. From 1988, he served frequently as Guardian ad Litem in high-conflict custody and access disputes.
In 1991, Dr. Straus started Meeting Place: Supervised Child Access Service, a program of The Guidance Center, Inc. in Cambridge, MA, providing a safe setting in which children in high-risk situations can visit parents with whom they are not living.
|
Some details about the organization, including its name change:
| The exact name of the Nonprofit Corporation: GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE
The name was changed from: CAMBRIDGE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCI on 9/17/1997 Mergered into : RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. on 8/21/2009 |
|
|
|
|
He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.
So maybe if I want to find what state it first incorporated in, I should go to Massachusetts?
From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.
Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.
Dr. Straus (psychologist/psychotherapist) published in 1994 (as cited in AFCC publication) on traumatized children in supervised visitation. Maybe if the kids are so badly traumatized, they shouldn’t be there to start with? Anyhow, this abstract for the cite:
Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCCARTICLE: Traumatized Children in Supervised Visitation: What Do They Need?
Authors’ Note:
This article was presented as a plenary paper at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, France, November 4-7, 1998.
April, 1999
37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 135
Author
Janet R. Johnston and Robert B. StrausExcerpt
The purpose of supervised access, also known as supervised visitation and exchange services, is to provide a protected setting for parent-child contact when such contact presents risk following parental separation, child abuse, or neglect, or after an extended interruption of contact. There has been a remarkable growth in such services over the past two decades, in the United States and Canada, 1 as well as internationally. 2 Although there is a growing literature on the functioning of child access services (see, for example, Pearson & Thoennes, 1997; Straus & Alda, 1994)**, to date there has been little concentrated attention in the field on how better to respond to the vulnerable children who are the primary clients of visitation services. It seems likely that several factors have contributed to the relative invisibility of children’s individual and developmental needs in designing access programs. These factors include the urgency with which the needs of these distressed parents and their advocates call for the attention of decision makers and service providers, the fact that visitation orders (usually made in family courts where children lack their own voice) take precedence in defining how children are served, and, most important, the lacunae in clinical and research findings about the special needs of this population of children.
Whereas supervised access is used to provide supportive services and reunite parents with their children when there has not been trauma, the majority of the child clients of supervised visitation services have not been so fortunate. This article …
** of course there was even then a growing literature from certain sources on access services, particularly with the CRCKIDS.org organization on, and the nonprofit board-member multiple inter-relationships in place from the start. Abstract is from “Lexis-Nexis”
Dr. Straus in Cambridge, “RSJ Corporation” filing (OLD ein# 043061365) corresponds with these dates, somewhat.
| RSJ CORP. Summary Screen |  Help with this form |
Supervised Visitation Access is not suitable for long-term, has been acknowledged (?) since 1999. Therefore, I can see how if business is to keep coming there would need to be new customers. THEORETICALLY a good bit of supervised visitation access will heal all relationships, reform perps of course (Except parentally alienating ones?) and lead to a reunified family. (Alternately, see Warshak….). OR, it could provide a nice excuse to terminate relationship with the offending parent, possibly the one most offended at (and/or paying for) the supervised visitation to start with. Another Lexis-Nexis abstract, delivered in Paris again — here:
Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC
ARTICLE: Supervised Access: A Long-Term Solution?
Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, November 5, 1998.
October, 1999
37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 478
Author
Martha Bailey
Excerpt
Supervised access is ordered to develop, reestablish, or maintain a relationship between a child and a parent, or other relative, generally with the expectation that unsupervised access will at some point become possible. Some courts and commentators have said that supervised access is not appropriate as a long-term measure. Ontario Provincial Court Judge Norris Weisman wrote that supervised access is “a temporary and time-limited measure designed to resolve a parental impasse over access,” not “a long-term remedy.” 1 Lawyer Karen Oehme, cochair of the Family Visitation Program of Tallahassee, Florida, said, “Attorneys should realize that institutional supervised visitation is not a long-term solution in most family court cases, and that the programs should not be thought of as a substitute for addressing the underlying problems that resulted in the need for supervised visitation in the first place.” 2
In a 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal also emphasized that supervised access should not be “a permanent feature of a child’s life” and decided to terminate access, rather than ordering supervised access, where it was not foreseeable that unsupervised access would ever be possible. 3 A year later, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in a case called Bieganski v. Bieganski, said: “Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.” 4 In 1996, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia clarified that the Bieganski decision did not mean that …
WELL, if one looks at the history and membership of the Children’s Rights Council (which does have a chapter in paris, and the link I clicked seemed to indicate, since about 1999 — not that my French is very good.) and remember who active David Levy (also on board of supervised visitation network is) none of this is too surprising except that it’s not about time to make up some new terminology about now, because Collaborative Law is pretty well established, as is Parenting Coordination. It’s recommended to do this before the U.S. goes bankrupt and the $$ is inflated into worthlessness and no longer the world’s reserve currency, which I can see why considering what we DO with it!
http://www.crckids.org/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-trustees/
David L. Levy, Esq. is a CRC co-founder and former CRC President. He has directed 16 CRC conferences, was editor of the 1993 book entitled “The Best Parents is Both Parents®”, and has recently published an eco-novel entitled “Revolt of the Animals.”
Michael L. Oddenino has been the CRC’s General Counsel since its inception in 1985. He practices family law full time in Arcadia, CA, just outside Los Angeles. He has written numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs and journal articles on family law. His CRC brief in the 1989 Michael H case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court agreed with the CRC that never-married fathers were entitled to a hearing to determine visitation rights to their children, even if the child was born within a marriage of the mother to another man.
Margaret A. Wuwert, Chief Operating Officer, is a retired social worker and serves as Director of CRC of Northwest Ohio. Her agency is one of CRC’s largest chapters with eight Access Centers in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana. In 2002, Ms. Wuwert was recognized by the Lucas County Domestic Relations Court for her untiring dedication and supportive access services to the children and families in the Toledo area.
Mark S. Inzetta, J.D. is the Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Wendy’s International, Inc., based in Dublin, Ohio. Before the CRC, Mark served on the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Commission, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Task Force on Family Law and Children, ***and Board of Directors of the Franklin County, Ohio Chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates.
*** Lots of AFCC influence on that one, I think I blogged it. To get input, they simply flew the task force out to Arizona (home to an AFCC organization) to sit on AFCC presentations; I may have even blogged that. Given Ms. Wuwert, and others, I can see possibly why CRC shows up on the Indiana Child Support site.
Just to show how “totally” unrelated AFCC is from this SVN (that’s bouncing its corporation status from state to state?) here’s what’s scheduled for the October 2011 SVN conference, I guess tax-deductible for the SVN because it’s a regional training, and probably for attendees under education, and probably who knows what else.
“2011 REGIONAL TRAINING for “SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK”: INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA“
“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families, Implications for Supervised Visitation”
Hyatt Regency Hotel Indianapolis, Indiana
October 26,2011
This One Day Institute will focus on the issues presented in Supervised Visitation when Domestic Violence is present. This Institute will provide information to help professionals who work with SV providers, and those who provide direct services, to understand how domestic violence may require changes to their services to respond to the complex dynamic involved.
Scheduled one day before the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Regional Conference:
“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families: A Race with No Winners” at the Hyatt Regency.
For more information about the AFCC Conference, go HERE
(and you can see the great race-car graphics, too….)
I don’t know about that “no winners” part. It seems like great retirement planning if you’re in the business, particularly if you have published something that could be marketed as “parent education” or how to work with flawed parents, or such . . . . .
Cost: $125 for SVN Members, $150 for Non Members (Includes Breakfast and Lunch):
A rate of $135/night at the Hyatt Regency is available through the AFCC Conference: HERE
I think we should look at the current list of AFCC Board Membership, starting with Linda Fieldstone (of Florida), now President: Is your judge on it?
AFCC Board of Directors
President
Linda B. Fieldstone, MEd, Miami, FL
President Elect
Arnold T. Shienvold, PhD, Harrisburg, PA
Vice President
Nancy Ver Steegh, JD, MSW, St. Paul, MN
Secretary
Richard L. Altman, JD, Napoleon, OH
Treasurer
Annette T. Burns, JD, Phoenix, AZ
Past President
Robert M. Smith, JD, MDiv, Windsor, CO
Hon. Peter Boshier, Wellington, New Zealand Hon. Diana Bryant, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Andrea Clark, MSW, St. Louis, MO patti cross, JD, Toronto, ON
Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, Boston, MA Hon. Dianna Gould-Saltman, Los Angeles, CA Hon. R. John Harper, Toronto, ON Grace M. Hawkins, MSW, Tucson, AZ Mindy F. Mitnick, EdM, MA, Edina, MN Hon. Graham R. Mullane, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Marsha Kline Pruett, PhD, MSL, Northampton, MA Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD, Palo Alto, CA Larry V. Swall, JD, Liberty, MO
AFCC Staff
Executive Director
Peter Salem, MA
Which reminds me, some time, to do a post or two on the Hofstra University (NY) connection to AFCC.
Associate Director
Leslye Hunter, MA, LMFT
Program Director
Candace Walker, CMP, CMM
Business and Administrative Director
Chris Shanahan, BA, CPA
Office Manager & Registrar
Dawn Holmes
Program Coordinator
Nola Risse-Connolly, BA
Program Coordinator
Erin Sommerfeld, BA
Administrative Assistant
Jessica Murdy, BS
AND IF YOU LIVE IN INDIANA, be comforted to know they have the violence/danger thing all under control:
Co-sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial Center
I notice that the Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs (aka “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.)-related “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has fully enmeshed itself now with AFCC (and continuing to receive preventing violence discretionary grants, no doubt) and as such will be just about useless when it comes to objective critiques of the AFCC and its impact on our culture and the culture of divorce in re: murder/suicides around exchange of children or the filing of protective orders (so to speak) (I’m referring to Loretta Frederick: Go to TAGGS.hhs.gov and see if you can find the name, or search my blog on the organizations it’ll make more sense):
4. Judicial Officers institute— interparental conflict and domestic Violence: structuring Parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse
The basic implication of “abuse” is danger to the abused, or if access to hurt the abused is cut off, attempts to hurt HER children instead. The most common sense solution would be separation. But that concept has an “irreconciliable difference” with the fathers’ rights and perpetual new professions contingents, so we need to create more tax exempt entities to confer and rehearse how to make these situations work, even if the idea is ridiculous.
You beat a person — you shouldn’t be around children. GOT IT? Why should everyone else pay an adult to be supervised in the presence of children rather than get that adult AWAY from children and let them deal with their life in an adult manner somewhere else. This is called deterrence.
COMMON SENSE though, wouldn’t support the word “institute” which there seems to be always another one of …….
Research has documented that interparental conflict and violence have multiple negative effects on many aspects of parenting and family functioning and on children’s psychological functioning and dysregulation. It is also associated with multiple adjustment problems in children, including internalizing and externalizing problems, PTSD, sleep problems, and school adjustment problems and performance.
IT meaning “interparental conflict and violence.” Is conflict the same as violence? VIOLENCE is directional, and just might have self-defense counter-moves. Two can have conflict, but generally one starts the violence. ACEStudy.org (Kaiser/CDC study, an old one, but a large and 10-years-long one) talked about adverse childhood events having these impacts, two of which such events included physical violence and sexual abuse.
Presenters in this institute will tie the latest research on [how to rename/reframe partner and child abuse] the impact of interparental conflict and domestic violence on children to the practical task of structuring parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse. As a result of this institute, participants will be better able to structure and evaluate parenting arrangements that account for the unique nature of the violence and conflict in the family and link the abuse to the parenting capacities of the parties.
Loretta M. Frederick, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN
Hon. Denise McColley, Henry County Family Court, Napoleon, OH
E. Mark Cummings, PhD, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN
Pamela A. Hayman-Weaner, JD, Defiance, OH Gabrielle Davis, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project,
Minneapolis, MN
And be sure not to miss this pre-conference institute cliff-hanger:
7. domesticabuse,co-Parentingand Parenting time
The rubric of utilizing multiple hypotheses is essential to ensure appropriate interventions, services and parenting plans while addressing any shifts in parent-child estrangement vs. alienation. This workshop will help participants grapple with the complex and sometimes changing dynamics of families in conflict, particularly where domestic abuse is alleged or identified. Various typologies of abusers, victims, and relationships will be examined. Presenters will explore how to conduct initial assessments while elucidating the importance of ongoing assessment and monitoring of any progress.
Amy Van Gunst, MA, Fountain Hill Center, Grand Rapids, MI
Randy Flood, MA, Men’s Resource Center at Fountain Hill, Grand Rapids, MI
Make sure to read aloud the portion in red 3 times fast. Then cogitate on the concept of putting “abuse” and “parenting” in the same place at all. Then think about whether you’d like to have people who speak like that to decide where your child lives, or influence others who do.
SUPERVISED VISITATION very linked in with the AFCC and with, at least the California Courts
[PDF]
SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK (SVN) STANDARDS FOR …
http://www.afccnet.org/…/Supervised_Visitation_Nework-Standards%20Final%2…File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
of the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) Standards Task Force (the “Task …. 1 TheSupervised Visitation Network acknowledges that the concept of both …California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Custody …
Jul 28, 2011 – Why can supervised visitation help in cases where there is or has been … and education requirements of the Supervised Visitation Network. …
WELL, that’s enough fun for one post…. Perhaps it will illustrate a few points for my next one, about the SF Courthouses closing down, but still there are ongoing grants to SFTC from a very interesting few sources….
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 