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

DV LEAP’s New Website Still Derails OPEN (Uncensored) Discussion of The PROBLEM, Digging A Deeper Hole for Survivors of Abuse and Their Children (Started Jan. 27, 2018 | Publ. May 19, 2019). (shortlink to this PAGE ends “-8um” | about 5,800 words)

I had a need for this information in a 2019 post; went looking for it, found this one still in draft, published it the next day (May 19, 2019), rather than re-post the same images.  This is a continuing theme, and it fits within my recent (May 12 – 18) posts.  In case you have some doubts when I really did start this post, I’m adding images from the page’s “revision history” at the bottom.

This title and content, won’t display on the “Current posts” page until I put it there because it’s a “Page.”**

The work was done earlier.  If I need to expand on the topic, I’ll do it in another post (or page).  This one right now is under 6,000 words, i.e., “accessible” (but read the fine print please!).

DV LEAP’s New Website Still Derails OPEN (Uncensored) Discussion of The PROBLEM, Digging A Deeper Hole for Survivors of Abuse and Their Children (Started Jan. 27, 2018 | Publ. May 19, 2019).

The organization’s acronym on the website is “DV LEAP” not run together as one word. I’ve gotten so used to “DVLEAP” throughout this post, probably from the website domain name, I’ll stick with that convention,

[[THIS NEXT CLASSIC EXAMPLE / “THE PROBLEM” SECTION IS FOR ILLUSTRATION OFF-RAMPED FROM “LGH TOP PICKS, THEMES…. Gravatar” new home page.]]

It does this apparently with the blessing of not only the Leadership Council (on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence) but also with the USDOJ/OVW (see website:  Custody Resources), which, I believe, calls that department also into question, and which I will be explaining to some extent below.  And I’m a survivor of in-home marital domestic violence (battering, and the rest) in the 1990s and, with now young adult children, the family court gauntlet, first decade of the 2000s, a process which taken together spanned as many years as some domestic violence leadership claims, with DVLEAP’s tax return stating it first formed in only 2004.

Not that the website says this, but “DVLEAP” stands for “Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals.” Click for this web page.

https://www.dvleap.org/legal-resource-library==>

If this is leadership (and “We Are National Thought Leaders”) indicates it believes it is, then we need a new type which better understands why domestic violence law, unenforced OR even enforced, doesn’t counteract $150M a year, and deliberate saturation of the system, with PRWORA-plus (Social Security Act major revision of 1996 and those in following years) marriage and fatherhood promotion — only the “healthy” type of the former and the “responsible” type of the latter, both of which it takes a nation of villages, counties, states, and public/private partnerships, apparently, to produce in individual cases and as a cultural standard…

Specialized dockets and diversionary services, however, do, especially with help from professional membership associations which, in addition to the massive ABA and the massive APA, represents essentially a combination of both types of professionals (including lawyers who then became judges), and working WITH (not AGAINST) the War on Women because we are Women, by declaring there was an unfair war on men (WHO makes most of the wars, historically, and WHO has been in power, historically over the centuries — and in this country?) which needs to have the heavy hand of the state to re-balance the “equation.”

In other words, there is a larger chessboard with more pieces on it then we supposed to even imagine, while cheering for one side or the other in any given encounter, or attempt to “change the legal system” which DVLEAP’s mandate (web pages, and downloadable promo materials, says it seeks to do).

Another thing to realize is that the organization knows what size it is (small– only three employees as of 2015 tax return, and one of them, the founder, is a full-time professor in addition to this) and where it’s positioned in this mix, IF they are observant. Its total net assets at the end of the year was under $6,000, and the year before, over $11,000 “under” (in the negative).  Its main expenses listed are the salaries, and main receipts, contributions — which I understand in part because it’s focusing on “pro bono” work.  However, I have to also look at the founding year — 2004 (one year after the Battered Mothers Custody Conference started, which by then had already brought in the domestic violence organization coalitions (as I recall, Barry Goldstein, also involved, stated he’d suggested these be brought in).

At this time, PRWORA 1996 in the Clinton Administration was still fresh; it would not have been suddenly “forgotten.”  Moreover, the Family Violence Prevention Fund (now “Futures without Violence” in San Francisco, DC and ?Boston, but California Legal Domicile and formed ca. 1989)’s Esta Soler had been on the board of the Ford Foundation’s “strategic arm” of the “Strengthening Fatherhood Initiative” nonprofit based, first in Illinois, then in Wisconsin, and featuring helping low-income, urban men of color in the welfare system and charged with child support, that is “Center for Public Policy and Practice, Inc.,” previously Center on Fatherhood Policy and Practice, logo in both cases, “CFFPP.” I’ve posted on it, documenting the involvement.

The image with shadowy figures of a family (gray and white, not photos) lists “Board of Directors.”  Second up is Esta Soler.  The images of funders contains a header date, and I have posted on this situation also — how could so many, and such well-heeled, famous funders have, all of them over time, produced so little collective income as is shown on CFFPP’s financials?  At any rate, the USDOJ OVW is one of the funders, and it’s likely that leaders of DVLEAP were aware of this.

I’ve posted extensively on this because of its connection to the influential Ford Foundation and that Foundation’s influence on domestic (at a minimum) family court policies when it comes to men, and when it comes to handling domestic violence issues.

Not only was this the situation, but Esta Soler’s own organization, then FVPF Meanwhile, then in Minnesota, at the UMN, Jeffrey Edleson was working alongside (the late) Susan Schechter as to the Greenbook, followed by the Greenbook Initiative, described on its website, still, as involving, which I also posted (extensively) on, particularly (as I recall) in 2016.

• The USDOJ
• The US HHS
• National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges, which takes grants from both of the above and has a Family Violence Department.
• What is now called “Futures Without Violence” but then was called Family Violence Prevention Fund, and which also took grants from both the USDOJ and the US HHS.

Click image to enlarge or here for the whole list of “Greenbook Initiative Partners”. I’ve posted on this often, esp. in 2016 (but also earlier). While ICF is on the federal faucet for PRWORA-related programming,* it’s neutral enough to evaluate the hand that feeds it when it comes to Domestic VIolence, Child Maltreatment and Custody Issues? Guess so… [*(marriage fatherhood), ICF (International) is a global for-profit (NOT tax-exempt) company that got global by contracting so much with the US federal government and other programming. We’re paying it to gobble up other companies, including some which have been involved in evaluating or collecting child support..It (or some version of it) also was contracting with the National Fatherhood Initiative, probably while doing this evaluation too.//LGH, Jan. 2018 added to this caption]].

AFCC-NCJFCJ Regional Training + Wingspread Conference Sept 2007 (Sidebar Shot, note Regional Conference Title!)

That Greenbook Initiative printed “Guidelines” for handling of “Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment.” … There have been strategic conferences involving, at times the NCJFCJ and the FVPF in Racine Wisconsin at the historic Frank Lloyd Wright “Wingspread” center.

Later, obviously (between 2009 – 2016, see “Obama Administration”) the US Attorney General Eric Holder has addressed the situation of “Children Exposed to Violence” at one or the other of these conferences, in 2009: National Summit involving FVPF and NCJFCJ, and characterized as “almost a decade ago” when the first summit started. His statements (with video also) as posted at the USDOJ. (heavily annotated image placed below, as it happened after the 2007 conferences next bullet talks about).

• The NCJFCJ has conferenced and collaborated with the AFCC at times.  AFCC has also participated in a Wingspread Conference, I believe ca. 2007. (NCJFCJ/Regional Training 2007 in Columbus Ohio (links not active on the pdf), the conference titled: “Applications for High-Conflict Families, Domestic Violence, and Alienation.” (Nearby tall, narrow image shows sidebar from this announcement also identifying the Wingspread Conference).  Note AFCC practice of ensuring that “Domestic Violence” rarely occurs unless paired, or surrounded like bookends, with the two key phrases “High-Conflict _____” (any word, almost, could fill in that blank and AFCC uses all of them over time parents, families, divorces, relationships… so long as the term “high-conflict” is in there) and “Alienation” If not surrounded by those two terms, or used within the phrase “domestic violence ALLEGATIONS” another common usage, and I am talking in settings directly involving, or in publications involving activist members of, “differentiating” or ‘differential response.” … Almost anything to dilute the impact, meaning, and handling of the brutal realities, and cut down on how many reports of domestic violence is actually considered such and handled as such. The same general approach (but different terms) goes towards allegations of child abuse, and especially any child sexual abuse which, within families, is often, but not always, a.k.a. “incest.”

USDOJ, former AG Eric Holder’s June 2, 2009, prepared + video remarks to Natl Summit on Intersection of DV+Child Maltreatmt (but my Annotatns 2018Jan27 (source url is on top of this image). Please click image to enlarge and consider the comments, pls. pardon their taking up almost all free space on the image!

• AFCC has worked with, and seems to have as a favorite “DV Spokespeople” (a token effort must be maintained at concern, inbetween scores of conferences, workshops, pre-workshop institutes, etc. along the more favored AFCC themes:  high-conflict families, parental alienation as child abuse, alleging domestic violence as a form of parental alienation, and solutions for all kinds of problem parents, particularly mothers)  the Battered Women’ Justice Project, an offspring from the (late) Ellen Pence-lead Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP”) and the program of “coordinated community response.”).

Regarding that last bullet starting  “AFCC has worked with…”, my page here is about DVLEAP.  DVLEAP also links to: NCJFCJ and BWJP’s pages (and the old, that is seven years old: The organization changed its name in 2010!!) website for what is now “Futures without Violence” and other “DV Organizations” — but does NOT breathe a whisper, even, that an association such as the AFCC exists.

Take a look (‘National Resources’ image with DV LEAP logo):

2nd bullet — BWJP (link is current and active); 3rd is old name AND link for “Futures,” 4th currently leads to an “account suspended” message**; and the last, 10th, bullet, “StopFamilyViolence.org,” to a German-language discussion of “BitCoin,” at least when I click on it.  Notice that the NCJFCJ (fourth from bottom) is also on there.

**“Justice for Children” (a well-known player to anyone following, or dealing with the “Broken Courts Crowd,” and some mothers I’ve spoken to over the years actually believed this entity might give them some help, unfortunately) is ALSO a broken link.  More current links for “Justice for Children” and for what used to be “Endabuse.org.”  And by jfcadvocacy.org, if the group associated with Eileen King is meant, which given the context and collaborations quite possibly is, she is now working out of “Child Justice, Inc.” since December 2012.

(Checking the “Internetarchive.org” website, or “WayBackMachine” showing that “JFCAdvocacy.org had webcrawlers taking screen snapshots (that’s what this WayBackMachine does, as well as displaying them in searchable formats: what a wonderful service for those interested in the development or organizations’ self-portrayals over time) over many years, the latest date which it led to a redirect to “JusticeForChildren.org” (this is it), which date you can see within the URL also. From this I see that the organization meant is associated with (and was started ca. 1989 by) Randy Burton, Harris County, TX  Click there and it’s “About Us” or “History” page for more details, which says in part:

Justice for Children was founded upon the belief that every child is entitled to a zealous advocate to fight for their [i.e., “his or her”] safety. When the system fails to provide such advocacy, we will. Since 1987, Justice for Children has grown to a nationwide, nonprofit organization with offices in Washington, D.C., Phoenix, Arizona, and, recently, Detroit, Michigan. We have been featured on ABC News PrimeTime Live, ABC News 20/20, ABC��?s Good Morning America, HBO’s America Undercover: “Women on Trial,” The Discovery Channel’s Justice Files, the Phil Donahue Show, and CNN’s Nancy Grace Show. Our Attorney Training Program was selected as the winner of the Public Service Award, Young Lawyer’s Division, by the American Bar Association at its annual convention. Much of the work done at JFC is performed by volunteer attorneys and interns from various universities and law schools.

JFCAdvocacy.org Calendar bargraph (years it was “crawled” and snapshots taken; from the InternetArchive.org “(=WaybackMachine) on any highlit year a 12-month calendar displays; dates pictures were taken of the website can be clicked on. That’s how I got the “redirect message nearby.

JFCAdvocacy.org webshot as far back as Oct. 23, 2012 shows a redirect (new website in effect), but as late as Jan. 2018, DVLEAP.org posted the old link, for which the redirect finally expired in May, 2017. Not exactly “tuned in” it seems to me…

From checking sequentially earlier and earlier on the WayBack Machine, I can see that as far back as October 2012, a click on “JFCAdvocacy.org” was redirecting to “JusticeforChildren.org” until sometime perhaps May, 2017, the redirect probably expired.  I.e., providing the old link dates back at least 5 years.  (I may post more evidence as a footnote here).  Wayback Machine Webcrawler specifically for the “DV organizations” page history (27 captures over 7 years, 2010 – 2014) snapshot July 31, 2014 shows the “endabuse.org” (then a name about three years expired) for FVPF now Futures Without Violence) was still up.  The basic list was the same, though the list of national organizations was in different order.  No more, no fewer resources listed in July 2014 than in early 2018. By this time (7/31/2014), again, JFCAdvocacy.org website also listed identically there, was around 2 years expired and any staff or board members clicking on it, at the DV LEAP website could have observed the redirect happening and notify whoever was in control of the website.

But none, apparently, did. I call that “perfunctory reporting“as well as a little strange…

Which has me also curious about when the newer version of DVLEAP was assembled, which, unlike the older ones, doesn’t even post the organization’s full name clearly, if anywhere (but it has many photos, mostly with no captions(!) identifying the people in them, of friendly and happy looking participants).   Without dragging viewers through all the screenshots, the website started reading “Under Construction” but with old logo and complete name at the top, in May 2017.  Towards July, it continued so, but the old logo and display of the full organization name at the top were gone (and hierarchy of pages possibly being re-arranged).  The latest webshot (produced by automatic “crawler” function) is Sept. 2017, which had no logo showing any more.  No snapshot of the most recent version (which must have come up sometime between then and now, about four months later only).

My own website (familycourtmatters.org being a more recent redirect from “…wordpress.com,” during blog upgrade from free domain) showed more visitors between Nov. and Now, and over time, it looks like just 105 visits throughout. (Next two images.  This is really “incidental” to the topic, a possible point of comparison (perhaps the DV LEAP website isn’t getting that much traffic) but I certainly wouldn’t over-interpret from it.  For more info on the function, check “Internet Archive” wikipedia or its home page; for example, website owners can also retroactively opt out of being recorded (per the Wiki).

WayBack Machine Bar Graphs of their Image Captures over time, FamilyCourtMatters’org (shorter graph) and —Wordpress.com inclusive, taken 2018Jan27

WayBack Machine Bar Graphs of their Image Captures over time, FamilyCourtMatters’org (shorter graph) and —Wordpress.com inclusive, taken 2018Jan27

Older version also made staff and board bios available, which are hard to locate (even for founder Joan Meier!) on the current website:

Older version, courtesy an InternetArchive.org lookup (see top margin: Nov. 2014) DVLEAP website shows its full business name across the top banner. No longer so.…

What kind of web maintenance is all this? (Re: Legal Resource Library, DV Orgs, National Resources subsection-bottom half of the page under “DC area” resources). Out of those 10 links, 3 don’t work!  Are people supposed to just never get to or through this list, and if/once they do, are they to also just forget about how many links are not current, while believing the organization is credible in claiming it has the strategies and knows the “national resources” to help people in their distressed situations (for those actually seeking help with their cases, and to be one of the chosen ones to get a custody reversal after having lost custody of their children to ex-batterers..).

The DAIP historically has been financially (a LOT) smaller than, say, “Futures” but what size it was, tax returns say, is thanks primarily to government grants — and TAGGS.HHS.Gov shows that most of this was from the Dept. of HHS. In addition, the progressive Wellstone Family (the late, until airplane crash in 2003, Senator Paul and his wife Sheila) have presented at an AFCC Conference, alongside known fatherhood promoter from (now, DNR where then, Columbia University), Ronald Mincy, PhD, also publicly known for his association with the Ford Foundation and its fatherhood promotion over many years.  Both the late Senator and his wife Sheila are well-known in Minnesota, and actively supported the field of supervised visitation, with which DAIP is particularly involved.

This has become a major problem profession since, for both men, women and children.  It was also a federally supported, nationwide, profession via the Access and Visitation grants through HHS, smaller in size than Marriage/Fatherhood grants as they were.

Mincy was also involved in the welfare reform policy group (see Clinton Presidential Library for some of the records), understandably (he had Ford backing and degrees from both Harvard and MIT) BEFORE 1996.  The center from which he now works at Columbia has also close involvement with Irwin Garfinkel, who is married to Princeton’s Sarah McLachlan, at a Center she runs there (and has for years), which, with Brookings Institution and in close collaboration, apparently with Brookings’ Ronald Haskins (“Mr. Welfare Reform”) and Isabel Sawhill, both of the Center for Children and Families at Brookings, and which publication from that Princeton Center, promoting these views, is called “The Future of Children.”

I recently found “The Future of Children” as partnering with a British (England and Wales) charity associated with a major law firm “Mishcon DeReya” which itself has ties to the Tavistock Centre for Couples and Relationships — recently (2016) named “Tavistock Relationships.”

Voices in the Middle (referring to better involving children’s voices, specifically in regard to private online dispute mediation proceedings around the family courts) explains where it’s coming from.

Image 1 of 3, Family Initiative (UK) Home page, top — Children’s faces, talk of family.

Image 3 of 3, Family Initiative (UK) Home page, Bottom: Middle is a collaboration tying back to USA (Princeton, Brookings); Voices in the Middle is actually (further clicks show) in part, British gov’ts. response to “Dispute Resolution Council” Final Report with a focus on having children involved in out-of-court, private, mediation or dispute resolution processes.The gov’t response document references prominently ONE professional, Janet Walker, OBE who is an AFCC member, and chair (currently) of its “international committee,” as well as on the board of editors (through 2019) on its Family Court Review…

This relationship puts it closely aligned with the concept or promoting and pushing psychoanalysis, group therapy and individual counseling for as many people as possible, throughout the lifespan, and as a public interest. I believe it also has ties straight back to Anna Freud (daughter of the famous Sigmund) and, to be straightforward, there are problems with this association.

The British Charity is called “The Family Initiative” and one of its projects is “Voices in the Middle” with clear, and close ties to the work of AFCC in the USA (or vice versa), including appointed personnel on a task force helping promote such programming in the UK. I’ve posted on this recently, or it may be on a page I’m about to publish alongside this one and the new home page.

On the same British charity website called “The Family Initiative,” is a separate portion, the “Child and Family Blog” claimed to have only been started in 2013 based on an informal idea of some collaborators, which pulls in three major players, which I’ll simply show here:

• Here’s one classic example [of the situation I described on new home page], used to support the need for a project by taking an unsupported position with a LOT of hidden assumptions.  The subtlety of “nonsequitur” is involved — arranging one authoritative and reasonably credible statement, spoken from a known authority in the field (which DVLEAP’s founder, Joan Meier  (scroll down, go to the 5th slide show under her; it’s not presented up front) (1980 undergrad “magna cum laude,” Harvard, JD Univ. of Chicago 1983, clerked on 7th Appellate Court of Appeals) has been, and has been “more than” for years (see her GWU profile).
• It starts out with an anecdotal theme (“my abuser had me in court endlessly; I wish the courts would recognize”) then states its analysis (sic) which as stated isn’t analysis, it’s declaration to be taken on faith: no proof attached and none referenced either…), Here’s that quote, just three short sentences… I’ll number them….
• [1.] Despite numerous legislative and policy reforms designed to protect victims of domestic violence, many survivors and their children are denied legal protections in court. [2] Appeals are a remarkably effective tool for correcting unjust legal decisions.  [3]  However they are rare because they are expensive and require appellate expertise.
• That’s it!  “The Problem” in format of, first an unsupported, vaguely defined** but generally credible statement followed by a second (dropping the first theme, or supporting it in any way on that page or by some link to that page) tangentially related and much less credible unsupported statement, followed by a third, saying why this solution hasn’t been tried enough yet.
• **There are different kinds of courts — criminal and civil — both handling DV, with different approaches to it, which is a known issue bypassed here in the summary.  This effectively takes “family courts” as a possible cause of the problem, out of the discussion.  That’s a HUGE topic which does lead to other valuable information on the outcomes of domestic violence survivors IN the family courts, and in the criminal ones too, when cases are off-ramped into family instead of being prosecuted. This derails the discussion of the profit motive as a possible factor in cases that are “churned.”
  • The first banner says, “my abuser had me in court constantly” but in truth, it’s not just [him] where federal grants to the states, and sub-granted out to contracting agencies, can provide help, for example, even from within prison, to noncustodial fathers to modify their child support and custody orders — and no comparable help exists in the same system for women in this stage of custody decision-making.
  • DVLEAP and colleagues want to keep the focus on “the abuser” and will talk and write about economic coercion by individuals (Evan Stark, etc.) — but not economic coercion by the state. Vocabulary is limited to limit thinking.
• Here, this makes no reference to gender of victims at this stage, but on the same page (and by virtue, elsewhere on the site, of the USDOJ/OVW as a primary funder, it’s basically, women).  This effectively takes “gender” as a possible cause, still, out of the discussion. That too, is a HUGE topic which, mentioned, might lead to other valuable information on those “legislative and policy reforms” in terms of federal grants funding BOTH sides of the gender gap.
• “Appeals are a remarkably effective tool” is not framed in terms of effectiveness OR whether this is the fairest, best, or most efficient way for people with limited resources to seek justice. DVLEAP can’t take that many cases, but wants to take more in what large “legislative and policy” environment?
• Nevertheless, the organization says, “We are National Thought Leaders…” I kid you not! (see nearby image.)
• 
• In this next “gallery” format (click on top left first to read in order), the quote is on the top of the page, the largest, white-background, image “The PROBLEM” image is the middle section, and the “58,000” estimated children court-ordered into unsupervised care of an absent father each and every year” is the bottom.  All three (on website) are about the same size.

• 

  

  

• 

  Finally, under “58,000 section,” at the very bottom of the “The Problem” Page is the solicitation: “DVLEAP HAS THE STRATEGIES, BUT …we need your help to create lasting change” (through this cause…).  They want to change the LEGAL system.  What about the HHS systems affecting it? How do this without naming names and a roadmap to the opposing side’s (or resistant-to-change side’s) own strategies, INCLUDING THE SUPPLY-SIDE?  THAT’s WHAT LAWYERS ARE TRAINED TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE:  LITIGATE! THEY’RE NOT ECONOMIC IGNORAMUSES, and MUST UNDERSTAND SOURCES OF SUPPORT, PRO AND CON.

  Quick Comments.  Warning:  reading this is likely to “alienate” some categories of people, and offend others, as I am talking about efforts since 2004 undertaken by an organization formed by a full-time law professor at a DC university and (though small projects receiving USDOJ OVW grants.  On the other hand, BOTH of the above may be part of the problem. And, as a survivor, and in general, I have a right to look at any nonprofit’s track record, websites, and level of credibility….and particularly from lawyers, to uncover the relevant facts to a larger situation and to use reason in argumentation.

  58,000 children a year, besides a statement unqualified and unsupported by other then reputation of the other nonprofit alleging it, is also a sound-byte identifying DVLEAP (which is small)’s connection to that nonprofit which historically has made news arguing against “parental alienation” as unsound psychological theory. (That nonprofit, per its tax returns, is so small as to be nearly invisible, though not if one counts on-line references to it). This argumentation has been conducted, historically (and I’ve known about this entity for years now; mothers tend to reblog its statements hopefully; its been mentioned over many years as part of Battered Mothers Custody Conference in NY and what I called the “Broken Courts” crowd. If this nonprofit is so concerned about the promotion of parental alienation, why not point out who’s been promoting it so heavily decade after decade? It’s not exactly ‘rocket science’ to know. This blog does, and plenty of it even on this page.  The leadership of both nonprofits DOES know about the existence of the primary promoting organization — it’s practically running the family court system, and proud of it; many lawyers are members — but strategically have managed to avoid talking about it or even breathing its name aloud, year after year.  So we have, in this connection two nonprofits with leadership obviously positioning to emphasize with battered mothers or protective mothers and their children, which are engaged in CENSORSHIP of information about who they are really up against, instead steering them in this “more appellate cases needed” theory.

  The two organizations are both showing low-financials, but in this field, fairly high visibility.  They acknowledge being partnered with each other AND with the US DOJ/s Office of Violence Against Women (see “Custody Resources” page) and under “DV Organizations/ National) refers customers also to “Justice for Children” and the standard panorama of DV networked organizations (taking HHS and or DOJ and/or private grants), including several broken, misdirected, or simply old and not redirecting links. ALSO N=not shown:  Their own financials or EIN#, or even proper legal business name.

  

  DVLEAP.org, bottom margin: Have a magnifying glass? In this case, it won’t help anyhow (links direct elsewhere on site).

  Instead, there are two TINY links at the VERY bottom of the web page — but neither leads to any financials.  Also not shown — the full business name of the entity such that someone else could look it up easily.  It’s “Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project” EIN# 201076297, and that’s a recent tax return (2015) showing only 3 employees (Joan Meier, Dawn Dalton, and one unidentified). It is (recently) taking in $295K (Contributions) and spending most of it ($244K) on salaries, not very large ones, leaving, this year, almost net assets $6K; the prior year, a negative balance.

   

  ---

  In general,** they seek women that have already lost once, essentially to take on in court actions, with them, multi-million-dollar federal grants streams and networks (apparatus) positioned AGAINST them, in essence, going into battle with faulty armor AND faulty information in a venue with the odds stacked against them and by design against handling crime as crime. Their opponents in this venue are not using faulty armor — they have authority, connections, backing of the federal government AND backing of, at this point, a virtually consolidated and controlled DV apparatus (nationwide) which doesn’t want to deal with the topics I raised in the last paragraph even more than these two small entities do.  It appears that the USDJO’s OVAW is also implicit in silence on the HMRF funding when it comes to problems in the family courts involving domestic violence, too.  I guess it’ll have to be up to “the commoners…”   (**WEBSITE, AND THE TAX RETURNS THAT AREN’T ON IT, STATE MORE SPECIFICS ON WHAT THE ENTITY DOES, AND HOW).

  ---

  To accept that “58,000 a year” is even approaching legitimate, requires suspension of any number sense or even THINKING about how many family courts there are nationwide (NY has 58 counties, which typically have family courts, and ONE of those is in NYC.  So does California, not to mention the other 48 states (and territories). What % of them even might be court-ordering children into the care of an abusive, specifically, father.  By using the word “father” it also clearly is targeting mothers as the victims.  I can’t disagree (having walked in those shoes that we often are) but note that using the word here positions the nonprofit and would attract traumatized or compromised women into its ranks, or followers and steer them into this worldview.  ….Not to mention including the word “unsupervised care” is a back-door (subliminal, subtle) acceptance of supervised visitation as a practice, or potential remedy, in addition to more appellate case history getting on the record.  If 58K children into the UNsupervised care of an abusive father is part of the problem, then implication, more, better supervised visitation would be part of the solution.

  But IS it, really? How’s that been working so far? Well, it gets turned on the non-abusive parents, too. A win/win if one is in the practice — assuming you’re not around when someone failed to use the metal detector and scan for safe visitation (August, 2013, Manchester, NH; father committed suicide with gun DURING visitation after first killing son.  He’d threatened to, which occasioned this form of protection, was provided the opportunity, and as threatened, did so.  (Muni & Joshua Savyon).

  ALL IN ALL, this approach has some of the appeal, and certainly some of the tactics, of some religions.  FIRST, get them OFF any logically solid ground,  (given the context) and provide NO visible connections to information indicating it might be sinking, and not solid.  Once that’s achieved, the sky’s the limit on what can be alleged, claimed or attempted.  All that’s needed is enough warm bodies (traumatized and/or angry mothers, or even aged-out children JUST as clueless about the key elements of the networks — I’ve mentioned two here: Federal HMRF Grants + the AFCC — given the collective silences on them).

• END “CLASSIC ILLUSTRATION” SECTION, RE: DVLEAP WEBSITE & The LEADERSHIP COUNCIL ON CHILD ABUSE AND INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE (AS PARTNER) AND (SUPPORTING IT) THE US DOJ/OVW’S INVOLVEMENT THEREIN.

Footnote: Stop Family Violence (image gallery and quote from someone else who preserved an archived page on the IACHR (international petition) on another blog. The footprint for this remains near the “BreaktheCycle.org” logos on my current “Front Page.”

“The cases in this petition represent the proverbial tip of the iceberg,” says Irene Weiser, executive director of the online organization  Stop Family Violence.  “We are contacted by an average of three protective mothers each week who have lost custody to fathers accused of child abuse – in many cases with supporting medical evidence. This is a nationwide crisis of enormous proportion.”

“The lives of thousands of children and mothers have been irreparably harmed by family courts across our nation,” says Joyanna Silberg, Ph.D., executive vice-president of The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, another national organizations supporting the petition. “The years of trauma and psychological abuse because of the courts’ failings result in lasting emotional damage to the children they are supposed to protect.” … …

In addition to The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, other national organizations supporting the international lawsuit include: National Organization for Women and the NOW Foundation, National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice For Children, National Family Court Watch Project, Legal Momentum, Family Violence Prevention Fund, National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, Domestic Violence Report, Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute, and the National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence. The petition is supported by many state organizations as well.

In December 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights for their failure to protect Jessica Gonzales’ three children from their abusive father, who murdered them.  Their petition, the first of its kind, asserted that domestic violence victims have the right to be protected by the state from the violent acts of their abusers.

For additional information contact:Irene Weiser
Stop Family Violence

~ ~ ~ This is as far as I got in January 2018 (at least entered on this page).  Below is an image showing the revision dates for any skeptics.  The url in the images has a page identifier (“post=32634”) in both “Published” (May 19, 2019) and “Revisions” screenshots.

To go to the top of the page, click on the link in either caption (or, page-up!)