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

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

Posts Tagged ‘Access/Visitation grants

The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]

leave a comment »

ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS and UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS WITH PRESIDING JUDGES PRONE TO ORDERING PARENT EDUCATION SUPPOSEDLY HELP THE US TAXPAYERS THROUGH ENCOURAGING BETTER CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS FROM FATHERS THANKFUL TO BE MORE EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED WITH THEIR CHILDREN.

MAYBE — BUT I KNOW FOR SURE THEY HELP SPONSOR PUBLIC/PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURS LIKE THIS — AND APPARENTLY HAVE BEEN FOR DECADES.

ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS + (MANDATORY) PARENT EDUCATION DO SEEM TO PROMOTE TAX-EXEMPT INCOME, FOR LIFE – FOR SOME.

 

ASK JACK ARBUTHNOT** & DONALD ARCHER GORDON HOW THEY SLEEP AT NIGHT…PhD or no PhD…(in psychology).

 

{{*Any relation to this?  Whether or not, the name seems to be Scottish:  http://www.arbuthnotgroup.com/group_history.html}}

Notice the share price! What’s an unusual last name to me and so caught my attention, is not so unusual overseas I see…

Regarding this court-based referral to parenting education programming — for local cases, the referral is going to a behavioral health service provider in Ohio.  This is intended for out-of-state parents or Spanish-speaking mandated parent education being handled within this county in Ohio.

POST TITLE:  The Public/Private Not-For-Profit/For Profit “Get Your Clients To Get Them Grants To Run Your Curricula, UpLoad and Automate It” Family-Court-Connected BUSINESS PLAN Works ‘Great.’ [Just ask Jack Arbuthnot + Don A. Gordon] [Written Feb. 2018, published Dec. 7, 2018]. (Case-sensitive short-link ends”-8HX”. Post started Feb. 26, 2018 but screen prints taken mid-January, and I added some in the middle re: (Director P. Leslie Herold Ph.D receiving a 2011 AFCC award) as a pre-publication flourish. And the next few images + Britannica.com quote (no attempt to prove direct connection here, just looked up the somewhat unusual last name “Arbuthnot” and find this interesting).  Plus, who knows, there may be some geneaology there… Some of the intro is also added.

{{Check back on this post in a day or so for added tags and possible copyediting for more clarity.. As posted Dec. 7 it’s about 5,000 words, including captions for any and all images.  Click on any image to enlarge if that’s how your viewing device works.}}

Whoever latched onto the business model I’m blogging here clearly had some financial smarts, too… and possibly smarts enough to figure out it wouldn’t be figured out by most of the forced-consumption-of-services parents feeding its revenues as a routine process of approaching domestic relations courts for justice or any form of help with divorce or custody issues.  I believe if more had figured it out, more would certainly be talking about it and demand better accountability from those courts — instead of better and more training for judges to recognize either fathers’ rights or a real batterer and dangerous parent when they run across them.

(NB: A Cleveland JUDGE recently did only nine months for viciously beating his wife (reconstructive surgery was involved and needless to say, they became “estranged”), in front of two children in a car, was then hired by local on getting out and since stands accused of having stabbed her to death not long ago, per accounts on Twitter. She’s dead, he’s going to be busy for a while, effectively two more traumatized “fatherless” orphans for the system…or his or her relatives.. Articles show just how many people were aware of his behavior and let it slide…)  In The Slate, Molly Olmstead, Nov. 19, 2018. His name is Lance Mason:

Lance Mason, Cleveland’s minority business administrator, was arrested after police responded to a domestic violence call and found his estranged wife, 45-year-old teacher Aisha Fraser Mason, dead on her driveway, according to WKYC, a Cleveland NBC affiliate.

Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder

Former Cleveland Judge Hired by City after Violently Beating His Wife is Now Arrested for her Murder See internal links for more background on rationalization, “give the guy another chance” and who favored hiring him for another government job after getting out of jail early for the first VICIOUS assault.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is lack of judicial training really the issue there and overall? (Or fatherlessness?).  How could the wife have gotten along better with THAT?  Suppose he hadn’t killed her — then they’d be co-parenting?  Ordered to co-parenting education classes locally?


FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)

FYI, of interest, only “Arbuthnot.” Arbuthnot Group History (1833-2013)

(John Arbuthnot, 1667 (Scotland) – 1735 (London, England)  Scottish mathematician, physician and occasional (satirical) author, per Britannica.com):

“John Arbuthnot, (born April 1667, Inverbervie, Kincardine, Scot.—died Feb. 27, 1735, London, Eng.), Scottish mathematician, physician, and occasional writer, remembered as the close friend of Jonathan SwiftAlexander Pope, and John Gay and as a founding member of their famous Scriblerus Club, which aimed to ridicule bad literature and false learning.”**

 

**My, we’ve come a long way since then…to divorce mediator, developmental and social psychologist, Ohio University psychology professor emeritus and trainer of domestic relations judges ((see next image with the real Dr. Jack and Dr. Don self-description on the company website):

Click image to large, or see website here

I’ve also tweeted in recent months about the involvement of Cuyahoga County, Ohio (where you’ll find Cleveland), in this routine. Just FYI, I got there from following through with a strange new comic-book-style graphic showing (still) on the California Judiciary Council website which just happened to have been contracted out to (or designed by) a Canadian charity.

Go on, tell me that “AFCC” had nothing to do with the above (see also P. Leslie Herold info below). Keep telling yourself that, too: the world may seem a much more manageable place — and you’ll be more easily managed, too believing that our justice systems are “manageable, give or take a few flawed practices and misunderstandings (about certain psychological theories) that need correction, our justice systems in fact still may be manageable — or I should say (as they are showing clear signs of private management out-of-jurisdiction and sometimes out-of-country too), responsive to the citizens over which they hold extreme power in routine matters affecting life, death, commerce, relationships with offspring, and the ability to retain the fruits of one’s labors (employment or business income) somewhat corresponding to the efforts put in…

Evidently the business plan works well.

The main problem I have with it is that it just seems wrong morally, ethically, and logistically.

The Center for Divorce Education website, Don A. Gordon bio blurb.

The Center for Divorce Education is the nonprofit. It’s legal domicile OHIO but entity address OREGON (“Go figure,” but that’s hardly news when dealing with family court-based business referrals) while featuring on-line delivery of product.  I have no idea whether it’s only being pushed through judicial “special proceedings” mandate in Ohio, but doubt it.  With the existing networks, it could easily be in other states too — I just happened to run across it there after finding a book by this man being promoted in California…


Family Works, Inc. offering to coach others (agencies, which could include other nonprofits running health & human services programming) to get public funding to run its “Parenting Wisely” program. Family Works CEO being Donald A. Gordon.

This would seem to be (or have been) the associated “for-profit.”  Some of the coaching involves how to get grants to better help Dr. Gordon with his retirement(? just a guess) income or at least significant life interests in sharing his parenting wisdom more widely.

Who can find whether Family Works, Inc. is now registered in some other state, or exists as a trade name of a professional provider, or just doesn’t exist — but several hundred thousand dollars of royalties — each year — are allegedly going to it anyhow? I haven’t yet.  I just know where it isn’t..

How often, and in how many instances should volunteer bloggers and family court concerned citizens have to look up such things?  The nonprofit, so says its return (links and images provided below) was incorporated back in 1987.

How long are we going to NOT be talking about such business models and things like public-funded distribution networks supported by the public parent-by-parent AND collectively?  This dyad (the two entities) or if you bring in the judge who ruled it into place in 1994, triad, or if you also consider the federal funds increased nationally (1996), we seem to have a solid, four-point foundation for the practice.  Then there are the promoters (salesforce) — other associations, researchers (someone has to have SOME basis for pushing the programming — fatherlessness and public debt burden seems to work well) and so forth…

Seems like a prototype — probably not the first and certainly not the only one. Let me know if this example communicates, either in the comments fields, or on Twitter (all published posts are automatically tweeted by this WordPress blog).


Case in point here — two corporations.  One of them, “Center for Divorce Education, Inc.”  only has been located as a still active, though strangely organized, nonprofit; the other, probably the one receiving most of the royalties listed as expense of doing business for the nonprofit, is a for-profit “Family Works, Inc. (while doing my routine “locate the company before blogging it” I just found out), it seems isn’t –at least under that business name in that address — legal, and wasn’t showing that street address (now visible on-line) as legally associated with the name before 2016, although to read the website, you’d think it’d been around since 2002 or before.

{Section in light-blue background, dark-red border, and between horizontal lines just below marks commentary and any images Dec. 2018 just before publishing this post.  The material clarifies some terms and the reference to “Grants” in the post title. Some sarcasm and astonishment at how rare this information hits social media crept in but iI believe is highly appropriate.}


I’ve been around this block enough times (meaning..) (and wish more others also had) to say, this same “not-for-profit/for-profit” –– “Whoops! It WAS here, now where is it (registered legally)?” seems to be a normal part of the business plan also.  Another way to describe it (Disclaimer: NOT legal advice: I’m neither a CPA (yet; thinking about it just to get some Qs answered) or an Attorney (no way!), which makes this personal opinion) is doing a good imitation of basic income tax evasion tactics to one’s business plan — while “where’d that money go” when so closely connected to public institutions like family courts, is a question that DEMANDS answers. Hiding it is hardly in the public interest…

NOTE (12/8/2018): I wrote this before looking up the business associated with another “Center for Divorce Education” listed director (P. Leslie Herold of Southern California, “Solutions for Families”) and found it had registered one year (not the year it claims to have started but about 7 years later) and quickly dissolved itself — “quickly” meaning, within only two years. In what form “Solutions for Families” now exists (just like ‘Family Works, Inc.’) and registered as a business or trade name (if it is) in which state, is another unanswered question until I — or a reader, or someone else — looks it up and publicizes it. Images (from California Secretary of State Business Entities Search website) posted below).

If you’re in Riverside or San Bernardino County, California with a custody case (or just concerned in general about the family courts), I’d keep looking. Feel free to contact me through twitter or a comment to this post if you have further leads. Again, this seems to be a pattern among certain (AFCC-connected) professionals. Another one that comes to mind from California is “Transitioning Families, LLC”) which formed and was quickly cancelled, but retains a website and of course, conference presence. For that one, Rebecca Bailey’s name only appears on the middle year’s filing out of only 3 pdfs shown. NOTE: There were significant wildfires in the area similarly.

Transitioning Families, LLC (CalEntity#2016342201634210003, a flash-in-the-pan existence; middle pdf only shows Rebecca Bailey’s name (associated with reunification camps and well-known stranger-abductee recovered (after 18 years captive and raped, becoming a mother etc.) in Contra Costa County, Jaycee Dugard. A situation which subsequent AFCC conferences and professionals exploited to push their non-stranger family abduction (reunification) causes.

Transitioning Families, LLC (CalEntity#201634210003, a flash-in-the-pan existence; middle pdf only shows Rebecca Bailey’s name (associated with reunification camps and well-known stranger-abductee recovered (after 18 years captive and raped, becoming a mother etc.) in Contra Costa County, Jaycee Dugard. A situation which subsequent AFCC conferences and professionals exploited to push their non-stranger family abduction (reunification) causes.

WITHOUT the final suffix “LLC” or “INC” or other indicator of its form of doing legal business, and where.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If only more people would start asking it…and take the time to discover how, although it’s certainly less than clear, the business referral setup  — the scene is set — in administrative judicial-rules already reasonably knowing of public funds to further prop up the referral system…

In this post title, when I referred to “get them grants,” I am of course referring more generally to the “Access and Visitation” Grants to states, $10M/year nationally since 1996 and as part of USA’s 1996 Welfare Reform Act called (for short) “PRWORA” and basically continued, under different names depending on the reauthorization year, ever since.  I did find one group (in Texas) using the Family Works, Inc. programming which seems to be receiving a variety of Welfare-Reform-related grants (I’m referring to marriage/fatherhood promotion also)… but his post doesn’t track that factor — it tracks the two entities in question and a director or two.  The Access and Visitation grants prime the pump for exactly the type of court-connected professionals and businesses described here and are an essential part of the overall business plan, which is more than nationwide at this point.

Read the rest of this entry »

Stocking Stuffers: 2009-2010 Status of Women, if Jesus had been born in CPS era, and Jurisdictionary plea.

with 2 comments

 

California Commission on the Status of Women 2009

http://women.ca.gov/images/pdf/issues/1073.2009.2010publicpolicyagenda.pdf

 

Public Policy Agenda

and Proposals

to the

Governor and State

Legislature

2009 – 2010 Session

 

 

 

HERE is the list Family Law is 9th.

 

 

2009-2010 Priorities • 1
Child Care • 2
Civil Rights • 3
Economic Security • 4
CalWORKS • 5
Education • 6
Employment • 8
Family Law • 9
Health • 10
Substance Abuse and Mental Health • 13
Long Term Care & Aging • 14
Reproductive Health • 15
Crisis Pregnancy Centers • 16
Teen Pregnancy and Parenting • 17
Violence • 17
Sexually Exploited Minors • 19
Teen Dating Violence • 20
Women and Girls in the CriminalJustice System • 20
Women and Corrections • 20
Girls in the Juvenile Justice System • 22
Women Veterans • 23

================

 

This would be good reading, for sure…..

 

Family Law

 

California is failing to protect its most
vulnerable children.

 

[[Not that this is exactly breaking news…]]

 

Whether it is child support enforcement, the foster care system, or the family courts, the rights and safety of many women and
children are at risk.

 

[[In a masterful understatement, not mentioned here — many have also died, probably needlessly… Others remain in the custody of their abusers…In truth “at risk” is a diversionary phrase.  They have died.  What about THOSE?  So, as to the living ones, then…]]

 

Courts are overburdened and
court personnel often lack knowledge and
resources needed to address the complex issues
of domestic violence and child abuse. [*] Women
often suffer financially and emotionally as a result
of unjust rulings
. In order to improve outcomes for
children and families, the Commission supports
the following agenda:

Legislative Proposals
1. Establish an independent state-level oversight
committee/commission to review child custody
proceedings to better inform public policy, with a
particular focus on cases with allegations of
child abuse or domestic violence (Priority)

2. Establish a multidisciplinary team of professionals
with expertise in assessing child abuse
and domestic violence to evaluate cases when
child custody is in dispute and such allegations
are made against one of the parties
3. Strengthen the right of custodial parents to
relocate without the risk of losing custody of
children
4.Support a State General Fund appropriation to
backfill lost federal matching incentive funds for
administrative costs in the child support program**
5. Require judges, mediators, custody evaluators,
law enforcement officers and social workers to
receive education on how to coordinate and
interface with all appropriate agencies in child
custody cases as a means of preventing
systems from failing to meet the needs of
families

If you know my blog, you know I’m not into this solution, because I don’t think that’s the problem. I think that if these personnel receive MOTIVATION (not “education”) to do the right thing, when evidence is on the record, that would be a nice gift for this season….

 

6. Allow children the opportunity to speak directly to the judge regarding their custody and visitation wishes and needs

 

 

And just hope that no undue influence has been applied outside the court…. (??? in a DV case??)

 

 

Administrative Proposals
7. Require judicial education regarding
• the dynamic of domestic violence and child
abuse, including the invalidity of the
“Parental Alienation Syndrome” (Priority)
• transgender individuals to prevent
discrimination in child custody matters due
to a parentʼs transgender status
8. Support a request for a Joint Legislative Audit
Committee to audit child custody cases involving
allegations of child abuse or domestic violence
9. Establish a judicial performance evaluation
system for appellate and trial court judges and
commissioners using American Bar Association
guidelines…

 

Study Proposals
10. An update of the 1987 “Senate Task Force On
Family Equity” report on family law
11. A study of gender fairness in the California
family courts

 

 

[added in 2011 commentary:]

[*]Viewing this post, over a year later, again (as then) phrases pop out, that somehow we, the public, are to understand ( believe) that Judges DON’T understand what we do —  behaving like an out of control kindergartner in a marriage (or after sex has produced a child, producing whats’ called a mother, and a father, if not a family) and asserting dominance over pregnant, nursing, or mothers of young children — is wrong and dangerous to others than just the pregnant, nursing or mother of young children.  Or, to fail to understand that real adult men, really do (and sometimes women, I fear & hear) molest children, and that’s a euphemism.  IN such case, to continue this, they have to get rid of any parent who would stop this.  The venue where this happens is “family” court.

 

All these people wanting to reform family court, and keep the professionals, while tossing off lives left and right (and some of the damage hit sthe community) and failing to account for usage of grants to the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts / Center for Families & Children in the Courts (CFCC, or whatever the acronym) and from there, at a minimum, the “access/visitation” grants system spinning off of welfare reform, which criticizes women of color (primarily) for being poor, and determines to help men of color that have been made poor by the same type of mentality — and this system to supposedly reform welfare and help poor people, is being exploited by very RICH people, and a lot of powerful, white males, to keep their kids.  See Nassau County, (NY). wife jailed for ‘alienating” her children.  Nassau County, people….Different coast, same mentality.

 

Also (I learned in this 2010) the “fatherhood commissions” are legislated into various states.  Now it’s time for “You, the people” to figure that out.

 

Or, keep paying taxes without expecting ANY, and I mean ANY accountability in a timely fashion to what the hell they are being used for. YOU take one day a week out of spa, or whatever (or something — like church, if it applies? — and get on-line and fact-check organizations like “Kids’ Turn” or others that are being marketed worldwide (now, in other countries) and funded by U.S. Federal $$, then having parents ordered into counseling, education, and in essence becoming the permanent “infants” (no matter their ages) to the everpresent BigBrother/”fatherland.”

 


[end of, added in 2011 commentary]


Ah, well.

 

No, This is closer to my legislative proposal, taken from an email from the author of “Jurisdictionary [TR]”. He waxes eloquent, but he talks about loving JUSTICE in addition to the natural human love we have for each other. He is talking about getting ourselves educated on how the justice system works. Not paying taxes to hire experts to talk to experts about how it SHOULD work and why it doesn’t (only). There is something individuals can do; teach themselves how it works! (Should be required with the marriage certificate, probably).

 

Love is manifested in many strange and wonderful forms.

There is the unmistakable, mystical love of a mother for her offspring, incomparable, impossible for us men to ever comprehend.

There is the love of a soldier for his comrades at arms, a power deep within the heart that motivates the impossible and sometimes galantly gives the soldier’s final gift.

And, there are other forms of love too many to list here.

Yet, in that mix of many forms of love there is an adoration that dwells deep in the breast of every one of us: the love of honor, the love of peace, and the love of justice that has rules by which our peace and shared prosperity can be fashioned and preserved both for ourselves and those who follow after, justice that is not perverted by the persuasion of power nor undermined by the influence of base motives.

Justice is, perhaps, the greatest of our American ideals.

We must immediately decide for justice that has rules.

We must unquestioningly decide and seek every practical mechanism we can find to promote the ideal of justice that has rules … not for one or a few but for everyone.

. . .

The American Dream is an Holy Experiment, a Republic under law and not an oligarchy of powerful men free to do as they choose and justice be damned.

The American Dream is a Wise People.

  • A People who care for those who are unjustly treated.
  • A People United.
  • A People united by a vision that puts honor first, with love, mercy, kindness, courage, and justice constrained by rules.
  • Whatever your faith this Season, whatever your political persuasion, whatever notions you’ve picked up from others about the horrors we are threatened with at the hands of those who hold ideas contrary to our own, remember this:

We are One People United by Our Ideals!

We are one precisely because we share ideals, of which the chiefest is that justice must have rules, and those who judge must obey those rules to-the-letter!

Cling to those ideals as dearly as you embrace your own children, for they preserve your children more than anything that you alone can do, more than any army, more than any doctor, more than anything you can imagine … for those ideals we share as Americans are the very hope of the world!

Tell everyone about us, please, and do what you can to help us promote your ideals!

… Dr. Frederick D. Graves, JD

www.Jurisdictionary.com

www.AmericanJusticeFoundation.com

Yeah, it’s an item for sale. But it’s designed for the general public, not the experts, and it teaches principles.  I don’t have to share his faith to share the concept that there are rules we ALL should know and hold our appointed officials to by any means possible, and send a strong message that we are NOT their property, they are our paid servants, by law.

 

to do this, more people need to actually understand the financial systems also..

 

 

 

 

And a final thought for the evening — suppose Jesus had been born in a manger, and CPS had caught wind of it?  Oh my God, Mary would never see him again.

 

Plus, part of his childhood, it appears he went to sleep in a fatherless home.  Well, at least somewhere in there Joseph disappeared.

 

I think Jesus did all right, don’t you?  He had a Father figure, at least….

 

More irreverence later….

 

THESE are a START in understanding WHASSUP with “women and Children” — learn the origins of this CFDA, the promoters, what else they promoted, and how they have changed the face of litigation throughout this country.  Here’s TAGGS.hhs.gov, ALL I did was sort on “CFDA 93.597.”  I learned this at NAFCJ.net, talked to the site author, and fact-checked  Wake up!

S

tate = CALIFORNIA
CFDA Number = 93597

Recipient: CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 95814

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
Amount
This Action
1998 9701CASAVP 1 ACF 2 05-31-1998 $1,113,750.00
1998 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-01-1998 $1,113,750.00
1999 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-16-1999 $987,501.00
2003 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 7 02-24-2003 ($250,805.00)
2003 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 5 02-25-2003 ($139,812.00)
2009 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($38,917.00)
Award Subtotal: $2,785,467.00

Recipient: CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 95741

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
Amount
This Action
2000 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 3 08-24-2000 $987,501.00
2001 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 4 10-06-2000 ($987,501.00)
Award Subtotal: $0.00

Recipient: CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Recipient ZIP Code: 94107

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
Amount
This Action
2001 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 5 10-10-2000 $987,501.00
2001 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 08-23-2001 $987,501.00
2002 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-06-2002 $970,431.00
2003 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-11-2003 $970,431.00
2004 0410CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-15-2004 $988,710.00
2005 0510CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-14-2005 $988,710.00
2006 0610CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-19-2006 $987,973.00
2007 0710CASAVP 1 ACF 1 07-20-2007 $950,190.00
2008 0810CASAVP 1 ACF 1 01-30-2008 $957,600.00
2009 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($48,827.00)
2009 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 4 09-14-2009 ($26,938.00)
2009 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 6 09-14-2009 ($46,392.00)
2009 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 2 09-14-2009 ($15,092.00)
2009 0910CASAVP 1 ACF 1 12-23-2008 $942,497.00
2010 1010CASAVP 1 ACF 1 11-25-2009 $946,820.00
2011 1110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 10-08-2010 $928,087.00
Award Subtotal: $11,469,202.00
Total of all awards: $14,254,669.00

 

Recipient: CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Address: 303 SECOND STREET, SOUTH TOWER
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: SAN FRANCISCO
DHHS Region: 9
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: State Government

Award Actions

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Award Code Agency Action Issue
Date
Amount This
Action
2011 1101CASCIP 1 1 ACF 12-10-2010 $ 799,429
2011 1110CASAVP 1 1 ACF 10-08-2010 $ 928,087
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 1,727,516

WONDER WHAT 1101CASCIP (court Improvement Program) is?  Well, so do I.

 

THIS SITE CONTINUES TO EXPAND, AND PEDDLE THE “YOU MUST GET ALONG WITH YOUR PERP” MENTALITY; “HE WAS YOUR PURP, NOT YOUR CHILDREN’S, RIGHT?”

 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/

HOW COME THE STATUS ON WOMEN DOESN’T REPORT ON THIS?

 

This is the “official” view:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Snapshot2008SummaryFindings.pdf

Key Findings

 The majority of mediation sessions involve clients who are self-represented. The proportion of cases involving at least one self-represented party has increased steadily over time, from 52 percent of cases in 1991 to 75 percent of cases in 2008.

 The population of mediation clients is ethnically diverse, the majority being non-White. The proportion of Hispanic/Latino clients has increased since the 1991 survey.

 The mediation population includes many non-English speaking clients who may be in need of special language services. Mediators reported that special language services were used in 10 percent of mediation sessions. Approximately one out of ten clients indicated that they would have benefitted from, but did not receive, this sort of language assistance—including more bilingual staff, and bilingual interpreters or mediators.

Many families have been seen multiple times by family court services and are in mediation to try to reach agreement on more than one type of order and to discuss a wide range of concerns. The most frequent issues cited by mediation clients are problems with visitation arrangements not working, the other parent not following the order, and child emotional adjustment and behavioral concerns.

Not cited– threats to kidnap, actual kidnappings, and child abuse, stalking, or death threats from the other parent, which we are told happen, after a case becomes a “statistic.”  This report dates to 2008.  In 2008, in Contra Costa County, there was a triple-homicide/femicide, DV-& divorce-related.  In 2007 in Oakland, there was a church-parking lot gunning down of a woman who was trying to stay alive, on a mid-week morning with lots of witnesses.  In 2006, there was a woman who disappeared (mother of two young kids) on a routine exchange, when her ex was thousands behind on child support (Reiser).  In 2005, there was (I believe in SF), a man who’d been stalking just a temporary GIRLFRIEND (not even a parental situation) who was ‘diverted into” domestic violence counseling, like many fathers are.  Days after he got an A+ from that sesssion, her body shows up in a trunk.  (McAlpin).  We have had little girls show up in suitcases in ponds (Sandra Cantu), young women kept captive in back yards, giving birth to and raising children by their captor/rapists (Garrido) and all kinds of horrible events happen.  The treatment of women throughout this Bay Area has been horrific.  Meanwhile, many of the justice NONprofits (vs. “agencies”) are in it for themselves (see my “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post.  The CEO is a plum position, and the women needing the protection are at the bottom of the barrel.

These reports here are meaningless to many women in my situation.  We personally know mediators that regularly lie, fail to do intake forms, and break rules of court designed to protect children, in particular, when writing orders.  This creates chaos in their lives, and chaos in the community, and increases poverty — of the affected parites, and those helping them.  It creates “business as usual” for the court.    Look here — they say it, right up front:

Family violence is a common issue among mediation clients. More than half of the families reported a history of physical violence between the parents.

THE FAMILY COURT paradigm is “Families” and “between the parents.”  When one is assaulting another, the only thing “between them” is not enough airspace, and not enough distance.  The blows are typically going ONE way, not both ways.  The word “family violence” is to replace the term “domestic violence” which is a misdemeanor, or felony, in this state.  It is no accident.  MORE THAN HALF the FAMILIES reported — means typically ONE parent reported first, and possibly obtained a civil, or criminal, order — at which time the other would be foolish to fail to acknowledge it.  That’s how the term “families …. reported… a history of physical violence.”  Moreover, if the children were not interviewed by this mediator, then it’s only adults reporting.  This phrase is a coverup of an ugly reality.

Approximately 15 percent of both mothers and fathers indicated that there was a current restraining order in place. Concern for future violence with the other parent was common, as was the concern for possible child abuse by the other parent.

 

Let’s see how oblique and indirect a “report” can get.  What does the  phrase of both mothers and fathers need to come in here for?  The very grants system that ensures lots and lots of mediation happens (see this same site, Access/Visitation programs) does NOT say “mother and fathers” much at all — but “parents” or “Noncustodial” etc.  Why stick it in here, haphazardly?  To show that Dads get restraining orders too now?  Well, they do, but why mention it here, and retain the same consistency of saying the word “mother” throughout, then?

 The length of the mediation session and time spent preparing for mediation varied. The median face-to-face service time was 90 minutes and the median preparation time was 15 minutes.

The words “physical violence, history of” equates to “domestic violence.”  There are lethality risks involved here, and there typically has been some serious physical injury, though not also.  MOreover, physical violence indicates other forms of intimidation and coercion, generally speaking.  And to resolve this potentially life-threatening (and childhood stultifying lifestyle of WHICH parent, primarily, against the other — or is fighting back to protect oneself also “mutual violence”?  — the litigants get a whopping 90 minutes (we didn’t — the one joint sessions, more like half that, and subsequent separate sessions I swear it was a half hour, at most, and a farce at that).  There are two ways to do this:  Jointly, in which case a woman sits with her batterer or abuser that she just confronted by filing a DV order, in the same room, and attempts to “negotiate” with the mediator, which I did.  Never again!  NO way can you keep those thoughts on target that early in the game after separation.  the other way — (all subsequent mediations), separate.  In which case, there is NO real recourse for a party whose mediation report has factual errors, material ones, or was out of compliance.  Why?  Because if that family court judge bases an order on that mediator’s report (which they will, typically), then the life goes through another immediate upheaval.  She (or he) has to deal with that upheaval FIRST, and appeal, if possible — second.

 

OK, stop, look, and listen.  HALF had domestic violence (excuse me, “a history of physical violence” .. “family violence.”)  Don’t think it’s an accident that the word “domestic violence” (which might point one to somewhere in the family, or criminal code, with defining terms…) is NOT used here.  But MORE than 50% had a history of physical violence, and of those, only 15% had a CURRENT restraining order.  So, who didn’t get restraining orders, or who took them off?

Family court judges, after these cases went through mediation, right? . . . . . Get it??…..

 Overall, parents reached agreement in slightly less than half of cases. Agreement rates were higher for parties who were working on initial orders than for those who were working on modified orders.

OK — over 50% had a history of physical violence “between” (i.e., two sets of attacks met mid-air, collided, and none hit another body?? That’s “between” — or, blows were equally exchanged, like in the movie Crouching Tiger, til both lay exhausted?? ??? I don’t think so.)  And UNDER 50% (“slighty less than half”) “reached agreement.”  In any classroom, this would be a definite fail-rate on the part of the mediator.  This means that in less than half the situations, one parent took a stand on some issue.

 

Reading further on this pdf report, it seems that mediators spent more time on the study than they did per client (15 minutes, average).

 

Clients rated their experiences in mediation very positively. For example, three-quarters or more of the clients provided favorable ratings on items related to procedural fairness.

What about other items?  Which 3/4 or more (which — was it?  75% or more than 75%?  Is this summary typical of how accurate a mediation report is?)

Parent Survey

This survey was completed by parents prior to their mediation session. The Parent Survey covered topics such as the purpose of the mediation session, issues to be discussed during the session, family violence history, legal representation, and parent demographics. Parent Surveys were completed by 3,176 clients representing 1,741 families. One or both parents completed a parent survey for 95 percent of sessions for which a mediator survey was completed.”

 

One OR Both parents in a litigation proceeding, lumped together, consisted in 95% of the sessions for which a survey was completed, which resulted in 75% satisfaction.

 

Well, in my case, the father was satisfied (and subsequently tried to derail my fact-finding in the courtroom to “the mediator’s report,” which recommended an overnight custody switch despite recently felony child-stealing, reported, by me, and obvious from the facts).  I was dissatisfied, obviously.  This is why I think vendor payments are more relevant than any organization receiving millions of $$ to increase noncustodial parenting time THROUGH mediation, in reporting on the results of Mediation.  Of course they are going to give a positive report — if not, they’ll have to go find some other nipple to nurse off, than these access/visitation grants program, administered through the OCSE to the State of California Judicial Council, etc.

 

From this 2008 pdf, still, look at what they are attempting to discuss in the FAMILY law venue:

Table 2: What Issues Are You Here to Discuss?

Parent Issues N %

Visitation arrangements not working3 717 41%

Other parent not following order 615 35%

Other parent should be supervised during visitation 294 17%

Other parent’s alcohol abuse 282 16%

Other parent’s drug abuse 279 16%

One person is moving 216 12%

Child abduction/taking child without permission 197 11%

THE ABOVE ARE “PARENT ISSUES” AND NOT “CHILD ISSUES”  — Except the first “visitation arrangements not working” which is too vague to mean much, and “should be supervised” which indicates (a) report of abuse of child during visitation, or threats to abduct OR (as equally possible) (b) Parental Alienation claims to counter (a)…an underlying criminal issues as to the first, and NOT as sto the second) and “is moving” (move-aways, which also will fall neatly under “parental alienation” claims) — ALL of these issues involved contempt of a court order (“not following is the degradation of the word “contempt of”) substance abuse — which is bad parenting — and the last one is either (a) a crime or (b) what sure looks like one, “taking child without permission.”.  These are not “parent issues” as so labeled.  They are contempt of court order issues.

 

ADD TO THIS — the court orders typically, when DV has been outed, or Child Abuse, are StiLL written so vaguely as to ensure constant negotiation needed by (when DV has occurred) a custodial parent with her (yeah, her) former abuser, which was my case.  I have never seen a more vaguely written court order, I had to go to court years later to even get a location written in.  Holiday exchanges had no location AND no time of exchange.  Summer Vacations had no stipulation and resulted in our children not being able to attend summer workshops and events which would’ve helped their college vacations, in areas of already identified interests.  I was able to do these while the RO was on, and had to stop once it hit family law, thanks to this mediator’s version of reality.  Basically, mediation is going to remove a safety boundary for the custodial parent.  Add to this, joint legal with sole physical means, there is no end of argument possible.  I cannot imagine any business, sports team, investment, or performance oriented group that would be able to operate under such circumstances, with no enforceable rules when a chaotic individual wants to pre-empt the field.  Add to this the impact of the child SUPPORT factor — which mediation refuses to address, although it’s a hot topic — and you have utter, complete, disorder — designed to bring business to the courts after one failed mediation session, to another.

Then, on the basis of “overburdened” and “overcrowded” they can ask for more grants.

 

Child Issues

Child emotional adjustment 513 29% Child behavior problems 355 20% School problems 331 19% Child refuses to visit 233 13% Child medical needs 213 12% Delay in child growth or development 99 6%

Violence/Abuse Issues

Domestic violence 318 18% Child neglect 306 18% My safety with other parent 304 17%

Child physical abuse Child sexual abuse. 159 9% 40 2%

Note: N = 1,741 families. Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents were able to check more than one item.

I find that every single one of those items relates to children, and many of them are LEGAL issues and CRIMINAL issues.  Mediators should not be handling such matters, but they are.  These matters also should not be before family court judges, with their HUGE amount of discretion, but they are.

 

That said, District Attorneys have the discretion to not prosecute.  All in all, it’s a joke, basically.

And a “joint legislative audit” isn’t going to fix that.

 

This is where to look, for starters:

California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009–2010)

REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE MARCH 2010

 

Then do the follow-up, whether in your state, or if you are California, here.

 

[I am in a real rambling, ranting mode today.  So be it! 01/2011]

 

 

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

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

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: