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 ‘AFCC CFCC AOC Judicial Council

Women Judges still form Funky-filing Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later)

leave a comment »


Women Judges still form (funky-filing) Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later) (short-link ends “-9YW” and about 10,000 words long. Post written May 20-25, 2019, updated May 26).

“PREFACE”

I’m publishing this post “as-is” because one cannot squish too much documentation into one place.  There are more things I could say or links include, but this post “as is” says plenty.

I like to triple-check statements; there are one or two I haven’t yet, regarding research done six years ago.  In double- and triple-checking, more information and more understanding of the existing connections comes into focus for me as a blogger, which I then naturally want to reference or summarize.

Without a more direct, immediate, known (and prospectively more interactive) audience for this blog, I cannot put more days into it.

Most people I know do NOT go around reading business entity filings and tax returns — I do.  I do it ALL THE TIME.  Over time this has also developed a general, mental database of key organizations, awareness (generally) of how they tend to spin off over time, or sometimes I can catch a new one as it’s forming, or has just formed.

The issue, however, is with whom to talk about it.  Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations are generally already committed to their ongoing operations; those not involved and often not local (as the networks are coordinated nationally and at times internationally) in my experience (and with current connections) either not alert enough to even acknowledge the importance of  reading business entity filings and tax returns as indicators of the values of the organization’s leadership, or are overwhelmed possibly with their own court cases involving still-minor children.

Those who’ve aged out if not already aligned with the (usual) family court reform group loose (or tight) coalitions tend to want their own lives back, or just not to be bothered.  Those who haven’t directly experienced this firsthand (which is to say, those “on the sidelines”) generally seem to fall along the usual religious (religious or not), political (left or right persuasion) dividing lines and not about to cross them seriously, either.

Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations in many cases, (specifically, as mentioned on this post, as mentioned on most in the blog), will be also judges, or retired judges — and other court-connected professionals continuing to push programming put in effect in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, first decade of 2000s, and now in the second decade of the 2000s fast approaching its end. These programs will also be pushed, promoted and if possible perpetuated, regardless of which political party is in power, or who is U.S. President.  It’s an ECONOMIC matter.

I could post more tax returns or charitable, corporate registrations on this post as simple links (without the images).  I especially could post EVEN more on the connection between the “woman-judge-formed nonprofit” and “MACSA,” and recent findings on the (very much related) background and filing habits of the local (county) fatherhood collaborative, which I have seen and saved much of it as computer files or images, but it will not all fit in a single post.  The connections between MACSA, the nonprofit, and the county probation department (and with it, under “fatherhood collaboratives” also county-based) speak loudly as to the origins of that nonprofit.

(MACSA = Mexican American Community Services Association: Bay Area News Group March 6, 2014 article describes its woes, most of them involving improper handling of financials, IRS-revoked nonprofit status for non-filing (with the local DA’s office having seized its paperwork possibly related).  Notice the years..)

I have one or two statements I’d like to, and will try to, triple-check (specifically the fiscal agent connection between the DVIC and DVCC referenced below), but as a reminder, no matter how formal it may “feel,” a blog is an INformal medium, and I am a volunteer investigative blogger all these years.  Last year I left one state and relocated to another for a fresh start, which requires major energy still, and I’m recently, technically speaking, a senior, and have always been a mother, whether or not permitted to function as one over the years.

 

MACSA (The Mexican American Community Services Agency) existed 1966-2013 | CalEntity C0512046, Status ‘Dissolved’ per California Secretary of State’s Business Entity Search, re-checked in May 2019

The situations I’m speaking of in this post are typical, present multiple red flags, and should be noted, and watched.  It may take some time to become familiar with the setup, the terminology and where to look filings up, but that can be learned, and look-ups, up to a certain point, can be done.

I think the blog’s limits structurally on how it can deliver what I see needs to be delivered, is reaching its boundaries and think constantly about what other communication and message-delivery options exist that I could remain involved in — or find an ethically and intellectually (diligent fact-checker) responsible person or group of people to delegate them to.  //LGH May 25, 2019.


Originally, my purpose on this post was to preserve the text and story within a sidebar widget on this topic; administratively I needed it removed from the bottom right sidebar.  That text is below, in a narrower column, and beneath it a few footnotes from my substantial (extensive / long) updates on the top.

These topics are still relevant, and this is in part a re-statement of them (followed by the preserved text).


(Above image gallery:  I found a MACSA EIN# 941635200 from the IRS which also noted it was revoked in 2012. I see three tax returns from FY2007-2009 showing several million dollars’ worth of assets. It eventually registered as a charity in California; the “Details” page are full of demands for missing or incomplete information, and notices of ITS (Intent To Suspend). To view, you can repeat the search, or (for a snapshot as of several years past “Revoked” status, click “MACSA California Registry of Charitable Trusts | Details“~~>MACSA (TheMexicanAmericanCommunityServicesAgency) CalEntity 512046, EIN#941635200 CalifOAG Charity (Status ‘Revoked’ 2014ff) Details (RelatedDox Links Still Active) @ 2019May link added  5/26/2019. Note:  for pdfs (vs. plain images) on this blog, you must first click the link to see page with blog & post title and beneath it a small blank page icon, then click on the pdf icon to load the document.  Bonus Attached Info: When pdfs are printouts of California Registry of Charitable Trust “Details” (any entity), scroll down below ‘Schedule” to the bottom of the resulting document: any links under “Related Documents” for the filing entity should still be viewable by clocking on them.) (The California OAG RCT of course at any time may change how it loads or the user interface on this database in which case some of the above notations may not apply).

The latest charity renewal for MACSA (for FYE 2008) shows that about HALF its $10M revenues were from government sources.  It was status “Revoked” since 2014 (as a California Charity) and as a tax-exempt organization, 2012 — however as late as June 2017 (see colorful image above) it was being positively referenced in association with a Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative — from a University of Texas-Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) in a “Policy Brief.”  That colorfully annotated image and link to it above comes up again soon, below.)



This post references Santa Clara County “Domestic Violence Intervention Collaborative” (<~~DVIC is a nonprofit | “DVCC” is a named “Coordinating Council” under the county’s “Office of Women’s Policy” (OWP created in 1998)) and through it, at that level one of just two ex-judges* I just featured in the last post, Classic AFCC Combos, Collaborations, and Commonalities (Ret’d California Judge/Consultant Leonard P. Edwards, Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra H. Lehrmann) and What’s WITH Middletown, Connecticut? . *He’s ex-judge because he’s retired, she’s ex-judge now only because a state supreme court justice, is no longer called “judge.

That nonprofit DVIC wasn’t the main focus of this post but arose in connection with another nonprofit, referenced in the title which I am now reminded (through revisiting) originally framed its reason for existing as family violence prevention, too.

The relationship of the DVIC (nonprofit) to the DVCC (coordinating council) is a little complicated.  I think that the DVIC was the fiscal agent for the DVCC, although with one being county-office-associated and the other not, that doesn’t even make sense.

The concept of “coordinating councils” isn’t complex, but I wonder how well the significance is generally understood; they’ve been around in reference to different subject matters, and when it comes to “DV” seem to take on a specific flavor.

The post title alone doesn’t reflect also how Judge Edwards’ “consultancy” was at the highest state level, but the post does. Before retirement in Santa Clara County, and again, he was and probably still is active in at least three very controlling and significant membership associations — AFCC, NCJFCJ and (as to child welfare), NACC.

That retired Judge Leonard P. Edwards founded the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council (DVCC) is stated in this glowing commendation from California CASA Association mentioned among other accomplishments: he was also the first juvenile court judge to receive a special award from (yet another nonprofit, PRIVATE, association, the “NCSC”) in 2004, as the NCJFCJ’s publication reminded readers in 2005 when reprinting a 1992 article from Judge Edwards on “the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge.”

NCSC = National Center on State Courts is not the major focus here, but I’ve posted on it (June 30, 2017, split off from Oct., 2014, “Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?) and often call attention to it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Federal Designer Families: How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation

with 4 comments

This post is about 10,000 words.  Enjoy!

I have about six posts in the pipeline, all of them timely to some recent indicators (developments) in the “protective mothers” field. All of them, as usual continuing to emphasize a functional vocabulary in discussing the family courts, and pointing out a few significant historical developments affecting them that those IN them rarely point out to clients, which I find strange.

By contrast, the developments in the “responsible fatherhood” field seem to be moving ahead with the usual momentum, and under-reported among “the commoners,” i.e., the general public and most family-court reform groups, who, apparently, don’t consider worthy of notice that this network even exists, or is a priority to understand.

However, it does.  In fact, if you check some of the post-PRWORA-propped up nonprofits, centers, institutes, programming and the “same old, same old” hotshots, there is apparently nothing more important to talk about than what they have done, are doing, and how much HHS is going to pay them this time (sometimes that refers to a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant) to further strengthen and extend their communications, technical support, outreach/ recruiting and funding pipelines already set up in the “Fatherhood” network. (Recent example) Using federal funding to a university. One of team members historically associated with AFCC, another thing family court advocacy groups are averse to talking about.

There are also certain chronic weaknesses and vulnerabilities within this “HMRF” field (but also present, to a degree, in the domestic violence prevention field also), which would be excellent leverage to address some of the problems protective mothers are having in the courts, and I have yet to hear any legitimate (if indeed any) explanation why no significant protective mothers organization, or their featured professionals, has seen fit to raise the topic seriously with a view to DOING something about it, for at least the past dozen years, even when after a certain point, the leadership surely became aware that “outside” information on the responsible fatherhood field, HHS grants and AFCC was somehow “leaking” into the field of vision of some of the “fix the courts” promoters.  One whitepaper did come out over a year after I, literally, did several posts (on two blogs) naming names of the “Let’s JUST not talk about it!” groups and proving which personnel at least knew the whole time.


Nearly two days of technical (keystroke processing speed almost at a standstill) problems with my computer slowed getting them published.  Meanwhile, working out that situation, and concerned about output at this time, I decided to re-publish a 12/5/2009 FamilyCourtMatters post which is STILL more relevant than the average conversation I see on the family court reform in 2016, original title While You Were Sleeping,… How Congress got into the Family Law Business.”  

I have not yet extended the “Table of Contents” back to 2009, so “While You Were Sleeping” was probably missed by most people who may read or follow this blog.  It is not the kind of information one tends to stumble across in general search terms on the family courts or its handling of situations and allegations of criminal behavior such as domestic violence or child abuse. Last month, I felt this post was important enough to clean up (formatting) and link to it, now I am actually re-posting.

It references by name key elements in networks I am blogging consistently on — public/private partnerships, and HOW does the federal government got its hand in into the state-level cookie jar without quite getting caught at it, and vice versa, while the courts themselves contribute to an ever-expanding and increasingly dependent on social services population.

**Mostly, these posts-in-the-pipeline again review some basic vocabulary with which we can talk about things which both the protective mothers’ perspective, and definitely in the fathers’ rights perspective have for years resisted discussing on-line in anything approaching a coherent manner, using accurate and relevant terms to describe the infrastructure and how it networks to promote either their own perspective, or the perspective for which they want “systemic changes” or “a paradigm” change for [divorce law, family courts, child support] because it’s:  unfair to fathers, unfair to mothers, dangerous to children, or gender-biased against men (or women), is destroying the American family, human rights,civil rights, etc.

We who are concerned, afflicted by, or discussing the problems in the family courts, should ALL know and talk what top-level state institutions (such as the California Judicial Council), federal deliberations courtesy of CRS (Congressional Research Service) (“Should the Federal Government get involved in Family Matters which are under State law jurisdiction?”) (unsaid: “HOW can we get our fingers into family and divorce courts without getting caught on it, or held responsible for any negative effects after we have?”) ….. (And “WHO will help us do this?” some of which this post shows who actually did) are actually involved, or, for example, just how one state ends up copying the court (privatization and outsourcing) practices in another.

For example, I had years of personal encounters through the courts before I became aware of the information in just this excerpt from that 2009 post below.  The publication talking about it came out in the context of a state-level, state-wide evaluation of the ruling body of the courts published around May, 2012.  Take a look at this excerpt, which will be repeated below, without the olive-green background:


THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts.  Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

 …

(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d.  Link above…)
The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system.  Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.”  Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind.  These are rarely 100% neutral.  [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name.  It files a Form 990]]

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members.  This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them.  Not the topic of this post….

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC?  I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…

SUMMARY:  The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show.  The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind


But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office.  Then, they combined them.  Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts.   “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC.  AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.

They are also pretty good at setting the stage for creating new professions at the expense of the courts (the public) and parents (also, the public), one of the earlier ones pushed was mediation, one of the later, “parent coordination.”

Another reason I would question any advocacy group who, knowing about this organization, didn’t talk — and keep talking — about it.
Read the rest of this entry »

America’s Unified Family Courts (UFCs)– forget! due process, this is about “Treating” the Whole Family

with 3 comments

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation + ABA + HHS/DOJ (+Monsanto, CIGNA + Ford) = Unified Family Courts = Treat the Whole Family


This post is three of (my) comments from the “(Kids for Cash)” topic at Scranton Political Times…   Those who teach about “abuse” should be teaching about this — because how these courts were set up DOES rather explain why they have spawned (comparison intentional), literally, protest movements across the country, from their horrid treatment of litigants, particularly ignoring facts, law, and due process in individual cases).  They are horrible wastes of time and mind (a mind is a terrible thing to waste, is it not?) — and exist to dominate and intimidate, literally, the human spirit and eliminate the “unalienable rights” that SOME believe are innate (“unalienable”) to every man. . . . .And now that “every man” is to include more men – -and women . . . . those crying out for “Children’s Rights” don’t even endorse what’s right to start with — the REPUBLIC (representative government under rule of law) of the United States (plural) of America — not the Oligarchy, the Aristocracy, or the THEocracy of the USA!! — and turning the entire country, starting with children, adding youth, and expanding upwards into adults — into a treatable-at-will population — is hardly a Republic!

I was checking NAFCJ.net for a link to “the money trail” and happened across an unexplored link on there to grants by this Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help the ABA create Unified Courts.  These grants spanned the period 1996-1999; my attention was hooked, and this is what developed:

It is worth processing if you are concerned about these topics.  I believe we need to FULLY understand who’s running the Justice and Legal Systems of the country, particularly if we are in the situation of attempting to squeeze some water out of a stone in those halls. . .   . . . .

I AM WRITING as a single woman who could never have anticipated, as a 20, 30, or 40 year old how dangerous this country has become for ethical, moral, working, and competent women who are also mothers, and value that role as they also value pulling their own weight.  Such women are horrors to this system — as they don’t need treatment, nor do their kids — but after a few years in it, ALL will!

So this is, literally, HOW the ABA (incl. AFCC) and others USED the family law system to turn “divorce” into a disease and treat every one for it, as collateral in treating for substance abuse and of course mental health problems.  That divorce is NOT a disease hardly matters in the face of such a policy backed by such power.

PART I (first comment on the topic from Scranton PT):

Since the idea sucks,
WHOSE IDEA WAS “UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS,”

ANYHOW, and WHY?

 

Hey, remember “unified family courts” and “drug courts” (I believe there have been some complaint about Lackawanna County’s right?) and so forth? – – – I just found an old article detailing how the ABA and specific funders were pushing “treating the whole family” and “changing the justice systems” to address substance abuse by youth. An unexplored link over at NAFCJ.net, and the timing of 1996 with welfare reform.

The goal, and the whole point, was to change the justice system — from the outside, not the inside.  Foundations pushing a concept and working through the ABA & Judges, plus money didn’t hurt either.  HHS/ACF happened to agree — so once that door was open (that it’s OK to revise the courts based on somebody in power’s got a bright idea) — it stayed open.

This is a  link from the ROBERT WOOD FOUNDATION grants page.  They also helped AFCC, I believe:

Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) had linked to it long ago from:

which leads to:
Grants 

$$$
How our money is misused to discriminate against women and children
http://www.statejustice.org/grantinfo/chifam.htm [broken link]
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/029319s.htm [UFC link]

And here we can read:

Unified Family Courts: Treating the Whole Family, Not Just the Young Drug Offender

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is powerful one, focused exclusively on health fields (and the largest philanthropy with this focus; been doing this for 40 years; influences medical education field, etc.)and Unified Family Courts (for substance abuse treatment) were one of their projects

SUMMARY

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.

UFCs combine the functions of family and juvenile courts to provide a comprehensive approach to treating and educating young drug offenders and their families. This approach recognizes that substance abuse results from a combination of problems related to health, family structure, economics and community support. UFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem.

Key Results

  • See Grant Detail & Contact Information   Notice the Baltimore Connection (I have — it’s an AFCC stronghold) — this group helped Chester Harhut & Lackawanna County set up ITS “UFC”, remember?
  • In Baltimore, Md., a pilot UFC was established in September 1998. The state legislature approved $1 million for the Baltimore pilot UFC project and $4 million to create Family Divisions in four other judicial districts. For each case, judges can order social services, including substance abuse and mental health counseling, and diversion programs. The Baltimore Family Court has also developed an assessment/evaluation procedure that the project director believes provides a replicable model for evaluation at other UFC sites.

I blogged this (with some sarcasm) in March 2012:

  • Marylands Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron . . .”First of all, they are about as unbelievingly condescending and patronizing (move over, let us experts handle your family give us your kid, etc.) as it is possible for any human relationship to be, apart from some truly unhealthy (i.e., violent/abusive) ones.  They deal in force, and subterfuge when it comes to proliferating the program, and like any good, truly disaster capitalism enterprise, they deal with distressed populations, exploit them, and call that service.”  [My blog connects Barbara Babb of Baltimore to Lackawanna County pilot program in UFC]

After the Grant
The ABA continues to work with the six sites and has provided technical assistance to eight other states. It also is involved in a project funded by the Scripps-Howard Foundation to examine literacy as a way to address substance abuse in four family courts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®. It is building community solutions to substance abuse and delinquency by developing the systems infrastructure necessary to deliver comprehensive care within the juvenile justice system. See the program’s Web site for more information. . . .Funding

RWJF provided a $481,605 grant to the ABA for its work on UCF systems..(they mean “UFC — Unified Family Courts”)

In 1994, ABA adopted a resolution calling for the promotion and implementation of UFC systems to make the courts more responsive to family problems. {{??}} By 1996, six states had established versions of UFCs statewide, and four states had some UFCs operating on the county level.

[That, friends, is how the ABA operates…] [NOW for the FUNDING]:

Other Funding The ABA solicited and obtained additional project funding from the private sector and government, including:

  • the US Department of Justice ($100,000),
  • the ABA’s Standing Committee on Substance Abuse ($90,000),
  • CIGNA Corporation ($30,000),**
  • Monsanto ($10,000),** and
  • Ford Motor Company ($5,000).  [Ford is into most govermental things, and in the 1970s had helped from MDRC, which runs demonstration programs onw elfare and the courts, etc.]]

Those names should ring a few bells.  Look at some of them!

* *”Grrreat” — Monsanto is “only” the food giant that’s trying to put non-GMO and organic farmers out of business and basically co-opt the US Food supply. (Ya gotta read this one) Monsanto, Wikipedia:

… multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed in the Roundup brand, and in other brands. Monsanto is also the second largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed; it provides the technology in 49% of the genetically engineered seeds used in the US market.”. . .Monsanto’s development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation, political lobbying practices, seed commercialization practices and “strong-arming” of the seed industry[4

In 2009 Monsanto came under scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department, which began investigating whether the company’s activities in the soybean markets were breaking anti-trust rules.[4][5]


What better corporation to contribute to an ANTI-Drug Abuse program which creates  genetically modified seeds, bovine growth hormone, and strong arm tactics + lobbying to maintain it — and financial clout to help create an alternate justice system (treatment versus accountability….)!!

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear (Vanity Fair Article):

Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the seed police and use words such as Gestapo and Mafia to describe their tactics.

[Starting to sound like the Unified Family Court “treatment Gestapo police” now in place?  Birds of a feather..]

in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the worlds food supply . . .Monsanto patents SEEDS; farmers who use theirs sign an agreement to NOT save seeds, they are suing farmers into whose fields Monsanto seeds may, for example, drift (i.e., by wind).

With an agenda like this, it’s understandable why Monsanto may want a role in dismantling the US legal system!   !!!  (Other Monsanto Gov’t ties)  http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

Millions Against Monsanto

CIGNA’s quite a player also: 

(from 1982 merger of Connecticut General Life — dating to 1865! and INA (Insurance Company of NA)  Before selling its international property and casualty business to the Bermuda-based ACE Insurance company in the late 1990s, CIGNA was among the companies with the largest international network in the league of Allianz, AIG and Zurich.  . . .CIGNA now operates in 25 countries, has in excess of 42,000 employees and manages around US$110 billion in assets . . .In October 2011, CIGNA has agreed to buy HealthSpring Inc. for $3.8 billion to jump-start its business selling Medicare plans from 46,000 Medicare Advantage members to almost 400,000 Medicare Advantage members. The payment would come from issue new equity to cover about 20 percent of the value, with the rest funded by additional cash and debt.

Gee,  I “can’t imagine” why — right around the time of “block grants to the states” welfare reform — CIGNA, being a global “health service” company might want to help the ABA turn large parts of the US Justice system into a treatment-philosophy-based system, including treat the whole family for one member’s substance abuse!

So, here’s the ABA creating all these Unified Family Courts  (hint:  The ABA membership includes subset no doubt of AFCC membership, who also are into unified courts = more business for the mental health membership..)

“Other in-kind support was provided by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) of the federal Department of HHS, the Administrative Office of the Courts in Maryland (AOC), and ABA volunteers.  “

In short — have to watch out for these outfits… (that’s the UBaltimore one — see blog post)

Contact CFCC

Here’s how the ABA overcame opposition to UFC in Washington DC:

In Washington, D.C., the ABA worked on a strategy to establish a UFC. Judicial opposition to family court reform, based chiefly on economic concerns, blocked significant progress toward the UFC model. The ABA met with the Chief Judge, the primary opponent, and worked with UFC proponents in the District. Family and Child Services, a branch of the District of Columbia’s Child Protection Agency, and an ad hoc group of representatives from the judicial leadership and social service providers, have assumed the lead in efforts to explore the feasibility of a UFC approach in the District.

Does this part of the ABA seem like it’s going to take “No thanks!” as an answer?

Publicizing by ABA:

The ABA developed a network of national organizations to support UFCs. The American Judges Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, {{OBVIOUSLY this group would be in favor of UFC’s – gets its membership more customers!!}} the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, [NCJFCJ] and Join Together (a national organization created by RWJF that provides technical assistance and information** to communities on issues involving substance abuse and gun violence) distributed information and/or collaborated with the ABA on UFC programs

– – – – -**The phrase “technical assistance and information” ANYwhere should be better read “indoctrination — do it OUR way; but if anyone asks, we’re just “helping” (and not responsible if it backfires).- – – – – – –

Apparently in 2006, “Join Together” was phased out by RWJF to be replaced by a “VULNERABLE POPULATIONS” project:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which for two decades has been the most generous and visible private funder of addiction treatment and prevention programs in the U.S., has announced that it will no longer have a separate program area for funding addiction-related programs.

“Instead, any new grantmaking related to addiction will take place under the foundation’s Vulnerable Populations portfolio, said foundation president and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., in a recent letter to RWJF grantees. Often the neediest populations such as the chronically homeless, new immigrants, victims of domestic abuse** are faced with multiple health and social issues, including addiction, that must be addressed in an integrated way for these individuals to succeed. The Vulnerable Populations grantmaking effort focuses mainly on these populations.

**the substance abuse is often related to other kinds of abuse, which is already known (acestudy.org) from other longitudinal studies.  Perhaps if someone could focus on stopping the INJUSTiCE (including violence towards family members) instead of constantly TREATING it (both victm and perp as if both were responsible) there’d be less substance abuse!  (who knows?)

So now they’re going for “supportive housing” to keep kids out of the foster care system.  Guess who’s helping with THAT project?

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has partnered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and three private foundations to jointly fund a $35 million initiative to further test how supportive housing can help stabilize highly vulnerable families and keep children out of the foster care system. . . .Collaborating foundations include the Annie E. Casey FoundationCasey Family Programs, and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
This groundbreaking initiative is based on a successful pilot effort in New York City, known as Keeping Families Together (KFT) that took place between October 2007 and July 2009

This is actually an upcoming grant opportunity, $5 million available, per HHS. It’s under CAPTA (child abuse prevention).

What’s Wrong with this Picture? (coming….)

Interesting:  AFCC cite to the foundation:  see note at bottom of the page:  http://afcc.crinfo.org/action/search-profile.jsp?key=14482&type=web

This beta-test, demonstration gateway has been developed to demonstrate the structure of the Conflict Research Consortium’s joint gateway program to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

This test site has not, in any way, been approved by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors
c/o Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado
Campus Box 580, Boulder, CO 80309
Phone: (303) 492-1635; Contac

— Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:06:09 PM on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:23:37 PM


PARTS II & III:

The powers that be (like ABA, foundations, HHS, etc.) determined among themselves that treatment is better than justice.  That some of them happened be in the treatment business must just be coincidence.

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family CourtsUFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem

Notice:  justice system — or treatment system.  Which would you rather have when walking into a courtroom?  Would you like to know which one you’re up for when it says “court” on the outside?

So, here comes that Robt Wood Johnson Foundation:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®.

… USPTO and trademarking social service reform (see that “®”?)

  • Search  . .Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime and get:

Sure ‘nuf that’s a robert wood johnson trademark:

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 76117473 2592702 RECLAIMING FUTURES TARR LIVE
2 75627894 2540943 PROTECTING OUR FUTURE BY RECLAIMING OUR PAST TARR LIVE

They trademarked the act of giving grants!

IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Charitable services, namely, providing grants to programs to combat substance abuse and delinquency. FIRST USE: 2001/01/25. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010125

{interesting, executive order GWBush establishing faith-based office was 2001/01/29…}{Filed for opposition: August 24, 2000}

Owner (REGISTRANT) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The NON-PROFIT CORPORATION NEW JERSEY Route One & College Road East P.O. Box 2316 Princeton NEW JERSEY 085432316
Attorney of Record Richard C. Woodbridge

Reclaiming Futures logo

(the logo is also a hyperlink)

In 2001, with a $21 million investment from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 10 founding communities located throughout the United States began reinventing the way police, courts, detention facilities, treatment providers, and the community work together to meet this urgent need

Amazing what a $21 million investment can do . . ..

“Reclaiming Futures has been evaluated by The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., in collaboration with the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.”  (RWJF helped pay for the evaluation also)
Now there are six partners, including from OJJDP, HHS (SAMSHA), another foundation, Portland State, and a research institute at Portland state.

“Re-engineer the justice system in your state” (how-to manual):
Bring Reclaiming Futures to Your State or Tribal Lands »
Re-engineer the juvenile justice system in your state or region to avoid unnecessary costs and cut recidivism. Here’s how to get started.

RWJF + ABA = UFCs + Drug Courts (cont’d.)

For the Record, American Bar Association is listed at HHS as “Private Profit (large) Business.”  

HHS has donated over $20.6 million of grants to the ABA per TAGGS.hhs.gov. So taxpayers are supporting it, too, even if they’re not engaged in litigation.

ABA activism (from site below about Unified Family Courts):

From 1992 to 1996, RWJF funded the ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse’s Community Anti-Drug Coalition Initiative to mobilize lawyers, judges, and justice system leaders to help create new justice systems and structures to solve the substance abuse problem (see Grant Results [] on ID#s 019838 and 023195).

The ABA was also instrumental in persuading legal community leaders to support drug courts for juveniles, which link juvenile justice and community treatment resources to juvenile drug offenders and their legal caretakers.

OK, get JUVENILES into treatment, what next?

The ABA then helped cities nationwide set up drug courts for adultoffenders, which offer defendants who have been charged with a drug offense (typically first-time, non-violent offenders) court supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. Drug courts can motivate drug users to enter rehabilitation programs and reestablish productive lifestyles. These courts have dramatically decreased recidivism rates and drug use among participants.  [have they?]

UFC’s complement the work of the drug courts. UFCs combine the functions of family courts (which handle family-related legal issues) and juvenile courts (which handle [criminal or status offence, they should’ve said] cases in which minors are involved) into one entity and provide a comprehensive approach to helping “families in crisis. UFCs incorporate treatment for young substance abuse offenders into the wide range of cases heard in civil court involving family matters.

– – – – -OK, what’s that mean?

– – – – Basically, where family court would’ve been perhaps about custody and divorce primarily, UFC’s tempt the judges to order more services, and treat the entire family — although the case may be as simple as a custody/visitation plan or a divorce, NEITHER of which are criminal matters.  Also omitted — juvenile courts are not just for people of a certain age — they are for juveniles who’ve caused (or allegedly caused) some problems, committing a legitimate crime (breaking and entering, robbery, rape/sexual assault, etc.) OR “status offence,” i.e. violated some rules that wouldn’t apply to adults, like a curfew, or attendance at school (truancy violations).

Changed the entire climate, definitely affecting people with straightforward business in the FAMILY court who may not be sick or criminal.  This was less for the families than for the court’s convenience, and for its liaisons with treatment-providing organizations.

You can look up ABA HHS grants around this time and see:

#90CW1087 
Award Title: CHILD WELFARE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS 
OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization: CHILDREN’S BUREAU (CB)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 5 0 ACF 09-17-1998 $ 700,000 
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 1 ACF 09-30-1997 $ 80,000 
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 2 ACF 04-15-1998 $ 26,004 
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 3 ACF 06-24-1998 $ 21,276 
Fiscal Year 1998 Total: $ 827,280
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 0 ACF 09-10-1997 $ 450,000 
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 3 1 ACF 12-19-1996 $ 0 
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 3 2 ACF 03-29-1997 $ 0 
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 3 3 ACF 08-20-1997 $ 3,369 
Fiscal Year 1997 Total: $ 453,369
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1996 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 03 000 ACF 09-25-1996 $ 400,000 
1996 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 03 001 ACF 12-19-1996 $ 0 
1996 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 03 002 ACF 03-29-1997 $ 0 
Fiscal Year 1996 Total: $ 400,000
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Yr of Support Award Code Agency ActionIssue Date Amount This Action
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 000 ACF 09-29-1995 $ 400,000 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 001 ACF 09-29-1995 $ 38,947 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 002 ACF 09-30-1995 $ 3,310 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 003 ACF 01-22-1996 $ 0 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 004 ACF 07-15-1996 $ 55,125 
Fiscal Year 1995 Total: $ 497,382
Total of all award actions: $ 2,178,031

AND:

Award Number: MCU11A301
Award Title: PARTNERS IN PGRM PLANNING FOR ADOLESCENT HEALTH 
OPDIV: HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA)
Organization: MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH / SYSTEMS EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (MCHB)
Award Class: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  CHICAGO IL 93110 02 000 HRSA 09-02-1997 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 1997 Total: $ 100,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Total: $ 100,000
Total of all award actions: $ 200,000

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATN
KATHI GRASSO 7 $ 100,000

So, ABA is a partner in “HEALTH SERVICES.”  Principal Investigator “Kathi Grasso”:

Ms. Grasso worked for the ABA Center for Children and the Law, OJJDP atsome point and is a member of NACC based in WDC.   She has a degree from Catholic University.  .She’s very active around the country and publishing on these matters:

  • (footnote to an NACC publication) A Judges Guide to Improving Legal Representation of Children, edited by Kathi Grasso, ABA Center on Children and the Law, © ABA May 1998.
  • Kathi Grasso  [From OJJDP “staff” list]
    Senior Juvenile Justice Policy and Legal Advisor
    202-xxx-xxxx
    kathi.grasso@usdoj.gov
First she worked for the (activist) ABA center for children, then she moved over to OJJDP which is a large agency which allocates GRANTS in Judicial Programs; as there she also functioned (I see) as OJJDP Liaison to other ABA commissions on Youth At Risk (etc.) causes.
(presented at some workshop on representing Indigents, in Texas)

Video 2: Keynote: Effectuating Reform in Juvenile Justice
Presenters: Kathi Grasso, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the U.S. Department of Justice
Link to handout and Juvenile Ten Core Principles

_ _ _ _ _
Curious about who was over the “Child Welfare Research and Demo” Grant (above), I looked — it’s a Mark Hardin, who retired in 2009 after 30 years of this type of advocacy:
Award Number Budg Yr Action Issue Date CFDA Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
90CW1087 02 09/29/1995 93608 MARK HARDIN $ 438,947
90CW1087 02 09/30/1995 93608 $ 3,310
90CW1087 02 01/22/1996 93608 $ 0
90CW1087 02 07/15/1996 93608 $ 55,125
90CW1087 03 09/25/1996 93608 $ 400,000
03 12/19/1996 93608 $ 0
03 03/29/1997 93608 $ 0
3 12/19/1996 93608 $ 0
3 03/29/1997 93608 $ 0
90CW1087 3 08/20/1997 93608 $ 3,369
90CW1087 4 09/10/1997 93608 $ 450,000
90CW1087 4 09/30/1997 93608  (etc.) $ 80,000
90CW1087 4 04/15/1998 93608 $ 26,004
90CW1087 4 06/24/1998 93608 $ 21,276
4 03/24/1999 93608 $ 0
4 04/26/1999 93608 $ 0
90CW1087 5 09/17/1998 93608 MARK HARDIN $ 700,000
5 04/26/1999 93608 MARK HARDIN $ 0
PROFILE from ABA shows:

Mark Hardin, National Child Welfare Law Authority, Retires

WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 13, 2009 — The American Bar Association is announcing the retirement of Mark Hardin, director of child welfare at the ABA Center on Children and the Law and an Oregon attorney.  A legal pioneer in the field of foster care and the role of the courts in aiding abused and neglected children and their families, Hardin spent 35 years utilizing his legal skills and knowledge to improve the plight of children removed from their homes due to child maltreatment.

Beginning as a legal aid lawyer in Portland, Ore., Hardin handled family, juvenile and welfare cases, giving him practical insight into the lives of vulnerable children and families.  In the late 70’s, during two years at Portland State University, Hardin forged development of the law on “permanency planning” for abused and neglected children and wrote several early publications helping social workers and policy analysts understand the legal aspects of a child’s placement in foster care.  He was among the country’s first trainers of lawyers and child welfare agency staff, educating them in their legal responsibilities relative to children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect.

Hardin joined the Center on Children and the Law in 1980 where, according to ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm, he became “the country’s foremost legal scholar on foster care legal and judicial reforms.”

Hardin’s experience includes having directed the ABA’s National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, a program of the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  • Wait a minute.  is this “child welfare resource center on legal and judicial issues” something belonging to the ABA (a large, private, FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS) or the HHS (a dept. of the US Federal government, Executive Branch, of, by and for the people?  How can it be an ABA thing AND a program of the Children’s Bureau?  Conflict of interest, much?

. . .With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.”

     [Was that supposed to be a JOKE?  We are having frequent issues with lawyers BREAKING the law!]

AN AWARD NAMED AFTER MARK HARDIN:

First Annual

Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change

The Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change, created by the ABA Center on Children and the Law in 2011 with approval from the ABA Board of Governors, honors the work of Mark Hardin. Before his retirement, Mark served for almost 30 years on the staff of the ABA Center on Children and the Law as director of child welfare. Mark has long been recognized by those who work in this area of law as an early innovator in the child welfare legal field. He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.

This is understandable, given common interests in these goups

ANYHOW, now there is a MARK HARDIN AWARD, and the FIRST (2012) recipient of it is the Director of CALIFORNIA’s “AOC” “Center for Families & Children in the Courts,” — which is part of the Judicial Council — DIANE NUNN.


May 23, 2012AOC Director Receives ABA award for Work on Behalf of Families and ChildrenRecipient of ABA’s First Mark Hardin Award . .SAN FRANCISCO—Diane Nunn, Division Director of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts,Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), is the recipient of the First Annual Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Scholarship and Systems Change

DIANE NUNN (along with “Depner” along with Isolini Ricci) is AFCC — and the AOC in California — this year, last year, and in recent years — has been split with scandal over fiscal/financial irresponsibility, a bloated bureaucracy, overbilling and fraud in the creation of a new, huge statewide computer system (CCMS) and to my recall, several of its leadership suddenly stepped down:  Ron Overholt (administrator), his replacement, and another person — after a whistleblower suit.  (see this topic at “courthousenews.com” [back issues]).
This AOC/CFCC also administers and distributes the federal grants to nonprofits around the state for the “treatment programs” parents and kids are ordered into, as well as the Access/Visitation Grants.  i can see why a systems change award might go to one of their own!
” In 2000 she became the director of the Judicial Council’s AOC/Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), the first entity devoted exclusively to family and children’s issues in a statewide administrative office of the courts. As Division Director, Nunn leads a nationally-recognized team that provides an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to serving the state’s family and juvenile courts. ”
…  {{“multidisciplinary” is code word referring to AFCC many times.  It’s their hallmark.  Why just have the rule of law when you could have social workers and psychologists as well?}}
“Describing the Award & Mr. Hardin:   He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.”
ABA is a private, for-profit business, supported by business(es) in the form of foundation grants, and with a little too close for comfort cooperation with HHS and the Adoption Incentives, plus the theme of we, the elite, know better how to rule society, so let’s change a few laws, and court practices!  After all, who’s going to complain — the indigent?

Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Awareness Month — let’s boycott!

with one comment

I’m short of time. Let’s keep this simple: STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN….

“Ye shall know them by their fruits. “

(notably absent — stoppING domestic violence.)

Excuse me, scratch that —

Ye shall know them by their “-INGS”,

WritINGS often have titles end in -ING and are (thus) UnendING, which tells you the process (and deaths/destructions from this) never stop…

One prime indicator you are in this industry is any word ending in “-ing” in the title. Last post, I gave you the newest, latest, “Defending Childhood” initiative. Other times, it’s Explicating Domestic Violence, and of course the latest is along the lines of “Rethinking Domestic Violence.” Even if ALl these systems fail, or if people die as a result, it’s still possible to write on


“UnderstandING System Failure” (see my post).

Apologies in advance to any expert, and diligent writer/researcher, possibly very nice individual I will insult in this post. I do mean this. Your writings are interesting, and some of them hold some water.

Please bear in mind, I looked for help the past 10 years, which was unwise. In that time, I could’ve passed the Bar, earned another degree, or probably passed three self-defense courses, which might have been a better use of my time than attending conferences on DV or reading the literature, or expecting anything funded by U.S. or (my state) taxpayer dollars — extracted on the premise that these taxes are for helping people to handle certain social ills, so the taxpayers wouldn’t have to, personally — and could continue working and paying more taxes…while organizations that DON’T (or, are funded by foundations that don’t) transform society and policy….

Here’s a sample of the “-INGS” that indicate participation in the Domestic Violence INDUSTRY, or in the backlash to it, the Fatherhood (i.e., “ParentING” literature, by its real name) Industry.

(I obviously don’t mean “parenting” literature by married or cohabiting parents, but in the context of family law — see blog title…)

My sarcasm about the industry (well-merited) doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the points raised by people in it (well, many of the points raised by people in it). What I protest is the SILENCE on the points rarely raised — which are the crux of the matter, and we poor slobs stuck in the system deserved to know earlier. Serves us right for following industry leaders before doing a background checks, or having ever become distressed — at all — in life… or having been raised in trusting nonviolent family environments, which fail to tell us how the world works, or at least the economy and the government. To this day, a real good (if uncomfortable) life consists of straining out myths. I hope my blog helps with some of the worst..

Redefining Harm, Reimagining Remedies and Reclaiming Domestic Violence Law


Margaret Ellen Johnson
University of Baltimore – School of Law

UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 42, 2009

University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-4

Abstract:
Civil domestic violence laws do not effectively address and redress the harms suffered by women subjected to domestic violence. The Civil Protective Order (“CPO”) laws should offer a remedy for all domestic abuse with an understanding that domestic violence subordinates women.
{{WE WANT LAWS TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING? OR TO OFFER A REMEDY BASED ON SOMETHING?}}
{{Rather, I suggest we start with an acknowledgment that they aren’t enforceable, anyhow, at leat not for long……As such, and per se, they endanger women unles respected by the person who got the civil PO. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — isn’t this a lawyer or law prof. writing??}}
These laws should not remedy only physical violence or criminal acts.
{{Well, as practiced now — they often don’t remedy anything, though initially they do save lives (case in point). They are also considered less severe than criminal when kids get involved, though family law judges are notrious for ignoring criminal pasts in custody cases anyhow…Lord help the [yeah, woman , and especially any mother,] who didn’t know this, and press charges from day 1….}}
All forms of abuse — psychological, emotional, economic, and physical — are interrelated. Not only do these abuses cause severe emotional distress, physical harm, isolation, sustained fear, intimidation, poverty, degradation, humiliation, and coerced loss of autonomy, {{TRUE — in fact sounds like a good description of slavery, which supposedly was outlawed...}} but, as researchers have demonstrated, [***] most domestic violence is the fundamental operation of systemic oppression through the exertion of power and control. Because CPOs are effective in rebalancing the power in a relationship and decreasing abuse, this remedy should be available to all women subjected to all forms of domestic violence. This Article proposes recrafting the civil law to provide a remedy for all harms of domestic violence and its operation of systemic power and control over women. Re-centering the narrative of domestic violence on this oppression rather than merely physical violence and criminal acts underscores the critical role of women’s agency and autonomy in legally remedying domestic violence. Too often, outside actors choose to save women’s lives to the exclusion of effectuating women’s choices about their abusive relationships.

Keywords: Domestic Violence, Civil Protective Order, Civil Law, Women and the Law, Feminist Legal Theory, Gender and the Law

JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K40

Accepted Paper Series

Date posted: November 19, 2008 ; Last revised: August 16, 2010

Suggested Citation

I’m not going to fully engage with this article sounds interesting, eh? See my What Decade Were These Stories post, though — civil or criminal, the duty to enforce does NOT create a right for the protected party to demand enforcement. Bet they didn’t tell you that one at the local Family Justice Center.

Speaking of which, for CreatING Family Justice Centers — see my post “District Attorney Dubious Doings”

Speaking of which — and this is timely — see JUSTICE WOMEN.ORG (N. CA. based — same as Dr. Kelly, below — although I doubt the nonprofit organization founders can afford to fly around the country conducting trainings, like those in the industry can. And do….

Research can “demonstrate” anything, which I’m about to demonstrate.

To make my point, I’ll source another nice seminar held at this same Univ. of Baltimore School of Law, recently ….

ParentING Coordination:

HelpING High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes**

{a word about those phrases, below….}

>December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.

Key phrase: high-conflict (reframes DV/CA issues), “parenting Coordinatrion” and “HELPING parents.” Yeah, right…
<a href=”http://law.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=1408” rel=”nofollow”>SOURCE: University of Baltimore Law School.</a>

That this is a marketING phrase can be seen by searching on the title — it shows up as a TrainING seminar out of — “suprise!” – afccnet.org, which I don’t feel like downloading here: (note: try search yourself, in quotes, if my link doesn’t work)

Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes

Or, I could search this by the Presenter, following the same Title, and trace it back to Northern California..She happened to also teach this at Baltimore School of Law.

FEE: $495 (Early Registration: $435 if paid by 10/21/10; $465 if paid by 11/4/10). 

CE CREDITS:

MCLE & BBS (12 hrs.); MCEP (13 hrs – to be submitted for review to MCEPAA for approval, Provider #NOR045).

DESCRIPTION:
Parents with continuing disputes and litigation about their children following divorce present a difficult problem for courts, lawyers and mental health professionals, and increase their children’s risk of adjustment problems. For parenting coordinators, Special Masters, mediators, custody evaluators, lawyers, divorce counselors, therapists and other professionals who work with high-conflict families.

Participants in this two-day workshop will:

  • Understand the most recent empirical and clinical research on high conflict parents and their children and what makes these parents so difficult;
  • Understand the hybrid nature of the parenting coordinator (Special Master) role that includes parent education, mediation, and where authorized, arbitration, and how the parenting coordinator process helps reduce parent conflict and address children’s needs;

THESE NEEDS WILL MOST DEFINITELY INCLUDE A NEED FOR TWO PARENTS — MOM AND DAD — IN THEIR LIVES, EVEN IF DAD WAS A BATTERER AND HAS A CHILD MOLESTATION RECORD. IF IT’S TOO OVERT, THEN THE SUPERVISED VISITATION PEOPLE CAN BE BROUGHT IN…

  • Understand the distinctions between serving as a Special Master and therapy, custody evaluation, child representation or representing parents;
  • Learn about parenting coordinator objectives, types of disputes settled, best practices, models, and critical elements in court orders or parent consent agreements;
  • Understand the technical, ethical, clinical, and personal issues in serving as a parenting coordinator (Special Master);
  • Learn from case examples, group exercises, and practice dispute analysis and decision-making.

About the Instructor:

Dr. Joan B. Kelly, a research, forensic, and clinical psychologist, was Director of the Northern California Mediation Center for 19 years. Her research, writing, and practice have focused on children’s adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, using child development research in parenting plans, divorce mediation, and Parenting Coordination. She has more than 85 publications, and a classic book, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. Joan is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, was recently appointed to an APA ask Force to develop guidelines for Parenting Coordinator practice, and previously served on a similar AFCC task force. She is a frequent presenter and speaker in the United States, Canada, and abroad.

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon

Co-presenter (at Baltimore School of Law training, anyhow)

Ms. Mindy Mitnick

Besides having a very unique name, especially preceded by “Ms.” —

which may (or may not) explain why she present with Ph.D. (just kids — but seriously, in the INDUSTRY, Ph.D.’s count. Being a street-savvy litigant, even with a Ph.D. in something else does NOT — as Dr. Amy Cabrillo (pediatrician) learned the hard way when she begged a judge to listen to her high-conflict, uncoordinated parent self in NOT letting her suicidal and already troubled “ex” take three children on a weekend visitation. As we know (and wasn’t THIS in maryland also??) her plea was ignored, and her three children were drowned in a bathtub. Apparently their father was indeed coordinated in some matters, such as drownING his kids. This FYI, is called a “dispute” and “high conflict,” squarely blaming Dr. Castillo 50% for not holdING her marriage together, although certainly she was complyING with court orders… …Street savvy, educated, observant, alert, honest, etc. or not — you will be cut down to size by these professionals….

(is on the Board of Directors of AFCC, who helps sponsor these trainINGs.)

Mindy F. Mitnick Ed.M.
Edina, Minnesota

Mindy Mitnick is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in Minneapolis. She received a Master of Education from Harvard University and a Master of Arts from the University of Minnesota. She specializes in complex custody cases, working as an evaluator, therapist and parenting consultant. Ms. Mitnick has trained professionals throughout the country about developmental issues in parenting schedules, effective interventions in high-conflict divorce, assessing allegations of sexual abuse during divorce disputes, and the use of expert witnesses in divorce cases. She has been a speaker for the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, National Association of Counsel for Children, the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, the Ontario Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and numerous statewide training conferences. Ms. Mitnick served on the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Parental Cooperation and the American Bar Association working group to update guidelines for child witnesses in criminal cases. She currently serves on the AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy and is a board member of the Minnesota Chapter of AFCC.

In the training phrase above, from Univ of Baltimore School of Law:

December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.

These are the key concepts to understande, as well as how the title itself is REPACKAGING and MARKETING CRIMINAL MATTERS {typically child molestation or battering, domestic violence, and/ or in some cases stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment and in general other pretty nasty stuff that society doesn’t like — or at least says it doesn’t} AS PARENTAL” DISPUTES”
:

December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.

We have here a prominent psychologist and educationist trainING a host of others how to view parents with a dispute. Keep in mind that some of the leading bleeding headlines you see also characterize the problem as a “dispute.” Some dispute!

The chief thing to understand about BOTH parents in any of these matters is that they can’t walk and chew gum unless a psychologist and/or divorce expert tells them how to, for a fee (see above…). Pretty soon, from what I can tell, that definition is going to expand beyond the about 50% of couples that divorce, to most of the population — except thsoe in the business of supervising them, and training others how to do so, whether this supervision is at the K-12 level, pre-school, prison, batterers intervention, supervised vsitation, fatherhood practicing, marriage-promoting, ABSTINENCE-promoting or Restraining Order Issuing level — or simply being a working PERSON FUNDING THESE EFFORTS. ….

I know we can’t “walk and chew gum” without help (although some of us were formerly surgeons, teachers, factory workers, business owners, stay-at-home Moms, working Moms, or functional in many, many other areas of society outside this world of family law…….) – because we need COORDINATION — right?

THAT link is at the CFCC level. I keep tellING people, including women in my situation, that this is the key to the puzzle, at least a major key. ….

Take a look at the -INGS in this California Courtinfo site — linking to the CFCC

Center for Families, Children & the Courts Logo Image

Their program page includes this:

The Center for Families, Children & the Courts is involved with many projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Click on the title below to find out about a particular program.

Access to Visitation Grant Program

The Access to Visitation Grant Program — I think it dates as far back as 1995 or 1996 at least — is a function of PWORA welfare reform, fatherhood promotion, and forced shared parenting concepts. It’s one of the best kept secrets around. I you read about it, you will see why there is an ongoING need for thes eprofessionals in the courts, and how YOU are (probably) paying for this, to the tune of (at one time) $10/million per YEAR, nationwide.

OK, OK, I’ll spell this out, right here now:

Overview
The Judicial Council is charged with administering and distributing California’s share of the federal Child Access and Visitation Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement. These grants, established under section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2258)—title III, section 469B of the Social Security Act—enable states to establish and administer programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.

The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.” Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:


  • Supervised visitation and exchange services;

  • Education about protecting children during family disruption; and

  • Group counseling services for parents and children.

The primary goals of California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program are to enable parents and children to participate in supervised visitation, education, and group counseling programs—irrespective of marital status and of whether the parties are currently living separately permanently or temporarily—and to promote and encourage healthy relationships between noncustodial or joint custodial parents and their children while ensuring the children’s health, safety, and welfare. The overarching goal of the grant program is to increase noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children through accessible and available services statewide for low-income families who are now or have been in family courts.


Aimed at low-income families, ostensibly, it affects ALL families. particularly ones where some wealth exists are going to get soaked.

This is the best kept secret around and should be “outed” during Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Month — because the domestic violence INDUSTRY leaderes never talk about this, or a whole damn lot of other key factors at play in the c ourts.

Why should they — and ahve to go find another job? ?? What, you got to be KIDDING!

Yesterday’s post cited an article in a Northern California area (Marin County) that is getting high press, and some organizations around it (one called “Center for Judicial Excellence.”) and an upcoming audit of the family court system, supposedly. Who’s kidding whom? The eXISTENCE of this CFCC and its role in the courts, and the Access Visitation funding is not even mentioned (by name) in ALL of the comments below, which span many categories. Moreover, the ONLY reference to AFCC (and some indications a woman had actually read Marv Bryer,Idele Clark – one of the cases involved, I believe — and others) — she reads like a madwoman.

HEY — when you type on a computer, are you constantly aware if it’s DOS or WINDOWS or Apple based? (obviously that’s not my field of expertise)? Are you translating binary code? Probably not –right? But how would it work if someone hadn’t designed that to start with?

Now let’s talk about the INDUSTRY. It’s SELF-REPLICATING THROUGH UNENDING TRAINING, enabled in great part by this wonderful INTERNET.

Them that can, DO. Them that can’t, teach it’s said. Well, there’s SOME truth to that ..

Trust me (or don’t) — it’s important to understand this system — and it’s a model for other similar ones.

Remind me, some day, to publish my English to ING-lish guide to these marketING systems posing as “help” to uncoordinated parents in a dispute, or the restrainING order mills.

Don’t get me wrong — I wouldn’t be alive today without one. But it most certainly upset a LOT of people, and (except that I’m still alive typing) they have more than gotten even for the indignity…

EVERY balance sheet has a + and a -. But a business sense says, that in relationships, your – may very well be my (or my cronies’) +. Failure to realize this is setting onesself up. When it comes to altruism, it may be a factor, but I’d bet it’s generally not the primary one in most ongoing relationships. Self-interest is part of human nature. Most people, nowadays, in the US (probably safe to say) do not raise their own food or defend themselves. So, what fields is everyone going to?

And where are the intellectuals going to make an honest — scratch that — make A living?

We don’t have royalty over here, so one has to go somewhere… Social Sciences, Psychology, TeachING . . . .CoordinatING, managING, etc. Where is the endless supply of customers coming from?

What better database than people who get into troubled relationships (domestic violence) and try to get out (divorce) but have children before they do (parenting). It takes a global village, right?? ThinkING — now that’s got to be taught also…

Did I mention PublishING? that’s a prerequisite for Ph.D.s, isn’t it? At least to get started, and retain a reputation.

The question with any policy ending with the word ING is — who is between and among?

Uniformly, almost, I find it is between or among professionals in one field (or another) getting their act together about how to describe and deal with People who are Not Present. In otherwords, the US’es in any field discuss the THEMs. In this way, groups that were formerly an Us/Them dichotomy (the most obvious being the Fatherhood/Domestic Violence groupings) pat themselves on the back for collaborating — on how to scam the new “THEMS,” which is, as I again say, the poor slobs who still think that law means law, and not psychological therapeutic jurisprudence for fun (theirs) and profit.

And we indeed are a consumer society — or else the sky will fall. How can and who can be forced into consuming psychological, parenting, and other counseling they neither need, want, nor are going to follow? Only someone in severely compromised situations. Voila, Family Law System. ….

HENCE, the FINANCIAL balance sheet often reveals much more than any custody evaluation. I’m all in favor of it, when it comes to reform. Personally, though I’d favor boycott where possible, and watch out, where not. Women’s groups should learn from men (but not forget that gender issues remain, and always have been there) and men should learn from women when we’ve had enough; you are going to be out on your ass, and if these policies keep up, up until the invention of the artificial womb or human clone, we are going to recommend our daughters stop giving birth; except that we love them, some of us sometimes regret that we did, to spend an entire childhood like many of them have had to — half in abuse, and half (possibly still in abuse) in the income-draining court system.

(I love you, girls… . . . Love, your real Mom…and you are why I ever bothered with this blog. I wanted you to know what was, and what wasn’t certain people’s fault — and NONE of it was yours, ever. I also want to warn you what’s ahead if you don’t gain your own wisdom about your own past someday, I hope soon — or when you’re ready to. Sorry I can’t mention you by name, but I bet you’ll recognize my writing style….)

Lies are always wrong, and intentional deceit. The largest lies were not from either parent (though I DID NOT!) but from the policymakers in washington, D.c., and others who framed legislation to make a joke out of the court process, and for their own pocketbooks…If I had left earlier, given these policies, I likely would not have even seen you grow half up…

Make SURE you know your travelling companions in life, and choose the best ones you can in any situation. Never take things for granted, and try to study the wider systems you are in. Specializing is rewarding (and builds good discipline and attentiont o detail), but professions change rapidly. As women, you need to know some feminist roots, and where feminists have forgotten the “fundies,” and both, fighting, have forgotten the history of this country and the world.

ALWAYS, always, the love of money is the root of evil, and generally speaking, highest emotions in life are about that, and possibly social status and access to sex (which money, plenty of it represents). Remember that the net time some legislator or anyone else (such as a preacher) tries to lecture you about your personal habits. . .. Don’t go into marriage if you do, defanged. it’s just not wise! That man needs to know he respects you or you’re gone, kids or no kids. Respect comes first, and equal access to finances to take off if you need to (that was my mistake, daughters).

%d bloggers like this: