Posts Tagged ‘AFCC’
OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011]
Post Title with shortlink and enclosed comments added June, 2019. Post written eight years earlier.
(This post came up in a search and I needed to add a “Read-More” link anyway).
See Gilder-Lehman Center at Yale or his NYT Obituary April, 2019. Undated photo.
OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011] [WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link here ends in just two characters, probably because it’s so early in this blog: “-K7”]. As first published, about 10,800 words, incl. any & all quotes, image captions, tables, etc. //LGH June 23, 2019
On review of this post, I see that perhaps the final ⅓ is quoting (at length) three sources on Irish Slavery, including “Tangled Roots’ “Barbadosed: Africans and Irish in Barbados” from GLC.Yale.Edu, a center originally inspired when businessmen/history buffs G&L heard lectures by a Yale history professor David Brion Davis, who I now see just died this past April after a long, productive life:”Prizewinning Historian of Slavery Dies at 92” NYT April, 2019.
Professor Davis wrote or edited 16 books, but paramount were the three that examined the moral challenges and contradictions of slavery and their centrality in American and Atlantic history. ~~|~~The first, “The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture” (1966), won a Pulitzer Prize and was a National Book Award finalist. The second, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823” (1975), won the National Book Award as well as the Bancroft Prize, one of the most prestigious in the study of American history. ~~|~~The last book of the trilogy, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation,” was published in 2014 as Professor Davis approached 90. It won the National Book Critics Circle Award…~~|~~President Barack Obama presented Professor Davis with a National Humanities Medal in 2014 for “reshaping our understanding of history,” as the citation said. ~~|~~The fundamental problem of slavery, Professor Davis wrote, “lay not in its cruelty or exploitation, but in the underlying conception of man as a conveyable possession with no more autonomy of will and consciousness than a domestic animal.” [ “~~|~~” = para. break omitted]
I was (and still am) pretty irritated at the exclusionary practices of the above-named groups in deciding how to solve “family” problems involving abuse; see concluding paragraph. And there are many parallels between abuse and slavery.
Understandably, this torrent of text with missing paragraph breaks can be very irritating to read. But for those who do read, or skim, I believe I have made the point that AFCC members flock together, consult together, and set policy together. Generally speaking any policy that comes out will somehow, somewhere, contain the words “Parental Alienation” “High-Conflict” and usually to go with it, “treatment” or “solutions” etc.
The solution is generally going to require counseling or the services of a psychologist, counselor, mediator, psychiatrist, therapist or other mental health expert.
- First, positioning member (this is long done, and ongoing) high in government, particularly in the court system.
- Programs are pretty much pushed from the Top Down while proclaiming they are actually grassroots demand . . . .
- Running conferences — all over the place, but noticeably in real nice places that most of the people they are talking about (in the conferences, i.e., parents) have little chance of reaching (or affording hotel & airfare for)– such as Honolulu, with an after-trip to Cuba, or other cool places. As well as the Contiguous US conference circuit, ongoing.
- Pushing the services of psychologists and psychiatrists, including Ph.D.s in the same to remedy the majority of life’s problems.
- This of course is easier to push when you also have judges in the mix willing to sign a few court orders forcing treatment.
- Taking advantage of Federal Grants and teaching membership how to do the same, whether from HHS or DOJ.
- Strategically forming nonprofit corporations to contract, or subcontract with whatever the grants are for.
- Skillful involvement of Child Support Service (OCSE) weaponry** to target participants in certain programs, like parental education, in particular.
- Co-opting the Battered Women’s Movement and diluting it through “collaboration.” (HHS grants system helps motivate this behavior). For example, when Battered Women’s Justice Project combines with Association of Family & Conciliation Courts to study the problems with Custody.
Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations
BWJP and its project partner, Praxis International, are expanding recent multidisciplinary efforts to more effectively protect the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents in the family court system by crafting a more practical framework for identifying, understanding and accounting for the contexts and implications of domestic violence in custody arrangements and parenting plans.
Read that one aloud nonstop, three times (one quick breath only per time) and try to deduce the meaning. Separate and examine each phrase and try to locate in time & space, and clearly label what they are referring to.
BWJP and Praxis staff have formed a National Workgroup with representatives from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and theAssociation of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). In consultation with leading researchers and practitioners, they have begun to examine the institutional processes by which family courts commonly reach and/or facilitate crucial parenting decisions, including the use of auxiliary advisors such as custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates. The intent is to identify the ways in which current institutional practices produce both problematic and helpful results for children and their parents.
The goal of this analysis, which draws heavily from the Praxis Audit Process of institutional ethnography, is to develop concrete recommendations for producing safer, healthier outcomes for children and their battered and battering parents.**
Commentary:
Yes — rather than, say, accountability, let’s go for making sure the battering parents as well as the parents and children battered are safe. This is equally important, right?, to protecting both perpetrators and their victims, whether the other parent, or children.
Since when did the safety of a person who beats on or abuses another person rise in equality to the safety of the person attacked? Does this happen throughout the criminal law system as well? Is battering no longer a criminal matter, but a “family” matter? After all, the name of BWJP is “Battered Women‘s Justice Project.”
Any project to “produce an outcome” should be most concerned about the processes involved to get there — which is where the “Justice” part supposedly enters in!
TO figure out how to do this, assemble experts from BWJP — a group that has so far not reported (at all) on the AFCC– and the AFCC, and another family court oriented group, NCJFCJ.
AFCC judicial members and others are notorious for switching custody to batterers on the basis of parental alienation, a theory derivative of some incest-friendly psychologists (Gardner et al.) and promoted by an organization founded by them. This sad/bad custody-switching habit spawned by AFCC (it wasn’t battering; it was parental alienation, and your mind needs adjustment, Mom; GREAT idea. . . .) has itself spawned another set of nonprofit groups who like to complain about it (but not address AFCC’s role or the fatherhood grants system’s role, or for that matter, the role of the child support system in funding the operation).
There already IS a framework — and these organizations are IT! So the same organizations are going to “frame” (or rather REframe) the problems they have helped create? — AFCC, as a primary agent, and BWJP at this point, I’ll have to call a decoy. Who, really is being “framed” here?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket. Judge was AFCC
I looking up Maximus, and what comes up alongside it, Lockheed-Martin, no matter which way you push it, one finds fraud and complaints about fraud. I am starting to wonder about how much practices like this contributed to the economic troubles in Wisconsin which caused legislators to exit the state rather than vote to compromise the union’s rights to bargain, that ushered in 2011.
When fraud is entrenched, routine and too much has been invested int he agency committing the fraud to eliminate it from further government contracts, than our government is too big for its britches, which we paid for. Government Of, By, For, WHICH people?
This article, though 2007, seems to typify the problems with privatizing child support. Of course there are other problems with keeping it in place, and having the access/visitation “Designer Family” incentives, too — and with the capricious nature of enforcement, and the vested interests in keeping the states staffed by child support agencies and workers as an antidote to poverty, which I am starting to think, it just ain’t. I think anymore it’s a contributor. Parents who can separate and were decent to start with, the one will be willing to support HIS children without going to court to force some sort of child support order. They will write it up.
Those who can’t are subject to fleecing whether or not through Title IV-D programs.
I did submit a full-length post (and looked up this judge, some) to the same post; it’s not up there yet but I hope will be.
It’s not about individual judges — it’s about systems. But the forum is helpful if it links to other news articles, or data for those using or viewing it.
MI-Remove Chief Judge Marybeth Kelly (Posted at: Courthouseforum.com)
| The Michigan Citizen – 2669 Bagley – Detroit – MI – 48216 � Phone: 313-963-8282Monday, SEP 17, 2007 MichiganCitizen.com |
|
|
Kelly moves to privatize Friend of the Court
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson (r) with supporters of Judge Deborah Thomas in her fight for jury rights. DIANE BUKOWSKI PHOTOS March for Kelly’s removal
By Diane Bukowski
The Michigan CitizenDETROIT — Wayne County child support workers joined hundreds of youth, legal luminaries, government officials and rank and file Detroiters Sept. 10, marching outside state offices at Cadillac Place, and packing the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center {{“CAYMC}}} auditorium, with standing room only.
They were there to support Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Deborah Thomas in her struggle for racially representative juries, among other concerns, and to demand the removal of Chief Judge Mary Beth Kelly.
On Sept. 6, Kelly announced her intent to contract out the jobs of 169 Friend of the Court employees to a private company which will employ a total of 225 workers at lower wages, with no benefits or pensions. Kelly said the move would increase the amount of collections and a cut of them which goes to the county.
BIDDERS HAVE PRIOR LEGAL ISSUES
Among the national companies likely to bid on the $28 million contract are MAXIMUS, Inc., a Lockheed Martin spin-off, and Tier Technologies, which currently operates the state’s centralized child support disbursement system.
The companies would get either a flat fee or a cut of the amount collected. MAXIMUS and Lockheed-Martin recently paid millions in fines to the federal government for defrauding social service programs, and Tier Technologies faces a securities fraud suit by its shareholders.
“We have mostly Black employees here, a lot of them with 18 or more years of seniority,” said a child support worker who asked not to be identified. “We’re already working like dogs on the biggest caseload in the state, but now they want to reduce our wages to $8 or $9 an hour. We won’t be allowed to bump into other county positions.”
The Wayne County Friend of the Court is the largest FOC in the state, with 300,000 active cases. In 2006, according to figures released by Kelly, it collected over 74 percent of the $426.2 million owing in the cases, a figure which surpasses the 2005 state-wide collection rate of 60 percent and ranks among the top state percentages nationally.
Failure to collect outstanding amounts is largely due to the poverty rate of non-custodial parents, according to Marilyn Stephen, Director of the State Office of Child Support.
“More than 75 percent of child support arrears in Michigan are owed by parents making less than $10,000 annually,” Stephen said. Over one-third of payments go primarily to the state to reimburse it for assistance to poor non-custodial parents, who get only a small pass-through of $50 a month.
WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE TO NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS? TYPICALLY THAT PHRASE GOES, TO REIMBURSE IT FOR ASSISTANCE TO CUSTODIAL PARENTS (WHO ARE TITLE IV-D).
ENGLER OPENED DOOR TO PRIVATIZATION
State Attorney General Mike Cox originally proposed privatization of child support collection in 2003. Former Gov. John Engler and Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan opened the floodgates, supporting a 2002 law allowing privatization of state social services. Kelly is a member of a state child support panel appointed by Corrigan.
Is that this woman, Wikipedia now showing as Head of Michigan DHS?
Description of Michigan DHS (from this site, bottom):
The Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) is the state’s second-largest agency. The DHS oversees almost 10,000 employees and has an annual budget of more than $4 billion to administer federal programs.
The DHS staff handles more than 1.5 million medical assistance cases and 1.2 million cash and food-assistance cases all across Michigan. It oversees Michigan’s child and adult protective services, foster care, adoptions, juvenile justice, domestic violence, and child-support programs. The DHS also licenses adult foster care, child day care and child welfare facilities.[4]
She graduated from Marygrove College in Detroit, Michigan in 1969 and earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from theUniversity of Detroit Law School in 1973. While in law school, she worked as a probation officer at a Detroit court.
Her first job after law school was with the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she served as a law clerk to Judge John Gillis. She next worked as a Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor. In 1979, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney, serving as Chief of Appeals; she later became the first woman to serve as Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney. In 1989, she became a partner at the Detroit law firm of Plunkett & Cooney. In 1992, Governor John Engler appointed her to the Michigan Court of Appeals. She was twice elected to that court and served as its Chief Judge from 1997-1998.
Corrigan is a long-time member of the Federalist Society, Michigan Lawyers Chapter. She was also president of the Incorporated Society of Irish-American Lawyers and of the Federal Bar Association, Detroit Chapter.
A member of the (Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Corrigan has been recognized for her work on foster care and adoption issues, including The Detroit News‘ “Michiganian of the Year” award.
Corrigan is the widow of the late Joseph D. Grano, a professor of constitutional law at Wayne State University. She has two children: Megan Grano, a comedian with Second City in Chicago, and Daniel Grano, an associate attorney with Flood, Lanctot, Connor & Stablein, PLLC, a law firm in Royal Oak, Michigan. She has supported several of George W. Bush‘s nominees to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which includes the state of Michigan.
Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano also supports Kelly’s move.
“We are particularly grateful with the Court’s requirement that the successful bidder hire all FOC employees whose jobs are the subject of the Request for Proposal,” said Ficano in a statement. “We expect a smooth transition.”
However, Wayne County Commissioners Jewel Ware, Bernard Parker, and Tim Killeen attended the CAYMC rally, supporting Judge Thomas and expressing strong opposition to the privatization proposal.
{{Ever since I learned about the behavior of some County Commissioners in Northern and Southern California, I am generally wary. In S. CA ,they were in bed with the large developers (and others), and in N.CA, voted to allow an Interim D.A. just prior to the other’s planned retirement, enabling (Orloff) in effect to pick his successor (Alameda County DA Nancy O’Malley), who then went on to propound another PRIVATE NONPROFIT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES situation, the Family Justice Center. She was recently seen with her team seeking support of a California (not US Congress, but a STATE) bill which would incorporate a certain alliance of counties (already working together) as the central, training grounds (3 of them) for more Justice Centers. I’ve never met anyone who has received help from here, or heard it in the press other than their press releases, and our landscape is strewn with domestic violence and sexual assault outrages, and deaths, plus corruption in law enforcement also — who are entrenched in that Justice Center setup. “Just say “NO” or at least “Whoa!” post, and/or “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys post,” this blog)
Ed McNeil, assistant to the President of Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) reiterated their opposition.
“Michigan ranks fourth in the nation in the collection of child support payments,” said McNeil. “Our folks are doing their job. All the monies collected ought to go to the families, not to some private entity that gets a percentage to make a profit.”
The workers’ contract expires Sept. 30. AFSCME staff representative Danny Craig, threatened that employees “will take it to the streets” if the county insists on the privatization move.
Wayne County’s Third Circuit Court previously had a $5 million contract with MAXIMUS in 2000, to modify the child support distribution system. The state had a five-year contract with a Lockheed Martin spin-off, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., to develop and operate its centralized state disbursement unit. It now contracts with Tier Technologies to run the unit.
In July of this year, MAXIMUS entered a criminal deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, and paid a $30.6 million fine because it submitted claims for servicing all foster care children in the District of Columbia regardless of whether it had.
Also in July, Affiliated Computer Services agreed to pay the federal government $2.6 million because it admittedly submitted inflated charges for services it provided to programs run by the Agriculture, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments.
Tier Technologies is facing ongoing prosecution in New York in a class action securities fraud case, brought in 2006 by its shareholders.
I’ll be back. There is more . . . .. . .
SHARE THIS POST on...
Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet].
This post title with a “shortlink” attached is:
Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-JR”. Note: for normal URLs (web addresses), upper or lower case alpha doesn’t seem to matter, but I’ve learned that within this domain (WordPress) and in such short-links, it does.
LGH UPDATE NOTE: My current table of contents only goes back to Sept., 2012; this is a June 15, 2011 post (early on in this blogger’s learning curve!) so would only be found by search, some other link reference to it, or by Year/Month/Date through the “Archives” (by month) on this blog.
I added some quick (not thorough) updates on Overcoming Barriers at the bottom in response to a comment submitted March, 2016…including tax returns, California corporate registration (Massachusetts could also be searched).
For a December 2017 Update (which at first I thought might fit in here), see:
I was just going to add a very short update (that comment, it seems, in March 2016), but instead added a section on renewed Parental Alienation discussions, and the socialist “re-education camps” in Viet Nam after South fell to the North, in 1975. Similar in other countries. Major quality and scope difference — but force is force, and at some levels, it’s also a form of psychological, personal violence. In my opinion. So, the original (written/published in 2011) post begins in maroon font and below a double-line after the following paragraphs and a few quotes:
Speaking of how to continue keeping “Parental Alienation” conversation going — and ordering services to undo it through the family courts — I recently noticed that a “Dr. Craig Childress” (Craig A. Childress, Psy.D.) is resurrecting parental alienation under a different theory; I have some comments on it over at Red Herring Alert (a wordpress blog). “Same old, same old” with new window dressing and tactics (Childress recommends pressuring providers who do NOT recommend IMMEDIATE, safety-for-the-child total separation from the alienating parent (i.e., “mom” typically) through their licensing board, if this could be categorized under some existing DSM-defined disorder.
You cannot really argue with self-referencing, self-congratulating circles of experts on this matter which is why I recommend a more interesting angle of approach: If they incorporate, find tax returns and corporate records; if they get contracts with the courts, or government grants to run “reunification camps” and similar therapy for parental alienation (in its old or new classifications), pay attention to the details!
The technique and ability to re-indoctrinate people in groups, as well as children, was also in common use in socialist countries; I believe the term used was “re-education camps,” referring to those in South Viet Nam after the fall of Saigon in 1975: Search “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps: A Brief History” (that’s supplemental reading, from a man’s father’s oral history — he lived through such camps — from “Choices” program at Brown; see website) or “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.”
The second link introduces and describes the various levels. I wonder, in the USA, why the country is so heavily invested in a class of professionals whose purpose seems to be behavioral change and keeping up-to-date with tactics and strategies for re-indoctrinating children, women and men into their proper social relationships with each other and particularly after one or more of the same has spoken out about some prior injustice, or sought to escape being subjected to abuse by a family member. These camps apparently went on from 1975 – 1986 until people still being held were allowed to emigrate to the US.
“Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.” Posted 4/17/2014 by “kubia”
Following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, Vietnamese Communist government began to open hundreds of “re-education” camps throughout the country. Those camps, as Hanoi officially claimed, were places where individuals could “learn about the ways of the new government” through education and socially constructive labor.
In 1975, it was estimated that around 1 to 2.5 million people1, including former officers, religious leaders, intellectuals, merchants, employees of the old regime, and even some Communists, entered the camps in the hope that they could quickly reconcile with the new government and continued their peaceful life. However, their time in those camps did not last for ten days or two weeks as the government had claimed.
Re-education Camps Levels
The re-education camps were organized into five levels. The level-one camps which were called as study camps or day-study centers located mainly in major urban centers, often in public parks, and allowed attendees to return home each night. In those camps, some 500,000 people2 were instructed about socialism, new government policy in order to unlearn their old ways of thinking. The level-two camps had a similar purpose as the level-one, but attendees were not allowed to return home for three to six months. During the 1970s, at least 200,000 inmates entered more than three hundred level–two camps2.
The level-three re-education camps, known as the socialist-reform camps, could be found in almost every Southern Vietnam province containing at least 50,000 inmates2. Most of them were educated people and thus less susceptible to manipulation than most South Vietnamese in the level-one and two camps. Therefore, the inmates (or prisoners) in these camps had to suffer poorer living conditions, forced labor and daily communist indoctrination.
The last two types of camps were used to incarcerate more “dangerous” southern individuals – including writers, legislator teachers, supreme court judges, province chiefs – until the South was stable to permit their release. By separating members of certain social classes of the old regime, Hanoi wanted to prevent them from conducting joint resistances and forced them to conform to the new social norms. In 1987, at least 15,000 “dangerous” persons were still incarcerated level-four and level-five camps2.
Camp Conditions and Deaths
In most of the re-education camps, living conditions were inhumane. Prisoners were treated with little food, poor sanitation, and no medical care3. They were also assigned to do hard and risky work such as clearing the jungle, constructing barracks, digging wells, cutting trees and even mine field sweeping without necessary working equipments.
Although those hard work required a lot of energy, their provided food portions were extremely small. As a prisoner recall, the experience of hunger dominated every man in his camp. Food was the only thing they talked about. Even when they were quiet, food still haunted their thoughts, their sleep and their dreams. Worse still, various diseases such as malaria, beriberi and dysentery were widespread in some of the camps. As many prisoners were weakened by the lack of food, those diseases could now easily take away their lives.
Starvation diet, overwork, diseases and harshly punishment resulted in a high death rate of the prisoners. According to academic studies of American researchers, a total of 165,000 Vietnamese people died in those camps4.
The End of “Re-education” Period
Most of the re-education camps were operated until 1986 when Nguyen Van Linh became the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He began to close the harsher camps and reformed the others5. Two year later, Washington and Hanoi reached an agreement that Vietnam would free all former soldiers and officials of the old regime who were still held in re-education camps across the country and allowed them to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). As of August 1995, around 405,000 Vietnamese prisoners and their families were resettled in the U.S6.
– See more at: thevietnamwar.info/vietnamese-re-education-camps/..
The forced “Reunification Camps” (far less harsh, but still forced, and still designed to produce an attitude change) have their professionals willing to engage in these practices.
I think it must take a certain kind of mentality, if not personality aberrancy, to believe in this and what’s more preach about it and take in business to engage in it.
For some reason, those “Re-education camps” remind me of, though lesser in degree, the same idea as, for example, “overcoming barriers.” It’s still based on force — and who knows how many similar programs are operating around the country. As I write this, the Grazzini-Rucki runaway teens were reported (in 2016) to being re-indoctrinated to like their father (who they’d run away from as young teens), while the mother, until recently, was incarcerated for parental interference. See my more recent 2016 posts).
Here’s a sample. I see he’s from Pasadena, California (Los Angeles area). To see it in better formatting (the “copy” function sometimes removes all spaces between words!) click on link:
C. A. CHILDRESS, Psy.D.LICENSED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, PSY 18857
547 S. MARENGO DR., STE 105 • PASADENA, CA 91101 • (909) 821-5398Page 1 of 10DSM-5 Diagnosis of “ParentalAlienation”
SHARE THIS POST on...
Evaluate, Coordinate, Prepare to Call “Alienator!” — Pt. 2: CFCC and AFCC people Nunn, Depner, Ricci, Stahl, Pruett(s), and others DV groups fail to talk about
And how this dovetails with purpose of Access Visitation Grants grants…
The last post (or so) discussed practices in Pennsylvania and Indiana, with side-trips to Kentucky and California, where they originated from anyhow.
(If you read it, I meanwhile confirmed that KidsFirstOrange County Gerald L. Klein & Sara Doudna-Klein, yes,are married. I forgot to include how much they charge for services ($300 per parent, $120 per kid) in teaching about parental alienation and conflict….. I wonder who was the first Mrs. Gerald L. Klein… and whether these two have children together or not.
In context, Kids Turn, or Kids’ First, or steering cases to certain mediators, certain GALs, etc. — is the habit. And then, to top it off, extorting parents into participation through the child support system (Kentucky), or changing the civil code of procedure AND even the Custody Complaint form to name ONE provider of ONE parenting education course (Libassi Mediation Services) which is already being marketed elsewhere — outrageous.
This was tried in California, to standardize judge& attorney-originated nonprofits through the California Judicial Council, but our then-governor vetoed it (though both houses of the legislature passed it).
Now pending — Probably still — is another one that is legitimizing a practice already established, the Family Justice Center Alliance out of San Diego, like Kids’ Turn and financial fraud at the City Attorney’s office level, and so forth. Why stop while you’re ahead?
This has currently flown through House & Senate and as of June 9th was referred to Location: Assembly Committee Public Safety Committee and I think, Judiciary. Here’s some analysis from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Christine Kehoe (who sponsored the bill) just so happens to be chair of the appropriations committee and from one of the cities involved in expanding the Justice Center concept (actually the city that started it: San Diego).
(link gives the bill’s history; the following is accessible through it)
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
Hearing Date: 05/26/2011
BILL SUMMARY: SB 557 would authorize the cities of San Diego and Anaheim, and the counties of Alameda and Sonoma, until January 1, 2014, to establish family justice centers (FJCs) to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking, and other victims of abuse and crime. This bill would require each FJC to maintain an informed consent policy in compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of the information of victims seeking services. This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (thereafter, the FJCs are to be locally funded)
_____________________________________________________________________Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Establishment of FJCs Unknown; potentially major local costs for operation and services
Major Provisions Report to Legislature $17 to OPP (Office of Privacy Protection) in advisory role General_________
…This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
…Should the specified cities and counties opt to establish a FJC, there will be unknown, but major local costs for operation and the provision of services to FJC clients. Costs would be dependent on the number of clients, FJC procedures, staffing, and the availability and cost of local treatment and service providers.
…The OPP has indicated a cost of $62,000 as the lead agency to develop best practice privacy recommendations and coordination of the report to the Legislature.
To reduce the costs of the bill, staff recommends an amendment to have the four pilot centers reduce the OPP to an advisory role over the development of best practices. The OPP has indicated reducing their involvement to oversight and review of the report would result in costs of approximately $17,000. (WELL, the OPP is slated for elimination anyhow, this report notes).
I’m posting the SB 557 updates for California residents. Information from:
RECENT POSTS:
Recently, I posted on:
- Kids Turn (Parent education curriculum, nonprofit started & staffed by family court personnel, with wealthy patrons AND gov’t sponsorship through federal Access/Visitation Funding)
- Family Justice Centers (origin in San Diego; Casey Gwinn, Gael Strack) and their background. INcluding a boost by Bush’s OFCBI initiative in 2003 — adding the faith factor to violence prevention. Sure, yeah..
- Family Justice Center #2, Alameda County — see “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post.
- Also, remember the Justicewomen.org article on the importance of District Attorneys in safety (or lack of it) towards women. A D.A. decides whether to, or NOT, to prosecute individual cases. It’s a huge responsibility.
- What’s Duluth (MN) got to do with it?
- What’s Domestic Violence Prevention got to do with this California-based racket? I questioned what a Duluth-based group spokesperson (Ellen Pence) is doing hobnobbing with a Family Justice Center founder (Casey Gwinn).
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- The elusive EIN of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” which gets millions of grants (around $29 million, I found) but from what I can tell doesn’t even have an EIN registered in MN, although its address is 202 E. Superior Street, Duluth, MN, and it definitely has a staff.
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- Toronto Integrated Domestic Violence Courts
- This was intended to be a “break” on SB 557 and Family Justice Centers, but thanks to the internet and international judges’ associations, and downloadable curricula, this is simply (it seems) another AFCC-style project. (Kids Turn knockoffs, talk of high-conflict & parental alienation, and modeled after several US states). The intended “global” reach (UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc.) is happening, and makes it hard to “take a break” from California basic corrupt practices by looking at another country’s handling of the same issues. The world is flattening — Internet, I guess.
- Last post, I addressed some partner-type organizations: AFCC/CRC, or CPR/PSI (in Denver), and personnel they have in common.
REMINDER — in CALIFORNIA — Three accepted purposes of the A/V funds system remain:
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009–2010)
Federal and State Program Goals
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.”3 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.4
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:5
- Supervised visitation and exchange services;
- Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
- Group counseling services for parents and children.
(This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature under Family Code section 3204(d).Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved.)
Report 12 Executive Summary (Sept 2000)
Preparing Court-Based Child Custody Mediation Services for the Future
DIANE NUNN
- LEADERSHIP AND NEW ROLES FOR THE JUDICIARY a 2002 conference at Univ. of Pacific McGeorge School of Law,
“The Many Faces of California’s Courts”
Diane Nunn, Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts,
California Administrative Office of the Courts, “She supervises projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Ongoing projects include training, education, research and statistical analysis.” (Note, presenting alongside Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, whose wife Nadia ran (til recently) the Alameda County Family Justice Center).
AFCC wishes to thank Symposium sponsors and exhibitors for their support:
Children’s Rights Council, Hawaii (that’s CRC)
Christine Coates, JD, Dispute Resolution Training Complete Equity Markets, Inc.
Dr. Philip M. Stahl, ParentingAfterDivorce.com (alienation promoter)
Family Law Software, Inc. J.M.Craig Press, Inc. LifeBridge
Eileen Pruett and the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Dispute Resolution Special Committee on Parent Education for the material on parent education, which is replicated in Appendix D.
In Ohio, “To achieve this goal, the Task Force recommend(ed, in 1999): 1) All parties in proceedings that involve the allocation of parental functions and responsibilities should attend parenting education seminars……Sixty-seven Ohio counties currently mandate parent education seminars for all divorcing parents;
More than two dozen experts from around the state and across the country presented testimony to the Task Force over a six-month period. Representatives from a variety of parents’ organizations, as well as a panel of teens who had experienced their parents’ divorces, brought their unique concerns to the Task Force. Staff members obtained research articles and statutes from around the nation and the globe to find the latest policies and practices. Members of the Task Force traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, to meet with staff at the Maricopa County Court system, a nationally recognized leader in court services and pro se programs, and to conferences sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an internationally acclaimed organization which provides research and programs for professionals dealing with families in conflict.
Given who was on the task force, and what it did, this kind of conclusion is a little predictable:
The following report and recommendations are the result of this extensive research effort and debate and have been unanimously approved, without any abstentions or dissents, by official action of the 17 members of the Task Force present at the final meeting on June 1, 2001.
The OTHER Pruetts (I’m still on that 2004 AFCC flyer which mentions Diane Nunn as AFCC “Advisory Task Force”) include Dr. Kyle (child psychiatrist from Yale) and his wife Marsha Kline (also a Ph.D.). They have three daughters and one son and have naturally dedicated themselves to promoting fatherhood, as a search on “Marsha Kline Pruett, Kyle Pruett Fatherhood” will readily show, at a glance. Dr. Marsha Kline even got an award for “Fatherhood Initiative Community Recognition Award, State of Connecticut (2002), and Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award, Awarded by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. She is definitely (with I gather her husband, Dr. Kyle) on the Grants stream for investigation: “University of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/09-6/30/12: Total (T) $176,924 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-InvestigatorUniversity of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/04-6/30/09: Total (T) $353,849 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-Investigator
CHARLENE DEPNER, Ph.D., AFCC, etc.
Now (just for the heck of it), more on “Charlene Depner, Ph.D.” First of all, Ph.D. in what? the answer — per LinkedIn, is Social Psychology at U Michigan
Assistant Division Director, Cntr for Families, Children & Courts, CA Administrative Office of the Courts Govt. Admin. Industry 1988 – Present (23 years)/ Education: U Michigan, PhD, Social Psychology 1972 – 1978
So it appears, about 10 years, if any, in private practice or employment of some sort?
A. Does the history of violence in the relationship predict whether the visits are supervised or unsupervised?
We found no statistically significant relationships between the history of physical and psychological abuse or injuries and court orders to a supervised visitation center, family supervised visits or unsupervised visitation. More than three quarters of the participants had experienced severe forms of physical and psychological abuse from the father of their children. One can surmise that these pervasive experiences provided no useful information to the court to determine which fathers might pose a current and ongoing danger.
The one exception was severe injuries, which had been experienced by less than half the participants (46%). Nevertheless, fathers who had severely injured their former partners were no more likely to be ordered to supervised visitation than unsupervised visitation.
A 1996 report (issued by this CA Judicial Council AOC) on “Future Directions for Mandatory Child-Custody Mediation Services:….”
” notes:
Court-based child custody mediations affect the fate of nearly 100,000 California children each year. Many of them are already at risk when parents come to court. Currently, one- third of all mediations address concerns about a child’s emotional well-being. Child Protective Services has investigated a report about children in 33 percent of all families seen in mediation. Children in half of all mediating families have witnessed domestic violence. Today’s Family Court faces the serious challenge of protecting the best interests of the next generation.
Well, pushing mediation does not appear to be the solution!
Joan Meier, of DV Leap writes on this, and most any battered women’s advocate without AFCC collaboration in the bloodstream, might say the same thing — it’s counter-indicated! Whatsamatta here? Joan Meier, of “George Washington University Law School” (and ‘DVLEAP.org”) as posted in a noncustodial mother’s blog. NOTE: She quotes both Janet Johnston, Ph.D. (AFCC leadership) and Depner, who both acknowledge that MOST of the the high-conflict cases entail child abuse or domestic violence. This has been known since the 1990s….
Most Cases Going To Court As High Conflict Contested Custody Cases Have History Of Domestic Violence
By JOAN S. MEIER, George Washington University Law School
Janet Johnston’s publications
Janet Johnston is best known as a researcher of high conflict divorce and parental alienation. {{NOTE how AFCC often pairs those terms– that’s an AFCC language habit}}. Not a particular friend of domestic violence advocates or perspectives, she has been one of the first to note that domestic violence issues should be seen as the norm, not the exception, in custody litigation.
Johnston has noted that approximately 80% of divorce cases are settled, either up front, or as the case moves through the process. Studies have found that only approximately 20% of divorcing or separating families take the case to court. Only approximately 4-5% ultimately go to trial, with most cases settling at some point earlier in the process.
– Janet R. Johnston et al, “Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-Disputing Families,” Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2005, 284-294, p. 284;
– Janet R. Johnston, “High-Conflict Divorce,” The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182, p. 167 both citing large study by Maccoby and Mnookin, DIVIDING THE CHILD: SOCIAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF CUSTODY. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press (1992).Johnston cites another study done in California by Depner and colleagues, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, “[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated… [for an average of 30-42 months]”. Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon.”
Mediation is an easy way to increase noncustodial parenting time without the protections that facts & evidence, without the disclosure of conflicts of interests a judge has to abide by, without the attorney-client work product relationship, and much more — in short, without the PROTECTIONS — that a regular trial might afford, and finish. Mandated mediation is bad enough. Some counties (in Calif) also have what’s called “recommending” status to the court-appointed mediators, meaning, their reports are taken more seriously by judges. I have seen how this works year after year (from being in the courtroom) — the mediator’s report is often delivered IN the courtroom, and NOT prior to the hearing, if then. It is typically a shocker, and this really violates due process, but it’s accepted practice. Mediation is the poor-person’s “supervised visitation / custody evaluation.” If no private family member can be made to pay for the latter two, or then the quick & dirty custody hearing is going to involve mediation.
Guess which organization is heavily composed of mediators, and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution services) and emphasizes this to unclog the courts? You betcha — AFCC.
· Attempts to leave a violent partner with children, is one of the most significant factors associated with severe domestic violence and death.
– Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston, MA: University Press.· A majority of separating parents are able to develop a post-separation parenting plan for their children with minimal intervention of the family court system. However, in 20% of the cases greater intervention was required by lawyers, court-related personnel (such as mediators and evaluators) and judges. In the majority of these cases, which are commonly referred to as “high-conflict,” domestic violence is a significant issue.
– Johnston, J.R. (1994). “High-conflict divorce.” Future of Children, 4, 165-182.
What “DVLEAP” does in its own words:
A STRONGER VOICE FOR JUSTICE
Despite the reforms of recent decades, battered women and children continue to face unfair treatment and troubling results in court. Appeals can overturn unjust trial court outcomes – but they require special expertise and are often prohibitively expensive.
We empower victims and their advocates by providing expert representation for appeals; educating pro bono counsel through in-depth consultation and mentoring; training lawyers, judges, and others on cutting-edge issues; and spearheading the DV community’s advocacy in Supreme Court cases
(photo also from this site):
They even have a “Custody and Abuse” program, and have taken on the “PAS” theme. These are specific cases that have been taken to the Appeals or even Supreme Court (state) level. Here (found on-line) is an Arkansas Case where they took on “PAS” alongside: Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice for Children and The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (on which I believe Ms. Meier is a board or advisory member), the NCADV, and National Association of Women Lawyers. It is an Amicus Brief and will likely go to discredit PAS.
The Leadership Council’s:
Mission Statement
The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts.
Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing professionals and laypersons with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society’s commitment to protect its most vulnerable members.
Goals
- To develop a coalition among professionals within the scientific community, the legal system, the political system and the media to provide professionals and laypersons with accurate information about mental health practice and research which helps insure access to the highest quality of care. (and several others are listed. . . . . .. )
In the bottom line, the Leadership Council is still talking psychology, acknowledging trauma, and opposing “PAS” — but, who they are and what they do is clear — “Apply Psychological Science Ethically.” So, if you put this psychological group together with some domestic violence lawyers, or lawyers who recognize that batterers (etc.) are getting custody — you just the opposite of the AFCC “J.D. & Ph.D.” combo of attorney & mental health practitioners
The problem is — the AFCC, being around longer, and having strategized better — have the judges, too.
As I look at The Leadership Council’s page on “Child Custody & PAS” and associated “resources” below, I notice that they have said NOTHING about the things I blog on, and some others, individuals, who have simply observed. There is a striking omission of the organizations promoting “alienation” theory — no mention of AFCC, CRC, or the influence of the Child Support System & Grants Stream on how cases are decided. While NAFCJ (and a similar Illinois group) are listed — for a change — they are one in a dozen-plus links that a mother in a crisis system could not sort through or wade through in time to help her case — if indeed that information even would.
I appreciate the work these organizations do to “out” that violence does indeed happen in the home. Of course most people experiencing it know this already….
But how much better might it have been to give TIMELY information on the operational structure of the courts, and who is paying whom. How in the world can one enter a contest being ignorant of the habits and devices of the opposite side? What’s up with that?
So, I talk about these things. And so do a FEW others.
Domestic Violence Nonprofit DVLEAP gets a “Sunshine Peace” award:
“This award is so meaningful to me,” said Professor Meier, “because I have so much respect for others who have received it in the past. I am also grateful to the Sunshine Lady Foundation for the financial contribution to DV LEAP associated with the award which will make a significant difference to our small organization that manages to accomplish so much with so few resources.”
According to the Sunshine Lady Foundation (which was founded by Doris Buffett), the Sunshine Peace Award program “recognizes extraordinary individuals who make a difference; those who help to build communities that are intolerant of domestic violence and through whose work peoples’ lives are changed for the better.”
Since Professor Meier founded DV LEAP in 2003, the organization has worked on cutting-edge issues in the domestic violence field, submitting 6 friend of court briefs in the Supreme Court. In the past year, in addition to lecturing and consulting with survivors, DV LEAP staff have worked on 10 appeals, a remarkable output for an organization of its size
Well,this is all very nice — and certainly I”m sure professional work. But is it the most important task? I say: NO! Neither DVLEAP nor the State Coaliations (why, I hope to show soon enough), nor the related Leadership Council mention the operational systems of the courts — which is their related professional associations and nonprofits — as well as the grants stream and the child support system. How hard is that to comprehend? There are different systems working within to promote more and more work for the marriage counseling and therapy industry, PERIOD.
For example:
They did not mention that in 1999, in Ohio, an AFCC-laced Task Force lifted some AFCC_designed policies for custody, then flew to Arizona to attend an AFCC conference as part of their transformations of the courts. These groups do not mention, typically, fatherhood funding, or the history of Family Law as an offshoot of a brainstorm between “Roger & Meyer” (Judge Pfaff and Counselor Meyer Elkin) long ago, or anything at all about the Marv Byer discoveries in the late 1990s. They don’t mention that around the US, “fatherhood commissions” building of the National Fatherhood Initiative have been formed to legalize some of the policies these very groups say they oppose. Nor, FYI, do they (for example) broadcast to women that the NCADV and associated alliances are actually collaborating with the father’s groups at the national and financing level, and talking policy with them.
They certainly don’t mention when a local legislator slips in some bill to legalize steering court business to court professionals, as Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego area) did when an Assemblyperson in 2002 (proposing a bill naming Kids’ Turn in its first draft; see my “kicking salesmanship up a notch” post), or as She (sponsoring?) did again in SB 557 (with her chief of staff then and now Assemblyperson, Atkins) in legalizing the “Family Justice Center Model with an alliance run out of the San Diego City’s original brainchild.
Nor do they mention how the money keeps flowing in after conferences, for example, as in this 2008 AFCC conference:
Not only does the material itself show (coach) professionals how to be prejudiced against mothers — but it also probably more than breaks even (though aren’t judges paid enough in our states?) by selling the stuff!
READ THIS! Read every sentence and simply think about it. This is the pre-game and post-game plan for a custody hearing. And it’s only one of how many?
These are existing people who decided WHERE kids live (or don’t), whether they see their own parents’ income go to professionals and evaluators, or to the children’s future college funds, or simply survival funds. This is AFCC conference material:
Your Price: $25.00
Item Number: AFCC-08-011-M
Quantity:
Email this page to a friendThis panel will demonstrate how the judge, evaluator, psychologist performing psychological testing and the childrens therapist work together to complete the evaluation process. The panel will present an actual case in which a family comes to the court with allegations that mother is alienating the children and is clinically depressed. Father is asking for full custody. Mother is making counter allegations that father and his live-in girlfriend are verbally and emotionally abusing the three children. The parents have a history of high conflict and the police have been called many times to keep the peace. The family is referred for a child custody evaluation. The panel will demonstrate how the evaluator relies on the childrens therapist and the psychologist performing psychological testing on the parents, fathers girlfriend, and the child experiencing emotional distress, for information and case consultation in order to give the judge the most complete history and assessment possible. The panel will describe how and why the recommendations were made for this family.
The police were probably called because someone (not both) was being assaulted. However, a single evaluation of a police call might obtain the cause of the call. To “keep the peace” is an evasion. 911, or non-emergency police calls have causes. We all know this. If the police were called many times to “keep the peace” was no referral made? Was no restraining order solicited? Why not get to the bottom FIRST of whether or not a crime was committed. THEN, if the answer is conclusively, NO, it might go to the next level.
Why do that, however, when a custody evaluation can be instead ordered.
I might just get this product and find out how they frame the situation.
To be continued . . . .
@@@
SHARE THIS POST on...
Evaluate, Coordinate, Sow the Seeds of Mother-Hate (a.k.a. How to Accuse a Mom of Alienation)
Quick review: The purpose of the Family Law system is to engage Marriage Counselors (etc.) into the legal process, and produce ongoing business for mental health therapists, and retirement plans for court-associated personnel.
If you don’t believe that (yet), pls. review this 1966 TIME article, narrating the relationship between Judge Roger Alton Pfaff (who was childless) and Meyer Elkin (counselor) in the experimental “Conciliation” courts whose intent was to prevent divorce by forcing people into counseling who were headed for it:
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842452,00.html#ixzz1P1f1mSR1
I am starting to get genuinely angry about the deceitfulness and arrogance of the material put forth in conferences which is designed for application in a custody case. Just because a group of people believe that Psychological Services = Salvation. Rather than, say, “divination” (and with the profits to match).
It’s not just the brazen marketing, and using federal monies to run social science demonstration projects on unsuspecting parents for the amusement (and profit) of the . . . . social scientists and nonprofit corporations that do their biddings. It’s not just the elitist, arrogant mentality behind the therapists (etc.) which scent is caught when one reads the conference jargon with a real-life perspective. And it’s not just the dishonesty throughout the system — although those certainly all figure in.
But yesterday, chasing down the yet another Warshak/Ricci/Stahl/Gardner Kids’ Turn copycat, I found that the Lackawanna County, Pennsylvani AFCC-curricula peddler Dr. Mukliewicz along with Mr. Libassi, M.S., C.R.C., now have (with the help of the Presiding Judge? Wm. E. Baldwin) have gotten Pennsylvania Civil Code of Procedure altered to specify their product as THE mandated parental education curriculum (at least in Schuykill County) whenever a custody or visitation order even THINKs about being filed. This appears to be in addition to some contracts they already have with the County to provide other services.
http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol40/40-50/2355.html
Title 255—LOCAL
COURT RULES SCHUYLKILL COUNTYAmended/Adopted Civil Rules of Procedure
[40 Pa.B. 7041]
[Saturday, December 11, 2010]Order of Court
And Now, this 23rd day of November, 2010 at 11:00 a.m., Schuylkill County Civil Rules of Procedure No. 1915.1(b), 1915.3, 1915.15 are amended and Civil Rule of Procedure No. 1915.3a is adopted for use in the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, Twenty-First Judicial District, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, effective thirty days after publication in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
and…..
WILLIAM E. BALDWIN,
President JudgeProposed Revisions to Schuylkill County
Rules of Civil Procedure
Rule 1915.1(b). Definitions.
”Kids First.” A four hour orientation and education program established to help parents and other parties in child custody actions to understand the effects of separation, divorce, and family conflicts in their lives and in the lives of their children.
Rule 1915.3. Commencement of Action. Complaint. Order.
(c) In addition to the information required by Pa.R.C.P. 1915.15, every complaint for custody, partial custody or visitation, and every petition for modification of an existing custody order, shall contain the following language:
(1) ”Plaintiff has been advised of the requirements to attend the Kids First program.”
(2) ”Defendant has been advised of the requirements to attend the Kids First program.”
(d) A completed order shall be attached to the complaint or petition which includes a provision that all parties attend the Kids First program and the Custody Conciliation Conference which shall be in substantially the form set forth in Sch.R.C.P. 1915.15. All parties named in the pleadings must register for and attend the Kids First program as ordered.
Rule 1915.3a. Kids First Program.
(a) The Court Administrator shall determine the dates, times, and location of the Kids First program.
(b) The name, address, and contact information for the presenter of the Kids First program are: Anthony J. Libassi, 200 Adams Avenue, Scranton, PA 18503, (570) 558-1002, (toll free) 888-215-7445, and www.libassimediation.com.
(c) Brochures and registration forms for the Kids First program will be available at the Custody Office, Schuylkill County Law Library, and the Prothonotary’s Office.
And, in these jurisdictions, whenever your estranged spouse, ex, or the mother (or father) of your child wants to officially modify anything regarding custody, the first step is now to pay up (or else) and sit through this class. I’d bet (if I were a betting woman) that this class is ALSO subsidized by at least one federal grant, and that paying up would represent a double-billing. Which brings me to the wisdom that the word “County” is a derivative of the word “Count’ as in “royalty” as in “fiefdom,” basically. You can take the U.S. out of Great Britain (centuries ago), but I guess you can’t take the royalty mentality/patronage, etc. out of the United States, not entirely. Read on:
Rule 1915.15. Form of Complaint.
(a) In addition to the information required by Pa.R.C.P. 1915.15(a) and (b), each complaint for custody, partial custody, or visitation, or a petition to modify an existing custody order, shall have attached to its front an order in substantially the following form:
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FOR SCHUYLKILL COUNTY
CIVIL ACTION – LAW
_________________ , : : Plaintiff, : : No.: S- VS. : : _________________ , : : Defendant. : ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, this __ day of _____ , 200__ . at __.m., you are hereby ORDERED as follows:
You have been sued in Court to obtain Custody, Partial Custody or Visitation of the child(ren) named in the Complaint.
I. PARENT EDUCATION PROGRAM
1. ALL PARTIES NAMED ABOVE SHALL ATTEND AND COMPLETE THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS REQUIRED FOR ALL PARTIES PARTICIPATING IN A CUSTODY ACTION. PARTICIPATION IS REQUIRED WHETHER OR NOT AN AGREEMENT IS SUBMITTED.
2. EACH OF YOU SHALL CONTACT ”KIDS FIRST” WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS OF RECEIVING THIS ORDER TO SCHEDULE AND REGISTER FOR THE NEXT AVAILABLE PROGRAM IF YOU FAIL TO COMPLY WITH THIS PROVISION OF THIS ORDER, CONTEMPT CHARGES AGAINST YOU SHALL BE FILED WITH THE COURT.
TO SCHEDULE AND REGISTER FOR THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM CONTACT ANTHONY LIBASSI BY ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
(a) internet: WWW.LIBASSIMEDIATION.COM
(b) telephone: 570-558-1002
888-215-7445 (toll free)(c) mail: ANTHONY LIBASSI
200 Adams Avenue, First Floor
Scranton, PA 18503YOU ARE EACH REQUIRED TO PAY A FEE OF FORTY DOLLARS ($40.00) DIRECTLY TO THE ”KIDS FIRST” PROGRAM AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION.
3. LOCATION OF ”KID[s] FIRST” PROGRAMS:
SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURTHOUSE
401 N. 2nd STREET
POTTSVILLE, PA
PHONE: 570-341-2007FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS ORDER MAY RESULT IN FINES, IMPRISONMENT OR OTHER SANCTIONS.
{{First things first. FIRST — go consume our product, not even based, probably, on original ideas. It’s a “Kids Turn” knockoff, I”ll bet…. based on whose other books are advertised at “Kidsfirst.cc” in Dunmore, PA:}}
II. CUSTODY CONCILIATION CONFERENCE
You are ordered to appear in person at the Custody Conciliation Office, of the Schuylkill County Courthouse on ______ , for a Custody Conciliation Conference.
You are further ordered to bring with you the fully completed conciliation questionnaire provided by the Court.
If you fail to appear as provided by the Order, and Order of Custody, Partial Custody or Visitation may be entered against you or the Court may issue a Warrant for your arrest.
A little more found on these two individuals (and their services) here:
– – – – – – – – – – –
Welcome!
The Pennsylvania Council of Children, Youth & Family Services is a statewide organization of private agencies. Our members are the service providers who provide the direct “hands-on” programs and supports needed to achieve and maintain permanency and safety for children and youth and stability for families. The safety and well-being of Pennsylvania’s children and their families have long been held as priorities by private agencies who share a deep commitment to keeping children safe, families strong, and communities involved.
Our Mission Statement
To improve the quality of life for Pennsylvania’s children, youth, and families who are at risk by supporting and promoting an accessible service delivery system within our communities.
It’s all about service delivery, of course… This is becoming common, to have affiliated groups coordinated by website and networking: An organization (or nonprofit) can become a Member, a Friends Member, or an Affiliate Member. This appears to focus on: foster care, adoptions, and behavioral health, placements, etc. So that’s who put out this:
A “Needs based plan and narrative template” (FY2011-2012) for “OFFICE OF YOUTH & FAMILIES” (Pennsylvania) tells more about these two Kids First marketers
Chet Muklewicz (AFCC) & Andrew Libassi (probably) are between them among the 4 largest CCYA or JYO service providers for Lackawanna County. It is a “budget narrative” for the county to request monies for the service providers & contractors, i.e. “
“The following pages provide a template for counties to use to complete the narrative piece of the 2011-2012 Needs Based Plan and Budget.”
THis also focuses on dependency hearings, although as we see Libassi is quite “in” on the custody hearings, with or without abuse allegations already.
The clinical unit also supports the county Family Court practice of returning to court within 45 days of the initial dependency to adopt a family service plan. All initial plans presented at dependency are related to completion of diagnostic assessments to better formulate a meaningful plan. This process is designed to both engage the family in the development of the plan and avoid plans of meaningless generalization.
They are the two largest providers of in-home services in Lackawanna County:
Review the Schedule of Existing Purchased Services and identify the four largest providers (regardless of whether it is a CCYA or JPO provider) as follows:
Two largest providers of In-Home Services. Include contact information. (displays better on the pdf, search for the name):
1: Libassi Mediation Service Children served: 168 $$ amount of services: $197,712
2: Chet Muklewicz, Ed.D Children served: 49 $$ amount of services: $120,000
Briefly summarize the services provided by these entities, the expected outcomes of those services, and how provider performance is monitored.
- Libassi Mediation Services coordinates all dependency and non dependency mediation. In addition, the service provides the service planning coordination for all three Intensive Reunification Courts.
- Chet Muklewicz, Ed. D provides the Family Peace Program for the Status Offence Court. This is a Parent Education program that teaches or restores parental hierarchy in the family. It has been largely successful in reducing the number and duration of placement for ungovernable, and/or truant youth.
- Dr. Muklewicz must file statistics showing youth in instruction, time in Status Offence Court, days of out of home placement if any.
The Kids First program relates to custody — not dependency– hearings. However, it’s also being marketed in Kentucky, through the Kentucky courts:
Kids First program is designed for parents to help their children cope with separation, divorce, and family conflict.
Parents are presented with information about how parental relationships have a direct effect on the children and how children might respond at different ages. Parents learn that parental conflict hurts children and, more importantly, learn what they can do to help their children to adjust to the changes in their family.
For additional information, contact Kids First, 1527 Adams Avenue, Dunmore, PA 18509 or 570-341-2007
I’ve seen a lot of court-mandated programs around, but Kentucky seems to have the full panorama, including extorting Dads in arrears to participate in “Turning it around” classes where they can learn “to be a man,” and other useful information, such as sexual responsibility and co-parenting. I’m sure a 12-week class is likely to change a person’s sexual habits. …. But they are extorted into it (or, go back to jail) like the separating parents in PA:
“Turning It Around” is a collaborative effort, which works in conjunction with the Home Incarceration Program, with most of the attendees coming from contempt proceedings in Family Court in non-support cases.
The purpose of the program is to increase the collection of child support payments, reduce recidivism in contempt cases, and encourage and increase cooperative parenting. Turning It Around may be offered as part of a plea agreement for those facing sentencing.
(It too, probably has some acess-visitation type funding behind it, and a nonprofit by Lord knows whom involved. This Kentucky state site has links eleven (11) Divorce Education classes, probably with coordinators (county-paid or state-paid) for each. I wonder for which nonprofits….)
How are people in Kentucky going to take a class run out of Pennsylvania — a cross-the-border commute? Or is it a pre-packaged curricula that Dr. Muckliewicz and/or Mr. Libassi can profit from separately, while running their own dependency service programs and functioning as faculty at the local college? Or is a royalty pulled each time it’s run — what’s up?
Here’s a local writer talking about a (different) local “Kids 4 Kash” scheme involving a single guardian ad litem (Danielle Ross) getting cases — $600 from parents upfront — and how, somehow, this county, almost 100% of the kids get a GAL: http://scrantonpoliticaltimes.activeboard.com/t42441326/kids-4-kash-danielle-ross-guardian-atty-nancy-barresse-and-c/
I’m going to print that commentary here:
Typically, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed in Family Court matters where a child is at risk due to a crisis within the family structure. In most counties across the state, about 5 – 8 percent of all family court cases has a Guardian appointed to make sure that at-risk child(ren) have access to legal representation of their own. It’s a good idea and it often saves children from abuse. In all other counties, there is a list of attorneys to select from.
However, in Lackawanna County, the appointment rate of a Guardian is nearly 100% of all family court cases. And, there is no list from which to select. There’s one Guardian that gets all the cases. It’s been that way since Harhut took over Family Court.
For years now, Family Court judges have appointed Atty. Danielle Ross as the Guardian in practically every single case. About a dozen cases a week are handed to Ross on a silver platter. The parents have to immediately cough up $600 as her fee, plus she tacks on heavy fees once she’s on board if she’s called upon for a recommendation in a custody proceeding. Ross picks up about $7200.00 a week, every week of the year, and it’s been going on like that for years, which why she drives a bevy of exotic cars and takes non-stop vacations.
{{more than one income stream, county-mandated services, county-paid salary, plus what else?}}
90% of the families have no crisis situation that requires her presence. Some families have kids under five years-old who are not at risk of any abuse, yet they are ordered to pay Ross $600.00 anyway. Ross gets a salary from the county, plus a free county office, free phone and utilities and a free county secretary, even though she’s easily good for half-a-mil a year, year after year.
Then, there’s the quality of her work. Having so many cases, she’s often very difficult to access when problems arise. Once appointed, it takes her weeks to make contact with the family. In fact, she’s required to inspect every house, which she can’t possibly do, so she sends her county-paid secretary, Sue, with no qualifications, to inspect these houses and the family pays her an additonal $100.00, which, by the way, is required to be paid to Sue only in cash.
Ross has a history of making custody recommendations to the court that are extremely politically motivated. She meets with children as little as 5 – 6 years old and interrogates and manipulates them to get them to agree to certain custody conditions that certain “political” litigants want. She’s personally serviced many county employees or cronies to get them a customized custody order, because the judge of the day follows her recommendations. I have some of those outrageous orders in my possession. There are many very angry parents who want Ross’ head on a stake, to say nothing of lawyers on the business end of her biased and unjust recommendations.
Claire Czaykowski is the Court Administrator for Family Court. She’s Harhut’s former tipstaff. He appointed her upon his appointment as President Judge. Claire gets certain cases scheduled before certain judges to make sure the “right” judge hears the “right” cases. If you call Family Court, in fact, it’s Danielle Ross’ voice that welcomes you to Family Court.
{{Case-steering, in other words. it’s a network of interlinked associations…}}
If anyone has a Family Court case involving Danielle Ross, wherein they are unhappy with Ross’ recommendations and the Court’s Custody Order that was issued as the result of it, I’d like to hear from you. I’m in possession of quite a few now, but the more the better.
This Kids for Kash Scheme needs to come to a halt. It’s time to end Ross’ Cash Cow days. Rumors of her paying kickback are out there, but I can’t prove anything, yet. That’s yet. If a Guarian Ad Litem is needed, that’s all well and fine, but in most cases kids are not at risk and the family does not need Ross’ interference or expensive fees for nothing.
And the link contains the feedback, including that this woman drives a $145K Mercedes, and doesn’t even do her own work, but hires others out to do so. AMong the comments:
Ourtraged parents have had to be dragged out of the courtroom over complaints about recommendation made by Ross. On top of the $300 each parent has to pay, Ross then bills at $200 an hour for talking with the family. She likes being alone with the kids and asks them very compromising questions to help steer her findings to assist who she likes in a custody case. The woman knows nothing about what’s best for kids, only what’s best for who’s best friends with the court system.
Different venue, sounds like the same behaviors….
This isn’t about “Kids First,” or Kids, at all; it’s about Purchase Immediately My Products (a.k.a. PIMPs in Govt, Inc.). Public Service? This is the public serving the self-appointed parenting preachers under guise of “it’s good for you,” i.e., public benefit.
It goes on:
Counsel and litigants without counsel are ORDERED to immediately consult their schedules for conflicts and to promptly request a continuance where necessary because of a prior attachment or emergency situation. ALL requests for a continuance of a Custody Conciliation conference must be made on the APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE form available from the offices of the Court Administrator, Custody Conciliator or Prothonotary in the Schuylkill County Courthouse. The application must be filed in the Custody Conciliation Office. A continuance will be granted only upon good cause shown.
The moving party shall immediately serve on all interested parties a copy of the original pleading, this order, ”Kids First” registration and information, and a custody conciliation questionnaire; and shall further file an affidavit verifying service.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: The Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any program, hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.
[Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-2355. Filed for public inspection December 10, 2010, 9:00 a.m.]
No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.
This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.
This concept didn’t just appear fully-formed in the brain of this judge, this county, or these mediators; it was circulated among professionals with decades of experience requiring others to consume their product, get business referred to their nonprofits, and doing this at public AND private expense, and through the courts.
why do I think this is probably a Kids Turn knockoff? Call it feminine intuition, or that I happen to live in California where a man running for judge, who started a Kids First of Orange County (aka Orange County Welfare Coalition, a nonprofit) simply said he modeled it after Kids Turn:
http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/gerald-l-klein-for-judge/
Among his accomplishments, he founded Kid’s First in 1996. It is a program for separated or divorced parents and their children. Both parents attend this 8 week course together with their children to help the kids cope with changes in the family.
Klein has been practicing law for 33 years and has sat as a temporary volunteer judge in Orange and Los Angeles counties since 1981. He is active in the community and he also teaches Family Law and Community Property as a part-time professor at a local law school. Although I only witnessed his expertise in family law, he is familiar with many types of law as he had a general practice in his early years.
The History
The “Kids First” program is a project of the Orange County Welfare Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation started by Attorney Gerald L. Klein and Attorney Ruth Shapin, MFT, in 1975. Through 1990, the coalition assisted individuals in obtaining governmental entitlements including social security and supplemental security disability benefits.
Left to right: Robert Schuler, Gerald Klein, Sara Doudna and Ruth Shapin, along with Kids First Staff members Recognizing the need for a program focusing on the needs of children whose parents are separated, in 1995 Attorney Klein began looking for such a program. In 1995, he learned of the “Kids Turn” program in San Francisco which dealt with families going through divorce. The coalition adopted their idea and curriculum. Sara Doudna, MFT, became the Clinical Director, expanded upon it, and “Kids First” was born.
In 1996, “Kids First” became operational.”
Ms. Doudna-Klein (she married him??):
have worked extensively for twenty years with addiction problems and with individuals, couples and families in recovery. I am familiar with all forms of addiction but am most experienced with alcoholism. Ten years ago I co-founded a non-profit program for families in divorce. I am familiar with the issues that affect all members of a family during the divorce process. I am also experienced in the assessment and treatment of “Parental Alienation”.
- Positive co-parenting
- Single Parenting
- Parental Alienation
- Parent-Child Reunification
- Blended Families
These behaviors and products are prime-time AFCC.
and overall would be Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), and perhaps may be with, however, the habit of actually legalizing this behavior may compromise it from being prosecuted under RICO. Also, if it were fully explored and prosecuted, as I may just about to show, it would possibly not clean up, but also completely empty out the family law system Justice = Therapy-dispensing monopoly of judges, mediators, certified family law specialist, and all kinds of psychologist, from J.D.-endowed Psy.D.s to the lowly man or woman who paid up the latest AFCC-approved parenting coordinator, or mediator, or supervised visitation center training course.
Cleaning up the racketeering element of AFCC might end up shutting down the system, because it is probably (at this point) not possible to separate the private nonprofit association, “Association of Family & Conciliation Courts” from the concept (and practice) of family law, at all. this is such a fixture of our society that people forget it had an origin, and at one time, did not exist. This origin was NOT by public, grassroots demand, but it was (like most oppressive systems) from top-down; by highly placed legislators, judges, and/or others who got a law passed, started practicing, and then expanded.
On the other hand, passive inaction will just send the US economy downhill faster –a situation for which those who’ve been marketing these things will be in a better position to handle than those they force to consume their products. At least they know how to operate businesses, reduce taxes, and even in some cases do it under the radar, avoiding taxes and dumping the real social needs of society (housing, food, water, the ability to defend onesself and one’s property — or to own property or assets of any sort) on those already hardest hit.
The RICO link, above, explains how the law began in the 1970s to stop the Mafia, in 1980s was applied to more individual situations, and in the 1990s the federal government sought to restrict this use:
During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.
Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations.”
That said, let’s note that two judges in PA were convicted of this, recently — in Luzerne County; “Kids for Cash” scheme. And I cannot think of a better descriptive word, given the powerfully-connected (judges are members) and internet-connected, conference-churning, international, and training-oriented private “nonprofit” organization called “the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” — particularly when the associated network of nonprofits working with it are considered. Talk about undue influence! People who are subjected to this treatment routinely call it “Mafia” or refer to extortion, which I believe overall, the practices are. Doesn’t that last one sound like extortion (though only for $40, do the math X how many divorces and custody modifications…..)? Why, for example, shouldn’t someone besides Libassi Mediation be able to run a simple Kids First class? And what happened to Dr. Chet? Has he got his own line of business with the county now?
HOW I”M GOING TO SPLIT UP THE 17,000-WORD POST:
I AM GOING TO JUST “CUT & PASTE” INTO DIFFERENT POSTS. THIS IS NOT CALLED EDITING, IT’S CALLED, I GUESS, MACHETE CopyEditing.
ONCE THE BASIC INFORMATION IS OUT, I DO NOT FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP PUBLISHING AND BLOGGING IT — CAVEAT EMPTOR CUSTODY COURTS. THEY ARE BASICALLY (ANYMORE) PRIVATE, NONPROFIT ENTERPRISES WITH A VENEER OF PUBLIC LEGITIMACY. THOSE WHO DON’T TAKE TIME TO LOOK ARE PASSING THE BUCK TO THOSE WHO HAVE HAD TO, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T SO FORTUNATE IN LIFE (OR COURT) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DODGE THIS RACKET.
Jesus Christ said, long ago, “the poor you have always with you…” It’s obviously that the leadership of the US has figured this out, and made plans with how to control them through a variety of institutions, lest they riot, or there be another civil war. Also, to keep a substantial enough portion of people desperate and competing for jobs they are underqualified for, while promising them more help through reforming the public education system, run as a monoply anyhow, etc. Bread & Circuses..
Yesterday, I compiled, but didn’t publish, a triple-sized post, explaining the relationship between AFCC, Parental Alienation, High-Conflict (talk) and Parenting Coordination. And the absolute mother-hatred in a certain parenting coordination handbook, which is standard. I also show (and it’s obvious to those who look) that state borders (and at a certain level, state laws) are becomign meaningless when, for example, an Ohio Supreme Court Task Force (date: 1999), heavily AFCC-stacked, and lifting portions of its “tasks” wholesale from AFCC leaders — decides, in studying how to reform child custody — to simply fly its personnel out to Arizona and attend and AFCC conference. Again, this was about 12 years ago and NOT blogged by domestic violence advocates.
If I am able to complete the series on the Ellen Pence/Casey Gwinn (I.e., DV advocate / Family Justice Center) connections, I believe this will show an educated (researched) “guess” as to why NONE of the Domestic violence coalitions and primary ‘battered women’s” advocate generally blog, report, publish, or scrutinize the AFCC, OR the fatherhood grants system, (and its religious connections). One of them (Center for Judicial Excellence) has made a habit of not doing this (though they are informed of it, as are many others) until very recently, I heard. And probably because a few bloggers continued to “out” them for failling to address it.
Mainstream, professionalized groups have their rhetoric set in stone, pretty much — and simply do not follow the money, or report to the general public on the conference circuits. These posts are “Public Service Announcements.” I am one (networked) person reporting certain themes. I do not have an editorial staff and am not paid for my time here, as a whistleblower. I write what I see, and I see a lot. The alarm is definitely appropriate.
INDIANA & AFCC
Indiana has lots of Justice. In fact, it has TWO Justice Centers from the Casey Gwinn/Gael Strack/GWBush Initiatives Alliance.
But this is about its AFCC-State Government connections (which, FYI, the Kids First & Kids Turn concept is).
Indianapolis, on the other hand, did it differently, and rather than going through the expense of flying its judges OUT, simply decided to invite AFCC to hold their fall conference locally. This is from the Domestic Relations Committee, June 2009 meeting:
Domestic Relations Committee / Judicial Conference of Indiana / Minutes June 12, 2009
…
1. Members present. Craig J. Bobay, Francis G. Hill, Karen M. Love, Sheryl L. Lynch, Nanette K. Raduenz, Deborah J. Shook, Dean A. Young and William C. Fee, Chair, were present.
2. Staff present. Jeffrey Bercovitz and Anne Jordan provided the committee with staff assistance.
3. Guests present. Amber Njau, Project Analyst; Cynthia Longest, Deputy Director, Child Support Bureau; Karla Mantia, Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, were also present.
4. Minutes approved. The minutes for the May 15, 2009 meeting were approved.
5. Draft child support guidelines. Committee members reviewed comments submitted by topic area:
a. The Health Insurance Premium Worksheet (HIPW) and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was reviewed. The committee made changes to ease the preparation of the HIPW. b. Members of the committee agreed all commentary should be italicized in the child support guidelines. c. The “Child Multipliers” commentary was revised in the Support Guidelines and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was revised to encompass eight (8), not just five (5) children in accordance with the amounts from Dr. Venohr.***
[[Dr. Jane Venohr runs nonprofit Center for Policy Research, along with Jessica Pearson et. al, and I believe also works for PSI, its nonprofit arm. These two organizations are all over the HHS grants circuit, and found publishing and promoting access visitation policies. She is active in child support matters…See my last post.]]
6. Domestic Relations Conference.
a. Anne Jordan reported the two-day domestic relations conference in the areas of child development, family dynamics, custody and visitation is scheduled for November 19-20, 2009 in Indianapolis. Committee members suggested the following topics:
(1) The economy’s effect on the family, e.g. mortgage foreclosure, high layoff rate, and the court’s ability to respond to a crisis if its staff is reduced.
(2) Professor Marcia Klien-Pruitt, Connecticutt, to speak on family dynamics.**
[[**Mis-spelled, Marcia Kline-Pruett is AFCC presenter, with her husband Kyle, and discussed later]]
(3) Child-Informed Mediation, where a psychologist interviews a child and brings this input this into mediation.
(4) Court ordered investigations in custody disputes. Some courts use a guardian ad litem for this purpose, to investigate mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and criminality.
b. Committee members discussed having the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) hold their fall symposium in Indianapolis in November 2011 and the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent on the two-day domestic relations conference on having Indiana judges attend the AFCC fall symposium in Indianapolis. Magistrate Bobay moved to have the Judicial Center contact AFCC about holding their fall symposium in November 2011 in lieu of the two-day domestic relations conference, with the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent to have Indiana judges attend. Magistrate Raduenz seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.
As I see from the Feb 18, 2011 minutes (thanks for publishing them, guys….) the networking with AFCC is going to continue:
This time there was a different set of guests:
“3. Guests present. Stuart Showalter,** Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates, and Craig Scarberry were also present.”
{{The links are relevant: both are fathers’ rights advocates;
- Showalter characterized as former “Neo Nazi Skinhead” and in some trouble with the law (as a youth) for it. Later, he is found blaming a woman for her own stabbing death — because she sought a restraining order. She was stabbed to death in front of her two daughters, 8 & 12 Here’s the quote, just so we have a grasp on who was a Guest at the Indiana Judicial Conference this past February:
The wife was found stabbed in her bed at home on Sunday night. Investigators say the couple was going through a divorce and she had a protective order requiring him to stay away from her and their daughters. The killing came two days after the wife obtained a two-year extension on the order.
Angela Warnock’s use of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act for leverage in the divorce proceedings with the father *of their two daughters failed her this past weekend. On Friday she had obtained an order that would keep the father from having any further contact with his daughters for two years. In addition she had the daughters, age 8 and 12, sleeping with her. These are both signs of Parental Alienation.
(Showalter’s comment was June 2009. Note: obtaining a restraining order is sign of parental alienation. wonder where that concept came from. It has nothing to do with protection, obviously — just using for an advantage in divorce. (the concept that perhaps her desire for divorce may have had to do with violence to start with doesn’t seem to have occurred to him…..)
- Craig Scarberry (unfamiliar to me) had custody reduced because he became agnostic, after being formerly Christian. Plans for fathers’ rights rally in Marion County… Another article from “the democratic underground” asks whether(I DNK….) this was the same Scarberry who sued the City of Chicago (etc.) on the same grounds, for interfering with the distribution of gospel tracts with “Repent America”: link shows the pleading: including the Statement of Facts, which begins ”
STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Plaintiffs are Christians who regard the Bible as God’s literal authority. In keeping with this sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiffs believe that they are obligated to tell as many other people as they can about what they believe is their individual need to be “born again,” that is, to be reconciled to God. This comes only by believing that Jesus Christ is God,{{i.e., Trinitarian, which founding fathers primarily weren’t}} and that Jesus suffered and died on the cross (and was resurrected from the dead subsequently) to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity, particularly those individuals who will believe in him; and who seek healing and forgiveness for and deliverance from their past, present, and future personal sins—“sins” being defined as transgressions of the binding commands of the Bible.)
Just including to show the mindset of someone who would attempt to “witness” in a legal pleading. Probably the same Scarberry, although, who knows? If so, he first proselytized FOR his beliefs God and then, disgruntled, for how his agnosticism shouldn’t be held against him. While it indeed shouldn’t, either line of thinking wouldn’t affect his position regarding father supremacy, most likely..or that it’s appropriate that his current beliefs be inflicted on others…. These two are not the major concern, they are two guys with a cause who sat in on a judicial conference. It’s the conference we should be most concerned about, and this style of decision-making within government.
This 2011 Judicial Conference meeting concluded peacefully:
10. Future meeting dates. Committee members agreed to meet again on Friday, March 18, May 20, July 15, August 19, and November 18, 2011 from 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Judicial Center. They also agreed to meet in conjunction with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Regional Meeting in Indianapolis on Oct. 27-29, 2011 in Indianapolis.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeffrey Bercovitz, Director Juvenile and Family Law
= INBRED with AFCC. So who ARE they, anyhow? What do they DO? (well, since you asked, I’ll keep posting….)
I don’t know how comfortable the average reader feels with abandoning due process, law, etc. and giving leaders a huge leash (or taking them “off-leash”) by simply ignoring what’s going on with the primary institutions that rule people’s lives, such as — say, the courts?
??
And behind the courts is the power to incarcerate, or transfer wealth, and offspring; to spare life or to waste life . . . ..
While an Indiana conference, or a Schuykill County parenting education mandate may not seem to relate to you — it does. We are a networked country, and the networks are to be watched. When not “nipped in the bud” these things only expand — and they are inappropriate tolls on the highways of life.
Would you trust this kind of back-door dealings with your life, or your children’s future? Do you want others — judges, psychologists, economists, and mental health practitioners (working together) to do the heavy thinking for you, so long as they leave you alone for a while? Even after they’ve been proven corrupt several times already?
(California’s illegal benefits to judges — legalized. Luzerne County, PA judges — sending adolescents to camps in which they had a vested interests, violating their rights and disrupting their and their parents lives . . . and here’s another post on some Pennsylvania court-based toll-gating with another individual:
To be continued …
SHARE THIS POST on...
Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?
The Nonprofit Preventing Family Violence and Dispensing Family Justice world can be a very friendly set of associates. In getting to know these individuals, besides hearing what they say & write (including positively about each other), I think it’s also helpful to look at who is paying how much for the time and the talents.
Getting to know each other …
On a recent post and here (currently), there is a graphic of Ellen Pence — well-known in Domestic Violence circles — interviewing Casey Gwinn, well known in San Diego and for his work on the National Family Justice Center Alliance, i.e., for starting it.
(Telling amy’s story comes out of Pennsylvania, and I’m starting to wonder who paid for that one, too. The Amy in question ended up being shot by her stalker/abuser and probably just fortune/luck/God (etc.) that her parents and her child wasn’t also shot — as all were foolish enough to drive her back to the house for some diapers (etc.) RIGHT after a strong confrontation with the man. Amy now being dead, others, heads of domestic violence prevention groups, are telling her story — and they are telling HALF her story. They didn’t even notice that it wasn’t too bright to lose one’s life over some nonfoods that could be purchased cheap at a local store.) But doesn’t it look official and appropriate — “Telling amy’s story.” )
Personally, what inspired me much more (while in or shortly after leaving the abusive relationship) was stories of women who were NOT shot to death, and how they recovered, went on to succeed in their new lives, and these stories were told in their own words — which could happen because they lived. They did not die!)
Wikipedia on “Ellen Pence”:
Background
Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A.(in ???_______) She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 (?? see bottom of my pos) and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.
(incidentally, St. Scholastica ain’t your average private liberal arts college. See the 27-member Board of Trustees, for one. Catholic/ Benedictine Order influence)
Here (for the new to this) are some of the “Power and Control” Wheels circulated through The Duluth Model. I’ve linked it to a young woman’s memorial fund who was trying to break out of this cycle while murdered. Her relatives hope that publicizing this may help others… (does it?) They formed a nonprofit to commemorate here and use the wheel with the permission of:
Used with permission of the
DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT
202 E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781
www.duluth-model.org
Not knowing the “Lindsay Anne Burke” case from Rhode Island, I find out that she was girlfriend to a man who’d previously fathered two children, and had had their mothers get restraining orders out on him. Moreover, she started dating him around the time his second child had been born!
A law was named after her dramatic case (PROJO — R.I. paper — describes, 2005)(2007, warning!: graphic account of trial & testimony). QUESTION: If these groups have been educating and warning women about the dangers of stalkers, controlling personalities and in general domestic violence issues since the 1980s, how come this still happens in the 2000s ? Sadly, we see the Burke memorial fund suggesting people contribute to the local Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Yet this horrible murder was clearly preceded by not one, but two domestic violence restraining orders in the context of custody battles — children born in 1998 & 2003 — and the officers are saying they had no record?
The COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY RESPONSE (CCR) TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
You can see readily how the collaborative response from Duluth might have things in common with the San Diego-based Family Justice Collaboration model, including focusing on training, and credibility when it comes to a great grants stream. One difference is that Pence did not come from public employment in law enforcement or a LEGAL or ENFORCEMENT background, but a SOCIOLOGICAL perspective. I don’t believe this can be said of Casey Gwinn’s background. However, it’s clear they have common ground.
In 1979, there was already an existing domestic violence prevention group around. From what I can tell this group (associated with a university) got basically outclassed and, if I may, “out-gunned” (financially and as to web presence), although it’s still around, it’s hard to find through Google Search, and its current “history” page is blank. It is based in Minneapolis, not Duluth and is associated with (Dr.) Jeffrey Edleson. I reports income of of about $1.6 million (per Guidestar) and is in this tax-exempt
Category (NTEE):Crime, Legal Related / (Protection Against and Prevention of Neglect, Abuse, Exploitation)
Year Founded:1979 Ruling Year:1979 (EIN# 411356278).
It shows 15 board members, 53 employees and 35 volunteers and receives a lot of grants in support. It has not tried, from what I can tell, to change the entire world or justice system, or franchise itself. It does not appear to be drawing from HHS funds, perhaps that’s why it’s a measly $1 million and not a bustling $3 million or $4 million per year, as others… But the question that comes up, why form a group only a year later that is hellbent on transforming the distribution of justice through training projects?
About Justice Alliances and Resource Centers:
Given the economy, perhaps you should attempt to get a job in one of these places, get on the conference circuit and establish your reputation, and then you can run things AND perhaps have a retirement, and a mobile lifestyle (at least periodically) as well. How is it that justice can’t be achieved and violence prevented by the process of equal enforcement (whether towards men or towards women or towards children) of the existing state laws against assault & battery, against felony child-stealing, against rape, against molestation of minors, against abuse in general? Why is it necessary to form nonprofit after nonprofit (staff them, sometimes set up buildings, or lease buildings), build curricula, train & retrain judges, and everyone else, and sell “risk assessment kits” to family law professionals?
What are people so angry about, that they have to keep assaulting and trafficking each other, and where did they learn this habit of treating people like animals, including selling them? . . . Hardly the answer for a single post (or lifetime), but did you ever consider why — given that these things seem to be part of human nature, if not the history of our species — it is now suddenly thought that an institution or resource center could somehow change human nature and stop this, bringing in world utopia, starting with organizations that — by this point in time (say, starting in the 1980s) are actually run by people already involved in running the major institutions of our states and local communities?
Then these organizations, with leadership by public employees or former employees, already whose salaries were paid by the public, drawing on FEDERAL support pooled from the IRS, and distributed largely according to decisions that many local populations are unaware of — meaning from a database of wage-earners in and out of state.
If you can’t grasp the concept — let me illustrate. Have you ever heard of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.?” (pause to allow search).
I have — but only because I research the grants system. Better known is its subsidiary (?), “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project,” and the well-known (among domestic violence circles, and many victims have received some literature on “the Duluth Model.” This is from a facebook page based on a Wikipedia Article which is clearly not written by someone involved with the DAIP. (Contributors). I came here after attempting to find Minnesota Program Development Inc. on the Minnesota AG’s list of charities. So far, it doesn’t exist. Until recently, I’d thought it was some sort of workforce development organization, similar to MDRC a group that kept cropping up as fulfilling contracts with the government, and/or evaluating them. The kind of contracts & grants I’ve been looking at here, i.e., fatherhood promotion and the legal rights dilution process.
FOR COMPARISON, WHO IS MDRC?
“MDRC: Manpower Development Research Development, “What IS MDRC?“
Too often, public policies that profoundly affect the lives of low-income families are shaped by hunches, anecdotes, and untested assumptions. Ineffective policies waste precious resources and feed public cynicism about government. Most important, such policies may hinder the very people they are designed to help. MDRC was created to learn what works in social policy — and to make sure that the evidence we produce informs the design and implementation of policies and programs.
Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.
A Foundation/Federal Agency blend has significant power and influence. Its apparently top 3 Board of Directors are from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, you DO know who they are, right?), the JFK School of Government at Harvard, and The Urban Institute. Reading below the line, I notice the first one (the list is alphabetical) is Ron Haskins, well known (nay, infamous!) for having pushed through the Access and Visitation Grants section of the 1996 Welfare Reform, and from his work at HHS. Translation: Fatherhood promoter. The last one, Isabel V. Sawhill (both of Brookings Institute) and both known as collaborators and researchers on fatherhood and family issues, along with such as Sara McLanahan, Ron Mincy, and others.
Inbetween, we have people from Harvard [Economics], Harvard [Education and Economics], Harvard [Education], Princeton, @ Univ. of Chicago [School of Social Service Administration], UNC (North Carolina), a bank (Citigroup) the president of a foundation, and “Chair, Steering Committee Association of Corporate Counsel Value Challenge.” Counsel, as in lawyers — corporate lawyers’ association.
Clearly, this is an influential group of some very high-ranking people influencing and possibly directing policy of masses — like THE masses (see K-12 education influence) of population, with an emphasis on the poor. Their (2009) budget being over $80 MILLION (66% from gov’t, 28% from private foundations, 1% from Universities, and a small sliver from others) takes a few pie charts to even visualize. I’ve dragged it here — or see link:
With an annual budget of more than $80 million, MDRC derives its revenues from a wide variety of sources. About 67 percent of MDRC’s funding comes from federal, state, and international government contracts. The rest comes from foundations, corporations, universities, individuals, and other sources. MDRC uses these funds to support the work of its five research policy areas: K-12 education, youth and postsecondary education, families and children, low-wage workers and communities, and health and barriers to employment.
We are all citizens, but some citizens have more influence than others, and those running foundations, perhaps as much as government. Moreover, foundations are historically close to the running of the U.S., however much we struggle to view ourselves as individually sovereign citizens with individual rights, and seek to uphold the law without respect to, say, connections or wealth. BUT our society is a jobs-focused, Public-education-grounded (for most children), earn wages and consume products and services (including products and services we probably don’t need most of), while the leaders and innovators work on consolidating their wealth to organize new technologies, explore outer space and deep oceans (great projects), build bridges and highways and so forth. It bears a humble reminder from time to time how relative & subjective the word “freedom” is.
What we sometimes forget (and it’s certainly not mainstream media headlines) is that a lot of this “technology” is in management of humans, and measuring how well that management has been working. We may think in terms of civil rights and due process, but there are groups like MDRC (and with the foundation influence) thinking in quite different terms…. And that nonprofits, corporations (including those that fulfil government purposes, for profit), and foundations define themselves, in the U.S., in relationship to the IRS, the strong-arm-collection agency of the taxes that support every governmental function and institution.
OK, CONSIDER THE INCOME TAX . . .
(1) From “infoplease” article:
The US Tax system has a dubious history, obviously. Originally, early (1791, this source says), it internally taxed certain [sales of] goods, including slaves. A quick review from this “infoplease.com” page does indeed relate to business at hand today — why some people can have laws to protect them enforced, and others can’t — and why more of us should pay more and more organizations to figure out why…
The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation’s first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.
In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation’s 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.
The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.
Hmm. . . . .Seizure of property and prosecution….
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.
In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.
So, a good part of what we may call government included from the start raising money by selling slaves (not to mention that those who governed OWNED slaves), and then a nice income tax to help wage the civil war to free slaves (and prevent the South from seceding, etc.). Now, presidents seem to rise (or fall) on what they do with taxes, and as we see above, groups like MDRC who know how to qualify to be wealthy and pay less taxes, and do business with government, decide without our real input, what to do with the population of the United States who do NOT know how to do these things, or run government. While this isn’t technically buying and selling slaves, by controlling/influencing JOBS, FAMILIES & EDUCATION, it sure is great people management. I imagine this is real heady work, helping influence a country of this size and wealth. But the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller, etc. were always pretty good at these activities…..
So, in 1981, Congress enacts the largest tax cut, and (see below), in MINNESOTA, MPDI, a NONPROFIT AGENCY (what’s THAT corporate structure, as far as the IRS goes?) WAS FORMED, MAIN PROJECT “THE DULUTH MODEL” WHICH FILTERS ITS POLICIES THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT, AND PUTS MILLION$$ GRANTS IN THE HANDS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS (THE HHS TERM) WHICH THEN SET POLICY — IN EFFECT — APART FROM OPEN DISCUSSION BY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT IT.
On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan. . . . On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton, In 1997, Clinton,…President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001…. [[OK, that’s enough!]]
Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.comhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1OKM4FlHq
(the ground was ripe for 1996 PRWORA act, which then allocated $10 million a year to run social science demonstration projects on people, through various agencies, and at the bequest/behest of the “secretary of Health and Human Services.” It’s understandable, in this context, while policies voted in to do something — anything (or allegedly do something, or anything) about welfare, or child support enforcement – might be popular. This is the world we inhabit, whether or not we are conscious of it…..)
Or, say
(2) from MISES institute article: “The Income Tax: Root of All Evil“*
“The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913,” wrote Frank Chodorov. Indeed, a man’s home used to be his castle. The income tax, however, gave the government the keys to every door and the sole right to change the locks.
Today the American people are no longer the master and the government has ceased to be the servant. How could this be? The Revolution fought in the name of the inherent natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to enthrone the gains of individualism. Instead, federal taxation bribes the States and individuals to serve the interests of ever-greater submission to the centralized will.
How did tax slavery come to the land of the free?
OK, if you are a woman or descended from people who needed a special amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to VOTE, not exactly in the 1700s, (or, if you, now more enlightened, see what they’re missing) — they still have a point. The American people ARE no longer the master nor does the government appear to think of itself in private and in practice, at least, as the “servant.” However, public proclamations justifying more and more expenditures to solve problems created by the same governental system to start with — will generally use the word “SERVE” as in, “Health and Human Services” or “Family Court Services” or “Child Support Services” or, for that matter, “Child Protection Services.” And this site is probably a good read, whatever we (or you) think about (particularly any women adn children who have been captive in an abuser’s “castle” while knowing that others outside were cautious to invade or infringe upon it by, say, getting inbetween a man (or woman) assaulting, imprisoning, exploiting, or mentally torturing for years, a wife (or husband, or offspring).
Possibly because the word “SERVE” and ‘SERVICES’ has been so overused (or, like CPS, have developed really bad public reputations), the tendency now is to go for “Centers” especially “RESOURCE CENTERS” and coalitions, of course are also popular, plus partnerships. Anything almost, but rule of law, plain and simple, and fairly practiced.
*an obvious misquote of “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Notice, that the person who wrote this (apostle Paul) spoke of something in the heart, loving the wrong thing — but this is speaking an institution set up to collect and pool it, then dispense favor at will to those who qualified. The system does bear questioning..
WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:
(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention. From HHS):
(HHS grants, from TAGGS.hhs.gov) RECIPIENT INFORMATION
Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC | DULUTH | MN | 55802-2152 | ST. LOUIS | 193187069 | $ 18,027,387 |
Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients
(Note, this database only goes back to 1995, i.e., there are 14 previous organizational years unrecorded on the database).
| Recipient: | MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC |
| Address: | 202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET DULUTH, MN 55802-2152 |
| Country Name: | United States of America |
| County Name: | ST. LOUIS |
| HHS Region: | 5 |
| Type: | Other Social Services Organization |
| Class: | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations |
This organization obviously has a budget, and must have a payroll. Though pretty hard to find by a Google search, and it being a private nonprofit (registered in MN?) NGO, it has to process these funds somehow. A woman lists it in her resume, as an accountant on LinkedIn. The question I have is, would it exist without federal funds?
Staff Accountant
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Nonprofit Organization Management industry
June 1996 – December 2000 (4 years 7 months)
Accomplishments – Financial Leadership
– Developed annual budgets ($5 million) and financial statements presenting them to management and Board of Directors.
– Partnered with Management Team, defined/executed software conversion, created new chart of accounts, and streamlined individual funding, program and organizational reporting processes.
– Managed annual fiscal audit and all audits by State and Federal regulatory agencies.
– Integrated in-house payroll system, processed payroll in multiple states, and eliminated outsourcing costs.
– Recruited, hired, trained, and mentored staff accountants and support staff.
– Wrote, produced, and disseminated organization-wide policy and procedural handbook and administered employee benefits program.
– Managed all employee benefit plans.
Some non-profit!
MPDI is still training (seems to be the emphasis, and disseminating information) (notice Who they are training)
Found at the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women (also a grants recipients but nowhere so large as this one):
A Multidisciplinary Response To Domestic Violence
Date and Time:05/05/2011 – 8:00am –A Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence Part 1 (Part 1 of a 2 Part Series)
The Kandiyohi County Domestic Violence Coordinating CouncilThursday, May 5, 2011 – 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. – Kandiyohi County LEC Emergency Operations Center – 2201 NE 23rd St., Suite 101, Willmar, Minnesota.
Part 1 of this 2 Part Series focuses on the foundational level principles in providing a meaningful response to domestic violence. The target audience for this training includes law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, corrections/probation agents, social workers, and any professionals who respond to domestic violence. Featuring Scott Jenkins from The National Training Project of Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
Part 2 of this series will be offered in 2012.
BEFORE I GO ON: Here is a reference to who created the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, and when:
Welcome to Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs offers domestic violence training and resources based on The Duluth Model to help community activists, domestic violence workers, practitioners in the criminal and civil justice systems, human service providers, and community leaders make a direct impact on domestic violence.
The Duluth Model is recognized nationally and internationally as the leading tool to help communities eliminate violence in the lives of women and children. The model seeks to eliminate domestic violence through written procedures, policies, and protocols governing intervention and prosecution of criminal domestic assault cases.*** The Duluth Model was the first to outline multi-disciplinary procedures to protect and advocate for victims.
Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs was founded in 1980 by Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
** as we see, it makes no mention of domestic violence that comes up through or is “handled” through the Family Law system (in which criminal activity gets reclassified as domestic disputes, and downgraded to a family, or civil, matter). Don’t be fooled easily though, recently a subsidiary of DAIP (see site), called “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has collaborated with the (in)famous AFCC on Explicating what is (and, more to the point, is NOT) domestic violence in custody venue. More on that another time…
Who IS Minnesota Program Development, Inc., then? I mean, what is their organizational status — who owns them, who runs them, if they are a nonprofit, where are their annual tax fillings, etc.? What do they DO?
AWARD ACTIONS
Showing: 1 – 22 of 22 Award Actions
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 5 | 0 | ACF | 09-15-2010 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,812 |
| Fiscal Year 2010 Total: | $ 1,178,812 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2009 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 4 | 0 | ACF | 08-27-2009 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2009 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 4 | 1 | ACF | 09-17-2009 | 193187069 | $ 50,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2009 Total: | $ 1,228,812 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 3 | 0 | ACF | 07-22-2008 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,811 |
| Fiscal Year 2008 Total: | $ 1,178,811 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2007 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 2 | 0 | ACF | 08-27-2007 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,810 |
| Fiscal Year 2007 Total: | $ 1,178,810 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2006 | 90EV0375 | FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-21-2006 | 193187069 | $ 1,178,811 |
| Fiscal Year 2006 Total: | $ 1,178,811 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 5 | 0 | ACF | 08-29-2005 | 193187069 | $ 1,343,183 |
| 2005 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 4 | 1 | ACF | 03-11-2005 | 193187069 | $ 0 |
| Fiscal Year 2005 Total: | $ 1,343,183 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 4 | 0 | ACF | 07-27-2004 | 193187069 | $ 1,343,183 |
| Fiscal Year 2004 Total: | $ 1,343,183 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2003 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 3 | 0 | ACF | 09-06-2003 | 193187069 | $ 1,350,730 |
| 2003 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 2 | 1 | ACF | 09-06-2003 | 193187069 | $ 0 |
| Fiscal Year 2003 Total: | $ 1,350,730 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2002 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 2 | 0 | ACF | 09-14-2002 | 193187069 | $ 1,331,291 |
| Fiscal Year 2002 Total: | $ 1,331,291 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2001 | 90EV0248 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-14-2001 | 193187069 | $ 1,275,852 |
| Fiscal Year 2001 Total: | $ 1,275,852 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 5 | 0 | ACF | 08-10-2000 | 193187069 | $ 1,121,852 |
| Fiscal Year 2000 Total: | $ 1,121,852 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1999 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 4 | 0 | ACF | 08-19-1999 | 193187069 | $ 1,016,010 |
| 1999 | CCU511327 | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 05 | 0 | CDC | 09-24-1998 | 193187069 | $ 268,831 |
| Fiscal Year 1999 Total: | $ 1,284,841 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1998 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 3 | 0 | ACF | 09-19-1998 | 193187069 | $ 988,119 |
| 1998 | CCU511327 | VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 05 | 0 | CDC | 09-24-1998 | 193187069 | $ 268,831 |
| Fiscal Year 1998 Total: | $ 1,256,950 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 2 | 0 | ACF | 07-17-1997 | 193187069 | $ 800,000 |
| Fiscal Year 1997 Total: | $ 800,000 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1996 | 90EV0104 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 01 | 000 | ACF | 09-23-1996 | 193187069 | $ 589,908 |
| Fiscal Year 1996 Total: | $ 589,908 | |||||||
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 90EV0011 | P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC | 03 | 000 | ACF | 09-13-1995 | 193187069 | $ 385,541 |
| 1995 | 90EV0011 | P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC | 03 | 001 | ACF | 04-19-1996 | 193187069 | $ 0 |
| Fiscal Year 1995 Total: | $ 385,541 | |||||||
| Total of all award actions: | $ 18,027,387 |
Until recently, I figured, then that this Minnesota Program Development, Inc. — which I knew to be receiving millions (larger than average grants, at least outside the healthy marriage movement) from the Department of HHS, so I figured that probably they were some workforce development group. Particularly as it showed up looking for staff; they were hiring. However, now I am not so sure.
Many of MPDI’s sub-programs were there, and their annual statements and EINs. But this organization based at 202 Superior Street Duluth, MN, was not.
It is NON-PROFIT (but has no EIN#?) PRIVATE and NON-GOVERNMENT, and its chief purpose is SOCIAL SERVICES (not law enforcement, etc.). The difficulty I have with this is, through this type of collaboration (however noble the cause), it is taking the policy-setting procedures further and further from public awareness unless they run across its programs, long after they are established. Given the Technical Assistance / Resource Center grants (not that these are bad ideas), they are always going to be a few jumps ahead of individuals, including people that are the target clientele to be served. Who works at MPDI? Where are its financial statements, and how can the public access them? Who audits its work? Why should the public be funding this is we have no evidence of its effects, even though it’s clearly an ongoing resource?
The Four Resource Centers I seem to have identified not because (as a member of the public) it was ever explained or publicized AS “four resource centers” but because I have been searching TAGGS grants, and noticed that these were some big recipients in the field of violence Prevention.
This chart (better if you search the categories on-line yourself, I searched ONLY on the person’s last name, that I happened to know from prior searches):
Shows that these are EV grants (Education on Violence, presumably), they pull from 3 program codes: 93671, 93592 and 93591. ALL are “social services” and ALL are “discretionary.” The projects are visible, and no abstract description (other than the project title) is yet on the database:
1
Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 Abstract Not Available MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
Has it been proved that “Information & Technical Assistance” saves lives, yet? I’d like to know.
I searched on “Four Special Issue Resource Centers” and came up with (this time) only grants with principal investigator, Ms. Gamache, and all headed up by MPDI.
FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS? What constitutes a “Special” issue as opposed to a normal issue, or a legal issue? (I linked to the HHS definition and listings. Some are by topic, some are by population as you can see.
However these heavily HHS- funded four resource centers, to my knowledge exist in other states. One is the Texas DV Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE). Another is, I believe, the Nevada NCFCJ, which is a family law group. Another, in San Francisco, CA (with office in Washington, DC, as I recall?) is the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” with website “http://www.endabuse.org.” Another is probably in Pennyslvania (PCADV), and another was (last I heard) in SD, focused on Indian Tribes, and called Cangleska, Inc. These were identifiably by the amounts of their grants. Cangleska, Inc., had some financial irregularities and I ran across some press where the tribal elders had fired the people running it (a husband/wife couple) for this reason.
Thanks to our wonderful internet, cross-referencing and on-line organizations (with no real “brick and mortar” site) can indeed exist. Something could be a “resource center” but have no actual front door, I suppose. Names also change, for example on the HHS listing, I see:
Health Resource Center on
Domestic Violence
888-792-2873
www.endabuse.org
Well, “endabuse.org” is basically “FVPF,” as it says:
The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence
The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence (HRC), a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), works to improve health care and public health responses to victims of family violence. The HRC works closely with the American Medical Association and other professional health associations to produce practice and policy guidelines for health care professionals responding to domestic violence. The HRC provides technical assistance, training, public policy recommendations, and materials and responds to over 7,000 requests for technical assistance annually. A number of the resources developed for health professionals and the domestic violence advocates who work with them are available on the FVPF web site, www.endabuse.org
Not mentioned here is that, for example, the same organization also attempts to reduce domestic violence through “fatherhood” based institutes, as I have mocked before on-line at this blog (in 2011)…
National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence
Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children. […]
.jpg)
But I’m a little slow, because the “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND” has changed its name — again. Click on “endabuse.org” and you are now redirected to “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE“(.org) and the announcement, and an entire website makeover, with a Green color scheme, not vivid red, as before. Not only do they have a new website (and obviously some good HTML help), they also have a new physical residence, high-profile for the SF area. FIRST, the family (through fathers) — NOW, the WORLD. COme visit their Global Leadership Center at the Praesidio, and know that if you’re an American taxpayer, you helped build it:
THOUGHT LEADERSHIP, ACTION & TRIBUTE
The Futures Without Violence Center at the Presidio is a global center for action and thought leadership, where individuals and allied organizations from around the world will gather to realize the potential of a world without violence.
The June 1st move to our new headquarters represents years of focused vision, support and hard work from many supporters and our dedicated staff. Housed in a historic military location on the Main Post of the Presidio National Park in San Francisco, this international center will serve as a global town square to promote the safety and wellbeing of all through education, advocacy, and leadership programs, giving voice to women and girls, men and boys everywhere.
Copyright © 2011 Futures Without Violence. All rights reserved.
(The DUNS# lookup shows the title has also been changed, but not yet the address. DUNS# are for US Govt contractors and grantees)
Lord help us, we have been sponsoring people who think they can stop war (often over economics) and that the public should support this concept. They forgot the origins of the income tax, which was to wage it, and beyond that — the intent to change human nature (without its informed consent) is going to have a little competition from, say, the Catholic Church and conservative Protestantism who — rather than consolidation efforts, are still endlessly splitting ranks over ordaining women, or gay / lesbian pastors. San Francisco, as a global town hall forum for this group (and its many supporters) will teach ’em a thing or two! Not to mention, what would Islam say — in some international circles, it hasn’t reconciled itself to letting women drive, let alone vote!
Guess this goes to show why it’s important to look at IRS-based indentifiers (EIN, DUNS) and organizational origins & funding. For example, I doubt a search on “Futures without Violence” would pull up this:
Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5177 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 19,368,114 Family Violence Prevention Fund SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5178 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 31,000 (note: single change in zip code, last digit)
Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recip
Futures without Violence has a powerpacked Board of Directors (US House of Rep, a Judge or two, Pres. of Business Operations of Univ of Calif., you should really take a look), however it’s Chaired by Dr Jacquelyn Campbell, She is also well-known for her Danger Assessment for Domestic Violence Victims and the focus is from the medical/nursing/health perspective. The Honorable Ronald B. Adrinne of Ohio, his blurb acknowledges that this group is funded by the U.S. DOJ: “He chairs the faculty of the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, a joint initiative of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Futures Without Violence (formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund), financed by the U.S. Department of Justice. ”
Keeping track of the names, the “NJI” (Nat’l Judicial INSTITUTE on DV) is a NCFCJ & Futures (aka, formerly FVPF) joint initiative financed by the DOJ.
So why is it we need more Family Justice Centers, then, with all this clout already on the scene preventing violence and crafting futures without it? (Even if the world became vegetarian — unlikely — there’d still be local, tribal, and international wars over land and over controlling the food supply, in the bottom line, money….., don’t you think? And why do we need in addition a continuing Minnesota Program Development, Inc. person coordinating Four (only) of the “Special Issue Resource Centers?”
The “NCFCJ” is already one of the Four Special Issue Resource Centers. Bolstered by ongoing grants, drawing from fund-pooling enabled by the 1913 passage of a certain amendment to the constitution, resulting in the enforcement arm aka IRS — in a time of economic job losses, the former FVPF is another. Clearly we are moving away from government in local or even county or even state courts, to policy being set in distant places, without public awareness (unless they dedicate their miserable — or joyful — lives to following this stuff) (I wouldn’t say a joyful life would consist of running around after shape-shifting and name-changing governmentally sponsored hybrid organizations to see if you can protect yourself, or offspring, from their next well-intentioned (presumably) plans for — you and your offspring.
Now let’s look at this DUNS 618375687 that just renamed itself “Futures Without Violence” and got a nice new building — 2010 Activity only:
Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions (I copied only 2010, obviously)
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 0 ACF 07-01-2010 618375687 $ 1,178,812 2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 2 ACF 12-22-2009 618375687 $ 0 2010 90EV0401 CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 618375687 $ 250,000 2010 ASTWH090016 FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 03 DHHS/OS 11-17-2009 618375687 $ 1,500,000 2010 CCEWH101001 FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 00 DHHS/OS 09-14-2010 618375687 $ 1,600,000 Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812
We can see that it’s drawing from three TYPES of grant series, in the FIRST year (see “year of grant) column: The well known (to me at least) 90EV series, the CCEWH, the ASTWH (though they have similar descriptions, one is labeled FY09, and FY10 gets a new series of labeling.)
FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE IS AN EXPANSION OF PRE-EXISTING FVPF “Special Resource Center”
The sleeper here, a baby by comparison, is Futures Without Violence, at only a $250K bite of the $3.350 million of funding. WATCH OUT (trust me….) this is just seed money:
| 2010 | 90EV0401 | CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE | 1 | 0 | ACF | 09-24-2010 | 618375687 | $250,000 |
“Futures without Violence” is a household move, a rename, and a facelift of the same old concept that constantly training and educating others, or running risk assessments, is somehow going to change a District Attorney’s, a police officer’s or a family law judge’s, or for that matter, a father’s opinion about crimes perpetrated against women & children. It is a continuation of promising (but — delivering???) increased chances of survival and becoming free from abuse, including economic abuse, to distressed women and children, and it also by simply existing, has provoked antagonism from fathers-rights groups who take funding FROM THE SAME DEPARTMENT, HHS!
(searched on USASPENDING.GOV) recognizing that this group draws from both HHS and OVW sources, here a May, 2011 contract from OVW:
Transaction Number # 4
|
|||||||||||||
Do you think ANY of this is going to build, staff, or support shelters? (I doubt it, but one can always call them and ask, I suppose…)
In public, – they pretend to be the squabbling couple — DV vs. FR. But in practice, they get along quite fine, and know what to do with the respective federal grant streams, wouldn’t you say? The real gap is Practitioners and Hotshots versus the Practiced Upon (which justify funds for “servicing” them).
Futures without violence is a cooperative agreement with the Family and Youth Services Bureau. I suggest writing your local legislator and asking what the point is; the US is already the world’s largest per capita jailor, and its jails are clearly racists, judging by who’s in them, compared to what % of the population a certain minority is in the UA. These overcrowded jails are possibly a product of one of the worst public educational systems in the “developed” industrial world, and that’s not because of how much money is spent on it, either.
Click on these funds, and notice some detail. You’ll find, typically over $1 million of “discretionary” expenditures:
”
| ward Number: | CCEWH101001 |
| Award Title: | FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM |
| OPDIV: | DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (DHHS/OS) |
| Organization: | OFFICE ON WOMEN’S HEALTH (ASH/OWH) |
| Award Class: | DISCRETIONARY |
Obviously, the real money is in Technical Assistance and Training /// Education. The sky’s the limit. It’s “discretionary.” Relocate. Revamp the website — or start a new one. Hire staff. Get topnotch, hotshot boards of directors in some of the cities known for the highest homicide rates around and whose urban areas still have all kinds of domestic violence homicides/familicide, and wipeouts (while the conferences continue) and no one reports much at all on the family law system’s role in this, or child support’s. Talk about the problems created by a crumbling infrastructure, while building your web – and conference-based own. Become a trainer! Until the country finishes going bankrupt, or getting bought up by overseas interests — and becoming a defunct through mismanagement nation — you can have a real, paying job and go purchase food, housing, rent, transportation and a college education for your kids.
I SEARCHED THE FVPF “Futures without Violence” DUNS # on “USASPENDING.GOV” (for what it’s worth) and under “Advanced Search,” scrolled down (ignoring basically ALL the categories) to put it in under “Parent DUNS Number : 618375687*.” Found 15 contracts, some performed (per the map) in Georgia?
FVPF draws from a variety of sources: HHS is not the top source. Totals that this (2011, today) search drew show:
Filters:
- Search Term: “Family Violenc.. (FVPF)
- Total Dollars:$38,512,886
- Number of Transactions:89
Top 5 Contracting Agencies
1. Office of Justice Programs $21,134,457 (55%) 2. Immediate Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services $11,207,290 (29%) 3. Administration for Children and Families $5,500,562 (14%) 4. Health Resources and Services Administration $272,394 (1%) 5. Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code) $218,997
Here is a “timeline” chart reflecting funding (this also, I believe, includes contracts to FVPF, not just grants). The interactive database allows a Map, Timeline ,and Advanced search options. The “TIMELINE” bar chart shows clearly that the year 2005 (Reauthorization of VAWA) showed a huge jump in number (it was 22) of awards (grant or contract) for FVPF, but the highest total amount of awards, year to date was 2009, when they got $7.825 million of awards I’m sure this would allow expanded infrastructure capacity. The question is — what are they doing with it? Does training really induce honesty, accountability, or greater ethics?
Or does it breed — more & more training entitites with increasingly global aspirations? And as so many US jobs are being outsourced, and US land being bought up by foreign entities, perhaps we should ask some of them — how about some Arab countries for starters — to start contributing to the public monies supporting VAWA-style sensitivity and arrest accountability trainings, even though “endabuse.org — excuse me “futureswithoutviolence.org originally called itself the”Family” Violence Prevention Fund. Looking at these charts, I feel that the operative word is the last word, “FUND.”
(SEE THE PATTERN YET?)
The Duluth Model or Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program developed to reduce domestic violence. The Duluth model was developed by Minnesota Program Development, Inc., a nonprofit agency in Duluth, Minnesota. The program was mostly founded by social activist Ellen Pence. The Duluth Model is featured in the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America.
Origin and theory
The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project was the first multi-disciplinary program designed to address the issue of domestic violence. This experimental program, conducted in Duluth, Minnesota in 1981, coordinated the actions of a variety of agencies dealing with domestic conflict. The program has become a model for programs in other jurisdictions seeking to deal more effectively with domestic violence.
MPDI, as I search it on “USASPENDING.GOV” shows itself not to be as big a “player” as FVPF although it’s been around as long. See?
- Total Dollars:$27,989,388
- Transactions:1 – 25 of 41
If you do this search (and you should), and sort by date, or dollar — it’ll show that on the JUSTICE side, the grants are category 16.526, Office of Violence Against Women Technical Assistance Initiative, or “16.588, VAW Formula Grants (Technical Assistance Program), or 16.589, (etc.)
| 16.588 : Violence Against Women Formula Grants | |
| Description: |
FY 03 OFFICE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
|
| Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs | |
| CFDA Program : | 16.589 : Rural Domestic Violence Dating Violence Sexual Assault and Stalking Assistance Program |
| CFDA Program : | 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants |
- Total Dollars:$57,032
- Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
Organizational Type Number of Employees 80 Annual Revenue $3,710,570
Who is this contractor, MPDI, again?
Is it a shelter, battered women’s or homeless? Hell, no:
| Domestic Shelter | N: Other than Domestic Shelter |
|---|
In the entire list, the only category MPDI checked “Y” on is “nonprofit.” And its revenue exceeds $3.750 million (that’s per year) and it employed 80 people (do the math, subtract expenses and operating revenue). Go figure . . . . ..
It trains everyone in authority how to change the world so that shelters become obsolescent and to save others. It’s a multiple, cross-disciplined collaborative model of how to do this, it sets up and supervises (I guess) special- issue (see above populations for a sample) resource center builder, paid for by all of the above who are still working.
(The product in the particular 2006 one I just quoted from reads:Product or Service Information (Award) (Contract was for $22,800and place of performance, Duluth, Purchaser, Dept. of Homeland Security — so I’m guessing they flew some people up to Duluth to get trained….)
| Major Product or Service Code | 69: Training aids and devices |
|---|---|
| Product or Service Code | 6910: Training Aids |
| Contract Description | DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VIDEO |
|---|
Charities that provide few services. In other cases, nonprofit organizations may solicit donations for a charitable purpose, when little of the donated funds are actually used for that purpose. People may be asked to give money, donate their car, or purchase a product from an organization that promises to help support worthwhile causes. Upon closer review, however, most of the funds may actually be used to pay for high fundraising costs or executive compensation. These organizations may be nonprofits with tax-exempt status. This means that donors must take time to research all unfamiliar organizations before donating to find out how much of your money is actually going to worthwhile programs.
Follow these tips to be sure your money is spent as you intended:
- Is the organization registered with the State? Charities must register with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office before they may solicit donations in Minnesota if they have raised or expect to raise more than $25,000 or have paid staff. Before you give money, research whether the organization is registered by visiting the Attorney General’s website at www.ag.state.mn.us or calling (651) 296-3353 or 1-800-657-3787. It should be a big red flag if an organization calls you for a donation and is not registered with the Attorney General’s Office.
- How does the organization spend money? Take time to research how the organization has spent money in the past. Charities that are registered with the State must file an annual financial statement showing how much money they have raised and how they have spent it. The financial statement is called a Form 990. You may obtain copies of the Form 990 from the Attorney General’s Office. You may also obtain from the office copies of contracts between charities and their professional fund-raisers so you can determine what percentage of your donation is going to charity.
- Is the organization tax-exempt? Find out if the organization has been granted tax-exempt status by calling the IRS tax-exempt hotline at 1-877-829-5500 or searching Publication 78 on its website atwww.irs.gov. It should be a red flag if an organization asks you for a donation for a supposed charitable purpose but does not have tax-exempt status from the IRS. and:
- Don’t be pressured by emotional appeals. Take time to do your homework before you give. Some disreputable organizations may pressure you to give money immediately, in some cases making you feel like you are letting down a good cause if you don’t. Don’t be pressured— any reputable charity will appreciate your donation just as much if you take the time to research the donation first.
NOTE: It has come to our attention that some of the information on this site may be compromised. We have removed the information in question while we look into the matter.
Cumulative List of 501(c)(3) Organizations, IRS Publication 78
Find a searchable listing of 501(c) (3) charitable organizations, or download the complete Publication 78 in compressed text format, or an expanded version of Publication 78 with EINs ** in compressed text format, or view the Documentation of the Publication 78 file.
(**I’m downloading this one — it’s going to come in handy)
Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.
(YEAH, OK, we get it. Changing the world. And who isn’t??)
Supervised Visitation & Safe ExchangeBeginning in 2002, Praxis worked in partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women to provide technical assistance to the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Demonstration Initiative, and to provide training and technical assistance to grantees in the Supervised Visitation Program. While this project ended as of April 1, 2010, we continue to support visitation programs and their community partners via the resources developed during that partnership and found on these pages.
Background
Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A. She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.
| DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT | 202 W 2ND ST, DULUTH, MN |  |
| MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Also Traded as DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT, THE |
202 E SUPERIOR ST, DULUTH, MN |
ICH (I noticed today) was getting plenty of HHS grants also, in fact what MPDI or individual tribal groups didn’t get, they did, it seems.Duluth Family Visitation Center
A safe place for children and parents. Our mission is to provide a place that is safe and free from violence where children can build and maintain positive relationships with the parents **Visitation Center
202 East Superior Streeet
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781 Ext. 204
www.TheDuluthModel.org
Effective Practice Description The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) began in 1980 as the first project of its kind to coordinate every criminal justice agency in one city in an effort to deliver justice for battered women. This project served as a model nationally and internationally. The DAIP collaborates with the area shelter for battered women to provide advocacy for battered women while they work through the legal system.
Results / Accomplishments Due to DAIP’s success, in 1991 the Minnesota Legislature mandated that each of the 38 Legislative Assignment Districts establish an intervention project coordinated by a battered women’s advocacy group. As of 1997, there were 44 intervention projects in Minnesota.
The Executive Director of this organization, “Linda Riddle” fled an abusive marriage in 1987 and is very active in homeless coalitions, and much more. Speaker Bio:
Linda Riddle brings more than 20 years of involvement in the battered women’s movement to the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. First, as a battered mother with small children, a woman who received helping services – she became an active board member of the Women’s Resource Center of Winona, MN in 1987, and then became the executive director of Houston County Women’s Resources (HCWR) – a position she held from 1992 through 2006. At HCWR she developed and implemented progressive new programming in her rural community, including both resident and scattered site transitional housing for homeless victims of violence and a flexible supervised visitation and exchange program. Ms. Riddle has a deep love for political and social action, and works through the MN Coalition for Battered Women and the MN Coalition for the Homeless to help shape legislation and funding for Minnesota organizations and the people they serve. Now beginning a fourth year in Duluth as the executive director of DAIP, Ms. Riddle is moving the Duluth Model forward into a new era of social change to end violence against women and children.
Social change is fine. But $29 MILLION of funding over a period of years is a lot, with over $30 million from the “ENDABUSE” new group in its new location (and website facelift, “Futures without Violence” (still one of the “Special Issue Resource Centers.”
Meanwhile, I could show you a very small organization (staff, 7 people) with probably just as modest a physical presence, in Denver, that has (parallel to this) helped totally transform the family law and child support system. Its location is HERE, just 2 miles (or a 10 minute drive) away from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Don’t tell me these groups don’t know about each other… in a MidWestern town with clean streets and a bit of office space (plus internet, plus political connections) it is indeed possible to change the world.
Now, we need more “justice centers”? ?? At what point does a person get to say STOP? Where’s the justice, and why hasn’t domestic violence — or family violence — stopped by now, with all that intervention going on? Are we chasing the virtual Holy Grail here, or what?
(Sorry about the laborious length of this post, which started when I saw several DAIP-type programs at a Family Justice Center ALLIANCE Conference in San Diego.)
While “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” is not of the size and funding of “MDRC” — I feel it’s in the same business, with slightly different staffing and origins. It is in the Development of PROGRAMS based on personal visions of the founders — and being spread with Technical Assistance and capacity building public funded help like a fast growing tree nurtured by the IRS and the dual prongs of HHS and DOJ (all EXECUTIVE BRANCH of USA) grants.
Kind of reminds me of the transplant of Eucalyptus Trees to California. Starting to crowd out the native vegetation and now an accepted part of the landscape, even though they don’t produce the lumber behind the original idea.
I understand that people want to respond to PROBLEMS and then start and continue PROGRAMS to solve them. But now the PROLIFERATION OF PROGRAMS has really become a major PROBLEM itself. These programs have tremendous leverage because of their existing structures, and relationships. Too much of the public remains clueless that half of them even exist.
And — people “served” doesn’t mean people — or even lives! — “saved.” Nor do judges (etc.) trained necessarily increase judicial ethics or “domestic violence awareness.” I see the grants, I see the people, I see the programs described, and you can’t beat those website — but where is the data that any of this is actually helping?
Instead, the Supervised Visitation Network is being used AGAINST the mothers and children it supposedly is to protect.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”)
Memorial Day Weekend. Let’s remember that people who started out an organization pulling a fast one on the public -successfully – are likely to try the same thing, again.
Keep an Eye on our Public Servants: District Attorney’s Offices
Always.
Take for example (1), Los Angeles County‘s:
(By way of finding out WHY one better watch one’s local DA’s office..and make sure they know you are.)
For a clue what may happen when one doesn’t, see Gil Garcetti, L.A. D.A. (retired?)
BIOGRAPHY
Although Gil spent 32 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, eight years as the elected District Attorney, much of his life has been spent as an urban photographer. His first photo book, IRON: ERECTING THE WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL, (November 2002, Balcony Press), received much critical praise in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications. The photographs emphasize the contribution of the ironworkers to the building of America, but they also document the beauty of the curved, angled, and bent raw steel of this building before being covered by its exterior skin.
Photographs from his second book, FROZEN MUSIC, (November 2003, Balcony Press), have been featured in multi page features in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, American Photo, Newsweek, Time, Harvard Design Magazine, California Lawyer and other magazines. Gil’s second book is his interpretation of the abstract art created by the finished building. The book is a portfolio of 45 panorama lithographs.
How Nice.
I’d love to resume arts, leisure, writing activities like this, too — or even the concept that I might have some sort of “retirement” whatsoever. HOWEVER, thanks to this system, a lot of time is spent reconstructing where my kids, time, legal rights and finances went. Why does it keep leading back to these offices, in particular — whose function is to prosecute crime AFTER it happens fairly, and do it right & without corruption, to the extent of their budget. Just imagine in a world where crimes to & by men, women, and minors actually received prompt punishment as a deterrent and a message to others….
While Mr. Garcetti’s retirement plan includes urban photography and some book royalties, up here (and in San Diego), the retirement plan, I figure probably includes selling and letting someone else run, FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS — which is why this post. If the demand isn’t great enough for a family justice center, it helps to have a nice District Attorney well-positioned to get funds to start one anyhow, and with connections to staff it — and it appears also even connections enough to then legislate it into a business model for all times (and counties).
But this is the Los Angeles District Attorney’s legacy, here:
Pre-Retirement (from the office):
WIKIPEDIA describes — clearly from a bit of a disgruntled fathers’ perspective (and with good cause — ) his “Life as (Los Angeles) District Attorney” – First and Second Terms, 1992-2000 starting right after Rodney King riots, prosecution of O.J. Simpson, Ramparts scandal, and, as it mentions:
In the late 1990s, Garcetti’s use of default judgments in child support cases were considered by many to be particularly heinous. Garcetti openly refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers in question. By 2000, 79% of paternity judgements in Los Angeles County were assigned by default.
Which is why I bring him up, as representing a Southern California leading District Attorney’s legacy…
Wikipedia (voice of the people, or at least people who write Wikipedia articles) goes on about the child support issue, a bit of heartfelt passion enters into the narrative…
Gil Garcetti created so much chaos and heartache that even diehard feminist attorney Gloria Allred protested.
Gloria Allred was a single mother in need of child support — which she went after. As this was before the invention of the post-feminist (?) “fatherhood” movement to keep people like her in place, and also became pregnant because of a rape, possibly part of how she became a “protester” activist lawyer: “During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo from quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories, …”
Allred, who has perhaps done more than anybody to promote the phrase and concept of ‘deadbeat dads,’ called Garcetti’s office ‘an organization without a heart, without any compassion, and without a sense of priorities…[it’s] a system run amok’… Jackie Myers, a former Deputy District Attorney under Garcetti, said that she quit her job because ‘we were being told to do unethical, very unethical things.’
Allred didn’t find out about the $14 million of collected child support cooling its heels (and earning interest) in Garcetti’s office, instead of going straight to its recipients, the children. Richard Fine did. The law said, if they couldn’t find the mother (parent) within 6 months, it goes back to the father. Narrated briefly here: When Fine saw them dismiss the Silva v. Garcetti case, it led to the discovery of payments to judges in the County (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles). Funny the upset for fathers wikipedia guy didn’t mention this — but MSM silence on certain cases can be effective.
This was an unbelievable mess. Child Support collections was eventually (in CA at least) specifically removed from the province of the District Attorney’s Office, probably because of this, and now the practice of holding onto child support collections while they collect interest (at least 30 days before anything is considered “late”) and attempt to divert them for private crony use, or otherwise seriously mess with mothers (and fathers) — is in the hands of a different centralized agency in California — and “Local CSA’s” (child support agencies) by county, for the most part. They’re doing approximately as well when it comes to conflict of interest and honesty, but at lest someone else had a crack at screwing families financially for a change.
See? CA.Gov
Welcome to the Department of Child Support Services Website!
California’s Child Support Services Program works with* parents – custodial and noncustodial – and guardians to ensure children and families receive court-ordered financial and medical support. Child support services are available to the general public through a network of 52 county and regional child support agencies (LCSAs).
* this must be why it’s “Child Support SERVICES” not collections, or enforcements. How ‘holistic.’
and (from same website, different tab) a note about the administrative costs:
The May 2011 Revision updates the DCSS local assistance budget for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 and SFY 2011-12. It provides the estimates of the administrative costs for the local child support agencies, as well as the detailed methodology for each estimate. The total administrative costs for local assistance are estimated to be $906.3 million ($277.7 million State General fund (SGF)) for SFY 2010-11 and $866.6 million ($270.8 million SGF) for SFY 2011-12.
and such financial concepts as:
Federal Performance Basic Incentives
DESCRIPTION:
This premise reflects the Federal Performance Basic Incentives. Pursuant to the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, the federal incentives passed onto local child support agencies (LCSAs) are to be based on the five performance measures and Data Reliability Audit compliance. California’s historical performance is displayed in the Auxiliary Tables section of this document on the Historical Incentive Performance Measures chart (Chart A-10).
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
The federal performance incentive methodology was implemented October 1, 1999 and phased in over three years.
OR, say, a measly almost $100,000 to keep the pipelines open to Strengthening Families and other Cross-Collaborations which many child support recipients (meaning payees/ payors) would be hard-pressed to comprehend, or track (if they even knew these existed). No doubt this is far better than having ONE corrupt District Attorney’s Office simply sitting on the stuff, Los Angeles Style, until caught at it and sued to stop it:
Partnership to Strengthen Families Grant
DESCRIPTION:
This premise reflects the funds for the Partnership to Strengthen Families Federal Grant. The project will support partnerships among state child support program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies and university scholars and researchers. Research and data analysis will be performed to improve coordination between the state child support program and TANF agencies.
The child support program and TANF program serve many of the same customers and share a program goal of family self sufficiency. Cross organizational partnerships can support improved efficiency and effectiveness by bringing together program experts to evaluate policy making and to assess processes that cross both organizations. The policy choices of each program can have a significant impact on the other. Isolated decision making is not in the best interest of the child support program nor the TANF program. This demonstration grant will serve as the foundation for an integrated and more effective communication between programs.
This partnership will benefit both the child support and TANF programs with the help of university faculty and scholars to design and support data exchanges, store and analyze data, and conduct special studies or evaluations of program policies or practices. Additionally, the steering committee for the partnership will also involve local child support and TANF welfare directors so that all elements of the program leadership are included. A collaborative effort is expected to add substantial value to otherwise independent planning and actions by these organizations in isolation.
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
This premise was implemented September 30, 2009.
KEY DATA/ASSUMPTIONS:
• Authorizing statute: Section 1115(a)(2), 1115(b) and 1115(b)(3) of the Social Security Act [42 United States Code 1315].
• This grant is effective from September 30, 2009 through February 28, 2011.
• The total project cost consists of Section 1115 grant funds, a required 5 percent state match, and federal financial participation. The 5 percent state match will be funded through redirection of existing resources. [from Childsup.ca.gov, various links]
Now, instead, they can figure out what to do with approximately $4 billion (per year) of federal funds to states intended to enforce child & family support (or, promote marriage, a.k.a. fatherhood), including Compromising Arrears (that they ran up to start with), jailing fathers for nonsupport of outrageous amounts — then letting them out into classes about “How to be a father” (including abstinence education — go figure) run by court-affiliated program promoters.
But that’s another topic.
Take for example (2), Alameda County’s:
Now, for ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
I casually noticed that the Alameda County District Attorney actually had an Annual Report 2010, I figured, why not take a look? (note: I also look other places – so should we — such as vendor payments for this one, contracts, payrolls, etc.)
For Annual Report, read “Sales Promotion” for receiving more money for more programs. It’s basically going to be a Business Plan, or part of one, right.
Being the smart woman that I am, I went straight to “LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES.”
I’ve been around the block a few times, and know what the word “initiatives” means
I find it odd that the law enforcement is so eager to write the law also. Kind of like the Executive Branch of the US changing the legal system (and adding a faith-based office to help the separation of church and state just a little more) and the Judicial Element forming nonprofits and directing traffic to them. Or the Legislative Element getting press for helping the homeless, while their wives are busy charging $225 an hour to subcontract work that probably should’ve been done by a public agency (which the public pays for) to start with.
Makes you kind of wonder where the criminal element of society really is, sometimes. I mean, what’s truly causing the level of poverty and street crime and disrespect for authority seen throughout this county (home to the 4th and 5th highest homicide cities in the country, last I heard — Oakland, and Richmond, California). Does no responsibility ever rest with this department?
So, here’s “Nancy (O’Malley) goes to Washington” — What a Wonderful Life it must be.
Once there she has some nice chats, by mutual request it seems, with Dianne, about SB 557 – instead of having this chat first with the citizens that actually live in this state and who don’t always have our U.S. Senators’ ear. They’re lucky, many times, if they can get law enforcement’s ear, if it’s just a “family matter” (aka domestic dispute), even though these matters can get both family and officers killed, and have.
And here’s SB 557. Glad I happened to hear about it. And guess who proposed it (sponsor, co-sponsor):
CORRECTED APRIL 27, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 05, 2011CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2011–2012 REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL No. 557
________________________________________Introduced by Senator Kehoe
(Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Atkins, Fletcher)
Wow —Senator(SB117) Kehoe (SB747) & Assemblyperson Atkins (SB 887): the Dynamic Duo strikes again
- This time, to help their cohorts get proprietary language to promote a certain concept promising “justice” coach parents suffering from domestic violence and separation, including with their kids, from abusers.
- This is not to say the same people don’t also propose better bills — like adding “strangulation” to the definition of “traumatic injury.” However, this still ain’t gonna change how little family law judges care about it, as opposed to pushing co-parenting, therapy and marriage & fatherhood to people who are, er, divorcing (etc.). Generally, they fall under the category of “special interests” it seems, including:
- SB 117 (Kehoe)
Public contracts: prohibitions: discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. (see my last 2 posts on how Atkins’ partner got San Diego business…)
While this may be a good concept, common sense says to take it up with the California Healthy Marriage and the Bush-originator and perpetuators of National Fatherhood In Aeternum. Isn’t there some way we could lock the different factions into a single room — like is done with a sequestered jury — and duke it out while the rest of us get about our own business, and sex lives? Note: no minor children should be allowed into the room for any purpose during this time.
Actually, it was Kehoe sponsoring SB 2263 nine years ago, trying to one-stop shop an all-expense-paid (i.e., public funding through California Judicial Council) assessment of (Kids’ Turn). Has she had children? Has her partner had children? So what’s with this fascination with coaching others about how children feel about divorce, and what parents should tell them during the process?
Somehow I”m starting to wonder how these types of bills relate to each other.
So long as family court judges continue to exercise “wide discretion” and retain immunity for screw-ups, and so long as parents are too busy on on-line forums (arguing PAS or anti-PAS) and going to rallies to Washington, D.C. to plead for mercy — it doesn’t matter that Governor Gray Davis vetoed that one, saying gently that perhaps the highest judicial body in the state wasn’t, er, qualified to measure mental health (i.e., attitude adjustments that certain mental health professionals wish to see).
Family Law already makes just about any other law a moot point, no matter what gender you express this in — it’s possible to get permanently screwed in 2o minutes, or ex parte, and with or without a $$ to spare.
We, the People of California (insert your state, but this state has a well-earned reputation for being off the charts sometimes, it seems) should instead actually investigate who’s married to, in business with, or on the board of directors with whom, and we’d better keep our eyes peeled about whassup in the legislature, and whassup in Washington, too. And start respecting bloggers that do (historymatters of Sandiegooneline, or Ronkayeinlaw, etc.), rather than on-line weekly reporters (Mr. Peter Jamison of SFWeekly) that don’t.
February 17, 2011
________________________________________
An act to add Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) to Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers. **
**the last suggestion (see my recent posts) was to simply amend Civil Labor Educational Insurance and Penal codes to clarify that gender expression is a civil right (as I understood it). This one simply adds a Title subdivision, i.e. 5.3.
While AFCC is busy legitimizing and legalizing “Parenting Coordinators” to further undermine due process (and confidentiality) a.k.a. legal rights, the DA’s office itself is trying to legitimize and hallow “family justice centers” that shouldn’t even be necessary IF the DA’s office (law enforcement and prosecution) had been doing their jobs right to start with, including taking criminal activity committed by one parent against the other without respect to gender. Same general idea — exploiting prior screwups by the same people to add another layer of bureaucracy to “coordinate” all the services needed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL DIGEST
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGESTSB 557, as amended, Kehoe. Family justice centers.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) is added to Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:
TITLE 5.3. Family Justice Centers13750.
(a) A city, county, or city and county may establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking. Family justice centers, if established in a city, county, or city and county, may include community-based domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse in the planning and operations process of a family justice center, and may establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and evaluation of the family justice center by survivors of violence and abuse and community-based crime victim service providers.
(b) For purposes of this title, the following terms have the following meanings:(1) “Abuse” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6203 of the Family Code.
(2) “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6211 of the Family Code.
(3) “Sexual assault” means an act or attempt made punishable by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264.1, 266c, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, 289, or 647.6.
(4) “Elder abuse” means an act made punishable by Section 368.
(5) “Human trafficking” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 236.1.(6) “Victim of crime,” “crime victim,” or “victim” means a victim of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, or human trafficking.
(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims crime from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.
Text found at Survivors in Action (which addresses stalking — not parenting — issues)
Wow. I felt SO o o o o distracted by investigating the Nonprofit Filings of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” which I already knew was itself a Dubious District Attorney Doing. San Diego (where the model started) also reported on their Doubts as to why a retiring City? attorney should simply move functions that belonged to government over to the Y, later to become what I like to call Casey Gwinn’s Retirement Plan Model.
I found out that after getting a $3 million grant, producing a nonprofit structure (channel?) that has 0 $$ and 0 boards of directors (if one looks at the paperwork) yet suddenly a subsidiary group, “Family Violence Law Center” is getting flush with $millions of education & prevention programs under a different EIN.
Having wondered why none of these groups actually tell us how Family Law Operates (which is through AFCC/CRC and a host of nonprofit groups to receive federal funds to fix families, even though the fix is getting some of them killed from the resulting mix of turmoil & entitlements) — I see that the Executive Director of this Family Violence Law Center, has a background in Family Law.
Together, while they do not talk honestly about each other (or their relationships), they comprise an assembly line that shuffles families from separation through dissolution to destitution, getting grants along the way to “prevent family violence” at the top of the chute (abandoning those halfway down).
Wait a minute — don’t we deserve some better accounting of the EXISTING family justice Centers before they become the model of how to (not) help Victims of Crime navigate the family law system?)
FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT:
D.A. Nancy E. O’Malley and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein
In May 2010, Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley led a team from the District Attorney’s Office to Washington D.C. to honor fallen officers at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and meet with legislators.
The team met with many officials to discuss the Office’s nationally recognized programs and initiatives. Highlights included presentations on the Restitution Unit, the H.E.A.T. Watch program, and the Alameda County Family Justice Center
(A Nancy O’Malley/Davis-Lockyer, affiliate of the San Diego Family Justice Center model, founded by someone who was personally sued by one of his own staff for ignoring severe domestic violence and what appears to be death threats to one of his own employees, to which it seems he (Casey Gwinn) responded by moving the situation to a different floor, and thereafter ignoring it. Which I have blogged. Guess they don’t read my lovely, graphics-intensive, professionally organized posts.)
. Also overviewed was the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and the innovative and successful partnerships between the D.A.’s Office, Probation Department, Alameda County Office of Education and Alameda County Health Care.
In a briefing with the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, D.A. O’Malley spoke about the Family Justice Center’s concept of collaborative comprehensive services.
Time to review (From FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT), “The Brown Act.”
THE BASICS
Meetings of public bodies must be “open and public,” actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. (§§ 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d))
WHO’S COVERED
This is my HOLIDAY (or the Sunday before it) and catching up with a Northern California District Attorneys’ latest Dubious Doings and proposed legislations wasn’t on it. Can I — like Kehoe recommended that Kids’ Turn (initially) — get some public funding to study the effectiveness (or rather, lack of it) of both kids’ Turn AND all spinoffs functioning in my area — AND of the local Family Justice Center closest to me? (I posted others, from an IRS lookup of charities with the name, yesterday, bottom of the post).
In other words, we can either work, and trust our local representatives and elected officials to do their jobs at least as well as we do our own — OR, we can scale back on work (and thus fewer taxes for them to waste) and take time to divert some of the slush funds to our scrutinizing the rest of the slush fund activity.
Having a family law attorney running FVLC is a conflict of interest, as shown (last I heard) on the total SILENCE on the characters, traits, and habits of the family law system and the nonprofits surrounding it, like
NAUCRATES DUCTOR (pilot fish):
(no, the term is not familiar to me, but isn’t the image appropriate? Because what they are escorting is indeed a shark. And the nonprofits surrounding the family law system, which may or may not be smaller than it (who knows? WHo is tracking) — are feeding off a fish which itself is paid for by the public to start with. At some level, this is starting to resemble family COURT systems, not just FAMILY courts. And I’m not the only person that seems to think this way — I have a photo on here of a bunch of judges (SF area) dressing up as royalty at an AAML meeting. They composed a cute song based on “Camelot” (itself a reference to the Kennedy White House as royalty) to go along with this and seemed to think it was funny. )
From the Legislative Initiatives section of the Annual Report.
Legislative Initiatives
Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.
In 2010, we were instrumental in writing numerous pieces of legislation, including:
SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.
As with “fatherhood” programs — this “trend” is hardly a grassroots demand for justice centers. No, certain people have a vested interest in continuing to “initiate” them.
I have a motto to counteract this trend:
JUST SAY NO!
Meanwhile…
Anyone willing to do some legwork and track the nonprofit status and get some verified results from any of the existing family justice centers — please do so. Are they all set up like this one? Are they obtaining public & private monies and funneling them to a favored nonprofit and changing the character of a nonprofit which used to simply help its clients?
How many of the board members are actually public servants — and let’s get some payroll records.
A reminder — someone who walked through the doors — in fact even someone who got a restraining order (already proven to have a good risk of getting him/her (a) dead or (b) eventually completely eliminated from (her) kids’ lives — when the people who should be instead supporting court order enforcement are those collaborating instead to “educate” and “train” others inside new centers…
McDonalds is hugely successful — it serves a lot of people. That doesn’t mean everyone should buy all their food form fast-food franchises…..
This “trend” is going to increase the number of DISenfranchised citizens, whose real needs don’t fit neatly into such expensive and unproven collaborations.
Just Say No. Then get on-line, and get involved demanding a better explanation of why we should put up with this.
Take time from TV and do some FOIA requests under the Sunshine Ordinance. Each one teach one — we can do this!
SHARE THIS POST on...
Kicking salesmanship up a notch: the nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” and my California Legislature (Sept. 2019 title update: Calif. Legislature 2001-2002 Session, A.B. 2263, 2002, C. Kehoe tries to legislate KT as a standard and order funds to study and expand it)
Post Title: Kicking salesmanship up a notch: the nonprofit “Kids’ Turn” and my California Legislature (Sept. 2019 title update: Calif. Legislature 2001-2002 Session, A.B. 2263, 2002, C. Kehoe tries to legislate KT as a standard and order funds to study and expand it) (Shortlink url: https://wp.me/psBXH-G7, published May 19, 2011, this title update added Sept. 29, 2019, about 7,661 words. Original title as seen only in bold. I added explanatory phrase, and nowadays I add “date published” to the title where possible.//LGH.
From this post (tongue in cheek, my voice, after reading about it):
…Everybody who’s anybody in the family law fields (whether attorney, judge, or psychologist/family therapist, etc.) should take a turn at running Kids’ Turn.
From that bill, before amended to ask for generic help, not specifically admitting that what was meant was “our baby, Kids’ Turn”)…operates as a franchise sold only to nonprofits (not mentioned: started and run by, see previous quote):
Kids’ Turn is a private non-profit organization that provides workshops for children and their parents that are intended to teach skills to cope with the difficulty of divorce and separation….
Fees for workshops range from $75 to $600 (on a sliding scale). Kids Turn conducts programs in San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, and Contra Costa County. The organization has sold its curriculum and licensed affiliates located in Sonoma, Napa, San Diego, Shasta, and Yolo Counties (in addition to Dayton, Ohio and Hillsboro, Oregon. Although sold only to nonprofits, the program effectively operates as a franchise. Kids’ Turn currently is conducting its own study, in consultation with the California School of Professional Psychology. This bill would require the Judicial Council to duplicate, at least in part, the current study.
Among the objections raised, and possibly why (last I looked) it wasn’t passed SPECIFICALLY naming Kids’ Turn as the California (NB: Large state!) recommended parent education curriculum:
…According to the Judiciary Committee analysis, the author states that the bill is needed so that Kids’ Turn will have state approval as evidence of credibility and will allow courts to “recommend Kids’ Turn as a resource to the community.”
[[On the organization’s website, five-year strategy, this analysis continues]]
…Specifically targeted for consideration is: “Enhanced marketing strategies in order to increase the number of Kids’ Turn affiliates and sales of Kids’ Turn Curriculum.” This bill may create the appearance that a State study and Judicial Council recommendations are part of a marketing strategy..
In fact they are. The workaround was to delete specific references to the corporation name and limit the dollar amount for the study to $50,000, from the phrase amount “necessary.”
Author’s amendments: The author proposes amendments (LCR# 0216385), which (1) delete the specific reference to Kids’ Turn and, instead, study projects or programs that provide services to parents and children undergoing divorce, 2) to delete reference to program expansion; and 3) to delete the language requiring the Judicial Council to allocate the amount “necessary” to conduct the study, to limit the State’s obligation to $50,000. The third staff recommendation to authorize, but not require the study, was rejected by the author.
Shameless! I do not know what became of the bill; I was just discovering it at the time (and my second child was turning adult around the time I discovered it). The continued use of state government positions, websites, and affiliations (especially AFCC’s) continues in the second decade of the 21st century and as we are approaching the third decade, I expect unless someone develops the means and courage to stop it, will continue to do so.//LGH
BELOW THIS LINE: AS WRITTEN May 2011 (except as I may later return here to clean up formatting, which is seriously in trouble at this point, but for a snapshot in time, you can see the basic content is still here and was then/still is now, solid on the business model in play…//LGH 9/29/2019):
I was just casually searching on “Kids’ Turn Affiliates” and even I was surprised at how far proponents would go to push this judge-originated nonprofit.
To the California Legislature?
Yep. The original version was written specifically to this one organization that is probably something of a slush fund to start with.
Makes you wonder about some of our legislators. (posted below).
It was already mentioned 2001-2002 (at a minimum) in the Calif. Judicial Council’s Report to the Legislature on Access and Visitation Fundings, as a sub-grantee. In fact, looks like it was the first one that popped to their mind:
The following are some of the parent education programs funded by the grants that help promote and encourage healthy parent-and-child relationships.
- Kids’ Turn (San Diego, Napa, and Shasta Counties): This is a nationally recognized educational program that offers workshops and counseling for families with separated or divorced parents. Kids’ Turn teaches family members the skills that can improve communication between children and parents and help parents understand their children’s experience during and after divorce.21
The San Francisco (founding org.) Kids’ Turn apparently gets some direct help from the City & County, and wants more:
We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.
6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.
If you’re actually still earning money, while in the custody process, the Sliding fee Scale does not seem to have an upper limit (?):
FEE TABLE
Pre-Tax Income Tuition with 1 Child 2 Children or More 0 — $14k $50 $60 $15k — $19k $65 $80 $20k — $24k $90 $120 $25k — $29k $175 $225 $30k — $39k $250 $300 $40k — $49k $325* $375* $50k — $59k $450* $500* $60k — $74k $625* $725* $75k — $99k $750* $850* $100k — $124k $900* $1000* $125k — $250k $1075* $1175* $251k — $500k $1400* $1550* $500k+ $1700* $1900*
For parents receiving child support (often the mother), this is counted in the “pre-tax” income to determine fees.
(I wonder if this includes child support that’s not being paid……)
Parents paying child support, however, can deduct that from the “pre-tax” income to determine fees….
WHO & WHAT IS KIDS’ TURN?
(well, see my recent post on this)…(or figure it out yourself):
- What is “Kids Turn?” — it’s a nonprofit started by a family law judge in about 1987, with help later from some family law attorneys, one of who was called a Northern California “Super attorney.”
Kids’ Turn
THE HISTORY OF KIDS’ TURN
From 1987 to 1990, Judge Ina Levin Gyemant presided over the family law department of the domestic relations court, noting that while lawyers filed motions and parents sought orders regarding custody, visitation and other diputes,[sic] children and their needs were almost completely ignored. Mediation services were mandated for parents in California in 1980, but no educational program was available for children, who are often the people most vulnerable and confused during separation or divorce.
- It’s perhaps a training ground on how to promote parental alienation and get paid for it.
- It’s a debtor to the San Francisco Superior Court (figure that one out — because somehow, we found that the “SFTC” has a lien on this group).
- It has tons of donors on its roster (many of them judges or attorneys), gets apparently some of California’s share of the Access/Visitation funding (which is $10 million per year, nationwide, and California, being so large, gets close to $1 million/year for this source of funding).
- Foundations & Associations help it continue & expand:
Foundations
2009
Linda Brandes Foundation CFLS
California Bar Foundation
Boys & Girls Foundation
Cuatrecasas Family FoundationThe Samuel I. & John Henry Fox Foundation at Union BankSempra EnergyLions Club of San DiegoStensrud FoundationJAMS FoundationLawyers Club- Fund for JusticeLeroy and Claire Hughes Family FundMary and John Grant FoundationAmerican Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers- NationalAmerican Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers2010Ellen G. & Edward G. Wong Family FoundationJAMS Foundation (This is a foundation of Mediators. Pushing Mediation is central to Family Law….)Cuatrecasas Family FoundationPrice CharitiesQualcommLinda Brandes Foundation (This wealthy couple never had any children….)(See photo of her 67 yr old ex, “Charles Brandes” with new 42 yr old wife — and Bill Clinton in between.. . )Carlsbad Charitable Foundation, an affiliate of The San Diego FoundationFieldstone FoundationWells Fargo FoundationWD-40 CompanyComerica BankThe Samuel I. & John Henry Fox Foundation at Union Bank2011Leichtag FoundationLinda Brandes FoundationHD SupplyCFLS **Cuatrecasas Family FoundationAAML- Southern California Chapter
- {{** {{CFLS, 2011 donor: Why isn’t this ACRONYM (not found on the web) specified? It apparently stands for “{Association of} Certified Family Law Specialists,” such as Linda Pabst de Leon here, speaking at a CFLS seminar and listing herself as a Kids’ Turn Board of Director (& Event Committee 2006) and “Featured guest speaker at CFLS’ Spring Seminar, “Nov-DV Restraining Orders” (2005))} “CFLS” is not an organization (I think) but a Designation that individuals can reach: }}
- {{At least 2 of the “Corporate Donors” listed on same page are the firms that a Kids Turn Board of Directors member works on… meaning, not that the project is so great, but that someone already at the firm managed to finaigle, or sell, a donation ….}}
- San Diego Foundation, 2010:
- Kids’ Turn San Diego, Expansion of Kids’ Turn Workshops into Carlsbad $20,000Kids’ Turn San Diego plans to bring no less than four, 4-week psycho-educational workshops into Carlsbad, serving 100-120 families who are divorcing or fighting over custody of their children. The workshops will show families how their conflict is negatively impacting their children and teach them to communicate more effectively, manage their anger, focus on their children and create a healthy two household environment for all involved. Furthermore, Kids’ Turn San Diego will help children make a successful adjustment to challenging family changes.
- 2008 Donations
The Southern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyer supports the following organizations: . . .- Kids’ Turn – San Diego – This is the only program in San Diego County working for te whole family to achieve a child centered and healthy divorce. It provides a low cost solution for families experiencing the pain of divorce or separation no matter how great the conflict.
- A former Pro Tem Judge, Attorney Alan Edmunds, promotes Kids Turn through a link, at “SanDiegoDivorceCenter.” (services provided by The Edmunds law Firm).
- It showed up in the San Francisco list of nonprofit organizations providing services to the City and County of SF, as a vendor. From what I recall, for 3 years in a row the billing was around $45,000.
Report 1234a
Data As Of : 05/15/2011
City and County of San Francisco
Vendor Payment Summaries Website
Page 1 of 1
Search Results by Vendor, Department, Type of Goods and Services and Document
Profit
Process
Search Results by Vendor
Process
- It’s apparently a model judges and attorneys love, because a spinoff “Kids Turn” is in San Diego; in fact a group called “Kids First” (There are a number of “kids’ Firsts” around, but indeed there was one which claims to be modeled after Kids Turn). The beauty of these programs is that the curriculum/curricula is designed, perhaps ONCE (with maybe occasional updates) — and can be marketed endlessly to families going through divorce court who can’t agree on the custody of their children. Which is usually what brings them to divorce court to start with, so obviously the market is right.
- Everybody who’s anybody in the family law fields (whether attorney, judge, or psychologist/family therapist, etc.) should take a turn at running Kids’ Turn. Some of these people did and at least one is a Super-Attorney. Some even go on to create look-alike programs for other client sectors, such as Dr. Delisle…. PLUS, you can work there, if you have a BA (recent job listing, $35-38K/year. (Can a person who survived divorce court and a custody battle apply? Because such people include those with BA’s who are probably hurting financially… Of course, you’d have to buy parental alienation theory, which this group promotes.…)
- The Founder of Kids’ Turn San Diego in 1996, Dr. Delisle received the 2001 Peacemaker of the Year Award from the National Conflict Resolution Center. In 2005, She was honored by Channel 10 news for its Leadership Award. She was also recognized by the San Diego County Bar Association for the “Distinguished Organization Award”. In 2008, Dr. Delisle transferred responsibility for Kids’ Turn to new leadership
- In the Spring of 2010, Ms. Kalemkiarian was Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law, teaching a full semester course in Family Law. From 1993 to 1996, she served as the Supervising Attorney of the Child Advocacy Clinic at the University of San Diego School of Law. An active community leader, she has served as the President of the Kids’ Turn San Diego Board for over ten years, and is a longtime Board Member of the Environmental health Coalition. (Ms. Kalemkiarian is also an AFCC presenter) As a leading voice for children in San Diego County, she oversaw the design and implementation of a new system of care for children’s mental health, as the Director of Project Heartbeat. She is a frequent author of opinion editorial pieces regarding public policy and children. … {{CHILDREN MUST BE SPEECHLESS & NEED LOTS OF INTERPRETERS}}Honors 2007-2010 San Diego Super Lawyers®
Alexandra M. Kwoka – Attorney at Law
Alexandra M. Kwoka has been practicing law since 1974, and Family Law for 20 years. She is not only certified as a Family Law Specialist but also holds a LLM/Masters in Tax Law….Association; Certified Family Law Specialists – San Diego & North County; founding member of the Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego; SDCBA – Carmel Valley; Kids’ Turn – Board Member. She has published a number of articles and has been nominated and selected for a number of awards, including the Ten Top Attorneys in Family Law by the Daily Transcript, San Diego in 2006 and was listed as one of the top Family Law attorneys in San Diego Super Lawyers, 2007, 2008 and 2009.
- Barbara is president of the board of directors of the Legal Marketing Association, Southern California Chapter. She is also a former member of the boards of directors of Kids Turn, San Diego, the San Diego Chapter of the Association of Legal Administrators and the Professional Women’s Roundtable. Barbara is a graduate of Coach University and has a BS in business Management with an emphasis in marketing
- Ms. Milligan is a member of the San Diego County Bar Association, and is on the Board of Directors of the Foothills Bar Association. Ms. Milligan is also on the Board of Directors of Kids’ Turn, San Diego, a non-profit organization devoted to promoting the well-being of children who are experiencing the challenges of family separation….Ms. Milligan dedicates her practice to the area of Family Law. She is a Certified Family Law Specialist, certified by the California Board of Legal Specialization.
Specialties
Mr. Renkin has focused his practice in Family Law since 1991 and is a Certified Family Law Specialist. He has expertly handled all phases of Trials, Mediation, and Negotiation in areas including Marriage Dissolution, Property Division, Spousal Support, Child Support, Child Custody & Visitation, along with the complex issues of mental health and drug and alcohol dependency. High-asset and high-conflict cases have been settled both through negotiation and litigation. Mr. Renkin has the honor of acting as a Settlement Conference Judge Pro Tem for Family Courts. Member Board of Directors Kids Turn (Present) Fundraising for Hannah’s House and Kids’ Turn
Oh Yeah — Hannah’s House, Supervised visitation place, I remember. The founder was caught operating without a license., there were unsanitary situations, and the owner is having to pay back contracts…
- Hannah’s House faces trouble
- San Diego Area Licensed Psychologist / Marriage Family Therapist Dr. Simon lists this among his professional associations:
- Professional AffiliationsMember, American Psychological Association Member, American Psi-Law Society Member, California Psychological Association Member, Ethics Committee of the California Psychological Association Editorial Board, Journal of Child Custody Member, Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego,Board of Directors, Kid’s Turn San Diego Founding Member, San Diego Family Law Council for ChildrenMember, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)Member, Program Committee, Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Member, Awards Committee, Association of Family & Conciliation Courts Member, International Association of Collaborative Professionals Associate Member, San Diego County Bar Association; Associate Member, Los Angeles County Bar Association
You noticed that many are AFCC members? So did I. Here’s another person, a judge, being honored posthumously and Board of Directors, Kids’ Turn is among her accolades:
Judge Grant’s many years as a family law judge and a probate judge during her tenure on the San Francisco Superior Court gave her ample opportunity to pioneer judicial change. Most importantly, Judge Grant became an icon for young female externs, paralegals, attorneys and judges for nearly the entirety of her long career. …
Following her appointment to the San Francisco Municipal Court in 1979, Judge Grant dedicated her life to public service. She was appointed to the Superior Court in 1982, serving as the Presiding Judge in the Family Law Department and later as the Presiding Judge of the Probate Department. She retired from Superior Court in 1996 but continued to work with the American Arbitration Association. She is a past President of the California Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and of the Northern California Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. (AAML Southern chapter donated to Kids’ Turn San Diego)…
She served on the Board of Kids’ Turn Honorary Committee for many years, an organization offering assistance for children impacted by divorce, including psycho-educational workshops for children being raised in two households. She also pioneered the first Guardian Mentorship Program for children being raised in alternative homes.
JUDGES, JUDGES, JUDGES are on the Boards of this organization:
Barbara W. Moser, SF Attorney, AFCC member, (in fact, a presenter at one COlorado conference), Judge Pro Tem, Family Law Bench Bar Program, Marin County Superior Court… SEttlement Judge Pro Tem, SF Superior Court — was “former secretary, Kids Turn”
IT’s NOT NECESSARY TO EVEN BE IN THE FAMILY LAW FIELD TO BE ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS:
Mr. Semmer is also actively involved in the San Diego community. As a Board Member of the Cornell Club of San Diego, he has organized charity fundraisers to endow the Willie Jones Jr. Scholarship. He has volunteered for and assisted with fundraising efforts for Kid’s Turn San Diego, a San Diego non-profit organization helping children and parents whose lives are impacted by parental separation. He serves on the programming committee of the San Diego Receiver’s Forum and is a member of the San Diego Bankruptcy Forum.
(CLICK ON THE LINK. HE DEALS WITH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, ETC.)
So what IS it, anyhow?
It’s not quite Avon, Amway, or McDonalds, but basically the same idea only using legislative loopholes and opportunities to promote it, and charging clients to consume the services (court-ordered), for people to be trained to run the courses, and taking federal grants to states money (and foundational support also) — in fact, where DOES all that money go, anyhow? ….?
Such a great organization obviously deserves some extra, extra legislative help…
I searched “Kids Turn affiliates” and came up with real interesting California Assembly Bill 2263. Other than it cuts down our fresh-air exercise activity, ya gotta love this Internet, sometimes….
http://www.metnews.com/endmomay02.html (This is 2002)
•AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.
Wow, the Assembly sure loved the concept of funneling divorce education to ONE nonprofit started by a family law judge…..
BILL ANALYSIS
Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
2263 (Kehoe)
Hearing Date: 8/22/02 Amended: 5/8/02
Consultant: Karen French Policy Vote: Judiciary
4-2
____________________________________________________________
_
BILL SUMMARY: AB 2263 requires the Judicial Council to
allocate, from funds appropriated to it in the annual
Budget Act, the amount necessary to study the Kids' Turn
projects. The bill also states that up to $50,000 shall be
allocated only if the Judicial Council receives non-state
source matching funds. The bill requires the Judicial
Council to report to the Legislature by January 12, 2004,
on the results of the study and propose guidelines for
project expansion, if Kids' Turn is found to be effective.
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05
Fund
Judicial Council
Study -- $100 --General &
Other
Court funding -- ---Significant, cost
pressure--- General
STAFF COMMENTS: SUSPENSE FILE.
Kids' Turn is a private non-profit organization that
provides workshops for children and their parents that are
intended to teach skills to cope with the difficulty of
divorce and separation. Workshops are six weeks long with
one 90-minute meeting per week. Fees for workshops range
from $75 to $600 (on a sliding scale). Kids Turn conducts
programs in San Francisco, Marin, Alameda, and Contra Costa
County. The organization has sold its curriculum and
licensed affiliates located in Sonoma, Napa, San Diego,
Shasta, and Yolo Counties (in addition to Dayton, Ohio and Hillsboro,
Oregon. Although sold only to nonprofits, the program effectively operates as a franchise. Kids' Turn
currently is conducting its own study, in consultation with
the California School of Professional Psychology. This
bill would require the Judicial Council to duplicate, at
least in part, the current study.
According to the Judiciary Committee analysis, the author
states that the bill is needed so that Kids' Turn will
have state approval as evidence of credibility
and will allow courts to "recommend Kids' Turn
as a resource to the community." On its website, the organization states that
this Fall, its Board of Directors will be planning a
five-year strategy to determine course direction of the
organization. Specifically targeted for consideration is:
"Enhanced marketing strategies in order to increase the number of Kids' Turn affiliates and sales of Kids' Turn Curriculum." This bill may create the appearance that a State study and Judicial Council recommendations are part of a marketing strategy.
(WHICH THEY ARE..... Better amend the bill so this is less obvious....)
Author's amendments: The author proposes amendments (LCR#
0216385), which (1) delete the specific reference to Kids' Turn and,
instead, study projects or programs that provide
services to parents and children undergoing divorce, 2) to
delete reference to program expansion; and 3) to delete the
language requiring the Judicial Council to allocate the
amount "necessary" to conduct the study, to limit the
State's obligation to $50,000.
The third staff recommendation to authorize, but not require the study, was rejected by the author.
.
HERE’s an AMENDED VERSION (attempting to conceal the blatant effort to legislate parents to consume this product in particular to “help” their kids deal with divorce):
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 22, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY MAY 8, 2002 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 1, 2002
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE—2001–02 REGULAR SESSION
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2263
Introduced by Assembly Member Kehoe
February 20, 2002
An act relating to family courts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST AB 2263, as amended, Kehoe. Family courts:
Kids’ Turnfamily assistance. Existing law governs the procedures for obtaining a dissolution ofmarriage or a legal separation. This bill would require the Judicial Council to allocate, from funds appropriated to the Judicial Council in the annual Budget Act, the an amount
necessarynot to exceed $50,000 to conduct a study regardingthe effectiveness of the Kids’ Turn projects, whichprojects or programs that provide services to assist children and their families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or a legal separation, as specified. The bill would provide require thatan amount not to exceed $50,000 shallthese funds be allocated only if the Judicial Council receives matching funds appropriated from sources other than the state.** The bill would require the Judicial Council to report to the Legislature by January 12, 2004, the results of the studyand to recommend guidelines for expanding the projects if the study indicates that the projects were effective.
**The California Judicial Council just so happens to be the single designated state agency receiving the access and visitation federal funds (“SAVP”) to enable programs such as (but not exclusively!) this one, as I have reported before here. Check it out at TAGG.hhs.gov — there’s a CFDA number referring exclusively to this grant series (“93597,” or similar)(marriage/fatherhood promotion is 93086)( and related ones).
In fact, a great exercise would be to go HERE: http://taggs.hhs.gov/AwardsList.cfm
You’ll have to redo the search — search by “CFDA Program Numbers” (take 2011 year) and get the 50-state list of all 93597’s. Then you’ll have a panorama of which agency, in every state, gets these funds, and can click on the other funding they get. I recommend clicking on Texas (after all, the President who put some of these policies into full swing came from there). You can see that OCSE (collecting child support) is a major expense. Then learn how to do advanced searches (with more fields) and figure out which way the wind is blowing.
Again, TAGGS is your friend, in part. Especially if you are an employee these are your taxes, right? part of each hour you work … it’s collected, assembled, and distributed later by the IRS, along with distributing favors called “tax-exempt status” to certain corporations, and of course foundations….
KIDS TURN:
It is ever so important that everyone (parents, federal government, City and State of San Francisco (I guess for the SF Kids’ Turn….) and foundational donors, plus of course individual donors focus on THIS one program to help, to measure levels of conflict, mental health and attitude change on parents . . . . well, let me just quote the leginfo record. Our state was then and is now in budget crisis, so obviously measuring parental stress levels is an urgent public need:
2)Requires that JC's study include an assessment of all of the
following:
a) Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding
custody issues, as reported by the parents;
b) The mental health of the children, as measured by their
attitudes before and after participating in the project or
program;
c) Any change in the attitude of the parents who
participate in the project or program;
And of course, who better to help children navigate the difficult shoals of divorce than:
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY , this bill was limited in its scope to the Kids' Turn project.
Apparently these entities supported it ( Senate Floor link on “leginfo” site):
SUPPORT : (Verified 8/23/02) Kids' Turn (This link lists San Diego Bd of Dirs./SF, Here) Cope Family Center (See Kids Turn "Affiliates" list....) California Coalition for Youth Private Dispute Resolution of San Diego** (=Judge Geary D. Cortes) California Judges Association CARE Children's Counseling Center Gregory M. Caskey, Supervising Judge, Superior Court,(SEE **) County of Shasta (There's a Kids' Turn in Shasta County) Thomas Ashworth, Judge of the Superior Court San Diego County Office of Education Professor Janet Weinstein, California Western School of Law (Kids' Turn donor) ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author, this bill is needed because it is imperative for organizations to have state approval in order to provide evidence of credibility and efficacy to the community.
**I had no idea who Judge Caskey is, but linked to his 1998 Admonishment by the Commission on Judicial Performance! So he got this slap on a wrist, in part for:
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND REASONS
In November 1997, Judge Gregory M. Caskey was regularly assigned to handle juvenile dependency matters. On the morning of November 6, 1997, Judge Caskey sent a message by electronic mail to an attorney who regularly appeared before him on those matters. The e-mail message concerned a case then pending before the judge, in which the attorney was appearing. The message read in part:
I am considering summarily rejecting [the father’s attorney’s] requests. Do you want me to let [the father’s attorney] have a hearing on this, or do we cut [the attorney] off summarily and run the risk the third DCA reverses? . . . . I say screw [the father] and let’s cut [the attorney] off without a hearing. O.K.? By the way, this message will self- destruct in five seconds…
Later that morning, the attorney sent the following e-mail reply:
Your honor, I don’t feel comfortable responding ex-parte on how you should rule on a pending case.
Two hours later, the judge sent an e-mail response which read: “chicken.”
"Private Dispute Resolution" appears to be one retired San Diego Judge, although obviously working (in dispute resolution) in Southern Calif (3 offices, so I guess he still has a license). The site "noethics.com" says he made the cut of the top Judicial Misfits under this title:
Judge Geary D. Cortes – San Diego
“She deserved it! – Pugilists – p. 281
I don't know much about this Judge, although he's mentioned as being overturned on appeal on First Amendment issues here: He was overturned on appeal (I think) in an elder abuse case, and was involved in the high-profile Prop 21, trying juveniles as adults, matter, described in The Adult Boys of Rancho Penasquitos (hover cursor for relevance)...Same case as the First Amendment Issue... More likely, he's probably been on that KT Board during some of its years. Assuming I have the right Judge Thomas Ashworth, he doesn't sound much better:
Case Against Judge Should Remain in San Diego, Court Rules
January 23, 1990|ALAN ABRAHAMSON | TIMES STAFF WRITERA lawsuit that claims a San Diego family-court judge committed fraud and legal malpractice before he took the bench should be heard in San Diego County, a state appellate court ruled Monday.
The 4th District Court of Appeal ordered the case against Judge Thomas Ashworth III returned to San Diego Superior Court, saying it was improperly ordered out of the county
Judge Ashworth also ordered a mother living in Utah, whose child was born after separation, to send the 5-year old to her paternal grandparents for four, week-long visits (to San Diego). Report is from 2002:
In Harris, the Court of Appeal held that substantive due process limits a court’s authority under the state’s grandparent visitation statue to cases in which there is clear and convincing evidence that the child will suffer harm if visitation were not granted.
The panel reversed a 1999 order requiring Karen Butler, a remarried Utah resident, to send her daughter Emily, then 5 years old, to San Diego for four week-long visits with the child’s paternal grandparents. Emily was the product of Butler’s brief and stormy marriage to Charles Erik Harris and was born after the couple separated.
The order by San Diego Superior Court Judge Thomas Ashworth III was based on Family Code Sec. 3104, which allows a court to order grandparent visitation when the parents are living separate and apart or the child is not living with a parent. The statute applies a best-interest-of-the-child standard, with a rebuttable presumption that grandparent visitation is not in the child’s best interests if the custodial parent objects.
Here’s another one reversed on appeal, where the paternal grandparents of a father who died after divorce took the mother to court to force more visitation (in San Diego). Ashworth granted them (and got the girl a counsel of her own), but was reversed on appeal, citing Troxel v. Granville:
CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION (Punsly v. Ho, No. D036025 (Cal.App. Dist.4 03/16/2001) APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Thomas Ashworth, III, Judge. Petition for writ of supersedeas. Judgment reversed. Petition granted. Manwah Ho, the mother of Kathryn Punsly, appeals an order granting visitation to Kathryn’s paternal grandparents, Marilyn and Bernard Punsly under Family Code *fn1 section 3102. *fn2 Manwah contends section 3102 is unconstitutional, as applied to her, in light of the recent United States Supreme Court case of Troxel v. Granville (2000) 530 U.S. 57 [120 S.Ct. 2054] (Troxel), a case concerning the constitutionality of a nonparental visitation statute, and Troxel’s appellate progeny. Manwah also contends the court’s ancillary orders attached to the visitation order, independently, violated her constitutional due process rights. We conclude section 3102, as applied in this case, unconstitutionally infringed on Manwah’s fundamental rights. Accordingly, we reverse the order in its entirety.
There was a "Day" named after Judge Ashworth:
Honors, Memberships, and Professional Activities
- City of San Diego Proclamation of January 31st as “Thomas Ashworth III Day“
- Judicial Lifetime Achievement Award, San Diego County Bar Association’s Certified Family Law Specialists, November 2002
- Family Law Person of the Year, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Southern California Chapter, 2001**
(**who donated to Kids' Turn.....)
Then again, The Ashworths themselves also donated to Kids' Turn. Wish I had a year on this brochure, but readers should check out the judges & attorneys on the INdividual Donors lists. (Found at California Men's Center website...) WITH REPUTABLE PROMOTERS SUCH AS THESE, WHO COULD FORBID SIMPLY LEGISLATING A STUDY TO GIVE IT STATE CERTIFICATION AS JUST THE BEST-EST PARENTING EDUCATION COURSE (COURT-ORDERED) AROUND, IN FACT, WHY NOT HAVE IT BRANCH OUT INTO THE COMMUNITY, JUST IN CASE THEY ARE THINKING ABOUT DIVORCE? (On the other hand, with all those supporters, why does it need more promotion???? SOmething doesn't look right about this....)
THANKFULLY GRAY DAVIS VETO’ed it with this message:
BILL NUMBER: AB 2263 VETOED DATE: 09/29/2002 SEP 28 2002 To Members of the California State Assembly: I am returning Assembly Bill 2263 without my signature. This bill would require a study of projects or programs that serve children and their families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or legal separation. Under this study, the Judicial Council would be required to assess the results of, among other things, changes in the mental health of children and any change in the attitude of parents. The Judicial Council, however, may not be well suited to conduct this type of study. For this reason, I must return this bill without my signature. Sincerely, GRAY DAVIS
In 2003, the same assemblywoman comes up with a Gay Fathers' Day proposal, which met some resistance.
What normally is a legislative slam-dunk – a resolution honoring dads for Father’s Day – turned into a debate on “alternative lifestyles” in the California state Assembly.
According to a report in the Stockton Record, Republicans this week either withheld their support or voted against the resolution because it focused on “nontraditional” dads, including families with two fathers.
“It didn’t belong on the floor,” said GOP Assemblyman Alan Nakanishi. “It was a homosexual bill in the sense that they wanted to make a point out of two fathers” in a single household.
The resolution, sponsored by lesbian Democratic Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, mentions stepfathers, foster fathers, single fathers and families headed by two fathers, the paper reports. However, it fails to cite traditional fathers who are married to the mother of their children.
Republican Assemblyman Greg Aghazarian, as a traditional father, noticed he wasn’t represented in the proposal.
” Where is the (part) talking about a husband and a wife who have kids?” he said, according to the Record. “I mean, where is the love?”
“CRISPE,” A group for Shared Parenting was pretty upset about her also, although for different reasons and supplied a photo:
However, it’s primarily a simple affiliate marketing operation — only with governmental connections.
Did I mention, “NONPROFIT”? Because of the public service it provides, obviously.
I just missed a March, 2011 conference — that’s what I get for falling behind on my FaceBook operations:
GerardKids’ Turn Spring, 2011 Retreat and Training Conference
Theme: Welcome to the Future (of Kids’ Turn)
Dates: March 4-6, 2011 Location: Asilomar Conference Grounds, Pacific Grove, California
Take a deep breath and settle in for a time of serene relaxation, reflection and rejuvenation. Celebrated as Monterey Peninsula’s “Refuge by the Sea” – Asilomar State Beach and Conference Grounds is a breathtakingly gorgeous 107 acres of ecologically diverse beachfront land. www.visitasilomar.com
Who should attend: Kids’ Turn Leaders, Staff, Board Members, Volunteers, Affiliate
RepresentativesConference Goals:
1. Familiarize participants with the future direction of Kids’ Turn
2. Broaden exposure to contemporary issues affecting Kids’ Turn families
3. Refine skills to deliver The Kids’ Turn Way
4. Eight CEU’s awarded
5. R & R in a beautiful, tranquil setting
6. Enjoy camaraderie with Kids’ Turn colleagues
7. Explore the communities of Pacific Grove and Monterey (on your own)Dr. Gladys Ato, Vice President of Academic Affairs, Argosy University
San Francisco Bay Area
Communicating the Kids’ Turn MessageDr. Allison Thorson, University of San Francisco
The Impact of Marital Infidelity on ChildrenCOST: (Must be why they need all the donors, and access to the “Access/Visitation” federal support).
Single Occupancy:
$350* (two nights, six meals, training, ECU’s, taxes, all inclusive)
$400 single occupancy AFTER 2/15/11
Double Occupancy (participants must self-select roommate):
$250* (two nights, six meals, training, ECU’s, taxes, all inclusive)
$300 double occupancy AFTER 2/15/11
Kids’ Turn is also an arts supporter, in fact partnered with an upcoming San Diego show, don’t miss:
26 MILES
by Quiara Alegria Hudes
Sept 29 – Oct 23, 2011
The time is 1986. Olivia is a half-Cuban, half-Jewish ‘zine-writing teen. Join us for our next full production written by award-winning Quiara Alegria Hudes (In the Heights), and in partnership with Kids’ Turn San Diego. (“Eight years after a Cuban mother looses [sic] custody of her Jewish daughter, she gets a second chance. At 4:30 in the morning she kidnaps the sick teenage girl and the two drive west in search of a remedy and their divergent American dreams.”)
In Washington County, Oregon, a nonprofit called YOUTH CONTACT features Kids’ Turn (and a pop-up indicates that Kids’ Turn is supporting their work also: See for yourself: )
Registration form shows it’s $230 per parent per 4-session class:
The enrollment fee for Kids’ Turn is $230.00 per adult. Children (ages 5-16) are free with a paying adult. The fee must be paid in full before a spot in the workshop can be reserved. This is done on a first-come, first served basis until each workshop is full. Acceptable methods of payment are Visa, MasterCard, debit card (with a Visa or MasterCard logo), or money order. We do NOT accept checks.
YOU MUST COMPLETE ALL FOUR SESSIONS IN ORDER TO RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION. IF YOU DO NOT ATTEND ALL FOUR SESSIONS YOU WILL HAVE TO RE-REGISTER FOR ANOTHER WORKSHOP AND RE-PAY THE $230.00 ENROLLMENT FEE. THERE ARE NO MAKE-UP SESSIONS AND THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!
In fact, generally speaking, REALLY FAMOUS PEOPLE SEEM TO JUST LOVE “Kids’ Turn” — for example, Halsey Minor, founder of CNET:
Community programs for Children and Parents
experiencing separation or divorce. Featuring The Kids’ Turn Way© Curriculum
“Kids’ Turn has leveraged its resources*** and the progressive nature of San Francisco to become a global leader in addressing the problems children face when their parents separate.” Halsey M. Minor, Kids’ Turn Board Member; Founder, CNET
Oh, I forgot — he was on 2010 list for tax evasion, found auctioning off his art collection.
Found via LA Observed, the California Franchise Tax Board has released its list of the state’s biggest delinquent taxpayers. This year, the honor goes to Cnet co-founder Halsey Minor and his wife Shannon, who owe a whopping $13,120,479.39 in personal income tax.
They also maintained the #1 California ranking for tax evasion, for 2011 .
***resources such as connections to the legal/judicial community…..
I would love to see an audit of this organization’s books, all California operations.
The nonprofit directory “Guidestar.org” notes that Kids’ Turn San Diego started in 1996 with a grant from the “Seuss Foundation”…. 2009 form 990 lists only $151K net revenues, and Expenses include $124,424 salaries, plus $30,452 professional fees, and that they are running about one salaried position ($38K) in the hole. They ran a $50K ARt & Wine auction, but donated $36K of that, leaving revenue of $12K. Expenses, however, were $18K, so That event was a deficit, I guess…..
Lots of Directors (which my “select-copy” tool worked on the PDF) including what appears to be the infamous (or honorable) Honorable Thomas Ashworth’s wife? (also an attorney), Kathryn — in fact, eighteen (18) individuals listed, none drawing a salary. The Executive Director, however, is taking applications for a FT program director
One of these 18, “Patty Chavez-Fallon” just so happens to be (or have been) Director of Family Court Services at San Diego per this article (critical of) Supervised Visitation:
Patricia Chavez-Fallon, the director of the Superior Court’s Family Court Services in San Diego County, said people who want to be paid monitors submit documentation to the court showing they have attended a training class and meet the other state standards, which essentially require that monitors be 21 or older and free of any legal trouble in the previous 10 years. Chavez-Fallon then adds them to an alphabetical list of supervised visitation monitors that the court provides.
and she’s been there a good while (1991-2008): Kids Turn San Diego started in 1996. So did the Access Visitation Funds that help facilitate things like this (with PRWORA Welfare Reform). Must’ve been a coincidence, that timing. It was a very busy time, after all….
Patti Chavez-Fallon is an expert in alternative dispute resolution. Both as a counselor and Director of Family Court Services, she has served parents and children going through the process of defining and developing a cooperative sharing plan that benefits everyone involved. Her background includes:
- Seventeen years as Director: Family Court Services, San Diego Superior Court
- Four years as a mediator of Custody and Visitation disputes
- Ten years of other child related social work services
She is also listed on the Federal HHS/ACF site for “Access and Visitation” grants as a California “State Access Program Contact:”
9. Superior Court of California , San Diego County
Contact: Patti Chavez-Fallon (619) 557-2100
Services: counseling, parent educationSubcontractor:
Kids’ Turn, San Diego
2136 Newcastle Avenue, suite 150
Cardiff, CA 92007
(760) 634-0280
Remind me again how this is NOT a conflict of interest? She is the program contact — on behalf of the Superior Court — for the federal funds, and a nonprofit where she sits on the board of the directors is the listed subcontractor…. There’s another one in Shasta County…..
. Northern California Center for Family Awareness
Kids’ Turn Shasta Cascade PO Box 991473
Redding, CA 96099-1473
(530) 244-5749
What’s in it for them, altruism? The art & wine auction factor?
Ms. Chavez-Fallon is even quoted in a “johnnypumphandle” review of a high-profile San Diego case (Morse v. Morse) where the papers featured the abducting ex-wife, the court had transferred custody to the father after finding allegations of abuse “inclusive” and Stephen Doyne (Note: also a Kids’ Turn donor, see link to their brochure, above) played a factor. It noted:
Robert and Eugia Morse divorced in 1994 after 10 years of stormy marriage.
Robert Morse remarried almost immediately and shared custody of his three
children with his ex-wife.The battle over the children was contentious, McIntyre told jurors. In
January 1996, Robert Morse spent a night in jail after his former wife
accused him of hitting her when she came to pick up the children after a
visit. He was not allowed to see his children for two months.After a psychological evaluation, Robert Morse received full custody in
October 1996. On their children’s first weekend visit with their mother,
the older girl contended that her father had molested her.Before the custody battle even took place, we have learned that Eugia Morse was in the Family Violence Program sponsored by Children’s Hospital. Her records show a multitude of evidence of violence in the form of photos and documents detailing injuries at the hand of Robert Morse. In addition, the children had records of therapy for abuse alleged to be perpetrated by Robert Morse as well as records documenting the abuse. When the custody case went to court, this evidence was suppressed in favor of the court assigned evaluation team which recommended that custody of the children be transferred to Robert Morse.
Apparently Family COurt Services had a role in this case, one that ended up with the mother feeling she had to flee. YOu can read for yourself. While Chavez-Fallon was incidental (in this report), she was director of the same family court services that pushed a certain evaluator and psychologist on the family. Responding to the news article someone wrote:
I saw the news report about Morse v. Morse on T.V., we recognized the modus operandi, and in unison wesaid “LINDA HIRSHBERG.” Next time I was in court, I looked at the file. We
were right. It was LINDA HIRSHBERG and STEPHEN DOYNE working together again.
Later, I heard from the “victims of Family Court underground” that Eugia was
networking with others who had been exploited by these two. She was desperate
to get the evaluator changed. She was not successful. No doubt, this
evaluation was arranged by Family Court Services, because that is what FCS
does. They are brokers, not mediators.
The “Cope Family Center” (APparently = ‘Kids’ Turn Napa County) (found supporting the Legislative Action in 2002) states (falsely) that:
Kids’ Turn is supported entirely by generous contributions from individuals and foundations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Workshops are held in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Napa and Marin counties. Kids’ Turn requests that each participating parent contribute a sliding scale fee to help cover the cost of the program. Any family wanting to help support the program to a greater extent is encouraged to make a tax-deductible contribution at any time.
This “Cope Family Center” also runs Supervised Visitation:
Cope Family Center provides
- Supervised Visitation
- Monitored Exchange
- Parent Education, including Kids’ Turn and Cooperative Co-Parenting
Coincidentally(?), the legislative purpose of the Access Visitation funding (in California), is:
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
- Supervised visitation and exchange services;
- Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
- Group counseling services for parents and children.
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, MUCH?
Courthouse Forum (a place one can bellyache about court players) writers also noticed the phenomenon of family law judges referring business to nonprofits they sit on the board of. THis one notices a judge who was even Treasurer of Kids’ Turn. These 2006 entries are web-cached:
Contra Costa County KIDS TURN & Berkow
If this J Berkow is a Corporate Treasure of Kids Turn Inc. a organization that is often court ordered by Contra Costa County Family Law. This appears very improper to me doesn’t this violate the judicial standard to “avoid appearance of impropriety” I know in my business this would be considerd a conflict of interest, and the SEC would have a field day with a trader who was conducting there business like this judge
This is appalling I live in Contra Costa County and this judge is notoriously bad she has raped more fathers in this county then I can even list. Calling her the Monster of Martinez is not a understatement. It is common for father to be so severely financially raped by this women that they do actually end up living in a car with there children. Now she is runningKids Turn!(i.e., this is not my own comment!)
Below is the link to Kids Turn is you scroll down you will that Berkow is a Director. This is not a proper postion for Berkow she is ordering people from the bench to keep her company going. What a way to capitalize your company!
Apparently, they rotate membership in and out (of Judges, Attorneys, etc.). Here’s a 2010 new President, Greg Abel, who has been on the board a few years, and is quite active in family, appellate and other courts:
SAN FRANCISCO, CA, October 11, 2010 – Kids’ Turn, a San Francisco-based non-profit organization today announced the election of Greg Abel as president and CEO succeeding Steven Kinney, who remains on the board of directors of Kids’ Turn. Mr. Abel is a Partner with Whiting Fallon Ross & Abel, LLP, Walnut Creek, Calif., which represents parties in complex family law and matrimonial matters.
In making the announcement, Steve Kinney, outgoing president of Kids’ Turn said, “We are pleased that Greg Abel has agreed to assume the leadership mantel of Kids’ Turn. He has been a very proactive member of the board since 2008. Greg will provide important leadership as Kids’ Turn moves to the next level of service to customers in the five county region of the San Francisco Bay Area and extends Kids’ Turn curriculum reach to other parts of the U.S. and around the globe.”
Well, since they are going global, I suppose it was worth a try to get the California Legislature to pass a law standardizing this judge-initiated project, just in cases judges who sit (or sat) on the Board previously, or the Director(s?) of Family Court Services, etc. who donate to it (and sit on its board) aren’t drumming up enough business, or foundational support. As a little reminder, this has been operating IN THE HOLE according to its own 990, at least the San Diego One.
What a lesbian State Senator (in 2002, State Assemblyperson) is doing promoting that bill, Lord only knows. Guess it’s politically advantageous (do they donate to her, too?)
How can any organization with so much foundation support, a ton of volunteer Directors (with judicial, therapy, and attorney association connections) AND a guaranteed source of court-ordered referrals end up with a negative cash flow?
And what about that $45K in vendor services to the City of San Francisco, recently?
And what about that Lien that the San Francisco Superior Court has (or had) on this group?
. . . . This isn’t THE major question of the family law system, but it sure does make one go “Huh???”
SHARE THIS POST on...
All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?
Well, it depends on the point of view. In yesterday’s obnoxiously long post, I ran across the phrase “Recalcitrant parents” being used in Kids’ Turn propaganda. The word “recalcitrant” is generally applied to the word “child” —
A Sampler of Timeless “Wisdom” across the centuries:
-
“All the World’s A Stage” … the bottom line is…
1600s, roughly:
William Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Whatever you may think of that phrase, it’s full of metaphors, and takes a few minutes to chew on them, translate into perhaps common terms (what is he referring to, in other words?) and you come out with a perspective on life pretty close to “from dust to dust.” Shakespeare’s seven stages of man go from infant to infant: A child “mewling and puking in its nurses’ arms…” and towards the very end, like the last scene, “sans (without) teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” There is a real truth to this, and perspective — Life has stages, beginning, and end. Noting this, with elegance, puts man — meaning ALL of us — humbly in place; all have exits and entrances, and all go to the same final stage — helpless, like a child…
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound.
At least it makes you think!
The World is a stage, and a sense of perspective says there are different acts, AND bottom line, the play is over, it has an exit, no matter how poorly or well we played our parts. He pokes fun at the sixth stage, a Justice — “full of wise saws (sayings)…”. He’s going to slip into high-pitched voice, no teeth, and that impressive presence is going to turn back into a helpless infancy on the way out…
Shakespeare’s speech finds something to mock in every stage — appropriately, because,
the bottom line is… there will be an exit.
Hundreds of Years BC (or, to be Politically Correct, “BCE”):
Solomon (book of Ecclesiastes, “the Preacher”)
-
Vanity of Vanity, all is Vanities — the bottom line is …
From Ecclesiastes 12 (last chapter)–
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
Basically, he’s describing that seventh stage of life, in a very picturesque way, rich in symbolism.
5Alsowhen they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
And he gently mocks the endless writings….
. . .of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
To be condensed into:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Again, the bottom line is Fear God, because what you do, including what you tried to do in secret, is going to be judged (in the resurrection, is implied):
Remember thy Creator while young, and Fear God, keep his commandments. THere’s even a rationale provided: “for God shall bring every work into judgment, every secret, whether good, or whether evil.”
Even those who may not believe in that future judgment, or in terms such as “good” or “evil” (perhaps this is a sad loss in our society, to openly say we believe there is good and there is evil — as opposed to functional & dysfunctional, healthy and unhealthy (as defined by ……?) might be able to grasp some interest in the symbolism, the recommendation towards humility in life. Some of the phrasing, about Times and Seasons has made it into music, old and new… it’s simple enough to grasp the concept….
“Simple Pictures are Best!”
The basic commandments cited were about ten only (one for each finger, in intact humans), not too many to count…and they too had a condensed internal order to them that refer to ethical behavior and not putting onesself first as “God” in worship, or in relationships. Most of these have some direct parallel in law today — i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness ( slander, libel, perjury), though shalt not steal (self-explanatory!), thou shalt not commit murder (homicide), and a few most have tossed since — honor the sabbath, honor mother and father, don’t commit adultery (definitely tossed by the wayside), and stop coveting all your neighbor’s stuff.
How about just TWO concepts?
Anyhow, moving on… Jesus, in the gospels, further simplified those 10 down into just 2: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Hard to remember? No. Hard to do? Yes. But one need not Ph.D- it (pile it higher deeper) (Ph.D.) to practice, or sit at the feet of one to practice these, either. It relates to choice, determination, and will — not education only..
Even atheist George Carlin (search my site — believe I linked to this YouTube) was able to boil those 10 down to 2 also, and with some humor. Most normal people could figure these out. It takes a special mindset NOT to….
Fast forward to somewhere between 30 and 70 A.D. excuse me, politically more correct, “CE”). This — still in Shakespearean English (but in any language — Greek, Hebrew — the elegance of language still holds)
Or, OK, THREE main concepts…
-
Things go better with “Love” (Charity) — without them, it’s just all show and noise”
The apostle Paul, to some Gentiles with significant “relationship” problems, including even incest, strife, and divided loyalties, ignorance, and (this addresses), the omnipresent hyperinflated EGO…
|
There is a difference between doling out tons of charity, and living with this love and concern for others’ well-being. They are not the same things, and sometimes people sitting atop and running charitable foundations can be real pompous and arrogant. I can think of few things more arrogant than the attempt to train the entire U.S. population (at its own expense) in concepts like “fatherhood” or “abstinence” and so forth…. let alone “healthy relationships.” Sorry, but that’s ARROGANT! Congresspeople that voted for this are not likely monogamous, uniformly faithful to their own wives (and/or husbands — though its the male indiscretions we hear most about), or even all straight. The intent is to legislate this for the common folk — not the upper echelon or the policymakers. |
||
Bear with the Bible stuff, please…
I wouldn’t be exposing readers to all this scripture without a point, be patient please. To recall: all the world’s a stage, in the bottom line, all is vanity — you’re going to die, one way or another/strength will fade; constant writing of books is weariness of the flesh, and MOST wisdom can be condensed down in to a very few basics — whether 2 items (Fear God & Keep his Commandments), 2 OTHER items (Love God with all you got AND your neighbor as yourself), or here, we are going to have THREE items, and ranked as to which one ranks the highest:
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of theseis charity.
This world view values humility, and realizes that changes happen — that we are NOT know-it-alls or perfect. So, until then, recognize this, and focus on the three most important qualities:
- Faith
- Hope
- Charity
The first two relate specifically to the religion — faith in Jesus Christ, hope in the return, and future judgment of good & evil, and that we are on the right side of that judgment, and recognition that, like it or not, a lot of secret things will exist till then. ALl will come out in the wash. Faith and Hope relate SPECIFICALLY to where the individual will stand at that future judgment, and expects it to come.
I don’t take this (case in point, see blog!) to mean passivity in the face of evil, or lack of social justice efforts. But anyone who undertakes serious reporting of corruption, crime, or attempts to clean up institutions, or to live so clean one-self regarding all standards– will soon learn it’s a rough road (if a good one) and a risky one, and vast in nature. Without some kind of personalized hope, personalized faith in what one is doing, the sustained effort simply wouldn’t be worth the pain and drain!
People who have this faith and hope (whether in this religion, or other causes they actually are personally committed to) are hard to manipulate, sway, and intimidate — and threaten people to whom those practices are normal.
Among such groups are parents attempting to protect their children from abuse, and I have to say judging by the courts, that SOMETHING about the mother-child relationship must be quite threatening to the status quo — because it has been disrupted, intentionally and systematically, by judges, and “in the best interests of the child.” The real bottom line in the courts is, parents cannot decide for themselves, and must not be allowed to. they are infants, they are incompetent, they are “recalcitrant” some literature from Kids Turn said (last post….). They need to be taught…. ALL of them…..
We just passed the month of Valentine’s Day. That’s about romance. This is a deeper kind of action:
The Greatest of these is Charity.
It will abide beyond the Faith and Hope…
It is the deepest motivator.
the bottom line is… charity. And a healthy dose of humility — because now, we know in PART…
Now, I’d like to contrast the above sections with where we are now, in the permanently in need of education, training and I suppose, diapering?, population of the United States of America primarily from the Executive Branch, and again, at its own expense…
No more stages of humanity — for those teaching or for those taught. Of childhood and development, yeah sure – but once in the courts, immaturity for ever seems to be assured. THis is basic public policy (those doing the teaching and “training” excepted, of course). We have really sunk so low to a permanent, unchangeable state of needing to be taught and trained…. And this is reflected in the degraded, pompous, self-important language of the trainers, which bears no relationship to the timeless wisdom of the ages — Love God (i.e., YOu are not God..) Love your neighbor, work no ill to your neighbor, and keep things in perspective…life has stages, and consider how you spend them, because assuredly there is an exit.
Nope, no more of that. Instead we have “constructs” and “Initiatives” and “Explications”. We have ever-expanding “mental health” needs (probably because the society is so insane!….).
How about “Parenting Coordination”?
I’ll just pick a random AFCC conference agenda, or a random term, for a sampler:
- All North America — well, at least (here) USA — and heck, let’s throw in Canada — needs PARENTING COORDINATION:
-
Parenting Coordination. The bottom line is. . we need parenting coordinators.
But someone has to Coordinate the “parenting” coordinators — so why not put together a task force to define practices in this new field defined (and created) by the court system itself…
This is from May, 2005
Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005
Scratch the surface (or look at the foundations — see my blog!) of almost any family court, or “domestic relations” court, or “Unified Family Court” system — and this AFCC organization will be there, and probably helping run it as well.
Just enjoy the elegance, catch the flavor, catch the drift…..
The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards.
The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1
The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.
AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.
I was in the court system at this time. No one asked MY opinion…. Of course we weren’t the type of family that could afford the custody evaluation/parenting coordinator route. There are two tracks in the courts (surely you know this by now) — families with money to be drained out — they go for the custody evaluation route — and families WITHOUT money to be drained out — they go the mediator route, with the end goal of getting the minor children away fro BOTH parents and into the foster care system somehow. Alternately, someone in government could end up personally adopting children, or adolescents, if such is desired. (see my Wacko in Wisconsin series — an account is detailed, and the on-line docket supported the pattern the forlorn, probably bankrupt by now mother, described). Sometimes foster care kids get trafficked (Franklin County, NE coverup being a horrible example). Sometimes they run away and get picked up by other abusers, as has happened in the Northern California area at least once. So the No-MOney-to-extort segment of society, they are encouraged to fight in court, and then, any number of alternatives may result — but I do know in my case, when I said I was NOT going to call in CPS on a simple (but blatantly illegal) violation of a physical custody order, the local law enforcement stood by with their arms folded. I wasn’t going to, as a mother, produce some income for the county up front by abandoning my children, so “forget you!”
Track one — extort money from the parents by promoting litigation on frivolous issues, call in some parenting coordinators, custody evaluators, court-appointed attorneys, or in short almost anything court-associated. The medical equivalent would be something similar to dialysis — blood is drained out, recirculated at huge expense, and put back into the parent’s and children’s blood stream, a total sea change of relationships…
Track two — is “Give us your kids, or forget you”
Back to the sample of “literature” in the endless education field of the courts:
Even the name of this document was changed to “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination” to indicate the newness of the field of parenting coordination and the difficulty of coming to consensus in the United States and Canada on “standards” at this stage in the use of parenting coordination. The AFCC Board of Directors approved the Guidelines on May 21, 2005.
The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.
1 See AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, 41 Fam. Ct. Re. 533 (2003).
Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (not ‘J.D.”) appears to be one of the grand dames of the system – her name, and her work is “everywhere.” Then again, AFCC has great PR.
At the bottom of this post (under the line of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘s) I’ll post a classic 2003 condensed summary of the interrelationships, still a good writing on this (Cindy Ross). The same intelligence is also found at NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’) blog, which has been exploring these matters since 1993…
The key to the system is the “business and professions” model analysis. Where professional organizations, and certain professionals who conference, task force, promote certain legislation, etc., fit into this picture is that these ASSOCIATIONS (affiliated with certain professions – judges, mediators, psychiatrists, mental health services providers, and of course, now, parenting coordinators….) are going to, each and every time, try to drum up more business. Why not — the groups boast memberships with judges on them ,and have learned how to become “principal investigators’ or “program directors” in various funding streams, and then channel those streams one way or another — and parents who lack the skill to investigate and challenge this — are babes in the wood when it comes to the family court process. THey get lost there, too.
-
the bottom line apparently is, “NO exit from this system, at least in this life…”
The system expands — endlessly — and gets more and more pompous and arrogant in the positions, the languages, and the number task forces needed to change a light bulb. Experts fly to and fro across the country to collaborate with each other on the next (scam) (possible profession to establish from the messes created by the courts to start with!). …. Most parents are not alerted to the hyper-active flight schedule of their overlords…. or where they congregate.
What pithy language, what clear terms, what graphic real-life symbolism comes from this trade:
Overview and Definitions
Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
And a little grammar fluke “assist parents . . . .. to implement their parenting plan” The correct usage is “assist parents . . IN implementing their parenting plan…
To review the wonderful terms, nouns, verbs, adjectives.
PARENTING COORDINATION IS a . . . . . . PROCESS.
….Wow, I’m gripped already…. I can’t wait to hear the rest of the plot.
What kind of process?
. . . . it is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process….
Wrong on both counts.
(1) It’s not focused on the children, it’s focused on the professionals, and drumming up more business for them. Decently written “parenting coordination plans” (what are we, cattle?? In need of personal assistants to write in dates and times of drop off, pick up?) would need extra help to implement.
(2) From what we are reading about the courts, the disputes don’t get resolved — but rather heightened and escalated until someone breaks, or someone else shuts down emotionally socially, etc.
…in which a mental health or legal professional ….
i.e., what AFCC is primarily composed of, and of course not any ordinary person. People outside the fields promoted and endorsed by this group NEED NOT APPLY. (i.e., an elite squad of only the truly informed…)
…with mediation training and experience…
Of course. The “mediation” promotion (also endless in this field) is CENTRAL to family courts and has already been identified as how to increase noncustodial parenting time. They have rules, but don’t follow them. Fact-finding on the parents is DISCOURAGED in some circumstance. Recently, an ETHICAL mediator was fired (for doing the right thing — actually reading where criminal records existed — unheard of almost, in this field) and won a case that her firing was discriminatory retaliation for, basically ,whistle-blowing.
This quote is from TODAY’s post, article by Peter Jamison, cover story on the SF Weekly.
{FYI: I have submitted 2 comments (under this name) on the site Rightsformothers.com which, if approved, may shed some more light on the article and what it does, and does not, cover.}}
Emily Gallup, a Stanford-educated mediator in the Nevada County Family Court, was fired after her supervisors criticized her for reviewing parents’ criminal histories when making her custody recommendations. In a March 2010 written reprimand of Gallup prepared by Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka, and obtained by SF Weekly, Metroka states that it was “unprofessional and unacceptable” for her to have requested a criminal history report in a recent case she was handling. “I admonished you not to take the role of a court investigator,” he wrote.
Research on parents is part of a mediator’s job, as it is for evaluators, minors’ counsels, and judges — no single court official is specifically designated as an “investigator.”
Hmm. I was told — to my face — by a court mediator that he could NOT even look at information I submitted which completely countered the story portrayed in court. It included handwritten notes from my daughters at a young age, and some photographs of them. But I was told that because it hadn’t been filed also with my ex (on the record) he couldn’t look at mine. THis didn’t go both ways — the information he himself had, submitted by my ex, I hadn’t received before the meeting. And I had ONE shot to state my case as to a multi-page, pre-fab, INDEXED parenting plan which I hadn’t seen in advance, to “come to an agreement” or take it back to court. My ex didn’t type at the time, and it clearly wasn’t his work. Moreover, once I (year or so later!) learned the rules of court for parenting plans involving domestic violence — this didn’t follow any of them. I suspect by then he’d already been contacted by a fatherhood-funded program attorney, who knew what to do — file for divorce and custody, and set up a parenting plan that didn’t state place, or exact times, and was GUARANTEED to produce a lot of debating and negotiating on these matters — and there was a restraining order on at the time….
I can see wisdom in the mediator NOT going beyond the court file– contrary to this article’s portrayal. How can a parent respond to invisible information he or she has not received or been served? It dilutes the legal due process.
Metroka says that Gallup went too far, conducting criminal background checks in cases where they weren’t relevant. “It’s easy to violate [parents’] due-process rights if you try to make more out of a case than is there when it’s presented to you,” Metroka says. “Emily’s position is that in every case a mediator should investigate and get every piece of evidence she can before the mediation.”
Just last month, Gallup prevailed in a grievance against the family court system over her dismissal. Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that she “had reasonable cause to believe that Court’s Family Court Services department had violated or not complied with statutes and rules of court,” and ordered an audit of the court to investigate the claims in her grievance.
“They’re making these monumental decisions based on air,” Gallup says. “They think if you have too much information about a parent, that makes you biased. My contention is, if you have more information, that will make you less biased.”
Something doesn’t smell quite right about this situation. Perhaps Gallup is not aware, as some of us are, of the true purpose of mediation– which is to increase noncustodial parenting time, per federal grant, and allow the Secretary of the HHS to suggest (and get states to implement and evaluate) demonstrations on people that come through the courts, generating MORE revenue for those in courts employ, or at least in their entourage. She musta been a rookie….
For example, suppose — in a “mis”-guided (according to this mindset) attempt to comply with the state code, (I can’t speak to Nevada, but IF it has the rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer code) — she checked for a criminal background in domestic violence. This would compromise the mission of retaining federal funding and INCREASING custody to such people, and it would actually add some weight to a protective parent’s position.
OK continuing with this 2005 AFCC Coordinating the Parenting Coordinators whose job is to help IMPLEMENT an already- written coordination plan that parents are working with — people who do this must also:
Overview and Definitions
Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
. . . assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan….
[pause to adjust to the “assist . . .. to” syntax error again. OK, I’m better now …I’ll go on…]
Any legal professionals ought to know that one way to encourage a parent to comply with a written plan incorporated into any court order is, if it becomes habitual, file a contempt and seek some kind of sanction for it through the courts, putting this IN the court record..
Let us remember again – parents that comply with well-written parenting plans don’t drive more business to the courts. This behavior should NOT be encouraged……
FIRST OF ALL both parents may not need assistance. ONe may be an asshole, simply decides not to comply, thereby causing problem for either custodial or noncustodial parent, who then gets frustrated. I suppose enough of that frustration, and disruption of the children’s schedules and lives and/or someone’s work, might cause the other parent to come into a state of “needing assistance” and circuitously justify saying BOTh “parents” need this help.
“HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS” — How about someone — for god’s sake! — actually investigating what the conflict is about, i.e, analyzing it, putting that on the record, and fixing it through normal legal means, promptly? This incessant lumping of both parents into “high-conflict” when only one may have started and continued to cause it is wrong. It’s a lose-lose combination.
Any good parent has conflict with certain BEHAVIORS, one of which is called, failing to comply with court orders. Complying with court orders is a GOOD value to give children. IF the courts themselves cannot recognize this (because some organizations wish to perpetuate work for their members) then who will?
well, here’s some more decisive, to the point, and clear writing:
…by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
….facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner…
[by creating a co-dependent behavior between the parenting coordinators and the parents, in total conflict the court’s own theory that any domestic violence (etc.) issues are just disputes and parents should WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES!]
[“facilitating dispute resolution in a timely manner” and involving more court personnel is an oxymoron. It’s a contradiction of terms! Add to this Task Forces that can’t write straight, and what a mess! Most family law cases I personally know lasted a minimum of five years, some, three -times that. These professionals are most likely WHY….]
…educating parents about children’s needs. .
AHA! We come to the juicy caramel center of what this is about — another opportunity for endless education, including Kids’ Turn -type agenda..
Why don’t these professionals content themselves with HAVING and RAISING their own children — grandchildren, if they need to — and thus be able to help form new characters etc. Or, are they the cast-offs from the public education system, which is constantly having “peripheral” positions cut, such as psychologists and counselors, librarians, and sports/arts/ etc. roles?
“…..and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, . . .
“…OR the court?” Meaning, if the parties don’t approve beforehand, the COURT can make more “prior approval” decisions WITHOUT their approval or prior knowledge? (commonly called ex parte when it changes a court order, so I guess this one just means, sort of fine-tuning the terms of an existing one. If that. . . It shoulda been fine-tuned out the gate. ….
making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
In other words, high-conflict parents (some of which conflict might be with poorly-written court orders, or inappropriate decisions to start with) should become co-dependent/passive and learn to let these people make their decisions instead. Also, if some highly legitimate causes of conflict exist (like someone threatened to abduct, or did) — then how nice to have already got a new profession in place in case some illiterate judge goes back to allowing shared parenting after custody-switch, etc. (Many mothers know that the “shared parenting” with an abuser escalates in conflict, and leads to various crises, and sometimes on calling on the courts (a mistake, probably) to resolve this . . a judge will switch custody. Thereafter, she may not see her kids again — PERIOD. Or, only for pay — and a high pay — such as supervised visitation for HER (because of potential “parental alienation..”). … And so on.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>,
(Apologies today — my hyperlink function on this computer is temporarily not functional — so I am pasting titles, not links, to material discussed….).
MORE FROM TEXAS AFCC, 2007, ON THIS SAME TOPIC:
Report of the Texas Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Taskforce on Parenting Coordination
(translation: two years later, still needing more task forces..)
Members
Jack Bannin, San Antonio, TX Carrie Beaird, Dallas, TX Mike Booth, Dallas, TX Mary Bullock, San Antonio, TX Deborah Cashen, Houston, TX Jeff Coen, Dallas, TX
Bradley Craig, Arlington, TX Deborah Higgs, Galveston, TX Sondra Kaplan, Houston, TX
Toni Jo Lindstrom, Texas City, TX Susan Marsh, Houston, TX Judith Miller, Houston, TX Leta Parks, Houston, TX
Aaron Robb, Keller, TX Christy Schmidt, Dallas, TX Dina Trevino, San Antonio, TX Robin Walton, San Antonio, TX
Compiled by Aaron Robb, Chapter President August 8, 2007
Read a bit of this and see how it’s clear they wish to limit WHO can be a parenting coordinator to affilliated professions…. and missed the legislative bandwagon that might have allowed such a professional restriction… This article cites the one above, summarizing the scenario like this:
The AFCC parent organization began examining the issue of parenting coordination early in this century, forming a Taskforce on Parenting Coordination composed of nationally known experts in this emerging field.
“Nationally Known Experts in this emerging field.” . That’s “rich.” why does this, somehow, remind me of The National Fatherhood Initiative’s self-description as having been started by a “few prominent thinkers” back in the 1990s? Maybe it’s just the tone, I can’t say for sure.
“this emerging field” — -give me a break! With time, one comes to understand that in some lips the words ’emerging field” actually means a field that they (themselves, or close associates) are personally developing and promoting — in part by naming task forces after it — and it didn’t “emerge” like grass, or buds at springtime, or chickens from eggs, except that it IS sure that the seed was planted long ago that the sky’s the limit on professions that can spring out of the family court high-conflict parenting theme….
Supervised Visitation “emerged” the same way, as did “Batterer Intervention Programs.” Neither has proven particularly effective, both require lots of conferences, task forces, publications, and nonprofits to actually DO the supervising and intervening. Also those last two terms are known compromises with the battered women’s movement which in late 80s/early 1990s was much more pushing for full separation of the women and children from the danger, whether in shelters, or through full-custody.
The initial Taskforce produced a report entitled Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues in August of 2003 outlining the various forms and formats of practice that fell under the general heading of “Parenting Coordination.” The task force was reconstituted in 2003 and continued its work, expanding to examine best practices in both the United States and Canada.1
In 2004, in anticipation of growing interest in parenting coordination services in the state, Texas AFCC conducted a formal survey of our members, examining basic issues of role clarity and role delineation. At the same time Texas AFCC was approached regarding input on legislation that was being drafted regarding parenting coordination for the 2005 legislative session.
(Probably by someone affiliated with a father’s rights program… or CRC, etc.)
Responses from AFCC members to the survey came [“amazingly” given what AFCC is basically comprised of] from a mix of legal and mental health professionals, however the actual legislation regarding parenting coordination failed to address many of the prevailing opinions noted in the survey.
Chief among these was a strong consensus (89%) that to be qualified as a parenting coordinator a practitioner should be a mental health professional. A majority (56%) also noted that a parenting coordinator should be trained as both a mediator and parent educator.
If this became law, then any HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS with POORLY WRITTEN PLANS (or, one or more parents who refused to comply with them) ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A HIGH-PRICED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL — OR ATTORNEY — WITH A MEDIATIOR (PROMOTE MORE ACCESS FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT) MINDSET, AND A PENCHANT FOR EDUCATING PARENTS.
I CANNOT THINK OF ANY FIELDS I WOULD LESS LIKE HAVING IN MY PERSONAL OR RELATIONSHIP LIVES. WOULD YOU? SUPPOSE ONE PARENT JUST DECIDES TO ABANDON THE KIDS ON WEEKENDS WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SOCIAL LIFE OR DATE. OR HE MIGHT… CALL IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SIT DOWN — BOTH OF YOU — FOR MORE LECTURES ON HOW TO BE A PARENT, LET ALONE AN ADULT WITH A COMMITMENT OF SOME SORT!
THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP APPEARS TO WANT.
A substantial majority of members (74%) also indicated that they believed parenting coordination Services should be non-confidential to allow reporting back to the court.
THIS NEXT SECTION IF FUNNY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT:
The AFCC Board of Directors accepted the final report and Guidelines on May 21, 2005.
Unfortunately this direction from the parent organization came too late for our local group to effectively act on it. HB 252 (relating to the use of parenting plans and parenting coordinators in suits affecting the parent-child relationship) had been introduced in February 2005 and had been voted out of the House by April 2005. It was subsequently voted out of the Senate in May 2005 and sent to the governor just days after the parent organization’s years worth of work on this issue came to a close.
Sounds to me like the would-be coordinator coordinator’s task force, dreaming about expansion into Canada, wasn’t too coordinated — and didn’t pay attention (or process input from the local Texas AFCC group) in time for the parenting legislation to be voted on! They were behind the 8-ball.
And this is who is trying to restrict the profession to people like themselves!
Parenting coordination is a maturing field and nationally there are many different theoretical and practice models for services that fall under the broad heading of “parenting coordination.”
Keep your (God-damn) “practices” away from my kids, and me. If I have a broken leg, I’ll go somewhere around a medical practices. If a loose tooth (both of these factors which may occur around “high-conflict” marriages and/or divorces), a dentist. If I am short an academic degree, or wishing to enter a new field MYSELF, I will approach someone qualified in that PRACTICE and will myself engage, and PRACTICE that they are qualified to teach, forming a contract between me and that person which PROBABLY would be bound the contracts, (i.e., breaking it would be a “tort” and could be handled in CIVIL courtrooms, unlike “relationship” issues which land up in this morass of family law….)
But for the “crime” of having a relationship (marriage, or out-of-wedlock birth parent) that went sour — in other words, it wasn’t a great match, or something seriously deficient or wrong showed up — we are to be doomed FOREVER to being ordered into FAMILY COURT PRACTICE PROFESSIONS (“parents forever, right?”) by a group of people who can’t find something more useful to do with their lives, and which might require hard sciences or truly disciplined practice THEMSELVES….
Here it is — they want more “training.”
Increase education and training requirements for parenting coordinators to include basic and advanced family mediation experience as well as formal parenting coordination training for all parenting coordinators.
Commentary: Given that parenting coordination is now firmly codified as a hybrid ADR procedure it seems only logical that the state should require parenting coordinators to have family ADR training. Issues of positional vs. interest based negotiations and other mediation related issues are core to helping families progress past their disputes and adopt a healthier problem solving strategy. This is reflected in not only the AFCC Guidelines but the Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Parenting Coordinator Taskforce Recommended Practice Guidelines for a Family Systems Model of Parenting Coordination within the Context of Texas Family Law report as well.
Can you do this? Read aloud the title (it’s ONE title) for another related to the courts organization (AMFT). Read it in one breath, without stop, and with a straight face. i dare you. Now picture how many more such taskforces are flying around the land, invisibly spreading bad grammar, creating emerging fields, and writing model practices for those fields, and of course setting up the entrance fees to get into them, through more training…..
Did you? Try again: The Texas association for marriage and family therapy parenting coordinator taskforce (break for the short-winded)… recommended practice guidelines for a family systems model (what other kind of models would there be for ‘parenting coordination’ Extra-familial systems model, like with the athletic department of junior’s afterschool needs, or there’s a budding gymnast in the high-conflict parenting family??) within the context of texas family law
Wow — brilliant. I myself was thinking of developing some practice guidelines that CONFLICTED with texas family law — that way, more business for the cognitive dissonance folk, mental health professionals.
They go on to note (apparently catching up with FL Attorney Liz Gates — who wrote this I bet much earlier in Therapeutic Jurisprudence )
Ethically dual roles are problematic (and highly restricted) for many professionals. {{they’re more than problematic, they create a conflict of interest….}}
Attorneys, therapists, and others who may have had a previous relationship with a family member bring history to the process that may undermine their effectiveness as a parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator who goes on to serve in one of these other roles with a family may be seen in hindsight as self-serving, and compromises the integrity of the process.
That bird has flown the coop already. People know, parents know, they blog and write and complain on the nepotism, cronyism and backroom deals around the courts — with or without the new field of parenting coordinators.. Here’s a wise group in 2007 noticing that.. This problem is intrinsic to the family law profession, let alone an expansion in that profession..into uncharted territories where “need” is anticipated — probably because these people INCLUDE many judges who are able to order such things, if they choose to..
But, they want more training — naturally.
My friends, … about those court-ordered train the trainers trainings — I have to tell you something:
“Where the Wild Things Slush FundsAre.”
Looking for where the money went, or kickbacks tend to happen? Look no further — you got it!
From “NAFCJ: Fathers Rights and Conciliation Court Law’ (article by Cindy Ross of N. CA area):
When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get [in getting] custody and get [in getting] out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases. Judicial slush funds, such as the “hearts and flowers” fund exposed in Los Angeles Superior Court, are established using fees charged for child custody “training” seminars. [20]
Because Conciliation Court codes specify how funding is dispersed to the court itself, huge sums of money are diverted out of federal and state block grants by AFCC affiliates, in the guise of “amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies”. [15] (See Codes 1800-1852). The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”, i.e., to embed the fathers’ rights agenda into government policies and programs. [21]
This is such OLD news, but [far too] few women seem to be acting to do anything about I. I’ve heard of more men – such as the Richard Fine folk — who at least understand the process and strongly advocate against this. No mention of this was made in the SF Weekly Article above…. and at this late stage of the game, I’d have to say that this omission is suspect. People who work in and report on these fields KNOW the basic literature that’s out on it, it is no longer an unsolved mystery…
Maybe all the world IS a stage, but we need permission to “exit stage left” from this family court system, and as we are forced into the roles, it’s time to find out who wrote the screenplay, and who’s on the Lights, who’s pulling curtains where, and who is providing the cue cards…
To Be, or Not to Be, that is the question…”
A recent hit movie “The King’s Speech” shows how a man overcame a stutter because he had to be king in the time of radio — and when Hitler was threatening Europe and Great Britain. He didn’t want to be a public speaker, OR king — and as presented, he’d suffered some serious childhood abuse, emotional and physical (like not enough food) which probaby precipitated the stutter — but he stepped up to the plate once he fired the bad speech coaches (including the ones recommending smoking!) and got an off-ball, un-doctored Australian who actually knew how trauma works, and how to get past it. The relationship was STILL voluntary, even by a king, or future king — but once it was entered into, it became successful.
We are in times like that. I’d rather be doing something else, and investigative reporting is not my primary field, and smoking out slush funds is very disturbing. But it certainly beats walking around in a daze, wondering what happened, and blaming something or someone else for the problem!
I changed from doing free PR for psychologist professionals who talk about PAS and bad custody decisions (and not slush funds, federal funds, and fatherhood funding, etc.). I changed because I missed my daughters, and I love them, and as part of this love, I want the truth out. As part of caring about my local communities, I want to spare others going through three or four years of anguish as I did (at least) BEFORE I connected some of these dots.
Remember — Three things abide, BUT, the greatest of these is charity.
How’s yours these days?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For footnote to Joan Kelly being omipresent (sort of) in these organizations and their literatures: From 2003,
NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross,familycourtcorrupt2nd2,19,03.htmFamily Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection
by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03
Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. [1]
While publicly touted as “responsible fatherhood programs” official federal documents say the purpose of their programs is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody. [4]. . . . {{SO — read those document, just don’t buy the “party line” that it’s really all about “relationship coaching” and healing, and so forth… It ain’t.
AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal “model custody” programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition.
Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallerstein’s and Kelly’s research. [23] Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and “special masters” (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected — primarily through CRC — to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding “parenting time” and “alienation”. [8]
Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOW’s “Family Court Report 2002”, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony — along with David Levy of CRC — to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the “problems of single female parent families”. [24]
Members of Wallerstein’s Center for the Family in Transition and Kelly’s Northern CA Mediation Center, have “reformulated” PAS as “alienated children”, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner.
However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the “Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child”, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and “threat therapy” at AFCC conferences around the country and the world.
[25]Wallerstein, Horn, Eberly and others connected to NFI, CRC and AFCC have expanded the Conciliation Court agenda to include not only divorce prevention, but marriage promotion. By merging conciliation court and fathers’ rights agendas with a “faith based” marriage “movement”, they call for even more federal programs promoting “two-parent” families, through “marriage initiatives” funded by TANF/Welfare grants. [26]
And we wonder why the economy is in such crisis!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Mile-High Emotions, Abysmal Logic in (and around) Jamison’s SFWeekly articles
leave a comment »
With graphics like THESE (gaggged and bound woman in a chair drawing, by Fred Noland)and the Broken-child’s arm graphics on earlier article, backlash is guaranteed, even though gag orders have become part of the Family Law weaponry against exposure. But the article is not talking about Gag orders, although the ACLU has gotten some of them off in family law cases…
(Source: Article “Family Courts Need Reform, say Judges, Legislators”
Note: The title says “Judges and Legislators” and mentions one judge (who is not ‘reforming” but business as usual — as I’ll show — and one legislator, only).
The original one, March 2nd, had this graphic, hardly about to win friends, or encourage rational debate, seen at
California Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody
I tried (you can see, on there….)…
Attempt to Trash a person after attempt to demolish reasoning failed:
Even got a piece of hate-mail on here, by someone I deduce came in the door “hating” and with a specific comment on the brain. It being an open forum, I engaged. Disengaging might be a little harder — but this does qualify some of the behavior on the anti-Mom side of the debate, at its most vicious when another female is doing the dirty work, posting under “Female with a Brain.” I questioned, based on the dialogue, what she was doing with hers. Here’s a sample — posted yesterday evening on this blog:
I could, generally speaking that as, trailer-talk, designed to cut through — well, I post a lot of prose, and links, surely it can be annoying. Same poster was mixing up identities of several others on-line, libeled one, and was warned by her about it, etc. So, that’s why fewer posts recently – I was on the high-traffic California blog getting some information out. Generally speaking, neutral readers will learn more from the comments (pro, con, and threatening) than the articles themselves.
(note — posted here only for an example of the level of “discourse” at street level around court decisions made in high places)
FamilyCourtMatters gest few commens, but for reference, the SFWeekly terms of use will apply, and any more talk like that of course will not be approved. Keep your hate to yourself. I’ve already experienced stalking — this woulnd’t be the first threat either, and my appearance, gender, color (or hair color), height, weight, dress, and marital status are not relevant to whether or not someone is paying off one of your legislators, judges, or federal grants to the states program administrators.
Speaking of which….
This is my comment that may or may not be approved at the SFWeekly FOLLOWup article to the March 2nd, 2011 “California Family Courts” one that now has 1,700 comments.
The follow-up article is, essentially, another PR piece, I believe, dodging the primary issues. However, it’s HERE:
“Parental Alienation Syndrome — The Judge Just Isn’t Buying It“
The Judge in question was head of the Elkins Family Law Task Force. And (incidentally) on the Board of Directors of AFCC, an organization which absolutely has bought — or, rather, is selling — “Parental Alienation Syndrome.” What appears to have brought it is the investigation behind investigative reporting (either that, or someone “bought” the article — a professional favor, or what? Or is this level of denial FREE, being so common….)
Should I write the Judge and ask her to verify that quote (and say, when it happened, in what context?)
Who do they think she — or for that matter, the Elkins Family Law Task force IS? Guess no one looked to close:
I just Submitted – will it be posted?:
Or has the entire series of articles, PR work for one theme, already been structured, and will go ahead as planned? This article mentions a Judge Jerilyn Borack, lightly, and Mark Leno. I spent time last night looking up Leno’s funding at maplight.org, and found out that Judge Borack is on the Board of Directors of one of THE premier PAS-promoters around, the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) who are, virtually, the heart-throb of the family law system, and have been identified as very likely proceeding from a Los Angeles County Judges’ (slush fund) decades ago. So at what point can “investigative reporting” protesting “PAS” be labeled, correctly, plain old “negligent”? If you’re concerned about PAS, then find out WHO is promoting it.
Here is a link to the 2009 AFCC conference brochure, co-sponsored by the Santa Clara County Superior Court (do you think this might relate to a Santa Clara County case reporting in the last article?)
And this is what the organization’s purpose is (self-described):”$205 single/double (may explain why low-incomie parents, or parents devastated through years of family court litigation, perhaps, didn’t attend.
The other reason – so few advocates told them about this organization!Professionals dedicated to improving lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.”{{Note — this doens’t exactly highlight the due process and legal functions….}}
Who is AFCC? Well, brochure describes the organization:
“AFCC California Chapter
Although AFCC is a truly international organization, it began in California in 1963. Its original purpose was to provide continuing, specialized education for judicial officers, attorneys, and mental health professionals working with family court issues. Now there are over 3,600 members of AFCC in approximately 24 countries, and its headquarters are located in Madison, Wisconsin. Indeed, most AFCC activity takes place at national and international levels. California, with nearly 400 members, is one of ten U.S. states with a local chapter. The California Chapter has served an important role in the state’s training of family-law judicial officers, mediators, evaluators, counselors, and attorneys.”
Oh, not worth mentioning in a press release about poor custody decisions or what might have led to them …..
.ANd here’s (on this brochure) is Judge Borack, mentioned in your article:”
Here’s you (the article), quoting her opinion on PAS:
**why isn’t the word “admissible” in quotes also? Has our Judge been misquoted, or said “I don’t think it is” in answer to some other question?
By Contrast, here’s some of the conference material — and this is typical:(I searched “alienation” on this conference agenda (it’s on most of them. It occurred 10 times. For example, here’s an upcoming workshop:)
“W12 Interventions with Alienated Children and their Parents: Evolution and Innovation”
I can’t bold words on-line, but do you notice a certain recurring theme, and attitude there?
So, assuming you have quoted this highly-positioned judge correctly, she is talking out of both sides of her mouth. OR, knows that –whether or not it’s admissible in a courtroom is irrelevant. Because the intent of this organization is to run “interventions,” where possible, for “alienation.” So what if it’s junk science, or inadmissible? With the amount of excess characters around the courtroom (and expensive conferences where they can get together the next set of policy for each other), who cares?
NB: California Judicial Council / AOC /CFCC also boasts a few AFCC members of this group. They are not a neutral, “best interests of the children” organization. They are a self-service, business-propagating trade organization that has a captive clientele, and gets government funding to add to the business they drum up.
In 2010, the conference (then only $165) was in Denver, and even bore the title of “alienation”!”
47th Annual Conference Denver, ColoradoTraversing the Trail of AlienationRocky RelationshipsMountains of EmotionMile High Conflict”
Denver is a significant locale for groups helping run the courts. Time you found out about them (email me, I’ll send a list). It’s becoming clear to mothers, not just fathers (who should stop complaining — they have AFCC and Fathers Rights orgs in their camp, or so they assume, already) — that these are simply PR pieces in an alternative newspaper calling attention to the organizations behind them.
ANOTHER POINT: The graphics in both articles are going to naturally draw fire from opposing viewpoints. I want you to be alert to the factor that this is going to HURT some mothers, individually, in a backlash which may hit home personally — or, may hurt their children in custody of someone who is tired of this type of reporting.
The gray adult hand BREAKING a child’s arm on a purple background, and this one (though I agree, gag orders happen, and as a mother, I felt gagged in my own court case– no one cares about evidence in there) — are violent, emotional, and will drag down the conversations.This is a lose/lose situation for the litigants with minor children still and open court cases — and a “win/win” for both sets of advocating nonprofits and professionals.
What was your real intent in this? Please have a heart-to-heart somewhere. We are blogging, and eventually, these blogs are going to make articles like this look as foolish as they are.It’s not about PAS. That’s the excuse. It’s also not primarily about domestic violence (sorry, but there is an overriding theme). It’s about business for those in the business of failing to fix the family court system. These already have been times that tried OUR souls. Until you get to that point, I doubt anything I wrote will sink in.I’m not going to continue posting on this article as on the last one. I will blog, though. This tunnel vision is outrageous.
Even a site “In the Best Interests of the Child” (local, I believe, to Bay Area, and run by professionals) took the time to rehash someone else’s work on this AFCC organization:This is a good primer. Take a look:
http://www.stopcourtorderedchildabuse.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/scoca/newpage.pl?h=7&p=1&v=off&l=English
Time to start asking why no one, almost, even bothers to report on this organization!
Note. This blog (though not well-formatted) is a gold-mine of references, and points of reference for those willing to look. I may not be investing a lot more time in it from here on, have other ideas of how to effect some court reforms, and leave it up as an FYI site (as well as record of my opinions on these things). I’ve heard that it has some judges running a little scared (I don’t see that all the Crisis in the Courts movement really has) — which tells me, it’s a little closer to the mark than some.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
March 25, 2011 at 11:27 AM
Posted in History of Family Court
Tagged with AFCC, Due process, obfuscation, Peter Jamison SFWeekly, social commentary, women's rights