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

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

Posts Tagged ‘CADV

If Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting, and Exploiting Prisoners as Gladiators (resulting in shooting deaths for some, and “hundreds of shootings,” not to mention fight-related injuries for others) is “BAD,” then why isn’t also Federal (PRWORA-based) and State (Family Courts) Policy with similarly staged, high-stakes conflicts — rigged for intended outcomes, and obviously potentially lethal for the combatants and, periodically, bystanders — on a far larger stage (national, and in some high-profile cases, international), also involving known criminally violent** fathers and their children’s mothers, AND young children of all ages?  [Published Dec. 17, 2017]

leave a comment »

The “parent post” also dealt in part with guns and groups seeking to reduce death by gun violence. I guess they just weren’t thinking in terms of, “of prisoners, by prison guards…” Its title:

The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017). (Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-87w”)  (Started Dec. 4, 2017 as a follow-up to my Dec. 3 “NRA (not) on the Record”**  preface to upcoming “Robin Hood Foundation” (or “RHF”) *** posts)

This is a short (ca. 6,700 words or so) aside to that post, and a link to return to the parent post above is provided again at the bottom. There may be some repetition as I added documentation and examples to the text before publishing.

[Post-publication: An extended footnote adds about 4,000 words referencing BWJP, the Wellstone promotion of supervised visitation (both quotes and news articles, as is well-known this progressive Senator, his wife, his daughter, three staff and two pilots were killed suddenly — about 15 years ago — during a small plane crash.  He’d been on the way to debate his opponent for an anticipated competitive fight for his third term.  However, an identifiable incorporation of acceptance for continued, but modified (i.e. “supervised”) exchanges in passive acceptance (and silent assent to AFCC policies while presenting at their 2000 conference on alienation, access and attachment with special emphasis on the first issues) effectively “headed off at the pass: any open, informed discussion on another possibility which better preserved safety — NO forced contact where abuse has been identified. By separating dangerous from not-dangerous parenting situations, this also would clear the path for fairer handling of non-abusive fathers’ issues.]

It originates in making references of these topics as analogies for the situation I am most deeply concerned about, the macro-economic, system-wide practice of the same power blocs setting up artificial, high-stakes and sometimes life-and-death conflicts especially between men and women overall, and between individual men and women who are mothers and fathers of children in common, while demanding the public fund both sides (the public as taxpayers and through other service consumption of governmental business enterprises, including accessing the courts, registering vehicles yearly, marriage licenses even, continues to pay “up front”)

Many men and women can handle themselves without hurting or destroying each other economically or physically, and not all men and women, on divorcing, use their children as pawns or take them as hostages.  But WHEN some do, it seems to be “game time” for others. It’s “show time.”  All can be manipulated, and the longer the conflict goes on, the higher the bills,  the more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public), the higher the stakes and the greater the risks of those personally involved — yet these concessions are often described as the intended methodologies to change the outcome.


But doing so directly is contrary to our self-impressions of the country and view that we have a possibly functional system of laws and courts.  The influences are from the sidelines, from outside specific jurisdiction of family courts involved, and these influences come from Congress and the White House (which expends funding allocated to it by Congress, i.e., that budget) and are applied through, as the title above says, a real “money maze” — sometimes direct to the states, sometimes direct to nonprofits within the state but involved in the courts, and sometimes otherwise.


That’s why I say the game is “rigged.”  It’s not a level playing field, and its rules can be altered year to year, and situation to situation — and that’s the way some people like it.  Rather than SETTLING the standards by the law, with a preference throughout of NOT prioritizing privilege for violators of penal codes when there are two parents and one is a violator and the other, not.

Rather than just having fair laws and enforcing them fairly.

We (so to speak) also already exploit at least federal prisoners for slave labor, through FPI (Federal Prison Industries) a.k.a.  Unicor (and have since the 1930s), which is also referenced here near the bottom, but not in this post’s title, which reads:

QUESTION:  What’s bad when found to have occurred in secret, in confined and closed quarters from which combatants cannot escape, and involving animals (whether dogs or roosters with spurs) or when it happens in prisons with caged men, and in ALL of the above resulting in serious injury and sometimes death, not to mention being “exploitation, defined,” ….

LA times 4/24/2000, by Staff writer Max Arax, “Guards on Trial in Corcoran Shootings blame Prisoners

…Pointing the finger at a vast group of prisoners with no faces or voices in the federal courtroom, the defense is using the government’s own witnesses to put Corcoran’s violent culture on trial. Sounding at times like prosecutors themselves, attorneys for the eight guards are also blaming official state policy handed down from Sacramento for the thousands of fights between inmates and the hundreds of shootings by guards during a six-year reign of terror at the San Joaquin Valley prison.

Beginning in 1989, defense attorneys contend, the state’s integrated yard and shooting policies required guards to mix rival inmates from different street gangs and then to fire at them with deadly force if they refused to stop fighting.

why is the same basic routine under  “family-friendly policy,” and when the forced interaction with known dangerous persons frequently happens WITHOUT armed guards or trained personnel nearby but WITH women and children, boys or girls nearby — in fact sometimes without even any authority supervising the exchange, but the exchange is still court-ordered, forced after reasons for separation or requested protection are on record as domestic violence or child abuse somehow justified as moral, ethical, and as “American” as (well, what should we say, truthfully — as American as slavery? or as indentured servitude based, this season, meaning, this past half-century minimum, on parent gender?)?
Read the rest of this entry »

Understand Statewide “CADV” Funding (CFDAs 93591, 93592, 93671, and 93136 grants to Statewide Orgs) But Also Check Out “Family and Community Violence Prevention” (93910) in all its Male/Minority-focused Wealth — Over $99M to One Recipient under ONE Principal Investigator, Spanning 10 years — and Glory.

leave a comment »

That title, again, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-62M”:

Understand Statewide “CADV” Funding (CFDAs 93591, 93592, 93671, and 93136 grants to Statewide Orgs) But Also Check Out “Family and Community Violence Prevention” (93910) in all its Male/Minority-focused Wealth — Over $99M to One Recipient under ONE Principal Investigator, Spanning 10 years — and Glory   This post reviews them, and who’s been getting them.

(First published @ about 10,500 words March 6, 2017, ca. 7:30pm;

4 several images and some text making it 11,300 12,000 words added the next day)

What program offices (respectively) over at HHS these come through also gets interesting….

POST NAVIGATION: My “Title Disclaimer” (fine-print, white-background, maroon-bordered) section, with several “divisions” within it, may help the rest of the post go smoother by defining some terms.  In that section I’m also “CMA,” Covering My [Posterior], for calling several different CFDA’s “CADV” funding in case of readers who would be glad to find any nit they can pick (errors) in this presentation which overall does not give the network a  passing grade of A, B or even C in terms of the stated program purposes.  (Only one of those CFDAs specifies “statewide coalition against domestic violence” [CADV] or very similar phrase matching ONE of the several categories regarding “family violence, domestic violence and dating violence” specified under the authorizing legislation. The CFDA#s mirror the authorizing legislation (by section) language).

[That section is below the first set of images]

In terms of what the macro-system (interaction between policy-setters, public law, existing organizations, funding, HHS officials receiving or rejecting grant applicants and distributing the financial aid to the same, all the subcontractors which may be engaged at any point to operate or evaluate or disseminate “best practices” and so forth) seems to have been designed to do (that is, to control the victims, dominate the field, and set up some, support other existing related professions* through jockeying for position to legislate, authorize, appropriate, spend (including to staff, train, consult, technically advise and coordinate within systems and across systems — at the professional level) who gets the most funding** and systematically, year after year after yearwithhold from the victims AND the public strategically important information about the field, leaving the public to “figure it out” if they dare (or not figure it out) — the overall situation passes with flying colors.  BUT — those would be two different agendas:  One, appearances (for political positives) and Two, the functional reality at the receiving end, individual parents, citizens, and litigants. (** I decided to add images for “*” so the second comment to this paragraph, the “**”, is considerably below, after those images.)

*Examples of set-up (or at least established/expanded via the grants) professions:  domestic violence advocates; batterers intervention providers, supervised visitation providers (although some of this existed previously to DV becoming a household term, under different auspices — child welfare, dependency situations, I think), and technical assistance providers and trainers re: the same.  People working long enough in those fields (including some with pre-existing or acquired-since degrees — Ph.D., Psy.D., LCSW, Ed.D. and of course J.D. ) if persistent and successful in the career path, will be also publishing in professional journals (including some that may set up FOR the created professions) or books, or working for universities in the capacity of experts on the created professions.  One publication that came to my attention writing this post from the DV advocate field is published by “West®” West® used to be owned by Thomson-Reuters, but no longer is, as of somewhere around 2008-2009 (I DNR exact details, but was looking into this a month or so ago).  Here’s one (national publication) example only; however three images regarding it (#3 is re: its editor Andrew R. Klein Ph.D. and his work with a career-path DV advocate/attorney/author/trainer etc., Barbara J. Hart)

<==NBDVP_flyer showing AndrewRKlein (AHP) edits the monthly journal, and BJHart contributes monthly. WEST® publishes (Subscriptn – $444 annually) (This is separate, but most links to read full-sized annotated images, or images, in this post will be found as a link in their captions UNDER the related image).

Thomson Reuters “The ANSWER COMPANY” self-description showing its Westlaw® system, “Legal Solutions|USA” and a bit of its size and international scope. Being published here is both prestigious and (for those who want access) often expensive. How would battered women with minor children (or men!!) have access to such bulletins, and at what point are/were we ever informed of them at the local levels?


Nat’l Bulletin on Domestic Violence PREVENTION flyer (annotated).. The annotations express some of my concerns, and I admit have a sarcastic tone. I do, however, have some awareness (experience and investigation both, as well as through networking with others, their experiences also, over MANY years).

CLICK TO READ. I looked up an entity affiliated with someone who’d published with Barbara J. Hart, J.D. (from the USouthern Maine bio profile). The career paths of DV Advocates (especially those who got in on this earlier: 1970s, 1980s and helped create the field, literally) is diverging more and more from the survivors. Currently, I know women who have become homeless, thrown out of their homes by the court, bankrupted and their assets poured into court-connected “therapeutic jurisprudence” activities — including but not limited to supervised visitation. Some have been jailed over family court matters regarding not only their own, but (see Grazzini-Rucki case in Twin-Cities area, Minnesota) even others’ children, and then more court- or probation-connected programs and fees loaded onto them, as well as their future income jeopardized through the record and (I learned recently) programs insisting they pay for their own incarceration, pay for reunification services for OTHERs’ children (with their father, not mother) and so forth… I will post more on this soon (half-written posts abound on this blog)…

This is simply part of a 1986 articles of incorporation filing for the short for-profit corporation in Sudbury MA called “Advocates for Human Potential, Inc.” which contracts heavily (and has a GSA/”MOBIS” arrangement to do so) federal, state, and probably local government entities. It is privately run, was started with only $3,000 of stock (300K shares at $0.01 each) and currently is still privately controlled with only 15,000 shares (of which 10 are outstanding). Only 3 officers (all men) are listed at the Commonwealth of Mass. Business Search database, which of course, I checked for this image. Obviously they set the entity up to get those contracts…

** “funding” 42 U.S. Code Chapter 110 – FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES (this version current through 2010 and referring to years 2011-2015.  I believe it’s the most recent, but see disclaimers on that site, or check elsewhere for a more current version.  I did not find any for 2016…)

All of this is a lot of information to process!  I’ve split the topic into different posts, and it’s still a lot even after all my years of processing this type of information, to narrate and show. I’ll do my best!  One thing that this post may seem to emphasize (and it seems to be true) — the statewide domestic violence coalitions (“CADVs”) are NOT at the top of the heap even of the funds authorized under FVPSA — and those are not the only “Family Violence and Injury Prevention” funds around either.

 

Title Disclaimer:  In this white-background, maroon-bordered section “Title Disclaimer” I’m explaining and referencing some terms, organizations and situations, some of which are not covered in this post, but which have been (extensively) in this blog.  If I included all the links, I’d never get THIS post published. So this section is “take it on faith” (or keep reading for where I have linked, etc.)  Where something’s an unfamiliar acronym, or concept, feel free to search it on this blog, search it on the Internet yourself, put it on the back burner for later, and keep reading (!!), or whatever else you wish.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: