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 ‘David Mandel of Non-Violence Alliance re “Safe and Together” model (older cite from VAWnet) — see Ohio IPV Collaborative post update

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 »

Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)

with 2 comments

CONTEXT, SEQUENCE of this Post with its 2012 parent…

Any post on this blog should stand alone, interesting and relevant, but many communicate better when read as part of the designated ensemble.  Generally, no one post will contain all the information (that I’ve written up and published) on any single organization or program, nor could any post contain enough of that basic information, I believe, to show both depth (drill-down Show-and-Tell) and discussion of where it fits in the larger networks of public agencies or entities (like State — State of Ohio, State of Florida, State of New York…) with private ones, fauna and flora varying from minuscule to nearly invisible to the naked eye, and “forces to be reckoned with” even for U.S. Presidents.

Among the “nearly invisible,” one has to distinguish sometimes those with bigger mouths (found testifying for more funding for “the cause” before state or U.S. legislatures, or their subcommittees), but below-zero budgets (as I round recently in Ohio: this DV entity, which my 2012 post had mentioned, managed to maintain a below-zero deficit from 2002 – 2015, but that didn’t stop the spokepersons (its leadership) from testifying, citing to the organization name each time.  My question was, why maintain a constantly over-spending and obviously not well-funded entity in the first place?)

Full title of that 2012 “…Reconceptualize This…” post, with shortlink ending “-101”ABA, APA, AFCC, AAML, . . and others:  Reconceptualize This!  [Some Ohio Councils, Commissions, and Headlines, Incl. Basic Links][Chosen to represent 2012 in my 2017 Retrospective, includes its own]

I’d pulled out the section beginning:

NOW LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF THIS PROGRESSIVE LANGUAGE CREEP AS FACILITATED BY CERTAIN ASSOCIATIONS (see subject of [the above] post)

and am keeping it separate, here, connecting a link, there.  THIS post with short-link ending “-5SR, ” is “Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)“] Completed Feb 14, 2017 (Valentine’s Day 🙂 ) but being one of perhaps 3 updates to the “Reconceptualize” post, there is a natural sequence in which should be published first, so I may delay another day or so. [published 2/19/2017]

…(and with two or three of its own 2017 offspring)

Two main themes (one regarding a program, another one person/ality and his related organizations under similar but not identical names) developed in this post have also been siphoned off to further develop them.  Marked in context when it comes up.

so that what remains here, each marked by a large heading will be:

(1) a substantial “Preview” and  (2) “2012 Contents, Formatted and Updated,” which represents the original 2012 contents (bottom under the Progressive Language Creep section), but with most formatting cleaned up and replacing some links no longer valid.  The preview contains more of my current understanding, the 2012 Contents (the rest of post) shows which organizations,  programs and their rhetoric had raised red flags back then.   I am still concerned about the same organizations, programs and their rhetorics (particularly as a woman and a mother), but it’s clear in reviewing the material I hadn’t fully migrated to “skip the debate on the rhetoric:  FIRST, show me the money, and the money behind the money, in terms of business registrations and tax returns !!!” Also, five years is a long time, and I’d researched (done “drill-downs”) on many organizations and tax-exempt foundations, as well as federal grants streams, since then.

“Progressive” in the title refers to “gradually, over time” which the post reviews in a year-by-year sampling of developments in the fields I blog, not to the political persuasion commonly though to be the polar opposite of “conservative.” The words “Language Creep” communicate the “gradually over time” sense well enough but in 2012 I’d added that word to intensify the meaning.

Anyhow, this update is now done, is now about 12,000 words (was originally closer to 6,000) and has some extra screenprints where former links were broken.

PREVIEW

This post ends looking at the American Humane Association historic involvement in the Child Protection Services without quite focusing on this on its main website, and the “QIC-NRF.”  (Screenprinted, added this 2010 reference) found at “CalSWEC.Berkeley.edu…/QIC-NRF…”

I’d blogged recently on CalSWEC for its promotion of some funky (shell-game, move the money among all 3) Ohio nonprofits in exactly this field as regional trainers, too).  That post link & title:

Searching “QIC-NRF,” there are plenty of results.  (next two images have links in their captions):

qic-nrf-google-search-showing-whos-reporting-on-it-feb15-2017-1pg

CLICK HERE FOR FULL-SIZED! QIC-NRF search Page 1 of 2 Google Search Results.  Youtube (image nr bottom) reveals connections btwn QIC-NRF participants (incl pilots) and existing recipients of other HHS Father-focused funding. NewDay Services also active in Access&Visitation grants (Tarrant County TX) as I recall: “Uploaded on May 26, 2011 Duane Yales tells his story and journey through the Child Welfare System. Duane was asked to represent Texas on the QIC-NRF National Father’s Advisory Council. NewDay Services for Children & Families was the local service provider for the project. Duane’s story has been a source of inspiration to child welfare workers to see fathers in a different light than they have traditionally seen them. This has led to better engagement with fathers, leading to better communication and better outcomes for the children. Category Nonprofits & Activism License Standard YouTube License”

qic-nrf-google-search-showing-whos-reporting-on-it-feb15-20174pm-1pg

CLICK HERE for FULL-SIZED! Page 2 of 2 Google Search results for “QIC-NRF” includes NACChildlaw, Fatherhood.gov, CBExpress (Children’s Bureau newsletter), DCCourts.gov and more

screen-shot-2017-02-14-at-2-47-49-pm

may not be full-page image. See CalSWEC.berkeley.edu link for the same.

screen-shot-2017-02-14-at-2-48-30-pm

From same document, same link (2010 report)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I chose the CalSWEC one and discovered internal consistencies, errors (in naming the supporting grant) and avoidance of naming the actual players and what was their various relationship (let alone dollar amounts) flowing among them through a common practice, though not a moral one, of speaking of a project or program as though it were a corporate person, i.e., with a life of its own to receive and disburse funds.

A Program =/= a Person (business entity).

This is subtle, but it cannot be unintentional, and it is a red flag (especially with other symptoms) of something “not quite right” about the situation, and typically involving a financial trail slated for derailment.  Otherwise, why not just tell the truth up front, and the first time, about who paid whom for what?
BRIEFLY, …..


[From an inside page] The National Quality Improvement Center on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System (QIC-NRF) is a collaborative effort among the American Humane Association, the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law and the National Fatherhood Initiative, and funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau  [Image shown above]

This gets interesting — as the inside page is only referencing the QIC-NRF factor, but the cover page references QIC-NRF and ‘QIC-Child Welfare System” both.  Which is it?

So the National QIC-NRF is the “effort” or project, but it’s spoken of as if it’s the producer. or curriculum funder, on the face page, with no reference to the role of the HHS:


[From the cover page] Curriculum Funded by the National Quality Improvement Center on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System
  

One moment it’s an entity, the next, a collaborative effort by 3 other entities (all nonprofits, the ABA a big one, the AHA, an old and generally respected one, and the NFI, while more controversial for its programming, having incorporated in 1994, has been influential and its programming is not entrenched within 1996 Welfare Reform and social services delivery systems through establishing grants administered by HHS, authorized under 1996 Welfare Reform.  As the HHS decides who gets these discretionary funds appropriated to it, I’d say HHS leadership (which in some years was closely entrenched with NFI leadership — do some homework, even Wikipedia, it will come up) is also a collaborator.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: