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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘domestic violence

The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic, Family-Court-Beleaguered and the UNbeleaguered FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocates Reporting on (Us) [Publ. May 14, 2022].

leave a comment »

(While published May 14, 2022, this post came from a related one, published May 12 but drafted Fall, 2021).

 

THEME #1:  The BELEAGUERED v. the UNBELEAGUERED.   

(THEME #2 is: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE)

This dynamic,

The BELEAGUERED (first by in-home abuse and violence, then in the Family Courts, as people attempt to exit abuse) vs. the UNBELEAGUERED^ (by the family courts, “the beleaguered,” (their victims),

effectively excludes the former’s voices and with that, valuable insight or feedback (we) have to the field, which is typically dominated by the “Unbeleaguered.” The former are sidelined, and are not taken seriously (regardless of how valid any claims) except when, where, and as it suits the various experts…. to fulfill minimum token “survivor” representation in any organization, testimonies, or at a conferences, etc.

This ever-widening discrepancy guarantees a bias in the information throughout the field which never self-corrects.  If it were corrected, careers would need to be restructured, people who have invested their lives and reputations in and on it discredited; they would have to find other lines of work in other fields.  I.e., function as the “beleaguered” have had to all along.

The next section is another summary, written May 14… which pushes my footnote (definition of) “Beleaguered” and “THEME #2: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE further down, but both are still there. Scrolling through the post for an overview before reading individual parts may help, or read it (patiently) in order. But understand what you read has been layered in sections over time; many sections simply develop a statement a little further, and reflect many ways to express what I’m thinking. This is a blog, not a fully-developed, complex website with many sub-menus and “portals” to information, so most of what’s on it is linear.

Exposure of major cracks in any form of advocacy potentially exposes even deeper cracks in all forms and if taken seriously by enough people who might act on their understanding could rattle the foundations much deeper. Those for whom such systems is working nicely (i.e., jobs, housing, careers, publications, citations, positions in life, etc.) are pitted against and naturally resist those for whom it isn’t.

Face it:  Advocacy as we understand it has typically meant “public/private partnerships” and involved tax-exempt organizations (with different names and tax processes in different countries).  When criticizing advocacy calls attention to its forms as innately unfair — that has a potential ripple effect.  It could be a subterranean earthquake which triggers a tsunami with far-reaching impact in such an interdependent world.  The categories of economic existence involved the taxed, the tax-exempt (including those working for them), government (the same) and their respective, pooled or allocated assets, either producing income now, (sometimes tax-exempt, sometimes not), or held for possible sale (for profit, is the general idea) elsewhere.  Selling profits to friends below-cost solidifies friendships; selling distressed assets (whether or not people wish to sell) is perceived as rescue.

Right now, distressed PEOPLE, and made so often through court systems, are a known (if unofficial) asset class.  Marketing to their “kind” and managing them is major business.  Those on welfare, those fleeing abuse across borders, OR those fleeing abuse individually (within a country) all create different kinds of opportunities…not just problems.  The question is:  for whom.

The assumption that, among advocates and survivors needing their services “we are all on the same page” is false, when the viewpoint is accounting and accountability.  A constant narrative (public advocacy and outreach) is maintained to encourage the referrals and continual application for help from advocacy organizations, while the same then go appeal for more resources and funding for the good cause/s.

I’ve read too many tax returns, experienced too much (I was never in a shelter, but I could’ve used some shelter and did need help) to mis-read the constant “we, us our — join us” branding from websites, individuals and individuals associated with websites and/or entities where funds ARE going in, but where they go (even as shown on a tax return) can’t really be tracked by the public — and even less so by the “beleaguered” among the public.

I’d love to post more Forms 990 and audited financial statements (including — again — ALL of the (corporate) entities and for each, most recent tax returns within the DV Advocacy field USA, and the DVRN regionalized networks), but between new developments (in this field, i.e., NationalSafeParents.org “coalition” website teaming with the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, (literally, Law.GWU.Edu/(description) pushing hard for the VAWA Reauthorization with “Keeping Children Safe IN Family Courts” (Kayden’s law) tweak), (as I recall about ten posts in late February/March on this, and a few more in April), my  NOT being on the same page as these (and hence getting not referrals or cites from them), and my private life events — I cannot out-produce or out-publicize solo when even top producers and websites (pick some and look at the publication “Acknowledgements” front matter, even for an annual report) which require many specialists for the output, and other sponsors to distribute. Case in point, why the post title.  See “Tactics: Divide and Conquer” below.  As a tactic, it works.  I still hope it may work both ways when enough people get sick of being mentored, monitored, lied to and betrayed — but this won’t be seen without looking outside the mainstream that is, looking to the accounts and accounting infrastructures.  Start SOMEWHERE to take those repeated snapshots and get a picture!)

Oh– and did I mention, most of these websites (USA) decline to post BOTH Forms 990 (reliable and current) AND audited financial statements.  I don’t even know whether or not the IRS even requires that they do post the latter — it just asks how they make them available.  I’ve seen responses such as “not available” (View IRS Form 990 Part VI.C. ‘Disclosure’; it’s near the bottom of a page). But I DO know that transparency and a sense of duty to the supporting public would’ve posted this information voluntarily (not shelter addresses of course, but the financials of those running the shelters, etc.)


Tactics: Avoid and distract:  rather than starting by considering ALL possible causes and choosing the most likely, advocates constantly raise and publicize less fundamental ones (such as “unsound psychological theories,”).

Tactics: Divide and Conquer: Manage Quarantine/Isolate veteran survivor dissidents, then emphasize “Solidarity” first for whoever is left, especially newcomers, and mentor them. Anyone, especially survivors, who’ve seen through that strategy and remain vocal about it, could potentially “contaminate” the ongoing fresh-blood of headlines and horror stories, which is a currency in this field.  Speaking of currency, almost any survivor who brings up and looks at the topic of “finances,” and calls attention to resources for investigating tax-exempt organizations (which the field is peopled by), becomes and is treated as a threat to its stability.

Major energy and money is poured into publicity claiming concern, advertising “progress” in problem-solving, ensuring those politically advantageous get a seat at the decision-making tables. How is that really the best use of public resources?

Tactic: Ignore the National: ALWAYS talk and go Global.  Within my country, you will not find any systematic discussion or “reveal” among advocates of their own funding and reporting policies, of welfare reform, of the potential of negative nonprofits (tax-exempts or trade associations) as an issue.  The focus is to be kept away from “accounting literacy” and a specialized shared language of “cause literacy” is the unifying force for system change.

What if the accounting systems locally, within any single country, are THE major facilitator of abuse, at the national, local and (guess what, also) familial/individual abuse? Are not access “resources” often what people (and countries) fight over most in the first place?

“The game seems to be not proving (actually, anything much) but persuading whoever “matters” to accept and invest, and casting a few crumbs to those who evidently don’t…

Persuade, publicize, legitimize, legislate, reproduce…. when problems surface, leverage that to further embed more investment — thus solidifying the same foundations.  That’s how reformISTS think and operate. (Cambridge Dictionary:”reformist” noun, verb; Wikipedia “reformism” as a movement within socialism, referring to gradual change rather than revolution — but the end goal is the same. At least read the “Overview”).

(Post title, and my related one just published are shown again below):

Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus” which seems appropriate to the topic here: EU vs. US… combined, is it “EUs?” (except for Brexit….).  Published imperfectly at about 12,000 words, the latter situation I hope to correct eventually, the former, “in my dreams..”  Any writer knows it takes longer and is harder to write a good short post than a halfway decent longer one.  

This weekend and next week I’m packing up a household and relocating (no new residence obtained yet, but a temporary safe place has been offered). If this post helps you and you can, please use the DONATE button and/or let me know. I’m not relying on Donations (or, a tax-exempt) but IF you appreciate it, small amounts help, and for those who might not, the DONATE button is not the forum. Read the fine print here:  

NB, Recently,  a certain man whose name appeared ONCE in this post in 2016 or 2017 as I recall, chose to use the “Donate” button (a second time) to, this time, threaten (or attempt to threaten) to defame me unless I removed his name. The name was mentioned — not featured, just mentioned — appropriately in context as a board member of a charity.  Via a second PayPal Donation of $20 (after I’d belatedly, saying why and with an apology for the delay, refunded his first one of $10) note to me, and a link was provided to a ‘substack” to threaten me with further publication if I didn’t comply.  His (rant) used the word “tarnished” several times and “conspiracy” (some form of it) even more, without proving I’d either tarnished the charity’s or his name, or proving that I was a “conspiracy theorist” (I’d quoted one). …. In the protest he at least included a link to my post complained about, showing that even the section on the charity was only the bottom half, and quoting none of it.  I.e., anyone who compared what he summarized to what was said, could see a difference. The guy actually started a “newsletter” to discredit the blog, based on his experience with me responding to a complaint about one of my posts (representing about 1/870th of the posts published). (this was the first and only post shown). Other than a street address he sent me (for which I found no direct connection to that name) and the association with the charity, very little about him shows on-line.


I posted a single response (yesterday), asked him to grow up (or prove his point, if he could), said I was returning the ($20) and did so.  I’m also looking into how I might block any further donations to deliver notes to (attempt to) bully me at the PayPal level.  FYI, in the post in question, I was looking at another individual (now deceased) who did talk “Conspiracy Theory” and asked for donations to an entity.  I looked up the entity, posted, and talked about it — as this led to other interesting topics. My post also mentioned that I’d done this on the suggestion of a friend (not as a normal part of my blogging).  People who join boards of any public charity which must file tax returns should understand that strangers, not only friends, may be reading those returns: it is public access information. The alternative if privacy is more important is to not join such boards. For example, so far, my privacy is important, and so far, I haven’t…


Therefore this notice is my way of saying:  if you want have issues with this blog, or any post on it come at me with something that holds water, but don’t use PAYPAL messaging to come at ME personally as its author or complain about it; I will return that donation and seek to block you. Substituting name-calling for a process that involves proof trying to get me to retract something truthful and (in that context, it was also innocuous) reflects more on the individual.  It’s also made me want to look even more into a single nonprofit he was on, based on what I’d found back then:  why is it even so important for this individual to have privacy, but not me? If you want the text of those exchanges, ask and I’ll provide links or full texts. For “defamation” the guy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on and failed to state any falsehood I’ve posted about him; in fact it was disturbing to speculate, given no legitimate cause, why it was even worth a protest: but I if this keeps up, I may have one for harassment. RE: Donations:  I’ve made it plain in and around that Button that I have not organized a nonprofit (formed one or joined one) and FYI, historically Donations have been mostly inactive, year after year.  Occasionally someone who knows me may send $20 or $40, for example, on a birthday or otherwise.//LGH, May 14, 2022.

If people wish to debate either my facts or my conclusion from the facts (links, quotes, etc.) which result, mostly, from years of looking into things in this manner, go ahead:  PROVE me wrong, or mis-guided somehow.  I’d especially appreciate this from anyone with a background and mindset to understand the difference between proof and supposition.

^^BY THE “UNBELEAGUERED” IN THIS CONTEXT, I’m REFERRING* (but not deferring!**) TO:

Refer/Defer: (*meanings 1,2 or 3) (**to defer to” references to a person, i.e., out of respect for him or her as a person, his/her  authority and his/her more expert qualification. It’s a firm of submission. See vocabulary links.  Here, I indicate but decline to submit.)

By “UNBeleaguered” in this context, I mean:

^A category with a long label: FamilyCourtReformists and Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Advocates including their (respective) associated, sponsored^^ think tanks, and university centers, which feed them policy and ‘best-practices’ info and technical assistance and training, certifying courses, curricula, webinars, programs, etc. 

Typically the category of “advocates” (here) is meant to be at the state level, a series of 56 (as to DV) private (but public-funded) tax-exempt coalitions, ONE per jurisdiction, with funds (for how much or what percent — find and read ALL their financials, which typically aren’t even posted on their websites) along with sexual assault coalitions.  These are coordinated by specific “national” (so-called) websites, sometimes equated 1:1 with an identifiable nonprofit entity, but not always.

^^Such sponsorship includes both private and public funding where the universities (or the involved nonprofits) are also public-funded. For example, the DV advocacy field USA is essentially controlled by the federal government’s decisions how to redistribute (its) wealth state by state and regionally to special issue resource centers, which I’ve blogged (for years, i.e., repeatedly) elsewhere.  Tax-exempt anything in the USA (and I”m sure elsewhere) is also a form of public sponsorship: it’s a privilege.

(Again, the context is USA, because this post is an appeal to those NOT dealing with the consequences of [their] supporting and public endorsement of this crowd from afar).


To these, I say (and it’s a rhetorical question:  So many already have the answer):

Will you ever hear us, on the basis of common sense, reason, and that country economic and government differences exist for a reason and should not be set aside or undermined lightly?

To uninvolved observers, inside and outside the USA, ask yourselves:

Does our [the beleaguered] often less slick presentation and fewer social networking connections really mean we are less credible?

Are we ALL talking only anecdotal evidence/our horror stories, thereby becoming only “survivors” (unless we’re selling books or consulting services the existing field endorses), not real “experts”… or do many of us have other and possibly at least equally credible bases (than the ones you’ve fed us) for understanding the situations, appropriately labeling the situations, and recommending what to do about these situations?

Regarding the attempts to internationally align policy through privatized (but government-endorsed) nonprofits and charities backed by major wealth, or civil servant leadership (i.e., trade associations with judges, or as seen in CAFCASS), I challenge you:

Why is having good country boundaries as a country considered “bad” if not extremist and a danger to society — while poor personal boundaries is discussed cross-border as “healthy” and in the public interests — generating sponsored education and public awareness campaigns about healthy relationships vs. bad ones (coercive control, domestic abuse, etc.)?

My complaint and opinion:

–>I’m reporting and getting REAL tired of significant boundary violations (of the United States of America, the country I live in) which have nothing to do with a wall on our southern border (48 contiguous states) with Mexico or blocking truckers’ protests on the northern border with Canada based on vaccine status.

–>I am talking policy-setting, public-purpose boundaries being set from outside the reach of the people living here and without regard to circumstances long-documented to be occurring here, which are not and cannot be openly discussed in a common language with other countries where so many integral facets are not common:  our tax systems, our laws, and (after a few generations past welfare-reform) the forces driving social policy through our welfare system, parts of which derived from the UK to start with.

Briefly, some World War II-era history: “When so much infrastructure is wiped out, and resources depleted, how to rebuild?” (Did the USA ask to apply the UK model?  If not then, why now?)

(See “1942 Beveridge Report” (William Beveridge lived 1879-1963) and The Beveridge Report and the Foundations of the Welfare State” (75th Anniversary, 17 Dec. 2017 from UK National Archives).  Quote is from the second source (and from its cover page / summary only, all emphases added):

Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching..

Churchill received a copy of the report on 11 November 1942, but was no doubt quite busy conducting the war, so instructed the chancellor Kingsley Wood to ‘have an immediate preliminary, brief report made on this for me’. He soon received Wood’s ‘critical observations’, as well as comments from his close friend and adviser Lord Cherwell.

These two reports sum up the initial reception Beveridge’s ideas received from the Prime Minster’s inner circle. Wood described the plan as ‘ambitious’, but worried it involved ‘an impracticable financial commitment’. Wood said that ‘the abolition of want’ was an admirable objective that would have ‘a vast popular appeal’, but he was concerned that Beveridge’s plan was ‘based on fallacious reasoning’.

…Wood, as well as Cherwell, also raised concerns about how the United States (who were by and large bankrolling Britain’s war efforts at this point) would react to such bold proposals for state provision by a country brought so financially low by an all-consuming war. Cherwell pointed out that the US population might take umbrage at financing the creation of a far more generous welfare state than their own. Wood worried that it would appear that Britain was ‘engaged in dividing out the spoils while they [the US] are assuming the main burden of the war’.

Concluding, Wood expresses the cautious attitude the Report initially provoked

I say, the Social Welfare State USA and UK are NOT identical, nor should they be.

Read the rest of this entry »

Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline Pre-Thanksgiving 2017, Yet I See I’d Outlined the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017].

with one comment

Title:Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…), Yet I See I’d Outlined Nearly the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7ZH”).  Published initially with tags; about 9,500 words including the “navigation” section with its outline of subtitles near the top, which I felt would help process the many images and references found in the middle. And an extended section on previously-blogged JPA (multi-state, i.e., “regional” government entity) WestEd, which now has a revamped website (which still neglects to post its financials and mis-states its date of origin by 30 years…).

On the bottom of this post I’ve been updating the status of the referenced posts while publishing them, one by one over the past ten days (Nov. 22 – Dec. 1: see post archives for November 2017 for dates).  Once published each post is then re-viewed, clarified, sometimes extending it, sometimes just correcting layout.  I’m posting more frequently now, but it’s still an intense process which ALWAYS uncovers more information to blog, OFTEN further illuminates my own understanding of some situations (typically, organizations placed in the intersection between public and private — and the board members’ ownership of, or investment in, subcontracting organizations) I may have been aware of for years, which I look forward to explaining as I can. Maintaining the anchor (mental commitment) to those already in draft, shown below, sometimes provides conflicting currents as a writer.  I write best typically while most focused on the present research in the overarching context of my own learning curve and desire to communicate clearly what I am seeing and hearing, and watching continue to evolve over the years.  //LGH, Dec. 1, 2017.


Just in case, Title Terminology:  “In the Pipeline” is a common phrase (school-to-prison pipeline, cradle-to-career-pipeline), but here’s how I use it referring instead just to posts.

Posts in the pipeline or “spin-off posts” are portions of some writing in process* with a blog “street address” but still in draft status, felt to be significant enough for more attention under their own titles. *Typically they come up as I am writing some post, and are related but I feel they may seem extraneous to a reader covering the subject matter for the first time. Other times, less often, I start them from scratch on their own post when I realize the topic should be handled before it almost writes itself on some other project I want published sooner.

Sometimes these off-ramped finds, like my  more consistently noticing the presence of independent subcontractors as  major part of some charities, are a key which puts the larger picture together, i.e., opens double-wide doors to understanding.  Examples:  Bridgespan as a subcontractor (and its relationship to “Bain”); or, further back in its  corporate existence (and in my blog’s history), NCCD (National Council on Crime & Delinquency) as an Oakland, California-based subcontractor taking government grants from around the world, or I should say, around the “Commonwealth Nations” and around the USA, on a “Children’s Rights, Inc.” charity based in New York.

There is a recent example also on these blogs, too, although it’s not as a subcontractor of some charity, but a listed partner among others in on certain website offering multi-state filings for charities.  One of the listed partners was bought out within six years of its creation, leading to my better understanding of a (different) company historically significant to the practice of corporate law in the United States (!), and as we have (already) turned the century into the digital age and the professionalization of services to and “software AS a service” companies to the philanthropic / nonprofit sector.

Typically also posts in the pipeline were nearly complete before I moved them under their own titles, with “nearly” still meaning “not yet..” in blog administrator terms.  Parallels to baking bread, or, (to borrow from my more familiar, experiential points of reference), preparing and rehearsing a musical ensemble for a concert, may help explain a sense when 90% “done” isn’t good enough. It’s not about complete perfection, it’s about having enough vital components to complete the course and “deliver the goods” for better understanding of the evolving”playing field” in which this blog became necessary.

About This Post:

This post is shorter than most.  It serves a review and blog administrative function for my use, but  I’m publishing it in the belief it will also help readers see the FamilyCourtMatters blog continuity and understand that while it may seem like widely disparate groups I’m investigating and reporting on, in fact the investigations and reports together circle around some core, basic themes.  [This thought continued below the next “Navigation” section]

Navigation:  Blog sections, by Subtitle.  It seems there are six main sections.  Any section may contain text in a variety of formats, and/or images.  I only posted one table of Forms 990 (for a change!). The longer Sections 2 and 5, especially, set up the Posts in the Pipeline as being along the same concepts but just applied to different organizations.  There is overlap of type, and (future posts will show) also overlap of entities and personnel involved — hardly surprising because I’m looking at some of the more powerful foundations around, and major causes with public policy in transition…There is also some overlap of material below between some of the sections.

I don’t want us to lose sight of what some of these influential groups have themselves lost sight of — the requirement of holding to some real ethics, reason, and at least an attempt to keep their collaborating colleagues honest, instead of just “going for the jugular” on some groups which might be in competition for the same audiences.  Which I say happened in the recent prosecution of a sham (fake) cancer charities.  Not that they weren’t sham (I read — seems like they certainly were) — but they ALSO were in competition with the tobacco mega-fund money coursing triumphantly through government and the philanthropic sectors both, and often in partnership.

That last comment will make more sense in the context of reading up on “NAAG” and “NASCO” (see Outline here):

  1. About This Post (you’re in it…)
  2. Concentric Circles of Investigation, Common Themes – To Review 
    1. WestEd (MIA financials on both old and new websites; see prior posts on this).
    2. AISR at Brown and Annenberg Foundation-Related
    3. NGA
    4. NAAG, NASCO (current project and research themes)
    5. Multi-million-dollar MIA grants (overlaps with some of the above and below groups)
    6. Multi-million-dollar Grants not MIA, but it sure seems the projects are, and don’t look remotely that classy when parts of them show up, either…
    7. NCALP at Capital University (Columbus, Ohio) (transformed into) Family & Youth Law Center / and its IPV Collaborative personally assisting David Mandel’s career path through curricula marketing.
      1. Basic conclusion to the “Concentric Circles / Review” section:  “The more you look, the more of such situations surface.  How much is acceptable? It is really something which is subject to being controlled and monitored — or not?”
  3. “The Same Basics One Year Ago, ” (brief, only one image)
  4. More Recent Discoveries (contents include BizFilings, Guidestar, short section — but Guidestar info cont’d in another section)
  5. Brief Recap of the recent Nov. 18 post and Nov. 11 page significance, and more images from “Guidestar, Inc.” (formerly “Philanthropic Research, Inc.”) and a bit on (Paul) Newman’s Own Foundation, Inc. (versions 1 & 2, based in Connecticut), also referenced as involved, or to be involved, in the MRFP and Single Portal Initiative… 
    1. Contains narrative and many images, plus a Form 990 table for GuideStar USA, Inc.
    2. Summarizes the most recent post and page, obviously.
  6. IN GENERAL (barely a section, but it is a heading)
  7. Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…)
    1. In image format (not interactive)
    2. In texts (bulleted, with titles, links and some surrounding descriptions from the context where they were first referenced).

As you can see above, the actual list of posts is on the bottom in two formats:  Images (from my WordPress Admin site showing titles of post started in November and still in draft) and, for later convenience, text & titles with active links.  And some surrounding abstracts or reminders of the context.  And it’s at the bottom of the post.  FYI there were nine ten (10) in all, not six (6).  One more showed up which hadn’t been imaged (on the historic basis of “Sovereignty” concept, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).*

*That is, after all, a big question (despite it having become a “dirty word” and negative- or positive-only values-laden descriptor for certain people with certain beliefs in the USA — the question in any form of government is “Who’s the boss?” (legally, and effectively/administratively which will often show up economically).  So, national “sovereignty” as a concept has origins in contrast to, it seems the Holy Roman Empire.  Worth thinking about in the historic sense. This post just provides some resources (links) for further reading.

An image looks like this (the example only has one title showing, though).

#3 of 3 (My Blog Posts Started Nov. 2017 in Draft, by when last modified (not originated). This one more of a study project from recent headlines on Puerto Rico debt and hurricane recovery 2017, transferable info.

A title with link looks just like what you see at the top, or will see if you scroll to the bottom of this post, below the images, to see those in the pipeline listed in bullet format, with some nearby fine-print summaries for most of them.  Why?  Because with enough memory pegs for the months or even possibly years of writing ahead (further down the FamilyCourtMatters road), I expect my head may be buried either deeper into this theme, or into a related one. I sometimes even dream about material I am currently working; it gets under one’s skin…Once it’s published, a previous multi-post project is buried less deeply in my psyche (so to speak), but is better available for mental recall when there’s enough surrounding context.  As with advertising, to a degree also with teaching (and learning): repetition helps comprehension, but better that the repetition is also tied to context.


…These concentric or overlapping circles are just getting wider and further back in time, and the drill-downs on the available financials (or searches when they are not available) deeper.  I am also considering more parts of a typical Form 990 when I do look, and more internal comparisons and looking more consistently at change over time (i.e., looking for earlier filings). So while some may wonder what “Education” or “Big Tobacco” have to do, really, with “Family Courts” or “Domestic Violence Prevention,” as a whole, they are dealing with and justified on the basis of financial matters, and involve similar vehicles and organizing tactics (networking) over time in pursuit if any national or international cause.

Developing overwhelming weight and influence (to stack the odds towards success) in pursuit of a privately chosen cause (public policy, message, results or outcomes) also regularly shows ongoing symptoms, often showing up after the fact or after the infrastructure is already entrenched with matters of control, secrecy, of sequestering of total government entity (collective) AND total corporate (collective, when it comes to the networks) size of assets and investments (income producing, whether through dividends and interest as held, or when sold) from public awareness, and on this basis, demanding more and more compliance, conformity, and personal concessions from the population as a whole.

Many aspects of this resemble tactics of batterers and coercive control when at the individual level which we might now simply call “abuse” or “domestic violence.” It’s the behavior of terrorist mentality, not of a personal subjection to law, and deep respect for others of differing economic, social, racial/ethnic, citizenship OR status.  Or of a different gender. Talk to women or, I’ll bet also men, who have been held captive to this kind of intimate or family control, coercion, and long-term intimidation, not to commonly-accepted laws, standards, or with regard to rights — but to simply what the abusers want.   The difference is just of scale and primary venue, and the bystander audiences addressed.  What I’m talking about here is when the bystander audiences are the entire country not “in on it,” and international participants, too.

Concentric Circles of Investigation, Common Themes – To Review

… … …To review, remember the “where’s your tax return?” status of certain major-cause-collaborating, well-financed (and public, private, or public-private in concert) groups I’ve blogged on? such as (just a few examples…):

  • WestEd  (I notice the website has been, it seems, completely reformatted since I reported on this.  A horizontal timeline slideshow now exists.  While this probably relates to a 50th Anniversary (since 1966), I note there are STILL no Financials (CAFRs — it being a JPA, a government, not private, entity which crosses state borders, though domiciled in California), despite posting an impressive list by type of “Our Clients and Funders” (no amounts or years, and not distinguishing “clients” from “funders.”  It’s just a single page which links to nothing else).  So are the pages within the timeline, that I saw so far.
  • AISR (The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown) + CES (Coalition of Essential Schools) network, the Ted & Nancy Sizer et al.  Plenty posted before, enough said for now!
    • Except I recall some MIA grants involving a Chicago Entity, and later CPS Schools Chief being ousted for fraud in grants administration.  (See posts in below images)
    • Nearby “Broad Institute | Academy | Center | Foundation (versions 1 versions 2) possibly related.  Had to do with training for urban school system supervisors.
    • And, one post title with active link, and all those posts (in image form with dates published dates):

My Annenberg-related posts published so far; The names speak loudly. Click image to enlarge and see. Only one has tabs (and not all shown on this image)

An Annenberg-related FamilyCourtMatters post + publication date (but no tags), title also shown with link nearby (Nov. 21, 2017 new post)

Challenging the Annenbergs’ Public Education Challenge Grants, Still Searching for AISR@Brown as a Form 990 filer, Still Scrutinizing Why We Accept that Privately Controlled, Synched, Billion-Dollar, Tax-Exempt Foundations Care about the Public as Much as About Controlling Their Collective Assets (and the Public, Lest We Start Demanding a Better Look at the Books!) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6yC”

The first several paragraphs here overlap from the originating post, before I “get into it,” scrutinizing some of the Forms 990PF and relationships between various Annenberg projects and their main foundation. *** [see below next para. and link]

As previously explained (on the last post, above), this is a large family foundation (well, at least one) whose primary wealth came from ownership of publications/media field — the sale of “Triangle Publications,” by a second-generation business success, Walter H. Annenberg.

  • The NGA (National Governors’ Association) which controls its foundation (501©3) thereby allowing direct corporate “Fellows” concentration, with privileged access, to its conferences that normal citizens cannot attend (i.e., Pay-Us-To-Play in the “major leagues,” but for which no financials are shown, that I can see (view tax returns of the supporting “NGA Center for Best Practices” for more details).  The ‘NGA” is one of the “Big Seven” associations coordinating efforts before the Congress on their own behalf.  [no reminder text or images provided here; it’s more distant blog history…]
  • …and now, more recently, I see the NAAG (National Association of Attorneys General) and NASCO (National Association of State Charity Officials), the NAAG’s “Mission Foundation” (formed in 2002? with funds from MSA Tobacco Settlement), and I haven’t yet explored in depth, but there are plenty of visuals showing a “NAGTRI” (Training and Research Institute) said to have been created in 2007 (logo below, accessible through main NAAG.org website).  Then again, it’s hard to explore what one can’t even access yet.

Read the rest of this entry »

Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”). [Publ. again March 29, 2016<~~].

with 2 comments

Before digging into this post, click on this “TinyURL” which leads to a report generated by the “new face” of TAGGS.HHS.Gov.  This is some of the subject matter I am discussing.   That link leads to a a report run today (3/29/2016) showing by year, grants to a single organization in (Duluth) MN:

Recipient Name: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
Report Total:  $23,841,530 [= 2016 search results; about $3.8M higher than my post in 2011]
Distinct Award Count: 38

You will notice that some grants refer to the “Special Issue Resource Center.” …

Given the column headings I selected, that of over perhaps twenty years, only THREE different women are shown:   Ellen Pence and Denise Gamache headed up most of them as “Principal Investigator”, then in about 2000, mostly just Denise Gamache, and in 2016, I see a “Renee Gutman.”

Denise Gamache is now associated with “Battered Women’s Justice Project” (and was while working also at DAIP) which decided to “come out” (incorporate in MN) in the year 2013.  I see that “Renee Gutmann” got her degree in 1993, and has worked for DAIP since 1993 (LinkedIn) and is characterized as “Accountant” for DAIP.

THIS POST IS:

Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”). [Publ. again March 29, 2016<~~] (short-link ends “-3ck”).


Part 1 (most recent post) explains why I’m re-blogging it with some updates. It was recently reblogged on Red Herring Alert, in an interesting juxtaposition of articles.

This version of the same post makes some charts more readable. The gist of the material is the Ellen Pence / Casey Gwinn connection (representing the Duluth, MN-based “DAIP” as it now goes by, and the Family Justice Center concept (now called “Alliance for Hope International” as a California nonprofit of which the “Family Justice Center Alliance” has become a program). It also intersected with Telling Amy’s Story, and got under my skin at the time, as it still does.

As does the entire “Family Justice Center” setup.  I still remember “connecting the dots” on discovering that the San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation (it’s full original, corporate name) existed to funnel money to Camp Hope, Inc. — but Camp Hope, Inc. wasn’t staying properly incorporated.  No matter, shut down one version, file for a new one, move the money.  It was a minor, minor detail — charitable registration number was so close, and more recently realizing it’d changed names AGAIN, that got me reviewing the earlier tax returns of this operations. I have been living IN California before, during, and while, this business model was created, funded, and replicated.  It’s worth an entirely separate blog to alert people to what, exactly IS that business model — but I am only one person.

The fuller background on the original (a) philanthropic private wealthy couple and (b) public funds behind the multiple names surrounding both the San Diego Family Justice Center and the associated “Camp Hope” theme, are another separate story which I also learned considerably more fascinating background on this past summer. By doing, the usual thing — scrutinizing tax returns and looking up the entities and people named in them.  Some of this is exposed below in the section with light-brown-background and teal borders.  Actually, influence from “Fuller Seminary” leadership may have been involved so, “fuller background” could be a pun, also.

“Getting” the reality of the Family Justice Center Alliance is, I’d say, as important as getting the reality of the Duluth Model, CCR, treat everyone and let us be the train-the-trainer people concept. So I will continue to bring it up, where it ties into the other subject matter.  Both involve replicating BUSINESS models.  A close diagnosis of the original models then, is always appropriate — and by “diagnosis” I mean, accounting-wise.  This can’t be just one organization, but involve the various related organizations (translation:  “networks”) to construct something of a picture of operations.  Even for people who weren’t “there,” right on scene locally — it can still be done.

Read the rest of this entry »

National Top Domestic Violence/Child Custody Experts continue trying to Dumb Down Moms

with 8 comments

This has been a long time coming.

I barely tapped the tip of the iceberg in January 2011 in asking “What Rhetoric Are You: Mother, Father, or Mediator?” after a recent Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference in which to my awareness, no one explained how the Health and Human Services (HHS) has been diverting welfare funds to marriage promotion, that things called “fatherhood practitioners” exist, or that Access/Visitation funding exists.

This post also barely taps the tip of the iceberg in how much lies BELOW THE SURFACE in the Coalition of Conferencing Nonprofit Professional (Leadership) among what I am summarizing as the “Crisis in the Courts” Crowd. Or, I may sarcastically refer to as the “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative.” Instead, this initiative is (my opinion, here) USING the emotional distress of mothers (which is genuine) and people who have been indeed assaulted and battered — by a partner, and/or thereafter the courts in association with the same battering partner, and/or ditched by their religious groups (where applicable) — to follow a certain blueprint which highlights the leadership organizations – not, impartially — the actual cause, effect, and potential solutions to the issues they raise.

Women — mothers — are highly motivated, intelligent, and have tremendous energy, commitment, and leadership potential. The movement encouraging them to wear loss and victimhood like a badge and tell their stories — has diverted a tremendous energy from the real story behind this — which is Who Altered the Courts, How, and Why? Instead, they are to rally, report, trust, and follow according to the blueprint laid down for them by simply another set of experts. Proper skepticism and critical thinking — outside the platform being fed — is always in order in situations of this magnitude.


[[Comments welcome; the matter I’m raising here IS a matter for debate! Make up a name if you want… but let’s talk about this! See form…]]]
Read the rest of this entry »

“Mother Says” — Words to the Wise for Women in Custody Challenges

with 5 comments

[Intro paragraphs — some of underlines below are hyperlinks. Publ. 12/27/2012; Rev. 2-19-2013, split in half 06-06-2013, putting Michigan Material in a separate post.]

NOTE: OVERALL THIS BLOG IS FOR BOTH GENDERS, AND TO THE WIDER PUBLIC WHO MAY NOT EVEN BE STRUNG OUT HANDLING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE OR SEXUAL ABUSE (OR SIMPLY FINANCIAL DESTRUCTION) CASES IN THE COURT.

Truth, however framed, is offensive, and my blog certainly will offend plenty. However, I am still more interested in systems, and perhaps the mentality of the people that designed them, tolerate them, staff them, and fund them. Society has to have some labels, and designations, to work as do systems. I think different personalities gravitate to certain portions of certain systems — but there are SOME systems which affect almost everyone. So like it or not, their damages have to be discussed; there is no other way to mitigate them.

Overall, it is an appeal for the public to wake up.  To identify and find ways to quit financing institutions within America that undermine justice (as defined in terms of due process, representative government of ANY sort, and oppose over-centralization of power).  Doing this requires identifying and letting go of significant myths on which the economy** — and from there, most social relationships (in fact, from which society) — is based.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 27, 2012 at 7:53 pm

Technical Assistance and Training = Silencing Mothers’ Voices, Taking their Money…

leave a comment »

[post is about 11,000 words long.
I am showing many TA&T [Technical Assistance and Training] programs and their relationships, although my interest in Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) stems from their recent collaborations with (instead of confrontation of) “AFCC” and drawing upon public funding (HHS grants) to do their analyses.  It’s pretty obvious that the organizations writing up the projects/situation/subject matter are not going to BE the subject matter — and if so, it will be self-description.
My takeaway is, the better way to describe “the situation” is corporate economic viewpoint.   I use corporate lookups, tax return lookups, sometimes grants lookups to describe (and compare to) any organization’s self-description on its colorful, hyperlinked, “Donate Here” websites.  
I also  try to remember which nonprofits have spun off earlier ones that made a name and got the grants.
In that regard, Technical Assistance =  Propaganda Promotion, even if the topic they are writing about is or was indeed legitimate; to dominate the field by the internet, conferences, training, federal funding, and nonprofit status — is to exclude the clientele’s voices as an equally relevant viewpoint.
It should be remembered that several of these organizations got their start in the 1980s, before (really) the Internet Revolution got underway.  However now that it is, business just got easier, and for individual victims of (for example) battering or abusive control — who are often fighting for sheer access to an internet (i.e., isolation is a factor in controlling others) — to expect to keep up with the rapid expansion of certain viewpoints (which are good for sales, if not necessarily good for actually stopping violence against women, or promoting responsible fatherhood EITHER) — is, well unreal.
The only way to even the playing field (being outnumbered and out financed, and less well organized) is to, I hope others also will, EXPOSE the circumstances, and then demand that certain programs be DEFUNDED (they are not reducing “roadkill” they are simply spawning more proselytes and building professional conferencer-careers) –and the organizations pay their own way through life.
When it comes to ECONOMIC control, the United States (obviously) has collective wealth beyond individuals — but I suggest addressing this issue sooner rather than later, anyhow.  TAKE A LOOK!  No matter where one digs in, similar behaviors will prevail; this is as good an entry point as any….]

SOCIAL CHANGE TO END VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN:  

HOME OF THE DULUTH, MODEL

This website has changed, and no longer openly lists certain projects that are underneath it (an older version may be on my blog)…  Which I seem to recall included groups like PRAXIS International:  “integrating theory & practice,” which like DAIP, had close ties to Ellen Pence (who actually was Praxis “founding director.”  Their home page still holds a eulogy, as Ellen Pence died recently:

Praxis believes in social change through advocacy & training “since 1996”.

  •  “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.

Like others, they endorsed the “SUPERVISED VISITATION & EXCHANGE” (USDOJ Safe-Havens grant series support):

 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.

Interesting year — startup year coincided with welfare reform…  Like OH SO MANY helpful nonprofit groups getting significant HHS and/or DOJ grants (although I DNR what Praxis got) — they are really “into” technical assistance and training” and quite willing to help grantees — from a safe distance from ongoing, shall we say, volatile, situations at the street level.  Maybe the founders had this experience initially but after all, people age out, and it’s safer to teach than to confront in a group setting — or dispense studies on-line.

Read the rest of this entry »

Things that Don’t Compute: DV Sensitivity Training for Faith-Based Organizations…. SERIOUSLY??

leave a comment »

PART I – Six Sisters Sue, including their former Pastor

Am I supposed to “take it on faith” that major DV organizations care who lives, who dies, and which children are being molested by their own,while their church-going parents know damn well that no one’s going to report, as mandated.

More than the care about their program funding and absolutely fantastic websites . . . .

MEANWHILE:   Look at this article by Malaika Fraley of the Contra Costa Times:

By Malaika Fraley
Contra Costa Times
© Copyright 2012, Bay Area News Group

Posted:   05/16/2012 10:16:47 AM PDT

News for six sisters sue antioch cps


ABC30.com
  1. Antioch sisters suing for missed chances to stop years of sexual abuse

    San Jose Mercury News‎ – 4 days ago
    Ranging in age from 9 to 16, six sisters had been sexually abused by  Child Protective Services went to the Dutro sisters’ Antioch home Aug.

    ANTIOCH — Ranging in age from 9 to 16, six sisters had been sexually abused by their parents virtually every day since they were toddlers before finding hope in 1995 that their nightmare would end.

    Instead, they say, it grew more horrific as the people they counted on to rescue them — police, child-welfare workers, their church pastor — failed to deliver.

    A year after their parents were imprisoned for sex crimes spanning 20 years, the Dutro sisters — Glenda Stripes, Amber and Sarah Dutro, Martha McKnelly, Frances Smith and Christina Moore — are now suing the people and agencies they say failed to protect them as children by not following laws and procedures for handling child abuse.

    Child Protective Services went to the Dutro sisters’ Antioch home Aug. 18, 1995, after police had garnered two confessions from their pedophile father because 14-year-old Glenda had disclosed to a church pastor that she was being molested. Had they been given a moment alone with social workers, the sisters say, they would have told them they had been tortured for 16 days in preparation of the CPS visit, after the pastor had tipped off their parents days before calling police.

    But CPS, like police, never talked to them apart from their parents, and a light punishment for their rapist father only exacerbated their hellish existence.

    1995.   SEVEN YEARS LATER, in 2002, SARAH Dutro (then a teen) gives the pastor a full history of abuse, trying to spare others:

    The lawsuit, filed in Contra Costa Superior Court last week against Contra Costa County, city of Antioch, Calvary Open Bible Church in Antioch, and seven individuals who are either current or former CPS, police department or church employees. It alleges the defendants were negligent and failed to fulfill state-mandated duties that, if done, would have spared the Dutro children years of further abuse.

    One defendant, Calvary pastor Anthony Lee, is named for not contacting police or CPS when a teenage Sarah Dutro gave him a full history of the abuse in 2002 in an effort to stop her mother, Glenda Lea Dutro, the church’s youth adviser before her arrest, from hosting sleepover parties for children from the congregation at the Dutro house.

    Bruce Dutro was the primary sexual abuser, while Glenda Lea Dutro facilitated the crimes, often handpicking children for her husband. Both parents physically, psychologically and verbally abused and neglected the children, two of whom are biological nieces that the Dutros obtained legal guardianship of and raised as their daughters from ages 3 years and 18 months.

A THIRD time, the girls spoke up, this time to protect young children from Mexico.  FYI — a lot of evangelical protestant churches in California (I can’t speak for Catholics) seem to love to head down to Mexico for missionary work.   Supposedly:

For some of them, the sexual abuse lasted into their early 20s.

The parents were arrested in 2009 after an eight-month investigation launched by Antioch police after the sisters came to the department for the third time. The sisters said they were hesitant, having been burned by authority figures before, but anxious that their parents were working with the church to adopt a family with small children from Mexico.

Deputy district attorney Graves and Antioch police Officer Blair Benzler restored their faith in the criminal justice system by getting the 2011 conviction

Let’s go over this again.  The first reporting was 1995.  The conviction was 2011.   Let’s call that one full generation of nonresponse…

I think many women who have been to domestic violence support groups will verify with me that there are loads of Christian women in there, and some of them married to a pastor or a prominent deacon.   I am a Christian, but as a result of what I also have seen as to “coverups” I will not attend. Why should I support such an institution, whether it’s Opus Dei related or similar to this crap, above.  There IS NO EXCUSE, and this is a hallmark of such groups — their mandated reporters, for the most part, don’t.  I was being assaulted in the home in the 1990s, and sought help from plenty of pastors (not only them, but they knew).  This is what happens:  some churches are taught to imitate their leaders.  So there’s a collective silence.

Then, here comes the narcissistic domestic violence agencies and — because they’re into technical assistance and training, and are authorities, “surely” the leadership in the faith communities will respond to their really cool sensitivity trainings, and start sticking up for women.     Actually, if the faith community never does respond, it hardly matters — because the primary activity (other than helping run shelters) these groups are into is training and publicizing.  So long as that can continue, who cares if the agenda isn’t working, and is guaranteed NOT to work?

Do they seriously think none of the faith authorities read a tax return, program goal?  For example, when PCADV’s reads:

(TAX RETURN 2009) purpose:  (#3) “To expose the roots of domestic violence in the institutionalized subservience of women in this culture.

. . .that the Bible-toting evangelical communities (some of who are also in on the faith and fatherhood grants streams) are going to buy that line of thinking?  There are still plenty of groups around who don’t let women speak from the pulpit, and are actively coaching men in how to control their women.  And they aren’t going to go “feminazi” talk especially when it comes to LGBT matters?   Even the book of Genesis is pretty clear (let alone of how it’s further bastardized in practice and preaching) – the trouble with Eve was her independence from her husband, and conversing with ‘the serpent.’

excerpt, talking about “Emotional Abuse.”

✔controlling and/or limiting her behavior (e.g., keeping her from using the phone or seeing friends, not letting her leave the room or the house, following her and monitoring/limiting her phone conversations, checking mileage on her car, or keeping her from reading material, activities and places that he does not approve of)

✔ interrupting her while she is eating, forcing her to stay awake or waking her up

✔ blaming her for everything that goes wrong

ALL of these (and a lot more) were routine in my years of marriage, and going too far afield DID result in retaliation when I got home.  He also retaliated upon the children in attempt to sabotage some of my work relationships by simply not showing up in time to watch them when it was known I had to go, not enough gas in the car to get back home from the event,  sleep deprivation or interruptions (to be shouted at, or lectured), or trashing the house while I was out.

A leopard doesn’t change his spots through sitting through classes, before or afterwards, and GRRrrrreat way to continue control post-domestic violence is for the courts to order joint legal and/or joint physical custody.   This basically means people can’t get away.  

Someone has to TRULY not understand the religious minds in what’s going on (talking, USA, today) to believe that this stuff would change a pastor’s attitude, or a church’s.  For example — do we not yet understand how the Unification Church has been pushing “True Parents” and the healthy marriage/fatherhood programming, or politically how much Sun Myung Moon’s funding of the far right (meaning, conservative religion) is going on?  Have we not read anything by Jeff Sharlett (“The Family” re: the Bushes) The Dominionists, I mean, even some mainstream are starting to catch the drift, here  http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/14/dominionism-michele-bachmann-and-rick-perry-s-dangerous-religious-bond.html; I’m not sure I’d agree with that’s where it comes from, alone (referring to the 1960s and Rushdoony.  It’s been around before.  Like, say, “A.D. 381” or earlier….}}

Meanwhile, the theory that people can be trained out of bad behavior by enlightened education — and not something like, for example, if it’s a church that has been complicit in covering up child abuse, domestic violence, etc. — the pastor’s out and the church loses it’s nonprofit status pretty quickly if that pastor AIN’T out.  They fire pastors for less than this, so it shouldn’t be  a hard concept to grasp if it’s presented with teeth not just “T&A” or rather “technical assistance and training.”

I hope these sisters win every dime they’re entitled to and that the public gets so sick of paying settlements for failures of their own officials that they decide to take a stand voluntarily against child abuse right where it counts– and that includes in the churches.   I’m saying this as a woman who reported to immediate family first (who were worse than useless initially), and my own pastor at the time, weeks later after another, similar, only worse incident occurred.  Both were in my home.  Both were with a toddler in the home at the time, a close witness, and both were while I was pregnant and involved me being thrown to the floor, straddled, slapped repeatedly IN THE FACE while being shouted at by this guy.

It got worse from there . . .. And as I have daughters, I am also seriously concerned (as we speak) about my own family member’s obsession with them, and manic need to keep me from having a real relationship with my own kids.  It’s known that there is incest in an involved family line (actually ,two involved family lines) as well, although it was not an allegation in our family law case.

Some churches may be decent, but many are hellish, and I mean that in the truest sense of the words.  Like batterers, they don’t come out drooling and spitting, but smooth and empathetic many times. On the inside, it’s pretty much like Jesus said — whited sepulchers.  And maybe for some, ignorantly. . . . . .    Let’s put it this way — what those sisters said is entirely credible (as a possibility) based on my own awareness of this situation, and my own case history.  I know how it goes.

Just a reminder — the Jaycee Dugard case also came from the same town, Antioch.  

 

Malaika Fraley and the Contra Costa times should be commended for this reporting.  I intend to follow up when I’m less deeply affected by it, which doesn’t make for very good writing, here.

 

PART II

Over at Scranton Political Times recently, as more evidence that a GAL is recommending custody of little children be switched to fathers who injure mothers, or later get convicted of raping other minors, I have some more commentary — from today.  Others (who live in the area) have said that a recent man arrested for raping a teenager over many years, also had his own custody case involving both DV and child abuse; he got custody.  Search “Tunkhannock” or “Maurice Hunting” on the site, it’ll show up.  Meanwhile, I’m talking about Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence and one of their subgrantees (who is in Scranton), the “Women’s Resource Center” — below.  Hopefullly there’s enough to chew on.  I discuss the HHS grants some as well (easier to view on the forum than below):  Notice all the earmarks:

http://scrantonpoliticaltimes.activeboard.com/f319624/main-message-board/

 dare you to scrutinize these grants:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 156527558 $ 40,196,794
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 166527558 $ 945,000

Like, grant 90XP0223 ($85K in 2008, $297K total, congressional earmark)

a training, education, and prevention institute on domestic violence and homicide prevention”

from “Washington Watch

Prevention, Education and Training Institute Project
$250,000

Sen. Robert P., Jr. Casey (PA) requests $250,000 for:
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (PCADV)
Harrisburg, PA

“For the first time, USReps are required to publish their requested earmarks ONline”  Rep Holden D-17 requested $377 for this:

PRESS RELEASE on creating this institute, with Case & Specter

A big one is the “National Resource Center on DV” (marked “Discretionary” — most are).     $8 million over 5 years (HHS)

Since 2005:

Award Number: 90EV0353
Award Title: DEMO PROJECT FOR ENHANCING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN EXPOSED TO DV **
OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization: FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU (FYSB)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY   ($350K so far)

**popular now, why not expand (note:  how could Penn State Univ have ever happened, Sandusky, with this giant communicator & trainer, PCADV in the same state, Harrisburg?)

They already have a “National Resource Center” which is primarily on-line links to publications (as far as I can tell).  But why stop a good thing?  So here’s $750K or so more, do start up another one:

Award Number: U1VCE324010
Award Title: NATIONAL ON-LINE RESOURCE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
OPDIV: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Organization: NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL (NCIPC)
Award Class: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

( $728K since 2007, small so far).

Goal of the National Resource Center (since 1994):

“To change belief systems and practices that support violence and abuse that disproportionately affects women, and other marginalized people, the DVAP recognizes and promotes the participation of the entire community in building social intolerance towards domestic violence…”

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

Flowchart — interesting:

FlowChart.jpg

Here’s a profile from a group that tracks nonprofit salaries, revenues, etc (EERI), up through 2004.   Its contributions and its revenues are about equal (??), and ca. $26 million (see bar chart).  SO WHAT IS IT SELLING?

TAX RETURN 2009 shows one of its purposes  (#3) “To expose the roots of domestic violence in the institutionalized subservience of women in this culture.

How Much Mileage Can DV Advocates get out of the press on San Francisco’s Ross Mirkarimi/Eliana Lopez case?

with one comment

This has been headline news for how long?  It definitely brings up mixed feelings on my part — knowing how many women are receiving far more severe battery, false imprisonment, endangering children and intimidating witnesses throughout the Bay Area, and have been for years — many years.  While each time there is some press, someone from one of the organizations gets quoted.

March 31, 2012, last Saturday, Section “C,”* an article laid out at top of the page, full width, and by Columnist C.W. Nevius), reads:

(*Bay Area section of the SF Chronicle)

Wife’s anger misdirected in Mirkarimi case.”

Eliana Lopez is furious at the way her domestic violence dispute with her husband, suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, has been handled.

Too bad. Because the process worked perfectly.

Was it messy and painful? Absolutely. But it is also important and worthwhile.

This week, Myrna Melgar, a survivor of domestic violence,**  wrote a passionate account – with Lopez’s blessing – of her friend’s devastation and anger in how the case was handled. While the opinion piece in the Bay Guardian had some fascinating details, it missed the main point.

Neither Lopez nor Mirkarimi seems able to get beyond the anger toward neighbor Ivory Madison, who called attention to the alleged abuse and then provided the damning video of Lopez crying and pointing to a bruise.

Melgar wrote that the process empowers people “to make decisions on this woman’s behalf, against her consistent and fervently expressed wishes.”

That’s right. It does. And that’s what it should do.

“This is why domestic violence advocates have been seen as evildoers,” said Kathy Black, executive director of La Casa de las Madres. “They say we are breaking up families. The helper becomes the one who is blamed.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BANI1NSJ36.DTL#ixzz1quHv5VFi

**not sure this is the same “Myrna Melgar, just included the LinkedIn profile which shows her professional/civic leadership in the area.  It probably is)

This is the Bay Guardian article, and it seems well written enough.  I’m glad someone filled in a few of these details, including a factor that until 5 Mr. Mirkarimi was raised in a bi-cultural family (Russian Jewish mother/ Iranian Muslim father), and then was separated from his father.  There seems to be a sense of father-absence here:

(The bulk of my post is addressing topics raised in this article, particularly a certain reference to a Canadian sociologist for insight into this Californian incident).

03.27.12 – 3:01 pm |

(255)

Share1069

By Myrna Melgar

Myrna Melgar is a Latina survivor of childhood domestic violence, a feminist, and the mother of three girls. She is a former legislative aide to Sup. Eric Mar.

Eliana Lopez is my friend. I have asked for her permission to put into words, in English, some observations, thoughts and insights reached during our many conversations these past few weeks about her experience with San Francisco’s response to the allegation of domestic violence by her husband, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi  . . .  (Please read the article).

. . .According to Eliana, the context of what happened between them on December 31 actually started much earlier. Ross grew up as the only son of a single teenage mother of Russian Jewish descent and an absent Iranian immigrant father. Pressured by the opposition of her family to her relationship with an Iranian Muslim, Ross’s mother divorced his father by the time he was five. Ross was raised on a small, nearly all-white island in New England, with no connection to his father. When he had the opportunity, Ross traveled to Chicago, where his father had remarried and built a new family with two sons. Ross’s father turned him away. In Eliana’s analysis, Ross’s greatest fear is that his painful story with his father will be replayed again with Theo.

I can just see the fathers’ rights groups (which are mens’ rights groups) spinning this one to blame Mr. Mirkarimi’s abuse of his wife on his lack of a father (and not perhaps some of the standards that might have been learned in the first five years of his life, or anything else).

Eliana Lopez came to San Francisco from Venezuela with hope in her head and love in her heart. She decided to leave behind her beautiful city of Caracas, a successful career as an actress, and her family and friends, following the dream of creating a family and a life with a man she had fallen in love with but barely knew, Ross Mirkarimi.

Whirlwind romance, charmer?  Another article (reporting on this one) adds:

Heather Knight Thursday, March 29, 2012

Melgar’s piece describes how Lopez came to San Francisco after she and then-Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi became pregnant on one of his visits to her native Venezuela

(He got his girlfriend knocked up in the course of leisure? or business?  Not mentioned — were they married at the time?

(Michael Macor/The Chronicle)

Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, speaks to the news media about the three misdemeanor charges against her husband, on Friday Jan. 13, 2012, in San Francisco, Ca

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/28/BAS31NRKL3.DTL#ixzz1qv1dHpDm

Bay Guardian Op-Ed, cont’d.:

Well-educated, progressive, charismatic, and artistic, she made friends easily. She and Ross seemed like a great match. Both were committed environmentalists, articulate and successful. They had a son, Theo. {{see above…}} As they settled into domestic life, however, problems began to surface. The notoriously workaholic politician did not find his family role an easy fit. A bachelor into his late forties, Ross had trouble with the quiet demands of playing a puzzle on the floor with his toddler or having an agenda-less breakfast with his wife. Ross would not make time for Eliana’s request for marriage counseling, blaming the demands of job and campaign.

Now, about prosecuting the low-level domestic violence against the wife’s wishes:

How did it come to be that a system that was intended to empower women has evolved into a system that disempowers them so completely?

I don’t know Ms. Melgar’s life story (or whether she’s currently married — sounds like not).  However, there are TWO ways the District Attorney’s Office can disempower women — if this is correct, prosecuting against the woman’s wishes when it’s supposedly a “minor” event.  Or (and this was my situation and MANY other women’s) NOT prosecuting them despite severe domestic violence, when prosecuting them  might save a life, or save ongoing destruction of life.  See

And in this politically charged event — MADE TO ORDER for anyone who didn’t want Mirkarimi’s Progressive Politics disrupting the city (notice — nothing to do with domestic violence in that phrase) — because the events had some validity.

INTERJECTION — information from Purpleberets.org — and the topic is well-covered at the Sonoma County (Northern CA, not too far from SF) “Women’s Justice Center.”  This is talking about much, MUCH more severe cases where DA refused to prosecute.   (And if you know my blog, the case underlying it — and which eventually led to my blogging habit — was when district attorneys in TWO Counties refused to stop a child-stealing in action, or to prosecute it — ever.  The general practice over a number of years (by law enforcement, specifically — I’m talking police in a number of cities, county sheriffs in more than one, and the district attorney’s office.  As it turns out later, the person in charge of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (a hybrid creation by DA’s office and others modeled on San Diego’s one which came out of the City Attorneys’ Office — I’ve blogged this plenty elsewhere), Ms. Nadia Lockyer, then went on to win the position of County Supervisor (with help of a $1 million campaign funding and  very, very, very  well connected spouse 30 years her senior) — had a substance abuse problem, started an affair with someone (closer to her age) she met in rehab — himself getting off ‘meth’ — and had an incident requiring 911 assistance in a Newark (California) motel early a.m.   This is the Bay Area leadership . . . . . it’s typically about politics and careers — and NOT about preventing violence against women and services to them.  In the larger scope.

So, re: the immense power of the District Attorney’s Office: Written, I believe, around the year 2000:

California Passes Tough New Domestic Violence Laws — by Maria DeSantis, director Women’s Justice Center

In effect since January 1, 2000, a patchwork of new California domestic violence laws is already providing added help for domestic violence victims. The laws, however, still leave untouched some of the biggest obstacles victims face.

. . . .

District Attorney Power Still Unfettered

A critical area for victims of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse that has been left ignored by legislators this year and in years past is the district attorney’s absolute power to refuse to file charges no matter how solid the evidence. Even if a district attorney refuses to file charges on a whole crime category, there is no legal remedy for victims. This unrestricted prosecutorial discretion is particularly dangerous for women in Sonoma County where D.A. Mike Mullins’ rate of conviction on domestic violence is one of the lowest in the state, and where he systematically under-charges cases of violence against women and children.

For example, at this writing, we at Women’s Justice Center have a case of three days of spousal rape, sodomy and beatings which the district attorney has filed only as misdemeanor domestic violence. The detective in the case states there is ample evidence to file multiple felonies.

In another case of a woman beaten to the point of a fractured skull, the D. A. refused to file at all for five months until one day the perpetrator went out and committed another assault with a deadly weapon on another victim. In yet another case of spousal rape, the district attorney and Cloverdale Police have been fighting for six months over who should pay for translating key evidence. Sadly, those are just a few of many examples.

Not only are all women put in direct and great danger by the absence of any legislative check on the district attorney’s denial of justice to women, but the D.A.’s refusal to file proper charges on these cases also suffocates and discourages police efforts. We need to work with our legislators to give them the fortitude to put restrictions on district attorney discretion now.

(For Spanish translation of this and other violence against women information, see the WJC website:www.justicewomen.com )

Back

© Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center
You can copy and distribute this information at will
if you include credit and don’t edit.

Back to Myrna Melgar’s article, minimizing the incident:

Unquestionably, there are women in deeply abusive relationships who need assistance getting out, who may not be able to initiate an escape on their own. Eliana’s relationship with Ross did not even come close to that standard.

It seems Myrna is oblivious to the fact that, through the family court, if Eliana did decide (later) to go to Venezuela without her husband’s assent, he could — in a moment, and don’t think such a person is unaware of this — charge her (or find someone to charge her) with parental kidnapping, put an arrest warrant out for her, and in the meantime get practically ANY family law judge in San Francisco — unless they had a personal grudge or other political reason to not do this — to switch sole custody to him, demand some sort or extradition, and/or have her thrown in jail if she came back to work things out.  And don’t think that this isn’t a possibility.  Maybe they would’ve worked it out — or maybe not.  But one thing’s for sure — I read a LOT of material put out by domestic violence groups, and have networked with hundreds, literally, of mothers over the years, and most of them were completely ambushed by the concept that appealing to domestic violence laws to protect themselves and kids, even if they were IN a battered womens’ shelter — was no shield at all for later transfer of their children to their abusers.  This is literally a third line of advocacy, now — “protective parents.”  So, while it did not NOW rise to that abusive level, it certainly could’ve later.

Yet in the eyes of Ivory Madison, Phil Bronstein, District Attorney George Gascon, and even the Director of La Casa de las Madres, once her husband had grabbed her arm, Eliana was simply no longer competent and her wishes were irrelevant.

In other words, an action done by a man, over which a woman has no control whatsoever, renders the woman incompetent and irrelevant, and empowers a long list of people — most of whom are male — to make decisions on this woman’s behalf, against her consistent and fervently expressed wishes. No one in the entire chain of people who made decisions on Eliana’s behalf offered her any help — besides prosecuting her husband

 How ironic — because it is literally true, and how I WISH someone would’ve intervened in this manner during the abusive years, while our kids were growing up, in a Bay Area County.   The most dangerous place for ME to be in that county was in my home, which was one reason I became an excellent networker and made sure to get those children into a variety of activities (“healthy,” they’d be called now) in nonabusive environments and connected with other kids their age and families, too.   Police came after incidents more violent than this one (I think — I wasn’t a witness to Eliana’s case) and didn’t arrest — ever.  So they left, and the violence continued, until finally I got out, before the “fatherhood”movement was in full swing — although it was definitly operational and almost prevented me from getting a restraining order at the time.  I hadn’t been assaulted recently enough (in part, because over time one learns how to avert, avoid, dodge and diffuse situations, i.e., live like a near-fugitive in one’s own home).  This man NEVER spent a night in jail on my behalf — but it’s quite likely that if he had, earlier on, he might have woken up and mended his ways.  Maybe.
My kids and I will never know, because no officer ever arrested him.  And now that he’s been very well informed that there will be NO prosecution beyond the initial restraining order with kickout type of even (apparently the DV organizations’ funding is tied to some sort of head count on “clients served”??) — my and my kids’ lives afterwards — though there was a noticeable improvement — no one could assault me IN my house — there has been stalking, serious, harassment around (times right before and right after) my work, repeated job losses surrounding this, and long-term litigation in the family law system, which utterly drained my resources, and finally stolen, then abandoned by their father, children.
So in light of that, I am in favor of more aggressive early intervention — although it’s not quite cldear to me how to label this high-profile case, except it highlights the hypocrisy of who is, and who is not, prosecuted.
Consider, however, if there’d been a subsequent argument around the same issue after Mirkarimi had been installed as sheriff and was still in that role.  How endangered might Eliana be at that time?  I have, literally, taken a phone call from a terrified women form a (DV) support group who had just learned that her (police officer) husband had been released.  She was headed off to a shelter.  Yes, law enforcement can be abusive –and plenty abusive.
From the same article, I want to address these two paragraphs, by Eliana’s friend Ms. Melgar, which make me wonder about her other professional connections in the area:
So here is the challenge to domestic violence advocates and progressive folks who care about women: A more progressive approach to Eliana and Ross’s particular situation, and to domestic violence in general, would be to work on emphasizing early, non-law enforcement intervention and the prevention of violence against women in addition to the necessary work of extricating women from dangerous situations
I.e., she is 100% unaware of one of the largest groups in the nation doing EXACTLY this — and based in San Francisco?  (the Family Violence Prevention Fund, formerly) — and yet has this Op-Ed in the Bay Guardian, a well-respected (progressive) publication?
Professor Laureen Snider at Queens University in Ontario has argued that criminalization is a flawed strategy for dealing with violence against women.
So what? if this person argued so?  And the one anecdote (ms. Melgar’s own life) which would indicate the re-socialization of men (in particular) to not assault family members actually worked in her case.  Perhaps along with the education cited in her case, her father was also aware that criminalization would get them all deported, and that was a factor in his change?   Meanwhile, in this particular area alone (and California, even moreso) we have ample evidence that this policy is a failure — women are still being shot, attacked, stabbed, beaten, burned, stalked, and sometimes put homeless — and what’s more, bystanders are now getting increasingly shot in the process too.  Seal Beach, California.  This has happened, moreover, around the arena of the family law and custody matters, and AFTER separation from violence!!
For the record, we are in the USA, and not Canada, and under a different system of law?  Got it?  They don’t have the Bill of Rights, to my understanding.  They have closer ties (i THINK – am beginning to wonder) to a country with a monarch!  And Dr. (Ph.D.) Snider is a sociologist.  Why would this writer bring in this viewpoint – are there no adequate viewpoints on this matter of an inbound sheriff violating domestic violence laws in the USA?

Laureen Snider

Laureen SniderDepartment of Sociology, Queen’s University, Canada

Laureen Snider, a Professor of Sociology at Queen’s University, has published numerous studies on corporate crime, regulation and governance including Bad Business: Corporate Crime in Canada (Nelson: 1993) and Corporate Crime: Contemporary Debates (University of Toronto Press, 1995, co-edited with Dr. Frank Pearce). Her present research centres on the asymmetries of surveillance, comparing the monitoring of employees versus that of employers (“theft of time”); and the surveillance capabilities of traditional police forces against traditional criminality (“crime in the streets”, versus those of regulatory agencies against corporate criminality (“crime in the suites”). Recent publications include: “But They’re Not Real Criminals”: Downsizing Corporate Crime” (in B. Schissel & C. Brooks, eds., Critical Criminology in Canada . Halifax: Fernwood, 2008: 263-86); “Economic Crimes”, (in J. Minkes and L. Minkes, eds.,Corporate and White-Collar Crime. London: Sage, 2008: 39-60), “Safety Through Punishment?”, (in M. Beare, ed., Honouring Social Justice, Honouring Dianne Martin. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008) and “Accommodating Power: The “Common Sense” of Regulators”, Social and Legal Studies 18(2), 2008 (forthcoming).

Faculty website: http://www.queensu.ca/sociology/?q=people/faculty/full-time/sniderl

Queens University, Ontario, Canada, is also a known hangout of some serious AFCC propaganda — In looking up Ms. Snider (who may or may not be involved in such things), the same brochure has a large inset designed to honoring Nicholas Bala (search my blog) in association with AFCC.  He is a definite supporter of PAS theory — i.e., minimizing child & wife abuse, or reframing it as NOT a criminal, but a “relationship” issue, as much as possible.  “Coincidentally” the international organization AFCC has a wide membership among relationship counselors and another psychological sorts, plus a clos connection to the fathers’ rights (= mens’ rights) movement in general, no matter what they “say” about how it’s all about the children…
http://law.queensu.ca/alumni/queensLawReports/lawReports2008.pdf  Here he is in this brochure, being honored (photo visible at the link):

Professor Nicholas Bala is introduced as the recipient of the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award by Bill Howe, a board member of the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts, at its 45th Annual Conference in Vancouver on May 29, 2008.

BALA RECOGNIZED FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAMILY AND DIVORCE LAW

On May 29, 2008, Bala received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award from the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts (AFCC) in recognition of his outstanding work in family and divorce law. “I am deeply honoured by this recognition,” Bala said, “particularly in light of noteworthy contributions from previous winners.”

Bala became the first Canadian to win the award from the AFCC, an international organization of professionals involved in the family court system striving to empower families and promote healthier futures for children. Most of the award’s previous recipients were leading American researchers in the mental health field, including such scholars as Sanford Braver, Joan Kelly and Janet Johnston, whose work focused primarily on the effects of divorce on parents and children. . . .

In contradiction to the concept of “no-fault” divorce law…

As one of Canada’s leading family and children’s law scholars, Bala has a distinguished reputation for his innovative and traditional research methods and his diverse range of publications. Scholars in Canada and abroad frequently cite Bala, and Canadian lawyers and judges frequently quote his research. In its recent decision in R. v. D.B., the Supreme Court of Canada cited Bala’s work for the 25th time.

In addition to Bala’s traditional legal scholarship, much of his research draws from a variety of disciplines: he collaborates with psychologists, criminologists and social workers to address the problems children and families encounter within the justice system.

“I have not only been involved in consuming the research of social scientists about the justice system; I’ve helped to produce it,” Bala says. “My collaboration with mental health professionals and social scientists has allowed me to appreciate both the value—and the limitations—of their work for the justice system.”

Besides his interdisciplinary work with the Child Witness Project, Bala has been taking a closer look at how domestic violence is handled in the family-law arena. He has been working with three mental-health professionals {{Want to bet $100 they’re all AFCC members?  I could use a little extra cash to upgrade some of the blog….!}}} to produce a series of papers on this issue, and the group recently created a model to address the effects of family violence on the determination of child custody and access. **

**Jargon translation:   wife-beating is no reason to restrict a child who witnessed this having access to their biological father.  Let us do supervised visitation, etc.  — hence (in the US) HHS “Access/Visitation” funding, with help from the (also international) Children’s Rights Council, which developed the term “access” to replace the term “visitation.”   This model will be ADMINSTRATIVELY or PRACTICALLY begun (or has been already) and then other highly placed individuals (state by state in the US) will suggest — hey, why not make it a law?  (Example:  PA:  Commission on Justice Initiatives:  Changing the Culture of Custody).

The team’s article about their family-violence-assessment model, which was published in the most recent issue of the international journal Family Court Review, {{Co-produced with AFCC & Hofstra Univ. School of Law in NY}} is already being cited in a number of countries.

The Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award (Stanley Cohen being a principal in the development of AFCC) is Bala’s second major award in three years for his valuable research contributions. He won the Queen’s Prize for Excellence in Research in 2006 during an annual university-wide competition. For more information about this award, see “Nicholas Bala Wins Top University Research Prize” on page 2 of the 2007 issue of Queen’s Law Reports at http://law.queensu.ca/alumni/publications/lawReports2007.pdf

Last I heard, United State of America claims to be somewhat of a unique country, based on its Constitution, Bill of Rights, and reputation for freedom, right to trial by jury, protections of due process, etc. — people immigrate here for a better life.  We are labeled (or maybe were, not too long ago) the “leadership of the free world.”
So why this urgency to bring all our legal institutions — especially one dealing with families, and raising the next generations of children — into consonance with international standards, including socialist countries, countries such as the UK, which still maintain a Queen, a national religion, and until about 100 years ago, were about as imperialistic, colonizing and enslaving a country as could be found on the globe?  HUH?
And why is Ms. Melgar quoting someone who hangs out at a University which is known (at least as to family law) as an “AFCC safe harbor”?  Because she’s a feminist? California doesn’t have enough feminists to reference?    (The New Transparency group) (the Conversation:   Snider blurg:)

My major research interests lie in the intersection between knowledge, punishment and law. I have applied this in several substantive areas, in studies examining the poisoned water disaster in Walkerton, Ontario, the reception of knowledge claims on corporate crime, and the constitution of the punishable woman.

Experience

  • Professor of Sociology, Queen’s University – present

Education

  • Toronto University, B.A., M.A., Ph.D
Site “The Conversation” (Obviously I am just looking up Laureen Snider and wondering why she’s quoted in re: prosecution of a SF inbound sheriff):
OUR CHARTER
  • Give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research.
  • Unlock the knowledge and expertise of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into society’s biggest problems.
  • Create an open site for people around the world to share best practices and collaborate on developing smart, sustainable solutions.
Not that it may be enforceable at this point, but I happen to live in a country where the underlying concept was NOT an “aristocracy of the experts” to solve social problems, but a government of “We the People” through institutions that limited any resurgence of the tyranny of religion, individual interests (including royalty from other countries), and, to the extent we have taxation, and pass laws, they are to come from our elected representatives, who are accountable to the people living here (i.e. ,citizens) — and are not to be imported laced with concepts NOT innate to the US, and for which it fought a serious “war for independence” — from Great Britain — in the 1770s!  ! !! (not a topic to be developed in this post, but there’s a lot more depth I’m learning these days about HOW we became a country of collective debt to an international banking cartel, etc. etc.)
 The matter at hand here has to do with an  official — appointed Sheriff – a government employee of the USA — not Canada.  have the discussion, but the prosecution, leadership and the dialogue around domestic violence advocacy groups here (mostly nonprofits which take some HHS funding, I’m fairly sure) is not an international matter — as pertains to should or should not it have been prosecuted…
 CONTINUING. . . . .  Bay Guardian article:
Snider argues that feminists and progressives have misidentified social control with police/governmental control. In other words, we are substituting one oppressor for another — and glossing over the fact that in the judicial system, poor people of color fare worse than white middle-class people. We have punted on (forward) the hard work education, and of shaping and reshaping men’s definitions of masculinity and violence, of the social acceptance of the subjugation of women, of violence against children. We have chosen to define success in the fight against domestic violence by women saved from horrible situations and incarceration rates for their abusers — rather than doing the difficult work of community and individual change necessary to prevent violence from happening in the first place
Perhaps Dr. Snider (who operates and was educated in Canada — exclusively — it seems, but shares through internet and other means (I don’t know) an international dialogue on certain issues of interest to her and them) is completely unaware of the heavily subsidized ‘Minnesota Program Development Fund,” the “Duluth Model,” the prevalence of the term “CCR” (COORDINATED COMMUNITY RESPONSE) in this country, thanks in great part to Ellen Pence, who, I note was college-educated also in Toronto:

Ellen Pence

Ellen Pence (1948 – January 6, 2012) was a scholar and a social activist. She co-founded the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project[1], an inter-agency collaboration model used in all 50 states in the U.S. and over 17 countries.[2] A leader in both the battered women’s movement and the emerging field of institutional ethnography, she was the recipient of numerous awards including the Society for the Study of Social Problems Dorothy E. Smith Scholar Activist Award (2008) for significant contributions in a career of activist research. . .

Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A. She was active in institutional change work for battered womensince 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.[citation needed]

She earned her Ph.D in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She 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 was 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.[citation needed] Ellen pence died [RECENTLY] at the age of 63 , from breast cancer .

PRAXIS means “practices.”   Who is practiced upon?  (Sorry, this wasn’t brought before our voters — except it went through the US Reps House Appropriations Committee,  I guess. . . ..

Not before endorsing and propagating a system of educational institutions — taking public funding — based on social theory, and which have attracted a host of inappropriate misappropriations of public employees times, and which set up a built-in HIERARCHY — the exact OPPOSITE of what women, particularly mothers, leaving abuse need.  This hierarchy is a lose/lose situation for any person imagining he/she has enforceable, legal rights in the USA — as an INDIVIDUAL.   It sets up the hierarchy of the TEACHERS (for hire // mercenaries) versus the “TAUGHT.”

The social science THEORY that one can educate or train men out of violence is just taht — a theory.  It is also contrary to the american (USA) form of government, which is to expect people to keep an identifiable law, and maintain a fair process of assigning punishments for those who choose not to.  This means all people can be informed of WHAT their laws are — and leaves no room for speculations on the social  impact of father-absence, single-parenthood, or even violence against women — and then millions of $$ which the public (and private interests) fund to tinker with the demonstration projects each time they get it wrong.

Back to the C.W.Nevius article (top of post), which continues:

Witnesses save lives

“Most cases are not this public,” said Beverly Upton, executive director of San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium. “But if anyone made this more difficult, it was Ross Mirkarimi. There was a lot of activity trying to silence the witness, and that doesn’t usually happen. What we know is that witnesses coming forward saves lives.”

Mirkarimi was initially charged with three misdemeanors related to domestic violence and eventually reached an agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment. Mayor Ed Lee also filed charges to permanently remove him from office.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BANI1NSJ36.DTL#ixzz1quqyOPjT

FYI, I do not live in San Francisco (some may wonder), but have lived in the area for over two decades, and worked frequently in the city and in surrounding counties — both during and after my “domestic violence” marriage.  I notice that whenver there’s a high-profile event, here is this SF DVConsortium and Beverly Upton being consulted for help.  I never got any help from them, nor did I get ANY help from the Family Violence Prevention Fund, although, they do throw a great conference, and how validating to know that domestic violence is a health risk (like, I didn’t know that?).  It did NOTHING to address the ongoing violence enabled by the family law system to any and all mothers who, after doing the right thing, but having for some reasons, very persistent Exes — are thereafter psychologically, economically, legally and in other ways tortured (if not extorted) — in the custody realm.

This group apparently could care less, so long as they get their funds and keep up the reputation for protecting women from violence – without addressing the land mines ahead of them.   SEE MY BLOG!  no one gave me a federal fund to publicize this, and apparently the more other groups immunize themselves from DV rhetoric, the better it is for BOTH pro and con grantseekers.  So, here — for a quick update — this “Consortium” consorts in getting public grants to continue their agenda.  I gather this is a progressive agenda because it’s under the umbrella of the (very large) TIDES Foundation, which also sponsored the nonprofit “Stop Family Violence” — which appears (best I can tell) to consist of a website, and one or two professionals who got to fly around to conferences nationwide (Irene Weiser, i forget who the other person was) and now is perhaps inactive, although the website is still up there.

Members of this agency

aka SFDVC and/or DVC) founded in 1982, is a network of seventeen domestic violence service agencies that come together with the goal of providing high quality, coordinated and comprehensive services to San Francisco’s victims of domestic abuse. {{ABUSE?  or VIOLENCE?  Make up your mind!!}}

The services of the individual agencies include emergency shelter, transitional housing, crisis lines, counseling, prevention programs, education and legal assistance. Services are available in the many different languages of San Francisco’s diverse populations. One of the main activities of the SFDVC is networking. SFDVC agencies share information, learn about issues that impact their work and coordinate their services and activities with a particular focus on public funding, specifically coordinating grant proposals and conducting advocacy/lobbying of government departments as to the importance of funding domestic violence services.

The SFDVC is a nonprofit organization and a project of the Tides Center. The SFDVC is led by its co-chairs and committees. The SFDVC recognizes that San Francisco is a diverse city and domestic violence is a problem in all communities regardless of ethnicity, race, class, physical ability, religion, age, immigration and economic status, sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Obviously this is important work — HOWEVER — notice the collective grants-obtaining clout they have?  That must be HOW there has been such coordinated and collective silence on the fathers’ rights grants and movement I report, and so have other UNsponsored INDIVIDUALS.  Do they teach women about to file a kickout order about the upcoming Access/Visitation grants (in place, $10 million a year since 1996), how the Federal Incentives to the Child SUpport Enforcement system include running demonstration grants on how to increase noncustodial (father) time with the children, and how if they go on welfare, they are quite likely to be ex-parte consolidated into a divorce action, and thrown to the family court wolves, whose funding is MUCH larger?

NO — not last I heard.

Do they say anything about the organization AFCC, which practically runs the local Family Courts, let alone the Family Court Facilitators’ offices where people NOT as well-off financially (probably) than Ms. Lopez will end up seeking remedies?  AFCC publishes most of the brochures available there — and (I checked in recent years) the coverage of domestic violence issues is highly diminished.  So, what does that say about women’s right to know and make an INFormeD decision about whether to confront their batterer (sometimes with a civil protective order — not even mentioned in these dialogues), or call the police and hope a criminal one is instated?

LASTLY (and that’s enough for today!), I wanted to also show the Mayor Ed Lee catering to the FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE organization, which currently owns prime real estate (or owns the organization that owns the real estate) in the SF Praesidio.  Futures without Violence, indeed.  The antidote to tyranny in our country (whether by domestic individuals within their family walls, or outside them by public officials) is a balance of powers between (1) the government and (2) the people, and fair enforcement of crimes against the state which jeopardize the safety of the public — which domestic violence DOES, and there’s plenty of evidence in the form of innocent bystanders shot, businesses disrupted, as well as responding police officers.  We live in one of the more violent countries in the world, in many levels, and despite decades of advocacy by DV groups, their inherent demand for public funds to “coordinate services” and educate — the world, essentially — they are not open to criticism from the street level about this agenda.

TOO BAD – it’s here, it’s coming and I’m not going to stop, if I can help, this outrage.  I have one-third of my adult life thrown down this rabbit hole ,and the concept of betrayal is absolutely high.  MSM is owned, and is never going to tell the whole story.  More bloggers are needed — bloggers that cite their sources where possible, and make sure that this situation is no longer covered up, or specially framed when it comes time to renew the funding for the VAWA act and the counterintuitive simultaneous funding of the next round of fatherhood/marriage etc. grants.  No wonder this keeps going on, perhaps — our society is so stressed and compartmentalized, and has been already pre-trained to have their income taxes garnished, so garnishing wages for child support is a short step away.  No privacy, no safety, and no justice.  Just more debt!

My parting shot, I think:  The Mayor that wants Mirkarimi out references Futures without Violence.  Label this:  “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours!”

Siana Hristova / The Chronicle
S.F. Mayor Ed Lee delivers the keynote address at a national domestic violence conference
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qux42sTZ

Without mentioning Ross Mirkarimi by name, Mayor Ed Lee on Friday delivered an indirect rebuke of the man he suspended from the sheriff’s job after he pleaded guilty to a domestic-violence-related charge of false imprisonment of his wife.

The mayor made his remarks during a brief keynote address at a national conference on domestic violence under way in San Francisco sponsored by the Futures Without Violence organization.

Seizing on sentence

Mirkarimi was elected sheriff in November after serving seven years on the Board of Supervisors. He was sworn in to his new job on Jan. 8 and was arrested less than two weeks later for allegedly bruising his wife’s arm during a New Year’s Eve argument in front of their 2-year-old son. The district attorney charged him with misdemeanor domestic violence battery, dissuading a witness and child endangerment.

The new sheriff pleaded not guilty to those three counts, but on March 12, under a plea-bargain agreement, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, weekly domestic violence intervention classes, and one day in jail with time served for when he showed up at the Hall of Justice for booking; he did not serve time behind bars.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qv2FUQhL

I have yet to find out a news article actually naming who is the provider of the weekly classes!  But this whole deal sure does give us a picture of how political the entire field is.  NOT TO MENTION — that once they get their mileage and some funds (he has to take those classes, right?) with the case, and the press — these programs that didn’t teach a county supervisor how to behave to his wife — and I’ll bet he probably approved some of the programs too — are going to continue, with MSM coverage while the private tragedies, ongoing, and far larger in scope, danger to the women involved, and near-lethal or lethal — surrounding the insane institution of the family courts — will continue, probably.  Talk about rocking the power structure to the center– if THAT story got out, I seriously doubt MSM (mainstream media) would take it!
They are right to suspend the guy.  Not that there aren’t others in the area that ought to lose their nonprofit standing for simply not profiting the public — like the huge Futures without Violence!
Full Name: FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE FEIN: 943110973
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1648791
Registration Number: 077397
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/2005 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2011
Registration Status: Current Date This Status: 5/16/2007
Date of Last Renewal: 9/23/2010
Address Information
Address Line 1: 100 MONTGOMERY STREET, PRESIDIO – MAIN POST Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129
Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-01
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-01
Total Assets: $8,143,898.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $10,345,721.00
RRF Received: 25-MAR-02
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fast forward 10 years, some additional Annie E. Casey participation and of course the concept of “Fatherhood” as a tool to prevent domestic violence (see my blog), and an institute (downloadable trainings?) to promote that concept:
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
Total Assets: $26,157,567.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $11,614,069.00
RRF Received: 12-AUG-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10
Total Assets: $36,603,585.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $17,118,149.00
RRF Received: 14-JUN-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status:
The extra $10 million in ASSETS between 2009 & 2010 is most likely the acquisition of the real estate at the Praesidio.  I dare you to look at their (rejected) tax return to the IRS, and figure out why it was rejected (letter uploaded to the same site).  this is the Office of Attorney General’s site, and anyone can search through it, and should:

(STATE CHARITABLE RETURN FOR 2009) FORM RRF-I INFORMATION REGARDING GOVERNMENT FUNDING STATEMENT 14 ART B, LINE 6

  • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAM 810 7TH STREET NW, 5TH FLOO~ WASHINGTON, DC 20531 NEELAM PATEL, 202-353-4338  — AMOUNT   $2.9 million
  • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 370 L’ENFANTE PROMENADE, 6Tl FLOOR
  • WASHINGTON, DC 20447  — AMOUNT  $1.5 million
  • U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DHUMAN SERVICES INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 801 THOMPSON AVENUE ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 — AMOUNT $86K
  • NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENIL! AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES P.O. BOX 8970 RENO, NV 89507  — AMOUNT $91K
  • OTHER GOVERNMENT GRANTS (whose?)  AMOUNT $30K
  • TOTAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING  $ 4,649,368
(that was year 2009)….
the heavy involvement of the US HHS and the NCJFCJ — which is a family court organization (and, the current head of the office of VAW, Susan D. Carbon, used to be president of the NCJFCJ, I heard) — ensures that no real critical analysis of the feminist backlash in the family court system is going to take place — that would be biting the hand that feeds them!
There were (year 2009) TEN (10) paid directors of this NONprofit — and their combined regular compensation was about $1.6 million, with Esta Soler’s being the largest salary ($234K & $71K “other”), and the lowest of any of the others being $112K.   If you add “other compensation” for all ten, the total is NEARLY $THREE MILLION  ($3 mil).
In addition, campaign /project manager professionals — $428,323….three individuals.
There are (moreover– see that tax returns), TWO real estate LLCs and ONE real estate “C-Corp” (an “Inc.”) with the word Praesidio in them, at the same street address (383 Rhode Island #304, SF) of the then-FVPF.  At least one of these is 100% owned by FVPF.
Futures without Violence is international in scope, but heavily supported — year after year (actually decade after decade it seems — I think it began ca. 1989) by US taxpayers, while being itself free from income tax (as a corporation) and investing in real estate.  GO FIGURE!  They are living “high on the hog” and running the show, while men, women and children around them continue to get molested, have their income, lives and assets SQUANDERED through ongoing litigation in the family law arena, which is funded in good part by similar corporations behind this monster DV agency.
I have heard Esta Soler speak, and she’s impressive.  What they have done is impressive.  However it doesn’t compensate for the intrinsic disparity of influence between this group — and actual mothers who need protection and help, and to keep their kids away from violent fathers — AND vice versa.
AND — in 2010 — they decided not to report their Schedule B — List of Contributors, including names and addresses (see amounts, above).  The notice was sent to the group in August 2011 — and the situation apparently has not yet been corrected.  Nor did they send in their annual $225 fee (notice also sent August 2011).  Perhaps this group is going to pull up roots, sell its real estate to a foreign-based corporation and simply stop dealing with the American law and order system entirely.
It should be looked into. It’s not too big to look into.   Why do we need a multimillion$$ NONprofit to run campaigns and things like “Coaching Boys into Men” — that’s the job of schools and parents.  take that money down and make better schools, or almost any situation might be preferable.
Publicize the actual LAWS against such violence on their sites and teach pastors, teachers, and others to report.  I reported to plenty of individuals in mandatory reporting positions during my marriage.  None of them, for the most part, did much.  They must have figured out it was someone else’s job.
Can you imagine running a ‘Batterers Intervention Class” for Ross Mirkarimi?  And can we imagine that a politician of this stature couldn’t convince anyone that he’s absorbed and believed the material?  There’s a LOT more than meets the eye to this case.  I’m glad he got suspended, not that this would have made him an inappropriate county supervisor or other political leader.  Just not sheriff!!

Maryland’s Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…[Publ. Mar. 27, 2012, Reformatted Jan. 19, 2022..]

with 3 comments

Maryland’s Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…[Publ. Mar. 27, 2012, Reformatted Jan. 19, 2022..] (short-link added 2022, ends “/psBXH-13l”)(<~to differentiate “I, 1, and l” characters, as you can see, last three characters are two numbers (one, three) [as in “1,2,3,4,5..”) and a lower-case “L” as in the word “lower” in this sentence).

This post has some tags which I’ll post up here.

2012 text begins below the next two text boxes (Preface/Previews in  this color and this color) (basically two sections for me to explain and complain a bit why it’s still necessary to promote and re-publish this information, i.e., why you should still read this and other very early posts, especially one dated Oct. 1, 2012). 

Except for adding some structure (boxes, etc.) to the post, or removing large images with now-broken links (i.e., to condense it), the text is as when I first wrote it, cleaned up somewhat and if any added text, I’ve marked it.

This post’s tags (also visible at the bottom of the post) and I see also “categories”:

Written by Let’s Get Honest, March 27, 2012 at 6:38 pm:

Posted in (blog categories): 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, OCSE – Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit


Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CONTEXT / TIMELINE of THIS REFORMATTING UPDATE, JAN. 2022:

If you detect some sarcasm (and very long sentences), that’s an indicator I’ve been recently exposed to some stunning levels of silence on the infrastructure and key players of the court as well as anything approaching tools to look for the funding, or remember what kind of Constitution we have in the United States of America, and what it’s goals are:  NOT centralized control by an elite, self-anointed few who plan all in private and where possible seek to undermine rule of law and separation of powers between federal and state governments, and between the various branches of government.  I’m also, upset by my own limitations in getting messages out while managing basic life responsibilities (even without young children still in the home), even after having fled “the scene of the crime” that is, the remains of my connections to my own family — and of course career — in California, after summer 2018…

Someone needs to stand up to the mis-information, not just “stand by” while it slides by and continues gathering momentum.  Selling false hope ought to be, but isn’t a crime.  It’s just unethical — but I believe that where good ethics fail to show up in the moral category, they’re not particularly likely to be present in legal ones either.

Withholding key information that would shed a different light than the one being sold on a situation, and which might lead to more sensible solutions — or at least refusal to waste time on ones with built-in failures and which refuse to look at the foundations of institutions (such as the family courts as parts of governments) is an indicator that the goal isn’t helping the public, it’s something FAR different, and far less altruistic.

This isn’t the place to identify which nonprofits or social media activity has “gotten to me” the past month or so.  I will elsewhere, though..


I recently had cause to quote my October 1, 2012, post called:

Family Courts: Crippled, Incompetent and Corrupt — or just “Broken”? [Published Oct. 1, 2012..] (short-link ends “-1a4”]

Looking on my blog dashboard to locate and label (short-link), reformat it, I mis-remembered the month saw this published (and a few more draft) posts from March, 2012 which might also be worth re-posting.  After all, anecodotal information tends to repeat and endure. While survivors come and go, somehow those saying the same types of things about the same systems they survived tend to have a longer “tenure” on publicity — for obvious reasons, i.e., their lives weren’t so disrupted ,devastated, and they didn’t, most of them, abruptly lose work, have to relocate in a hurry, and weren’t stranded a decade or a more in “high-conflict” (sic) divorces in a corrupt (not “broken”) family court system, USA, systems set in place by specific, identified tax-exempt organizations: two more high-profile than the third, but the third had the most vested interest in keeping the corruption in place. (The ABA, NCJFCJ and AFCC, in case you were wondering which ones).

Family Court “Reform” has been on a certain trajectory for two decades now (observed from the USA, but I also see the globe-trotting program reproduction and attempts to get similar legislation (can you spell “Coercive Control”?) legislated throughout the USA now that it’s been sold to the UK (2015ff).

I also think I’m going to re-post the Oct. 1, 2012 essay.  It’s been over ten years and it’s time, altnough no lack of new developments to report on

So, the globe-trotting and conferencing (without actual physical travel still possible) is even more intense recently, especially some of us “formerly-battered mothers/”family court guantlet survivors” haven’t forgotten what it’s like to see an entire sector (the domestic violence sector and self-appointed thought-leaders (as they’ve called themselves, on-line, on website, often for years) year after year spewing a combination of erroneous, undocumented on incomplete information to the unsuspecting, carried under advanced-degree and academic institution association status (i.e., as “experts” and all that goes with the common understanding of that word, in addition to legal definitions of it when testifying in court), and commending and giving air-time and in-hindsight sympathy to any mothers (target niche for carrying pre-fabricated messaging forward) so badly traumatized or devastated in the family courts trying to move on, protect themselves, protect their children, function independently from an impossible dynamic, they’ll go on “auto-pilot” without screening for truth, logic, reliability, and completeness of that which they’ve been fed, or screening what those who’ve been feeding it have been routinely, almost ritually, withholding, because it conflicts with the media messaging and the particular policy goals of such groups.

WHY this Update: To make it more readable while I’m in the vicinity of this post as blog administrator (and only contributor). I now include date and year published, borders, width-limits, and post title with visible short-links (in the opening body of each post).  Also a blog format update (to two front pages, allowing one stationary front page and another for “Current Posts”) somehow turned all former posts into a sort of sickly-pale-green background — not pleasant to look at!).

Even though I doubt my older posts are re-read much; they are a record of what I was saying when — and a witness to FOR HOW LONG so much of tis information has been covered-up by people simply with SO much to say, SO many people willing to say it for them, mostly (so it seems) for free, and for a little attention and sense of purpose.

The cover up is just as effective by social “excommunication” from close-knit and in-synched messaging by certain people who’ve been driving the “family court reform” sector as if it were an owned turf — when it’s not.  Others live in this country too, and what we have to say matters, whether it’s popular or not.  Unfortunately, some us have had to also say — often — that dishonesty and withholding IS the character of cults, abusers, sociopaths, and people with an ulterior motive than truth-telling, or fixing government (for the better, that is).  I didn’t ask for that role.  Finding enough truth and having a conscience basically has obligated me to speaking it.


Preface to Formatting a VERY OLD (nearly ten years ago) but what I was saying then might as well still be news, given the typical “Family Court Reform” rhetoric, including of known survivor mothers who channel certain nonprofits intent on NOT saying what I’ve been saying — unlike most of these — since the time I first heard of it.

There’s a need to keep at least ONE voice continuing to say this alive.  I’m still alive, so I’m intent to keep this voice out there, although it takes longer to put together and document with links (and/or uploaded images) post using reason and proof, than it does to repeat the mantras, incantations, catechisms so people go into trance mode and, like any good cult members, groomed personalities (or, are possibly being paid in more than just moral support and retweets, “honorable mentions” on-line for their collective silence on key elements and more probable causes of the family court custody crises), continue speaking the same ‘details-devoid, proof-absent, omitting the elephant organizations in the room rhetoric.

Meanwhile, periodically and privately, I’ll get messages (either on this blog or Twitter) saying how the information I post (i.e.. here and/or on-Twitter) or shared (privately as I have publically when it came up) has validated what they sensed, and were feeling really isolated about for not going along with the crowds who don’t like to talk specifics or keep “survivors” honest (keeping certain other organizations honest isn’t about to happen, I found out the hard way)…//LGH Jan. 19, 2022.


ORIGINAL (2012) TEXT BEGINS HERE:

This post is PR on something I just discovered recently and, to be honest, am distressed enough about to follow up by phone with the leadership of some of the groups involved, asking they why these things should be happening statewide.

The dialogue illustrates what’s going on, but is a little complex, and unless you have an interest in monitoring the expansion and methods of expansion of the family law bureaucracy WITHIN or as an ADJUNCT to our court system, you may not want to go through it all.

I think there is some legitimacy — however widespread, commonplace, and entrenched this system currently is, and however expensive and status quo it has become — to a theory that the “Family Court Services” if not the “Family Courts” themselves (as it pertains to divorce and custody) — are illegitimate.  They are private enterprises posing as public ones, and servicing their funders, who as it happens, tend to occupy high places in (1) the Executive Branch of the United States Government (I’m talking HHS, DOJ in particular) and (2) the corporate /tax-exempt foundation stratosphere — almost none of which is truly accessible to individuals who are coming through these courts, unless they already have prior involvement.

First of all, they are about as unbelievingly condescending and patronizing (‘move over, let us experts handle your family — give us your kid, etc.’) as it is possible for any human relationship to be, apart from some truly unhealthy (i.e., violent/abusive) ones.  They deal in force, and subterfuge when it comes to proliferating the program, and like any good, truly “disaster capitalism” enterprise, they deal with distressed populations, exploit them, and call that service.  I come from California, and preliminary expose on this was done courtesy one of the oldest and (not exactly being updated) sites around — but it still is up and still serves a purpose — Johnnypumphandle.com.  [[FYI, that website is still up  I’ve linked to it in the title.//LGH 2022]]


assn.gif (5213 bytes)  Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral Practices in The Courts

… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.

Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. [EndQuote]


For example, why does the “Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges Association” change its name to simply “Los Angeles County Superior Court” in its IRS filings? and what are they actually doing at their special events, including sporting events, and how do they manage to have (year 2010) a net loss of $10,000, being such smart judges (only revenue — membership dues, totaling $50K that year)?

[UPDATE:  Amazingly, tax returns (at the IRS) as late as FY2019 (YE Dec) are still around.  It’s filing a Form 990EZ (deprives people of significant details, such as naming its “affiliate”) and is claiming negative revenues (after raising $62K with “direct expenses” of $118K.  “Go figure…”  It also must be a business association, as its 990EZ filings are also labeled “990EO” where the “E” represents the EZ (abbreviated) part and the “O,” that it’s not filing as a public charity (501©3) but likely 501©6.  For comparison, the American Bar Association files as a 501©6 also.//LGH 2022]

….. (This is a table from the Foundation Center; its format looks different, but I’ve posted tax returns from this source throughout the blog for years. //LGH 2022)…….>> Look under “Candid.org/research-and-verify-nonprofits/990-finder” to re-run this search (use the EIN# below, “95-4663773” NOT entity name!), or go to the IRS (apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ for, these days, probably a more current return.  Or check the Secretary of State (businessSearch.sos.ca.gov) if this entity is still registered, which it probably is.  The adress in 2019 still read 111 Hill Street (#204)…

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Los Angeles Superior Court CA 2010 $120,654 990EO 10 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court CA 2009 $95,314 990EO 12 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court CA 2008 $102,801 990EO 11 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2007 $87,134 990EO 9 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2006 $90,509 990EO 9 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2005 $70,106 990EO 8 95-4663773
Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association CA 2004 $55,818 990EO 5 95-4663773

per “Johnny” (at ‘JohnnyPumphandle.com’)

The Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a good example of one of the latter Non-Profit organizations whose stated purpose is “promotion of judicial profession pursuant to section 501(c)(6)”. (see form 3500 – Exemption application). The Association boasts a budget of over $100,000 – none of which will be received from members dues {?} – and most of which will be funded by “Professional Education programs for the legal community”. Unlike most professional organizations, this organization was granted(?) the use of County premises, complete with facilities for it’s [sic] office space and management of it’s business within the County Court facilities at 111 North Hill Street.”

Copyright © Design Systems, Inc. All rights reserved. Last update 01/10/2010)

They call it collaboration, or cooperation, or “interdisciplinary.”  This person calls it, more correctly, “collusion” and states the purpose as accurately as anyone else . .. to extract assets from troubled parents.  Like I said, disaster capitalism.  Ambulance chasers.  Sometimes they (family law professionals) get impatient and take control of the wheel, cause accidents, and then show up to help solve the resulting “Family conflict,” at public and/or parent expense.  How philanthropic.

REGARDING THE TITLE OF THIS POST:

I called up Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net (who I think I’ve made it clear, has provided the skeleton which started my years of investigative reporting here on this blog and off it — not the motivation, but enough clues to grab onto, validate, and develop as now my own material).

She declared (I would like to see) that any family law judge in the state of Maryland must be an AFCC member to take office.  That’s an INexact quote, but I was very shocked to hear that possibly membership is a pre-requisite to the practice statewide.  Whether or not that’s so, it’s absolutely clear that this state is pretty well sewn up by those interests.

I have blogged before (herein) on UBaltimore’s School of Law “CFCC” in context of therapeutic jurisprudence.

This time, let’s talk about whose idea was it to create a system of family courts in the state? Perhaps you should forward questions to this person about what analogies of Paper, Cotton, Leather, FRUIT, etc.  say about the Department of Family Administration’s disturbing (in)ability to sort, label, categorize and prioritize information.

University of BaltimoreSchool of Law

Contact CFCC

Barbara A. Babb
Director and Associate Professor of Law
B.S., Pennsylvania State University  (interesting — does she keep up with the Penn State, Luzerne County or Lackawanna County scandals?)
M.S., Cornell University
J.D., Cornell Law School

UB faculty member since 1989. Member, New York and Maryland bars. National leader in family justice system reform, focusing on creation of unified family courts. Spearheaded Maryland’s efforts to create a family court in 1998. Advisory Board Member, ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse. Member, ABA Unified Family Court Coordinating Council and the AFCC Family Court Review Editorial Board. Past chair, Family/Juvenile Law Section, Association of American Law Schools.

Telephone: 410-837-5661
E-mail Barbara Babb

This professional is clearly AFCC-friendly (so is the ABA, it seems), and heads up this Center at a Law School.  Notice the bolded part.  This is what AFCC professionals, who can do this — do.  They Unify Family Courts (then preside over them, and appoint cronies).  I’ve seen it in state after state.  The Hon. Chester Harhut did this in Lackawanna County (as I recall) and the parents are already picketing outside the courthouse.  Or, were, until some of the protesters got manhandled (so to speak) by a local judge’s sheriff’s, resulting in a federal lawsuit on the civil rights violation, and a second one on the inappropriate pushing of the GAL system on the county without running it by the public!   

I’m only including the next individual to show that she hails from London! (see “three cities that rule the world”) in a country from which, allegedly, the United States fought a war of independence, in part to establish a DIFFERENT form of government …

Gloria Danziger
Senior Fellow
B.A., London University
M.Phil., Oxford University
J.D., Georgetown University Law Center

Former staff director, ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse, focusing on how substance abuse/truancy are addressed in the justice system. Former director, Communities, Families and the Justice System, an ABA unified family court initiative. Former public policy consultant, reporter and editor.

As we can see, this emphasis is on substance abuse and truancy (juvenile matters).  Applying this same model to divorce courts on the basis that divorce, too needs “treatment” is seriously questionable!
 For example, a symposium makes it clear who is leading the charge to change, and how they view themselves at UBaltimore.  I need to note that Ms. Babb has some prior experience and ties to Southern California.  California also has a “CFCC” but under the Administrative Office of the Courts.  Maryland has its one at this school of law, but that’s Ok — the courts are being transformed anyhow:

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

The Families Matter Symposium: Working Toward a More Therapeutic Family Justice System

The invitation-only “Families Matter” Symposium was held last Thursday and Friday, June 24 and 25, at the University of Baltimore.  Co-sponsored by CFCC** and the American Bar Association Section of Family Law, the symposium promises to be a powerful catalyst for change.  It was exhiliarating to participate in the exchange of groundbreaking ideas that emerge when you put together some of the leading professionals from a range disciplines to discuss how to improve the experience of children and families in the family justice system.  More exciting, however, is the fact that this group of high-powered experts is committed to move from theory to action by implementing many of their recommendations for changing the family law system.

[[IN HINDSIGHT: Jan. 19, 2022, update:  re-formatting and re-reading this post nine-plus years later,]] I notice that “CFCC” is not an entity and so cannot co-sponsor anything.  This is part of a sales pitch (I’m currently struggling to get out — again — several posts detailing and showing how awareness of exact ENTITY names involved is key to following any funding.  When it comes to the “CFCC” at the University of Baltimore School of Law, know that this School of Law along with the University of Baltimore is part of the Maryland University system — it’s a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY.  Hence this symposing was in effect a public/private “invitation-only” symposium held at public expense.  Also (I’m blogging this as I speak), the ABA Section of Family Law isn’t a separate entity.  So the real sponsors here (at least as labeled) were too huge established institutions pursuing what seems like a private agenda for “Families.”  How does that fit with the established ways to represent the will of the people and get laws passed?  This group of “HIGH-POWERED EXPERTS” intended to CHANGE THE FAMILY LAW SYSTEM.


The irony of it, the ABA and AFCC (obvious primary connection Babb, and likely also Danziger at the CFCC) were, along with (per a 1997 Ohio Supreme Court document which I blogged, probably under the post titled “Blueprints” or a nearby one) the NCJFCJ, the ones who spearheaded establishments of family courts around the country — and by the turn of this century, hadn’t even got them in all fifty states.  So, apparently if you established a thing, you’re also in charge of reforming the thing.  No matter what the public does or doesn’t know about its origins, its financing and the private cult-like behaviors and allegiances of those administering it — and no matter that the public pays for it collectively AND, as parents going through it, individually. //LGH 2022.

Most definitely, if laws, and law systems are to be seriously changed, it should be through closed-door conferences of high-powered experts excited about their collective clout, at law schools –and absolutely not through the legislative process involving the general public voting on bills they had some say in, or (God forbid) perhaps even initiated.

A Dec. follow-up specifically acknowledges AFCC leadership in this, and gives a detailed plan, which I gather has been followed, and we might as well read about for a retrospective!

Thursday, December 2, 2010 Families Matter: Reforming the Family Law Process

It is hard to believe it already has been almost six months since CFCC and the ABA Section of Family Law co-sponsored the Families Matter Symposium. We at CFCC are excited about the work that has been done since the symposium to expand the Families Matter initiative. Because of the partnerships that this initiative created – among CFCC, the ABA, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), to name a few – we are able to tackle the issue of family law reform from every angle, something that has been a struggle in the past.In the coming months and years, we will work together with our partners to ensure that therapeutic reform touches legal and court structures, relevant service providers from across disciplines, and the lawyers and other legal actors who work so closely with families.

“and other legal actors”???

The 2008 newsletter I quoted is titled” Families Matter.”  Now that we know where that came from, let’s go back to this 2008 piece of ?? listing marketable commodities to connect with court reform years….

“. . .Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…”

SERIOUSLY?

Yes, apparently.  Look for yourself:

Newsletter of the Department of Family Administration

…and this is now nearly four years ago!  Shame!!! on those who did NOT blog the AFCC when they blogged against “PAS,” subconsciously? taking cues from leadership who, while knowing quite well about this, chose not to mention it in their press releases, news letters, or triumphantly mainstream on-lines, leaving the job up to volunteer bloggers, commenters (on those on-lines) and other “lone wolf investigators” who were honest enough to recognize something was missing in the protective mothers AND in the domestic violence rhetoric.

These people — and they still exist, generation after generation — should expect something a little better than to have the same groups simply sell out the mothers for profit, for professional respectability, for the ability to publish, for public platforms in setting agenda, and for nice websites.

To better understand this, also see the site “MDJustice.com” (I have a draft post explaining the presence of Parenting Coordination right next to Domestic Violence in a Family Law Task Force.  This is relevant because the training and resources are intended for PRO BONO service providers.  However, it would make this post too long….

I was very upset (and tweeted this) to discover HOW inbred the Women’s Law Center, and a spiffy website resource (MDJustice.com) focusing on pro bono legal services — not only are they sharing language of “parenting coordination” right next to “domestic violence” talks in the family law task force, (a clear indication of AFCC’s fathers’ rights agenda.  You can talk about domestic violence, or even child abuse, so long as you don’t seriously believe this should affect how much contact the offender has with the victim, and act on that belief to protect the child or (often as not) his/her mother. 

Newsletter of the Department of Family Administration

Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts  (“AOC”)

Vol. 8, No. 1 summer 2008

What’s going on when a system of progressive reform and expansion of the family law system (with a token nod towards protecting people) chooses to name each year of reform after a COMMODITY?  Subliminal message, much?

  • PAPER

  • COTTON

  • LEATHER

  • FRUIT

  • WOOD

  • IRON

  • WOOL

  • BRONZE

(See newsletter).  These are collective labels to conveniently (and privately to those who get the newsletter) describe an 8-year agenda for family court reform.  The use of these unifying symbols is specific to this court (from what I can tell) and is just — to tell the truth — weird.  I am remembering about this time how Hitler was adept at using symbols, flags, mottos, gestures, and of course music & staged events to get his point across.   So are the Boy Scouts.  So were are certain religious cults.  Is this what we’re heading for, again?

What do these commodities (which they are) have to do with the situations they are hooked to, except to, in the minds of the readers, signify some collective progress achieved in a collective goal?

Even little kids are often taught as youngsters, sorting shapes, and being tested on their ability to categorize various common objects.   But look at this order — is it by durability?  Is it by function?  Is it by value?  No – it’s a hodgepodge:

  • PAPER COTTON LEATHER FRUIT WOOD IRON WOOL BRONZE

By the most obvious (to me, at least) functions of the material, it would go:

  • Writing, clothing & linens, clothing & bookbinding, FOOD, building & fuel, Building & tools, Clothing, Statuary-sculptures.
By perhaps flexibility?  That makes no sense — as “fruit” is in the middle.
By FLAMMABILITY?  – – –
  • very, very less, Huh?, yes, with some tinder, no – must be smelted, yes, no unless you have a serious furnace.
But the people who put this together are not little kids learning to sort, prioritize and categorize — they are adults seeking to expand an expensive bureaucracy with authority to decide whether Mom & Dad get to raise their kids, (or which Mom which Dad) — or have them institutionalized and raised by foster parents, or adopted out.  These are major responsibilities.  It would be a little more reassuring if the people facilitating them had a little basic common sense!

The book of Daniel (Daniel 2), (Old Testament) Nebuchadnezzar’s dream , at least stuck to one material, and stuck them in some sort of order, from precious, to common, showing the ability to (1) sort and (2) prioritize.

The passage:

1And in the second year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar Nebuchadnezzar dreamed dreams, wherewith his spirit was troubled, and his sleep brake from him. 2Then the king commanded to call the magicians, and the astrologers, and the sorcerers, and the Chaldeans, for to shew the king his dreams. So they came and stood before the king.  3And the king said unto them, I have dreamed a dream, and my spirit was troubled to know the dream.

In some ways, reminds me of our current Republican (?) system, complete with task forces, commissions, institutes, and initiatives.

4Then spake the Chaldeans to the king in Syriack, O king, live for ever: tell thy servants the dream, and we will shew the interpretation.

5The king answered and said to the Chaldeans, The thing is gone from me: if ye will not make known unto me the dream, with the interpretation thereof, ye shall be cut in pieces, and your houses shall be made a dunghill.6But if ye shew the dream, and the interpretation thereof, ye shall receive of me gifts and rewards and great honour: therefore shew me the dream, and the interpretation thereof.

 As it goes, they couldn’t, and so the order was dispatched to dispatch all the wise men, etc., including at this time Daniel.  Daniel got his moment in the sun, and said (after introductions):

31Thou, O king, sawest, and behold a great image. This great image, whose brightness was excellent, stood before thee; and the form thereof was terrible.

32This image’s head was of fine gold, his breast and his arms of silver, his belly and his thighs of brass, 33His legs of iron, his feet part of iron and part of clay.

Perhaps our current leaders should take a lesson from history — and learn to sort and select:  The statue was described in general — and then in particular, from the HEAD to the FEET.  Each part, in order, was described as to what it was made of.  Then, stage set, the action was described:

34Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.35Then was the iron, the clay, the brass, the silver, and the gold, broken to pieces together, and became like the chaff of the summer threshingfloors; and the wind carried them away, that no place was found for them: and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth.

36This is the dream; and we will tell the interpretation thereof before the king

 Right or Wrong, Real or Imagined, the image has persisted such that even infidels.org can discuss its meaning, centuries later, according to its organizing principle(s). . . .

To begin with, the four empires with their metals and beasts [different part of “Daniel”] fall into a simple pattern: they are listed in order of decreasing splendor and increasing strength and cruelty to symbolize their moral degeneration from one to the next (cf. Daniel 2:39).

In the vision of the statue in Daniel 2, the four empires are symbolized by four metals: viz., the golden head of Babylonia, the silver chest of Media, the bronze loins of Persia, the iron legs of Greece, and the iron-and-clay feet of the successor states of Greece. The metals decrease in monetary value yet increase in strength from the top to the bottom of the statue.

Our author probably got the idea of the four ages from Hesiod, an eighth-century BC Greek poet. Hesiod taught that the world has gone through four ages, each one morally inferior to its predecessor: viz., the ages of gold, silver, bronze, and iron (Works and Days 106-201).[8] Our author need not have read Hesiod; he and his fellow Jews probably picked up the idea from Greeks living in that part of the world.

SO, What, exactly, is the organizing and ordering principle behind this Department of Family Administration Newsletters’ selection of:

PAPER COTTON LEATHER FRUIT WOOD IRON WOOL BRONZE

IS THE TRUE MESSAGE BEHIND THE METAPHOR ITS INHERENT MEANINGLESSNESS?

BASED ON THE CONTEXTS, POSSIBLY THE CONTENTS AND WORDS ARE, INDEED MEANINGLESS, ESPECIALLY GIVEN WHICH IS NEXT TO WHAT….

Here’s the cute description provided in newsletter, after which on to more serious matters, for example, what is the DFA doing, anyhow? Why are there DFAs?  WHY are courts adding divisions to their regular courts, and doing so in particular “flavor”??

Scroll past my indented summary in this color font, to get to that discussion.  The choice of metaphors is basically frivolous and meaningless — the real agenda has already been identified years earlier and is in operation nationwide, anyhow.  The newsletter simply makes it sound more legitimate….

PAPER – Year 1 — “we have produced a lot of paper in ten years!”  ~ COTTON – Year 2 — “Courts have found creative and powerful ways to make connections with their communities. In 2006, Carroll County Circuit Court participated with a network of community providers to create a guide that provides survivors of violence with a roadmap to recovery.”  (Cotton refers to a “Clothesline Project”  The word “Cotton” is as arbitrary as Paper in usage).   LEATHER – Year 3 — “Over the past decade, the public “purse” that supports the family justice system has been strength-ened thanks to the advocacy of Chief Judge Robert M. Bell and State Court Administrator Frank Broccolina and the support of the Maryland General Assembly. Family divisions and family services programs are supported by jurisdictional grants given annually to each Circuit Court. In Fiscal Year 2008, courts received $11.2 million to support case management innovations and services to families involved indomestic and juvenile case types.” (LEATHER — the Purse Strings.  The State Legislature, obviously, opens and closes that purse, and for its own reasons, opened it towards the establishment of more programs and services).   FRUIT – YEAR 4 — “We profoundly hope that the efforts of the last ten years have borne “fruit” in the experiences of Maryland families and children. {{for that level of grants, it had better be more than just “hope”}} One measure maybe the level of involvement parents have in their children’s lives post-litigation. {{translation:  access/visitation grant systems, plus some.}}   WOOD – Year 5 — “The Maryland “bench” has been innovative in the last ten years,{{and produced a lot of paperwork}} and courts have shown a willingness to try new approaches. Administrative judges have adopted case management strategies to ensure family and juvenile cases are handled effectively”

 (Currently in Pennsylvania, those administrative orders, for example, to hire a certain guardian ad litem, are coming under FBI fire (Lackawanna County, Stefanov case, Pilchesky case, see my other blog http://lackawannafamilycourtfederal.blogspot.com and recent local news coverage)

WOOD is for “The Bench.”  Cute.  etc.  For example, WOOL – Year 7 — “Families entering the justice system are wrapped in the “mantle” of services that enable courts to make more effective decisions and that aid and guide families in transition. All Maryland courts offer co-parenting education, Family Law Self-Help Centers, child access mediation, and custody evaluations. Some courts offer psychoeducational programs for children and specialized parenting courses; others are experimenting with parenting coordination, employment programs for child support payors, and special dispute resolution services for high-conflict families.”*(*IN OTHER WORDS, BUSINESS AS AFCC/CRC/WELFARE REFORM USUAL).  BRONZE – YEAR 8 — “The Judiciary’s family court reform efforts have brought attention to bear on the special needs of victims of domestic violence.” (It seems very appropriate that the concern for domestic violence should be limited to their “special needs” not their protection — and come last.)

The Administrative Offices of the Courts (nationwide) are enough of an issue themselves (and the various “CFCC’s underneath some of them, like in California).  Yet under this Maryland one is a Department of Family Administration.  I guess we all one big happy family, then?  Or if not — and there are some unhappy upstarts, this can be administered?   (reminds me of the Texas Office of Attorney General’s “Office of Family Initiatives” associated with, at least recently, Michael Hayes).

NOTICE THE DETAILS:

Family Administration – Maryland state court system (http://mdcourts.gov/family/index.html)

(image removed/broken link, but it had been labeled: “Department of Family Administration-Administrative Office of the Courts 410-260-1580”

Notice of Funding for Family Division/Family Services Grants: Grant Documents

http://mdcourts.gov/family/grantadmin.html

Yes, please do click on the “notice of Funding” link above.  You’ll see about 9 different categories of funding.  I looked at “Child Support Incentives.”  These are programs that bring money to the courts, if these services are utilized (the $2/1 ratio, I believe) and while it’s labeled sometimes Welfare, there is a way to get non-welfare cases involved as well.  For example (and this is a CURRENT, 2013, OPEN (well, just closed 2/2012) grant solicitation):

“NOTICE OF FUNDING AVAILABILITY — CHILD SUPPORT INCENTIVE FUNDS GRANTS — ISSUED 1/3/2012, APPLICATIONS DUE 2/15/2012″

(Hover cursor over link or click on it to read description of the grant’s purpose — this is important, because it shows the HHS/Maryland Judiciary financial connection, in a Cooperative Reimbursement Agreement (CRA) according to performance incentives — i.e., how many child support orders did you establish, etc.  

(update note:  The link is broken, but the text showing if you “hover over link” is housed on this blog and can still be read (a magnifying glass might help.. or “zoom” function).

Given that, Funding Priorities, Category “A” actually seem to relate to — child support enforcement.   Such as:  “Privatizing and outsourcing of child support enforcement services;  Improving automation capabilities;  Creating public awareness projects;  Developing programs and special projects;

But Category “B” may sound familiar to some parents with the toughest custody cases around, that are behaving very oddly, given the circumstances of the case:   And this includes (notice order of Priorities here).   

Other categories of programs that are considered “non-Title IV-D” that may still be eligible for funding upon the receipt of a written exception by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement are set forth in OCSE-AT-01-04** and include, but are not limited to:

Fatherhood programs;  Education and job programs for non-custodial parents;  Programs targeting incarcerated or putative fathers;  Teen pregnancy programs;  Parenting programs;  (in CALIF, this would be a “KIDS TURN” or KY or PA, a “KIDS FIRST” get it?) Mediation or couples counseling (including as provided by faith-based grantees, no doubt), and  Visitation issue resolution when linked to non-payment of support.**

**WTH does that mean?  When a noncustodial parent actually says, “I’d be more willing to pay my child support ORDER if I were given more ACCESS to my KID(s)??” In practice, this may possibly include supervised visitation, it may also include abatement of child support arrears in exchange for more time with the other parent.

These programs must also demonstrate a clear connection and collaboration with the Maryland Child Support Enforcement program.

**”OCSE-AT-01-04” refers to an “Action Transmittal.”  Overall, this shows us that (no matter what a parent may have been told while filing for custody, or its modification up front) the judiciary is deeply hooked into the HHS financing and its incentives to do this, or that, regarding something as essential to life (in many cases) as child support. . . . . .  And I believe this particular grant notice demonstrates that the OCSE/Child support Incentives ARE indeed in good deal about fatherhood programs” and parenting education (etc.).

Supporting Children Through the Judiciary Conference

(Broken link/Image removed/ description read simply “Photo of children and families.” The url reads: http://mdcourts.gov/family/conferences.html)

The Department of Family Administration is responsible for assisting Maryland’s courts in developing a comprehensive family law system. Family Administration has overseen the creation of family divisions in Anne Arundel County, Baltimore City, Baltimore County, Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, and family services programs in the remaining 19 counties. We work with judges, masters, court administrators and family support services coordinators to develop family law policy and to identify and promote best practices in the handling of domestic and juvenile cases.(1*)

“The mission of family divisions is to provide a fair and efficient forum to resolve family legal matters in a problem-solving manner, with the goal of improving the lives of families and children who appear before the court. To that end, the court shall make appropriate services available for families who need them. The court also shall provide an environment that supports judges, court staff and attorneys so that they can respond effectively to the many legal and nonlegal issues of families in the justice system.”

Connie Kratovil-Lavelle, Esq.

(*1)  The sentence “we work with judges, (etc.) . . . to develop family law policy to . .. identify and promote best practices…..” indicates a different identity, a distinction between (1) “WE” (meaning the Dept. of Family Administration/”DFA”) and (2) said judges, masters, etc. . . . . . .

As I can see below, the Executive Director of this DFA is promoting AFCC policy, hook, line and “sink-it.”

There’s a long, colorful newsletter above, which mixes talk of in order, page 1, Civil Protective Orders (DV issues) &  Parent Coordination Promotion.

(An AFCC created profession, hostile to mothers in practice, which does an end run around legal protections and due process (as it was intended to) and to date already has brought up serious objections from parents and issues of billing, in PA at least (I blogged this over at http://thefamilycourtmoneymachine.blogspot.com, including the underlying case Yates v. Yates, where a father protested the parenting coordinator, and the family law div. of PA Bar Case Notes (newsletter 2009), exulting in how they shot down all his arguments.  Some of the casework I read showed a custody evaluator appointed in 2002 or 2003, who I looked up.  It turns out that in 2004-2005 (per 2006 Winter Psychology Board newsletter), this same man was cited for discipline and subjected to supervision of his practice!

NEWSLETTER, PAGE 1, TOPIC 1 — “SEE, WE ARE HELPING STOP DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!”

Statewide Civil Domestic Violence Database to be Launched this Summer

By Clifton Files, Esq., Domestic Violence Specialist, Administrative Office of the Courts, Department of Family Administration

The Maryland Judiciary will be one of the first states with a comprehensive database of civil orders of protection when it launches the Domestic Violence Central Repository this summer. In September 2006, the Department of Family Administration was awarded a grant by the Office of Violence Against Women from the Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies Program (GTEAP). The focus of the grant was to develop a Statewide Civil Domestic Violence Database. The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) and the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence (MNADV) coordinated with an advisory committee and held six regional focus groups to discuss and consider recommendations on policies, procedures, and uses for the database.

The end result of these efforts is a central database for District and Circuit Court judges and staff that will store all domestic violence orders, produce statistics, and enhance enforcement (cont’d on page 23….)

The Statewide Domestic Violence Coalition here is (was) working with the “Department of Family Administration.”  Who the “Department of Family Administration” is, matters.  How did the AOC (Admin. Office of the Courts) get a DFA? (Dept. of Fam. Admin.) anyhow — expanding bureaucracy?
That can be discussed in a moment, but let’s look at the focus of the “Executive Director” of this DFA in our next article, which I believe is clear enough…

PAGE 1, TOPIC 2 — “BUT DON’T WORRY, DADS & AFCC PROFESSIONALS — WE REMEMBERED YOUR AGENDA TOO”*

(*Maintaining a mechanism to apply “PAS” theory, retaining privileged quasi-judicial status without accountability, and more of us in every custody case)

Refining Emerging Practices Proposed Parenting Coordination Rule Completed

By Pamela Cardullo Ortiz, Esq., Executive Director, Department of Family Administration

Innovation always happens on the ground.*** In their efforts to better serve families, courts have experimented with emerging practice models, especially those with promise for assisting high conflict families who often require a great deal of court intervention. Over the last several years, a number of Maryland Circuit Courts have begun to refer high conflict families with child access issues to “parent coordinators.”

As practiced in other states, and defined by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC): Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal. . .(Cont’d on page 24)

..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. (Guidelines for Parenting Coordination, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.)

A Maryland Version of Parenting Coordination

To ensure that Maryland courts have the requisite authority to order parties to work with a parenting coordinator, and to guide courts and define the practice in light of Maryland law, the Custody Subcommittee of the Judicial Conference Committee on Family Law has developed a proposed parenting coordination rule. The subcommittee, chaired by Judge Deborah S. Eyler of the Court of Special Appeals, worked for two years with judges, court professionals, parenting coordinators, attorneys, and others to devise a draft rule and proposed application for parenting coordinators. Those documents were reviewed and approved by the Committee on Family Law at their meeting this April. The proposed documents have been approved by the Conference of Circuit Judges and will be forwarded to the Rules Committee for consideration.

The proposed rule defines the practice for Maryland courts and addresses issues relating to the appointment of a parenting coordinator, qualifica- tions, selection, term of service, removal and withdrawal of a parenting coordinator, fees, and the powers and scope of appointment.

Paragraph 1, above, starts with a lie — it’s dissembling.  This is CLASSIC AFCC — referring to its own members as if they were actually independent of each other, in the overall strategic plan!  Here it is, again:
Innovation always happens on the ground.*** In their efforts to better serve families, courts have experimented with emerging practice models, especially those with promise for assisting high conflict families who often require a great deal of court intervention. Over the last several years, a number of Maryland Circuit Courts have begun to refer high conflict families with child access issues to “parent coordinators.”
LIE#1:   Innovation IN THE COURTS doesn’t happen on the ground, it’s mostly a top-down strategy, possible because those in control of the families in the courts are the judges — and AFCC overall is not at all lacking in judges.  Calling lower levels of courts “on the ground” is dissembling.  A pretense, in some senses it’s fair enough to call it simpy a lie.   AFCC’s own history page prides itself in spearheading innovations in family law practices.  That’s hardly “on the ground” except in a world of ranking professionals which excludes the very much “on the ground” litigants:

(AFCC) “History”

AFCC’s self-definition on their main website, at the top (it is the “motto”)is:
An interdisciplinary and international association of professionals
dedicated to improving the lives of children and families
through the resolution of family conflict.
It’s hard to know where to start, outlining the problems with this, given who the AFCC membership is.  DOES resolving family conflict (IF AFCC did this – it doesn’t, it exacerbates it, incites it, and then calls in its “experts” to allegedly resolve family conflict) improve the lives of children and families?
Who — besides this crowd — says that “family conflict” is the major problem facing families these days?  Go tell that to Jaycee Dugard; go tell that to the parents of Trayvon Martin.  Go tell that to MaryAnne Godboldo, who stood off a home invasion (unwarranted) to protect her 13 year old daughter from being forcibly put on Risperdal by CPS after a medical doctor had warned her to take her off it:

by Diane Bukowski  (photo from http://justice4maryanne.com/) August 12, 2011

DETROIT – Despite testimony that Mia Wenk, a “social services specialist” with a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, authorized the  psychiatric hospitalization of Ariana Godboldo-Hakim, 13, and the administration of four dangerous psychotropic drugs, without reviewing the child’s  medical records, a jury found Aug. 9 that it was Ariana’s mother Maryanne Godboldo who had neglected her. 

Godboldo, who obtained alternative holistic treatment for her daughter from a medical doctor, testified earlier that she was suffering from a reaction to immunizations administered in Sept. 2009. She said Ariana had been diagnosed with encephalitis, not a psychiatric disorder. Neither she nor Ariana’s father Mubarak Hakim authorized their daughter’s treatment at Hawthorn Children’s Psychiatric facility after an army of police seized her from her home on Blaine near Linwood in Detroit March 24, 2011. 

This mother above, and the community that rallied to defend her (she got her daughters back and felony charges dropped) have a “high conflict” with treating their children as state hostages when they resist forcible drugging and unwarranted home invasions of their kids.  This was a single mother, and the nonresident father had no conflict with the mother’s resisting the situation.  44
AFCC believes that the primary social ill is conflict — not crime.  It believes that its professionals can, and should “improve the lives of children and families” according to their definition, and given the membership, they have the collective clout to do this pretty much over the objection of any individual family in any given case.
They are collectively dedicated to playing “God,” Declaration of Independence aside…. (all men created equal ~ which would mean that AFCC profesionals are not more “equal” than non-AFCC professionals, such as “flawed parents” (a term actually seen in one of their brochures) and endowed with their Creator (not AFCC) with “certain unalienable rights.”
AFCC most especially is concerned — in their policy agenda of playing God to “children and families” (note the order of nouns) — with getting rid of any God-given or due-process rights of individuals which might “conflict” with their determination to help people against their own will, in order to establish family peace, under conditions of extortion (virtually).
RE:
Innovation always happens on the ground.*** In their efforts to better serve families, courts have experimented with emerging practice models, especially those with promise for assisting high conflict families who often require a great deal of court intervention. Over the last several years, a number of Maryland Circuit Courts have begun to refer high conflict families with child access issues to “parent coordinators.”
 
LIE#2:  The courts are not trying to “better serve families” — they are serving themselves TO the families forced into their courtrooms, for profit, and for their overall agenda stated above.
This agenda includes transforming the justice system (complete with concepts of individual rights, due process, basic standing as an individual in the courtroom, right to confront one’s accusers, in fact just about anything traditionally considered a “right” including a little right to privacy, right to be free from undue search and seizure, and not be deprived of things unlawfully.) into a therapeutic turnstile attached to an ATM.
Part of which includes the power to traffick children, for profit, into the juvenile justice system (see Luzerne County kids for Cash RICO case!!) or, for drugging/drug-testing and Lord knows what else, into the foster care and from then on, adoption system.  A handy aspect of the permanent threat to all standing parents to having their children improperly removed is keeping adult parents in line, too, and/or extorting them financially. It’s a FANTASTIC wealth transfer system.  Saying this somehow “serves families,” in context of reality, is pure bullshit, and is keeping the blogsphere and, at times, the FBI, busy.
LIE/Truth#3:   Courts have experimented with emerging-practice models.  
Courts (meaning AFCC professionals, or courts run by them – if you want proof, or some samples, hit me with a comment below, I’ll post some) are, rather, experimenting with how asleep the American public is.  It’s not a true experiment about whether or not, for example, “parenting coordination” actually works.  The agenda is to ram it through over the objections of parents, and sometimes over a state Governor (Florida 2004, Gov. Jeb Bush), which AFCC has done and knows how to do.  
The word “emerging” from this group is never an honest assessment.  Read their conference brochures.  they don’t talk about emerging practices — they talk about THEIR practices, and discuss results, and how to expand the collective model  (refine it slightly, or re-shrinkwrap the concept).
For example, parent coordination is expensive to train for (check Parent Coordination Central, Boyan/Termini website), and has a host of products associated for sale (even though they are incorporated WHERE ?  ????).  It’s also not free to the parents.  Yet, I saw an AFCC conference brochure, I believe it was, discussing how to utilize this for the poor indigent parents on Title IV.  Surely they needed parent coordination more than food, housing, clothing, medical care or transportation in the form of child support or TANF benefits, right?   After all, wasn’t the reason they are poor, their “family conflict”???
PHRASE/Stray Concept #4:   with promise for assisting high conflict families . . . .
If AFCC has an agenda as a NONPROFIT alone and wants to pursue it — more power to them.  Take their funding from wherever (membership fees, people who wish to contribute to the cause, gaining a little tax-deduction charitable contribution perk also, for mutual benefit:  donor/Donee.  I have no problem with that.   It’s elective.
BUT AFCC is comprised in large part of JUDGES — who are public employees, MEDIATORS who are many times court-appointed and county-supported (plus some A/V funding to go along with it), and they are in positions which require them to (??) take oaths of office to uphold the constitution.  I hear that some jurisdictions do not– but their function in society is as public servants.  As such, they have no right to be pushing a PRIVATE, FOR_PROFIT AGENDA utilizing the authority of their office which was designed to rule in matters dealing with JUSTICE.
AFCC has rejected the concept of individual rights and placed it with the language of collectivism.  
As such, it might as well be a religion, or an instrument of socialism, as far as I am concerned.
The best assistance any judge can offer is to READ the case file (which many don’t), OBEY his/her own laws of procedure and Judicial Canons promoting ethical behavior, RECUSE him/herself when there is a conflict of interest (which no AFCC judge can deny exists when there are related professionals to steer business towards in the same jurisdiction), and honestly attempt to ascertain if one party or the other’s evidence does not support the claim.  To refrain from extensive ex parte and in-chambers deliberation, and to act in concert with the criminal law — not attempt to ignore the criminal law, create new “psychological crimes” (PAS theory) and so forth.
None of these judges are likely to do this, or they’d quit the organization.  The law as stated did not suit them so, acting more as priests than judges, they simply collaborated (“innovation and collaboration” is accurate, above) to alter it to suit their private purposes, which (see the cases I highlit above) conflicts many times with individual rights of U.S. citizens, and parental rights to avoid having their homes invaded, and their children kidnapped and institutionalized simply because Mom or Dad protested improper and physically/mentally dangerous drugging!


COMMENTARY, EXPRESSING INDIGNATION ABOUT THIS:
(These paragraphs may not be in the best order.  Please take them individually.  I tried yesterday, but PTSD was an issue in contacting the organization to talk about this, or emailing them. I suspect a phone call would work better).
By the time some file for a domestic violence restraining order (sometimes called Protection From Abuse, etc.) with kickout — a person has sometimes tried long and hard to handle the situation without legal action, and may have simply tried to stop the abuse, or get help to stop the abuse, before making the tough situation to throw someone out legally in order to stay alive or physically intact.  
In my case (now about a decade old or just more), as an educated, fairly liberal (I like to think) woman, I told people in my social sphere about the abuse.  The range of people who knew, witnessed dramatic incidents and longstanding patterns that clearly speak of domestic violence and “intimate terrorism”** was very wide.  Men and women of all ages, married and single, employed and stay-at-home, sometimes facilitated temporary survival post-incident, or to temporarily avoid one, but collectively it was a wash — no interference, no confrontation, no referral to outside resources, and no personal hard talks (man to man) with the father saying “stop!” Collectively, I have to say, society still values marriage over sanity, i.e., when marriage seriously endangers & compromises basic life, then it’s not worth preserving, and THAT marriage is NOT part of the “social unit of society.”
(**such as my fleeing my home to theirs for safety overnight; property destruction symbolically targeted towards what was of value to me, work sabotage by refusing to reliably watch our children, or be home in time for me to get to work, serious attempts to prevent me from access to transportation, or basics like holding an open bank account (there was never any joint one), or participate in inspiring or encouraging community activities, interception of mail, weapons collection used to terrorize me out of certain activities, and seeing me in complete trauma over a period of years and immediately after various incidents; seeing a mother and children without necessaries, yet a father with multiple pairs of shoes, electronics, and etc.; indications that the house was not being maintained in a functional manner (utilities, etc.) . . . .

Sometime the silence is religious, but not always.

So, when these mothers then figure out there are more activist, feminist women’s groups who really do say NO! !!! to sexual assault (including in relationships) and violence — and seek some help or leadership in navigating their legal and civil rights in the matter, and/or the police force, reporting, district attorney’s office, or as it may be, nonprofit domestic violence support groups which might help them file a pleading to protect their lives (and/or their kids), when they couldn’t safely flee or separate on their own — we should expect to be treated as equals and intelligent adults in knowing who has a seat at the roundtable deciding our future, and the future of others in our shoes.

In Maryland, it’s crystal clear — the women’s law groups and pro bono service providers — do not see fit to check back with these mothers after years after in the court, and to perhaps courageously revamp whether the Parenting Coordination Pushers deserve a seat at the round table.

FIRST, mothers, being women, tend to look for women’s groups for leadership when it comes to defense against severe violence in the home, or in attempting to terminate a relationship.   I know that’s all who helped me out — no patriarchal institution around did squat to stop, report, intervene with, or refer me to anyone who could intervene with, my ex’s nasty habit of assault & battery when offended, or when simply ornery, plus all the other things that I later learned compromised domestic violence (but knew at the time were simply terrorism).

Such mothers in these situations KNOW we could be killed, and after separation, are sometimes being stalked, threatened, have suffered serious injuries, major setbacks to maintaining stable employment and social involvements outside the home — or only such social involvements as will NOT intervene with the family situation and tell the batterer to stop!!! or suffer at least social consequences.

We also know (by now) that while the domestic violence groups have developed a language to describe and “unify” such situations, the domestic violence groups have lumped women WITHOUT children together with women WITH children (i.e., mothers), and focused their efforts on tactics and issues that assist the former — while failing to report in a timely and transparent manner about their dealings with the “fatherhood” (men’s supremacy) groups.  They do not even report that these groups exist, what their names are, and how their influence affects custody hearings.

They do not even name the groups, do not name the primary groups running the family law system; they do not warn mothers about what lies ahead in enough time to protect themselves, or to build some sort of “ark” to keep from being financially and psychologically drowned in the legal system after the DV group got its warm body, a protective order, a ## to put on a report, and enough to justify next year’s funding.

In short, they do not report what they know because it’s simply not a transparent situation.

Mothers are not told that they are fighting a contest which is funded on the opposing side by the welfare institution that perhaps may be providing them with housing, food initially.  That this institution literally has been diverting millions of dollars to assist “noncustodial fathers” in regaining contact with their kids, based on the theory that these same mothers are the serious risk to their own kids’ futures by the fact of not having a man in the home who is that kids’ Dad even when that kids’ Dad was assaulting her and/or them (or molesting them) is as such not a fit parent.

For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV Groups Basically Can’t (Won’t?) Stop [Terroristic Threats, Murder, Assault, Battery, Stalking, False Imprisonment, Harrassment– Child Molestation–or other Crimes]

with 2 comments

Why?

Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue.  Ditto with CPS.  But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest.  If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion:  these feminist law professors and women, in many respects,  have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth.   And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her.  And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow.   That’s My take on it.  So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal.  And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area).  However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us.  However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secureThe freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.”  It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop.  To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is.  As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT?  Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system  — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place.   Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now.  Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with.  But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

Thank you for your concern.

Marie De Santis, Director Women’s Justice Center Centro de Justicia para Mujeres

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise.  (See this blog.  See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re:  Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers”   Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise!  Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know.   The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county.  That alone should have caught our attention.  Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in.  It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants.  In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow.  And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.”  As the site says:

 We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#

470942805

to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS?  Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what?   Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2583174 05/17/2004* ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE DAVID B WEXLER

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see  from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.   

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above.  It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3284403 03/09/2010 ACTIVE CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it.  However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do.  In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too.   Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status.  Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.”  And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too.  If our Navy was run this waywe’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration.  A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

APA American Psychological AssociationWDCA Board of Behavioral SciencesBRN Board of Registered Nursing     CATC Certified Addictions Treatment CounselorJudicial Council of California Administrative Office of the CourtsNAADAC Association for Addiction ProfessionalsNBCC National Board for Certified CounselorsNevada Attorney General

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

David B. Wexler , Ph.D., Diplomate IABMCP
Director, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy  (group registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719.  Usually it’s 9 or 12):

Name Taxpayer ID# Zip
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS 17523304719 75225

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..”  It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

2010  751726710 International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother CO 1980 06 31,455 1,402 990

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly…  But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill.  The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves?  Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4)They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an exampleO’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today?   Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…  

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent  asks them to!

You might want to look at this article:

VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA.  WHY? I thought.  I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts.  Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming.   )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence

The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.

If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.

Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF).  I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:
Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com 

rdjustice@monitor.net

VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994.  By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention  areas of goverment.  While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse.  And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative:  even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous.  That’s not what they’re there for, apparently.  Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent.  Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser.  The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father.  There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept).  Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently.  It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too.  After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right?  How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court.  Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report.  I’d like to see that report.  Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged!  When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case.  The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.”  The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad.  The ransom process is simply this:  the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit.  That’s the plan.  That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing.  (“Computerized or Con-puterized?”  Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting.  One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held).   We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child supportin the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine).    Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party.  It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down.  (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too.  Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang.  Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept.  One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it.  The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life.  Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out.  The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session.  Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day.  While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours.  Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too.   This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial”  which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit.  However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert.  Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts.  It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the  bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know.  The ones I don’t, I’ll look up.  Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB:  I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference.  That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general.  You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

 

  • We who?  (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

  • Working for whom?*

  • Define “working” — what’s the goal here?  (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer.  Act on those answers and you become a fool.  A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.  

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones.  Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant.  They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients.  Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes.  And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running.  We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material?  Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely?  How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser?  Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress.  It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case.  That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children.   (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women:  Here — serve some cookies,  greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister).  . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places.   Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field.  This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub.  It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years.  No one has done this much to date  because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

RE:  “IS What We’re Doing Working”

Here’s a short answer:   “ExcUUse me?   You  * #$!- ing (kidding) me, right?”

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster?  relatives?)  this week in California.  The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales:  However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage:  2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years.  Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference:  Him vs. Her — was 17 years.  We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable.  Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?).  Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking.  So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave?  Who knows?  Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what?  Where are the children going to live now?  Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case.  She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father.  The county wants its programs funded.  If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support.  This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation.    This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of.  Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day?  Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase:  “Clear and Present Danger.”  It has 3 usages.

1.  In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.”  If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2.  In Usage by AFCC,  “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3.  I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry.  It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.”  They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either.  I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court.  That’s crazy thinking.  It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more.  When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4.    Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.?   That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released.  The woman did everything right — almost.  She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.
I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze.  THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?
There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later.  For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.
Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards?  How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated.  It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached.  Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier.  If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?
But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.
Meanwhile:  We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.
I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of.   It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.
Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.
2012 PRESENTERS   Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

Joan Zorza  – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters

Kathleen Russell*

— *of Center for Judicial Excellence.  Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles.  Not a mother.

Connie Valentine  (CPPA)

Karen Anderson  (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.)

Phyllis Chesler  

(if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her)

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present.  She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her.  Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding.   She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit?   Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa.  This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers.  They lend legitimacy where there is non.

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.

 

Dara Carlin*

*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her.  Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?).  This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually.  She didn’t “Get” it.  Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

(mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright.  Seriously!)

Rita Smith*  

(NCADV Leadership.  NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding.  It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)

Eileen King  (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear).

Mo Therese Hannah

(self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller.  I don’t recoqnize the other names).

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano


Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake.  This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces.  We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).
Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up.  NOTE:  That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.
I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are.  Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.
%d bloggers like this: