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

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

Posts Tagged ‘Eric Holder

Parent Coordination Promoters sure can be Pushy . . . . and the Practice is so Pervasive….

with one comment

Well this turned out to be an interesting post (see how it concludes).   Have a wonderful weekend and if it’s in your country, “Father’s Day.”

 

This Just Out from “GovTrack” on the House Ways and Means Committee (and predictably, Sponsored by Danny Davis, introduced 6/15/2011):

H.R. 2193:
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible…

H.R. 2193 To amend title IV of the Social Security Act

to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible fatherhood

and strengthen low-income families,

and for other purposes.

“The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack. It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet….”

Democrat sponsors too, this time:

Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL7]hide cosponsors

I figure it will be similar to this one, from 2009):

06/17/2009 Davis, Bayh Introduce Legislation To Promote Healthy Families, Active Fatherhood

With one in three children in the United States living apart from their biological fathers, Representative Danny K. Davis and Senator Evan Bayh are renewing their efforts to promote healthy families and support American fathers who are trying to earn a livable wage and take a more active role in the lives of their children.

Rep. Davis along with Reps. André Carson and Artur Davis today introduced companion legislation in the House called the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 Act, in honor of Representative Julia Carson, the late Indianapolis congresswoman who championed fatherhood reform throughout her long career.

Bayh today introduced his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris, a bill cosponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama in the last Congress. Bayh’s bill is co-sponsored with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris.

“It is a sad and sobering fact that one out of every three kids in America will wake up this Father’s Day without their father present,” Bayh said. “Conceiving a child doesn’t make you a man, but raising one responsibly does. Unfortunately, absentee fathers have become a national epidemic. The result is that 24 million American children are more likely to struggle in school and have emotional and behavioral problems.”

 

Yeah, emotional and behavioral problems like sexting strange women while your pregnant wife is away at work  —  or (see recent posts — I can’t recall the name — of key Obama appointee starting a baby in May out of wedlock, and then marrying a newer, better woman the following December, while one’s job description includes the words “healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood” oversight.  I DNR exact details but you can see my 2011 posts, there are photos) —

If Obama’s own appointees can’t keep to the standard of responsible fatherhood, why should he inflict the programs on the rest of us, meanwhile constantly diminishing the work of very responsible mothers?

Bayh added, “Our government spends $100 billion a year to deal with the fallout of absent fathers.** The government can’t pass a law to make men good dads, but we can support local programs that specialize in job training, career counseling and financial literacy to help those men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids

What procedures are in place to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys? — To justify it, they say “men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids.”   However, even attorney General General Eric Holder has noted (finally, if only in QUICK passing) that in fact, custody is going to batterers.

Recently (6/22/2011) a rapper “Tone Loc” was arrested for felony (not misdemeanor) domestic violence with the mother of this child.  He posted $50,000 bail within 3 hours and was out. … (I hope she was able to relocate!).    The article sites, falsely, that violation of a restraining order in Calif. results in an arrest.  That is not true — if in theory, definitely not in practice:

d for Jennifer Morgan and Milena A. Abreu, Attorneys At Law,
Morgan Albite P.A., Miami & Coral Gables, Palm Beach & Vero Beach, Florida

Born Anthony Smith, rapper Tone Loc, arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence in Burbank, California over the weekend, is reportedly out on bail, having posted a bond of $50,000 three hours after being hauled into jail.

Known mostly for his rise to fame in the 1980’s with hits like “Wild Thing” and “Funky Cold Medina,” there is little information about exactly what occurred prior to Tone Loc’s arrest.

Police have only indicated that there was a “physical altercation” with the mother of his child.

If true, this situation does not bode well for Tone Loc, because, via the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, California has some of the harshest domestic violence laws in the country.

Whatever those laws are, or aren’t, the father can still get custody and generally also will get visitation too.

Felony domestic violence in California occurs when a person physically strikes their spouse, former spouse, a cohabitant, former cohabitant, a person with which they have or had a dating relationship, a blood relative, or the parent of his or her child.

The difference between felony and misdemeanor, as I read the (California) code is whether or not it causes serious injury.  You can check yourself.  Simply striking doesn’t constitute felony.  For Tone Loc to get this type of arrest, there probably was some injury showing.

No ongoing relationship is necessary, and penalties range from 2 to 4 years in jail and a $6,000 fine.

Additionally, restraining order violations automatically end in arrest.

That’s a bunch of baloney.  They only result in arrest of the local police or law enforcement decide to arrest them.  Many times they don’t.

California domestic violence law also impacts child custody by requiring judges to make the presumption that granting custody to a batterer is not in the best interest of the child.

SOURCE:  Criminal Law News Now.com, sponsored by Morgan Albite, P.A. – in Florida?

 

As the 2009 public statement from Rep. Davis says:

I am glad President Obama is starting a national conversation to draw public attention to the critical role that fathers play in raising responsible, healthy adults.”

Of course then-President Clinton (a prime example of marital fidelity, & “keep it zipped” Democrat, both before and during the US Presidency) already started that conversation in 1995, responding to Republican “Contract with America.”  Why do I start to feel sometimes like a bystander when Democrats & Republicans jockey (as our Congress) for supremacy in the  “MY fatherhood programs are bigger than YOURS!” and “Who’s your Daddy!” posturing — and spending?

 

((Here is Rep. Davis on Tax Day 4/15/2011 introducing “The Children’s Budget Act” and citing to Brookings Institute and The Urban Institute) talking about we need to spend more money on children.  For Brookings Institute, read Ron Haskins and others who produce “Fragile Family” and other “Strengthening the Family” reports indicating that marriage reduces poverty and is a great thing for children, which Deomcrat Rep. Anthony Weiner — who according to news “just out” (yesterday) — might be thinking about, about now — and I guess if he steps down at once, he won’t get to vote yes on more fatherhood funding — although he’s about to become one:**

(Thu Jun 16, 9:48 am ET Rep. Anthony Weiner stepping down

By Rachel Rose Hartman

Rep. Anthony Weiner plans to announce at a 2 p.m. press conference in Brooklyn, N.Y. Thursday that he has made the decision to resign from Congress amid a growing scandal over his lewd online communications.

Last week, Weiner admitted he had lied about his dealings {{“I was hacked”}} with women he had met online–but insisted he wouldn’t resign. On Saturday, his office announced he had entered “treatment,” after top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, publicly called on him to leave Congress.

Weiner had previously indicated that he wished to speak with *** his wife Huma Abedin, who is pregnant with the couple’s first child, before deciding on his political future. Abedin returned to Washington yesterday following a trip to Africa with her boss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

House Democrats today were scheduled to meet to discuss potential next steps to punish the New York congressman, including possibly stripping him of his committee assignments (he currently sits on the powerful House Energy and Commerce as well as the Judiciary committee), and expelling him from the Democratic caucus.

The scandal, which first broke three weeks ago, continued to deepen this week.

Just yesterday, porn star Ginger Lee held a press conference to announce that the congressman had asked her to lie about their online communications. “I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied to the public and the press for more than a week,” Lee said.

Weiner was asked about his Twitter communications with Lee when the scandal broke; he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Lee probably received “pro-forma”  messages from his account and that was all.

Lee claims Weiner sent her specific messages about his “package.” She had previously shared her communications with Weiner with the site TMZ.

Lee hired celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred to make her case to a national audience and multiple news outlets report that an Atlanta strip club was already using the scandal to promote her appearance at their venue Wednesday night.

Ah well….Just kidding.  I know what time of month it is (this JUNE) and simply looked up the House Ways and Means Committee’s doings.  Rep. Davis will always have a warm position in my heart anyhow, for carrying that crown in the US Senate Building and placing it on the top of the royalty-robed Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church in front of plenty of spectators.   NOt that he hasn’t done plenty else, but would you buy a fatherhood program from someone who plays along with someone who wants — I mean REALLY wants — to rule the world and really seems to believe Jesus messed up, but He’s got a better idea?  (That’s exactly how this cult thinks and talks to, when not money-laundering etc.)

Just for the record, even Attorney General Eric Holder put in JUST a few words hinting there MIGHT be a problem with custody in the court:

Reported at NAFCJ.net:


From the “What Took Them So-Long” category, is this Department of Justice, June 2009 release of remarks by Attorney General Holder which include: “Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system? ” Remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder June 2009

From the horse’s mouth (i.e., DOJ source):

  »  Justice News
Justice News Banner
Attorney General Eric Holder via Video to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment
~ Tuesday, June 2, 2009

 Remarks as prepared for delivery. (I would love to hear a recorded transcript…..)

Good morning and welcome to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment.

As you are gathered here in this beautiful location, I hope that you will forge new alliances and a collective leadership that will help identify solutions that will have a lasting impact on the lives of mothers and children traumatized by family violence. I ask that you consider ways the Department of Justice can renew and strengthen its efforts to address this problem. We want to draw upon lessons gleaned from your work in communities throughout the country. We also want to know what has been left undone.

(paragraph, paragraph, paragraph, and then):

Some of the topics that you will address may be more challenging than others. I hope you will especially discuss the most difficult issues I know many of you confront in your work:

  • Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system?
  • Why are children of color over-represented in the child protection system?
  • Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past? If so, what does that relationship look like?

I ask that you explore all of these things while always remembering that the needs of children who are exposed to violence are inextricably linked to the needs of mothers who are the victims of domestic violence.

Well, sorry to say, the fathers’ groups and promoters don’t see it that way…The sponsoring group (which I remember noticing at the time) was t he Office on Violence Against Women, in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCFCJ) and the Family Violence Prevention Fund [basically a fatherhood-funded group at this point.  I have written them off.  They are not going to confront the custody issues, at all..] has planned this meeting to continue a conversation that began almost a decade ago, at the first National Summit held here in Jackson Hole, Wyoming  If Philip Stahl (one of the largest PAS promoters around, and trains judges) is on the the faculty of NCFCJ, I doubt he is going to be too interested in the “problem” custody of children going to batterers.  His work enables that!   It’s one of the primary things he appears to write on — parental alienation!

Here he is in 2010 speaking to an Alliance of Concerned Men on fatherhood.  It’s a good speech, but pulls out that phrasing:

I’m glad to be in the company of so many fellow dads and local leaders who want to focus on, and talk about, fatherhood. In the course of this discussion, I hope we will be open and honest enough to ask ourselves tough questions – father to father, parent to parent – about what our communities, as well as the federal government, can do to strengthen our families and support those fathers who are trying to do the right thing.

The plain truth is that youth violence is far-too common. There’s no single cause and no simple solution. But we know one important contributor is the absence of a responsible, loving father. Here in D.C., where half of African-American households don’t include even one grown man, the implications of this fact could not be clearer.

If we are going to call ourselves “men” then we must act like men. We must nurture and care for those we bring into this world. That’s what a “man”

Attorney General Eric Holderdoes. We can’t leave this awesome responsibility only to the women in our lives who, nevertheless, do a superb job. And we can’t ask our communities to shoulder our obligations. This must end. Any man who can create a child must also help, in a meaningful way, to help raise that child.

I don’t pretend that this will be easy, especially for fathers who have been incarcerated…

 

 

 

 

And, Dec. 18, 2009 from “mainjustice.com” (AndrewRamonas)

Holden’s Fatherhood Speeches Part of Faith-Based Initiative:

 

(this page is apparently particular about not quoting excerpts and is immune from a partial “cut and paste” (see Fair use Copyright, below).  So, to read it, just click on the link.  The info right below here is from a link on the article.  POINT BEING– one brief sentence that mothers are losing custody to batterers, people of color disproportionately represented in child protective services, and so forth.  If this was a SErIOUS concern of our attorney general, then he would put someone on the job to find out why — and not just ask the local experts who love to train judges, what’s happening.  Perhaps we should take a look at some of that judicial training!
 
 
Policy Goals – Key Priorities for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships
In addition to its daily work, President Obama has asked the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to focus on four special priorities.  These priorities are:
  1. Strengthening the Role of Community Organizations in the Economic Recovery
  2. Reducing Unintended Pregnancies, Supporting Maternal and Child Health, and Reducing the Need for Abortion
  3. Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities
  4. Promoting Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation

Efforts associated with these key priorities will be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and the 11 Agency Centers for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, as well as the Strategic Advisor at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Gee, here they are up in NH promoting Fathers in education; this time, if fathers are there, it means academics improve.  Pretty soon mothers will become obsolete — or simply wombs to bring out kids that fathers can be involved in, thus justifying more initiatives (and grants, and trips, and conferences, and speeches, and publications and media press releases, and  . . . . and . . . . . .. . )

Today, as part of the continuing National Conversation on Fatherhood, Obama Administration officials made the second stop of a national initiative with a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire to focus on the importance of fathers in the education of their children. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, in cooperation with The U.S. Department of Education, conducted the event.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan participated in the day’s activities, which examined the ever growing importance of fathers in the education of their children. Increasing parent involvement, particularly the involvement of fathers, is key to improving struggling schools across the country. Research shows that children do better in school and are less likely to drop out when fathers are involved. More than 70 representatives of nonprofits, parent organizations, faith-based organizations, counseling agencies and university, business and government services from across New England participated in the discussion and provided feedback on engaging fathers in their children’s education

 

BACK TO PARENTAL COORDINATION.  Let’s keep the parenting “gender-neutral” and talk about the organizational aspects here:

How’d we get so many uncoordinated parents in the neighborhood, anyhow?  Why haven’t years upon years (like K-12) of being shown how to  sit down, stand up, wait in lines and go through lines on cue (bells), and stop whatever they were doing every XX minutes and to keep to their assigned places in the Bell Curves of Life gotten the place coordinated yet?

And yet we (meaning “y’all” from another perspective) need more and more coordinators to tell these people who have (most of them) already come through the US Public School system, somehow — to leave whoever they hooked up and then split up with (whether by marriage or “liaison” of some sort) — how to parent right…  How to be fair, UNbiased (see my last four posts) and above all trust authority.  And we need more social demonstration research to figure out where “we” (the experts?) failed.  Of course, as one generation grows up, it’s important to get to the next generation in time and engrave the latest dogma upon them — as expressed in the best “practices.”

Wikipedia for what it’s worth:

Parenting coordinator (PC) is a relatively new practice that is used to manage on-going issues in child custody and visitation cases by professional psychologist or a lawyer assigned by the Court.[1] There are 10 states as of May, 2011 that have passed legislation regarding parenting coordinators: Colorado (since 2005), Idaho (2002), Louisiana (2007), New Hampshire (2009), North Carolina (2005), Oklahoma (2001), Oregon (2002), Texas (2005), Massachusetts and Florida.[2]

I am not the only person opposed to “Parenting Coordination” and introducing yet another profession into the AFCC Palette:

The LIZ LIBRARY agrees with me, and gives a whole page of reasons, followed by a ***t (Boat)load of links to justify it.  However, the first one (I listed below) would be good enough:

Article on Parenting Coordination can be found at:
Parenting Coordination, a bad idea
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/parenting-coordination.html
Also see: Parenting Coordinator Practical Considerations
And: A “child-centered divorce”?


    • Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function

Of course, I”m of the opinion (see my PCANH cites) that is precisely the point of it. . . . . .

Here’s what Florida Governor “Jeb” Bush wrote in 2004, explaining his VETO of a  certain bill promoting the Professionalization of Parental Coordination:

While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:

1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.

2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.

3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights

4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.

5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.

Actually, I believe it’s appropriate to reprint in full, here:

June 18, 2004

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.

I applaud the dedicated efforts of many whose mission is to identify alternatives to assist families in conflict. I also recognize that some circuit courts are currently utilizing parenting coordinators without statutory authority, and I commend them for seeking legislative direction.

While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:

1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.

2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.

3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights.

Ms. Glenda E. Hood June 18, 2004 Page Two

4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.

5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.

I will support a revised bill during the 2005 legislative session that makes the appointment and selection of a parenting coordinator subject to the consent of both parents. Also, I believe that we must limit the risk of “professionalization” of the parenting coordinator role by limiting it to volunteers. While I respect the Legislature’s policy choice to allow only licensed professionals, clergy or attorneys to qualify as parenting coordinators, I believe that any volunteer, especially any faith-based volunteer, who meets certain minimum criteria should be allowed to serve as a parenting coordinator.

Basic training and standards are important. I support language, some contained in the current bill, regarding domestic violence training, family-court procedures, and mediation.

I am committed to working with the sponsors of this legislation *** to create a program that can assist parents, preserve their rights, protect the best interests of the children involved, and address the concerns noted above.

Furthermore, by this letter, I respectfully request the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court and all chief circuit judges to consider revising these programs to ensure that parents’ paramount rights are not compromised, regardless of the well-intentioned motives of the program.

For these reasons, and the reasons set forth herein, I am withholding my approval of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, and do hereby veto the same.

Sincerely,

Jeb Bush

** He’d just about HAVE to work with the sponsors of that legislation:  they are helping run the states’ family law system, and if he didn’t, there’d probably be a riot.  Nevertheless, as we approach June 18, 2011 (seven years later), I’d have to agree with the points he made.

Of course, these people don’t (I just picked one state, but one can find similar “reasoning” and resolve in all states.  More later, this is a quick post…..):

This is from Illinois.  I learned today that Cook County  (i.e., Chicagoland) Clerk of the Court handles $74 million and over 2 million cases per year.  It’s larger than some Fortune 500 companies.   They opened a $64 million building in 2005 to centralize Domestic Violence Court — all under an AFCC Judge of course — you didn’t think THAT would be changed….

Anyhow, AFCC doesn’t want “Children” in the Middle — they typically want THEMSELVES (including parenting coordinators) in the middle, and in charge.

I found this elegant site — very impressive  It’ graphics are a cut above for sure, and its membership are decorated and competent, and judges:

RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE

...to encourage effective & efficient use of court-related alternative dispute resolution - the RSI Mission

Resolutions Systems Institute and

Center for Conflict Resolution are out of the same street address and suite#:

RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE
11 EAST ADAMS STREET, SUITE 500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603
312 922 6475 INFO@ABOUTRSI.ORG WWW.ABOUTRSI.ORG
 
and . . . . 
 
Center for Conflict Resolution
11 E. Adams, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: 312-922-6464
Fax: 312-922-6463

“Mission:

The Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) is one of the nation’s premiere not-for-profit providers of mediation services and conflict management training. Our services are flexible and cost-effective, based on a track record of over 31,000 mediated cases and backed by the expertise of knowledgeable, dedicated volunteers and employees.

Every year we provide free mediation services in over 2,000 cases, train hundreds of new mediators, facilitate meetings and work with dozens of businesses, government agencies and organizations to create custom-designed dispute resolution systems and training programs.

It was started by the Young Lawyers Section of the Chicago Bar:

History:

In 1979, the Young Lawyers Section of The Chicago Bar Association supported the creation of a not-for-profit corporation to aid the Chicago community in effectively handling disputes.

Originally known as the Neighborhood Justice of Chicago, the Center for Conflict Resolution opened in a storefront in Chicago’s Uptown Neighborhood to help people resolve their conflicts through mediation. In the early 1980’s, CCR began accepting a significant number of case referrals from the Circuit Court of Cook County. To reach the community more effectively and to enhance their new services, CCR moved its offices to Chicago’s downtown loop.

CCR continued its reach through programs developed in the Circuit Court of Cook County and in city and state institutions that continue today. From juvenile offenders and victims, landlord-tenant conflicts and small claims matters to employment discrimination and Chancery Court cases, CCR provides a successful option for the court and to the residents of the Chicago-land community.

In the 1990’s, having successfully trained hundreds of volunteers to mediate for the organization, CCR began offering mediation skills training to individuals along with custom-designed conflict management training programs for organizations.

Today the Center for Conflict Resolution is governed by a 20-member Board of Directors and relies on a full-time staff of eleven and approximately 120 active volunteer mediators who mediate 95% of CCR’s cases. In the past five years alone, CCR mediated over 10,000 cases and provided conflict management training to thousands of individuals.

Anyhow this is from its “NEWS AND UPDATES” (see sidebar to left, and scroll down):

ay 25, 2011 – AFCC Offers Chicago Trainings on Parenting Coordination and Working with Children in Separating/Divorcing Families

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is offering two trainings in June for dispute resolution professionals in Chicago. “Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies” is a “practice-based, case-oriented” training for experienced parenting coordinators that will discuss ways to improve the parenting coordination process and work with high-conflict clients. It will be held June 20-21. “Children and Divorce: The Voice of the Child and Interventions When Children Resist Parental Contact” is a training for professionals who work with separating or divorcing families – including mediators, evaluators, lawyers, judges, etc. – and will focus on how to integrate children’s voices into the dispute resolution process and work with parent-child contact problems. It will be held June 22-23.

TRAINING #1: You may recognize the Trainer from a recent post of mine, East Coast outfit, although he’s West Coast (AFCC).  WHat better place to meet than in a large MidWestern city with the “largest unified family court system in the world”?

Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies 
Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
June 20-21, 2011
Chicago, Illinois

Training Brochure (PDF)

About the Presenter

Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Palo Alto, California, specializing in forensic and clinical work in the family courts. His full-time private practice focuses almost exclusively on work with co-parents. He serves in a variety of court-related roles, including mediator, co-parent counselor, parenting coordinator and consultant. He has written numerous articles and book chapters, and presented at national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorce, parenting coordination, child alienation and mental health consultation in family law cases. He is currently serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody and serves on the

AFCC Board of Directors. He served on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for PC practice and was co-chair of the AFCC Court-Involved Therapist Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for court- involved therapists. Please visit his website at http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com for more information.

Agenda

Yep, from the OVERCOMING BARRIERS CAMP.  As I spent several posts listing AFCC personnel, you may by now recognize a few names from this

Washington & Lee Law School Index of Periodicals, date, 2010:

(I searched on-line for Dr. Sullivan in company with Peggie Ward & Robin Deutch; this came up:)

Washington & Lee Law School
 Current Law Journal Content
an index to legal periodicals

  Family Court Review
Family and Conciliation Courts Review ( -v38(2000))
Volume 48, Number 1, January 2010
            other issues

  • Editorial Notes January 2010
    ANDREW SCHEPARD
    p.1                                                                                          +cite        
  • Special Guest Editors’ Editorial Notes
  • Guest Editors’ Introduction to Special Issue on Alienated Children in Divorce and Separation: Emerging Approaches for Families and Courts
    BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
    p.6                                                                                          +cite        
  • Articles
  • Children Resisting Postseparation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums
    BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
    p.10                                                                                        +cite        
  • Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK
    p.48                                                                                        +cite        
  • Commentary on “Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children” (Warshak, 2010)
    JOAN B. KELLY
    p.81                                                                                        +cite        
  • Helping Alienated Children with Family Bridges: Practice, Research, and the Pursuit of “Humbition”
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK AND MARK R. OTIS
    p.91                                                                                        +cite        
  • When a Child Rejects a Parent: Tailoring the Intervention to Fit the Problem
    STEVEN FRIEDLANDER AND MARJORIE GANS WALTERS
    p.98                                                                                        +cite        
  • Outcomes of Family Counseling Interventions with Children Who Resist Visitation: An Addendum to Friedlander and Walters (2010)
    JANET R. JOHNSTON AND JUDITH ROTH GOLDMAN
    p.112                                                                                      +cite        
  • Overcoming Barriers Family Camp: A Program for High-Conflict Divorced Families Where a Child is Resisting Contact with a Parent
    MATTHEW J. SULLIVAN, PEGGIE A. WARD, AND ROBIN M. DEUTSCH
    p.116                                                                                      +cite        
  • Early Identification and Prevention of Parent—Child Alienation: A Framework for Balancing Risks and Benefits of Intervention
    PETER G. JAFFE, DAN ASHBOURNE, AND ALFRED A. MAMO
    p.136                                                                                      +cite        
  • Alienating Audiences from Innovation: The Perils of Polemics, Ideology, and Innuendo
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK
    p.153                                                                                      +cite        
  • Parental Alienation: Canadian Court Cases 1989-2008
    NICHOLAS BALA, SUZANNE HUNT, AND CAROLYN MCCARNEY
    p.164                                                                                      +cite        
  • One Case—One Specialized Judge: Why Courts Have an Obligation to Manage Alienation and Other High-Conflict Cases
    HON. DONNA J. MARTINSON
    p.180                                                                                      +cite        
  • Perspectives
  • A Response to Peter Salem’s Article “The Emergence of Triage in Family Court Services: Beginning of the End for Mandatory Mediation”
    HUGH MCISAAC
    p.190                                                                                      +cite        
  • A Reponse to Salem: Common Sense
    STEVE BARON
    p.195                                                                                      +cite        
  • A Distinction Without Much of a Difference: Response to Steve Baron and Hugh Mclsaac
    PETER SALEM
    p.201                                                                                      +cite        
  • Fine Tuning the Branding of Parenting Coordination: “…You May Get What You Need”
    ELAYNE E. GREENBERG
    p.206                                                                                      +cite        

Meanwhile, the RSI in Illinois and its Mediation-Pushing Center for Conflict Resolution

May 12, 2011 – RSI Accepting Applications for 2012-2014 Skadden Fellowship Candidates

RSI and the Center for Conflict Resolution, RSI’s affiliate organization, is now accepting applications from law students or law clerks who would like to be considered as candidates to be sponsored as RSI/CCR’s September 2012 Skadden Fellow. The Skadden Fellowship Foundation provides a two-year fellowship that offers the opportunity to develop and execute a legal project with a public interest host organization that serves underrepresented populations. RSI/CCR seeks to sponsor a Fellow to work on court ADR program development. Click here for more information about sponsorship criteria and how to apply.

...to encourage effective & efficient use of court-related alternative dispute resolution - the RSI Mission

JUSTICE IS A PROCESS.  Handing off authority to a single Mediator in a Family Law system when that mediator is on the County Payroll, and grants to the states called “Access and Visitation” (etc.) facilitate “increased noncustodial parenting time” (to the tune of $1 million/ year in California) and other Responsible Fatherhood ways to reduce poverty and violence and encourage child support enforcement ) — doesn’t strengthen Justice.  The AFCC is not interested in Justice, and has already spoken — it is into psychology and mental health / counseling services.

It has shown and it has told.  We have experienced, but how many  have really READ both the publications of AFCC (from conference materials), the Positioning its adherents have obtained, the Professions they have developed in self-interest in getting a counselor into everyone’s life, and the very profitable “Nonprofits” they have started (and believe me, i do check these out; if you don’t know what a “FRONT GROUP” is go read some EINs in this field,  look up who’s on them, and then listen to them crying about the violence in our communities when they apply for another Supervised Visitation grant, or mandate more parental educations, or Push Parental Coordination on us — because of “high-conflict” parents)

It takes TWO parents to have high conflict.  If they would, rather, allow (and just DEAL with it!) in principle (they already do, in practice…. because when you call in a Warshak, or a judge wanting to punish an “alienating” parent, that parent is going to be OUT of a kids’ life — unless there is some more money to be drained from the parent (or parent’s associates) into the courts.  If the parent has none, then there are federal grants which can also be utilized.  Either way .  . . . .).

It’s coming up on a very famous Sunday here.  So let me say:

Happy “Parent” Day!

In some of the next posts, I am going to address some of the Resource Centers taking major fatherhood funding from the HHS in order to stop violence against women.  IN other words, they have figured out how to consolidate two federal grant streams (fatherhood — which was anti-feminist to start with — and VAWA — which was to counter extreme patriarchal behavior which perpetuated hate crimes against women because they are women.  You’d think those two would have an adversarial relationship, right?  But fact is, they have worked out their differences QUITE well when it comes to the federal faucet.

There are some “resource centers” that seem to dominate the DV field — and ALL of them are on the take from fatherhood funding, but this is not obvious unless you look at their financing.  They have dominated the field, as have their expensive, NOT well-tracked, and ever-expanding practices, NONE of which have proven to reduce violence against women (on one part) OR make more responsible fathers (on the other).  These things are not only environmental in origin and cannot always be trained in or drummed out of a person by sitting through an institute — or having judges (etc.) sit through institutes.

It’s time the general public stopped learning to look the other way and keep pretending that this is in THEIR best interests, by supporting legislators who vote in more Kids Turns, and Family Justice Centers, and appropriate millions of $$ that really don’t know, what’s happening to them.  Is it “OK” to do this decade after decade, with a US debt in trillions, and the value of the US$$ rapidly losing face globally?

Well, I may have been a TEMPORARY burden for a while, but this is definitely my civic duty in blogging these things.

CORPORATION WIKI On “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” (a.k.a. “Family Violence Prevention Fund”).  Just see how many personnel are involved:  This is the organization I found around $33 million of funding for (USASpending.gov) — from both HHS & DOJ (at least) but what they are doing primarily is “EDUC” — they get grants to set up systems to train the professionals.  They also got a $250K grant to move and change their name and web pages.  However, it’s basically the same business, form what I can tell — a monopoly in the field, shared witha  few other organizations of similar practices and clout — just different names.

The link gives a visual.

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2009 $26,157,567 990 16 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2008 $22,018,363 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2007 $17,917,034 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2006 $13,612,574 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2005 $9,114,506 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2004 $7,045,197 990 24 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2002 $6,261,569 990 22 94-3110973

Just a fragment (see 2009) includes this Program Service Component:

4c (Code. )(Expenses$ 1,879,434.includinggrantsof$ )(Revenue$       )  PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

WAIT A MINUTE — wasn’t the National Fatherhood Initiative, doing this already?

Corporation Wiki brings up a pagefull of references, I”ll take one of them;  Here are a few”

Name Type City State
National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc Company Pittsburgh PA
National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc Company Austin TX
National Forum On Fatherhood Initiatives, Inc. (TRULY interesting when you look upan individual from these Corporation wiki’s:  in this case the flamboyant and religiousBishop King Louis H. Narcisse & successor Dr. Eddie C. Welbon**.Some also have a very active court record (as Plaintiff or defendant).

 

Company San Francisco CA
California Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. Company Sacramento CA
Central Texas Fatherhood Initiative Company Waco TX
Florida Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. Company Highland Beach FL
Global Fatherhood Initiative Company Dallas TX
Lonestar Fatherhood Initiative Company Austin TX
North Texas Fatherhood Initiative Company Dallas TX
Putting An End to Abuse Through Community Efforts Initiative (P.E.A.C.E. Initiative) Company San Antonio TX

** Corporations and CHurches — a note from the Bishop King tradition:

In about 1948, King Narcisse began to incorporate an ancient legally recognized ecclesial creature into the church kingdom and diocese structure to insure that the kingdom and its charitable properties were preserved in perpetuity. The ecclesial creature was the Sole Corporation. Likewise in other states, in California, Corporation Sole may be formed only by the bishop, chief priest of any religious denomination or Church for the purpose of administrating and managing the affairs, and properties of the Church. [17]  The management and control of Corporation Sole and it assets pass to the bishop or chief priest’s Church successor. [18]

In California, King Narcisse formed the Corporation of the President of Mt. Zion Spiritual Temple, A Sole Corporation, to administer and maintain ownership of the church’s charitable property and its vast real estate holdings,[19] which would turn out to be a truly prophetic and brilliant movement to preserve the church kingdom in perpetuity.

In California, King Narcisse had his sights on building a self sufficient farm based community with a 15 million dollar hospital, cemetery and old folk’s home in the Sacramento area

Hmmm…. browsing search “finds” on this flamboyant situation, I found another blog, which also deals with fathers, early trauma, and dissociation.  The adult man (2007) is recalling and piecing together information about his father who worked at the Oakland shipyards during times of Pearl Harbor.  He speculates as to whether some of his own early trauma relates to his father’s involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

I am going to finish reading this, if you would like to see the PRINCE RAY CHRONICLES (Dec. 2007), click HERE:  As you do, recall that one purpose of the $10million/year access visitation grants is promising projects as the Secretary of Health (HHS) shall assign; states must help. …   Including what “trainings” work better than others, and keeping the network open to subject parents and children to them, forcibly, targeting IV-D (welfare) families . . . . ???

AS WE CAN SEE< THERE ARE (&/OR WERE) QUITE A FEW “FATHERHOOD” ORGANIZATIONS IN THE GOLDEN STATE (CALIFORNIA):

Coalition for The Advancement and Protection of Fatherhood Company Riverside CA
Fatherhood 101 of Orange County, Inc. Company Santa Ana CA
Fatherhood Assistance, Lifestyle & Legal Service Company Tampa FL
Fatherhood Coalition Company Santa Barbara CA
Fatherhood Foundation of The Pikes Peak Region Company Colorado Springs CO
Fatherhood Institute Company Dublin CA
Fatherhood Ministries, Inc. Company Midland TX
Fatherhood Project – Next Generation (Fp-Ng) Company West Sacramento CA
Lancaster Fatherhood Project Company Lancaster SC
Marine City Fatherhood Program Company Sausalito CA
Project Fatherhood Development, Inc. Company Los Angeles CA
The DO-Right Fatherhood Program Company Sausalito CA
The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family RevitalizationLet’s look at this one, which links only to “Charles Ballard Company San Diego CA
The Urban Fatherhood Project Company Sacramento CA
The Urban Fatherhood Project Company Sacramento CA
Urban Fatherhood Network Foundation, Inc. Company Sacramento CA

“The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization”  website goes first to a web page in Washington, DC:

INTERCHANGE.org/romros/resource-12.html

Notice it’s targeted to welfare (TANF Recipient) Custodial and noncustodial fathers:

INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 
& FAMILY REVITALIZATION

3594 Hayes St. NE Ste. 102
Washington, DC 20019-7522
(202) 396-8320 Fax (202) 396-8326
EMAIL: bcjenkins@responsiblefatherhood.org
WEBSITE: http://www.responsiblefatherhood.org
Contact Person: Bruce & Cesalie Jenkins


Hours of Operation: 9:00a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Population Served: Custodial and non-custodial fathers, TANF Recipients
Area Served: Primary target area is Ward 7 in DC; also serve those who are referred by our collaborative partners


Volunteers Needed for:
Doing surveys | Support for community services


No. needed: 

“Turning the hearts of  fathers unto their children”
We are a 20 year old grass roots organization working with  fathers and mothers to enhance self-worth and communication skills to empower them a parent to take charge of their homes and familiesServices Offered:

  • Paternity establishment
  • Domestic violence Intervention
  • Father & mother parenting support sessions
  • Family Support Services
  • Job Readiness & Job Search Skills
  • Child Support Assistance

This web site is sponsored and maintained by vernard r gray of InterChange.org , a non-profit virtual corporation
dedicated to social change through the effective use of networked intelligence.

The Reach Our Men Reach Our Sons Coalition (ROMROS) is a community-based collective of concerned individuals and organizations whose purpose is to improve our community by developing recruitment strategies to get more African American men involved in those organizations that service our youth in the community.  Real Men Bond: significantly increase active community involvement, commitment, and participation of male members. Will strengthen family ties, improve conditions in the community and facilitate personal growth and development. Men with a Mission: By reviving and building on the success of the Million Man March the spirit of unity and atonement guides and empowers fathers, sons and brothers.

Of course Charles Ballard is very well known in the fatherhood movement, and one of the originals:

Responsible Fatherhood, Faith, Marriage and Family

by Dr. Charles A. Ballard, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of The Institute of Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization

ON THAT BLESSED DAY, THAT VERY FIRST “PARENT’S DAY,” GOD SPOKE AND SAID: “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS AND LET THEM HAVE RULERSHIP OVER EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE AND GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN.”

Wow! What a beautiful sight that must have been – two human beings, a new order of creatures, the beginning of a new planet, a new world. Then God blessed them and spoke to them saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, have many children, fill the earth and master it.” God loves family. When he spoke and said, “Let Us,” He was speaking to other members of His God Family.

Adam and Eve were to fill the earth with other human beings who would look and act like them, for they were to be made in His image, after His likeness. Adam was to cleave to his wife, Eve, and Eve was to cling to her husband, Adam. They were one. He was assigned to her as secret service agents are assigned to protect the President of the United States. God designed Adam to be a covering for his wife, and a protector for his children. More than this, Adam was to be the SERVANT leader. The SERVANT head, and SERVANT priest. Adam was to keep Eve at all times by his side. God gave them five wonderful gifts: a home, food, employment, a day of rest, and family. How much better could it get? Then it happened: first to Eve, then to Adam. An outsider usurped the power of dominion entrusted to them. This outsider, Satan, decided to put asunder what God had joined together. This outsider was allowed to come between the man and his wife. Sin entered the world. Then a tide of woe fell upon God’s wonderful creation.

And “Home” to this site links to 7th Day Adventists….I’m hoping these are not the ones promoting the “Marriage” book “Adam was From Dirt, Eve was from Adam.”

No, this was a DIFFERENT “REsponsible fatherhood” grantee receipient, Leo Godzich out of Arizona?  The organization that was over in Uganda promoting the kill-the-gay legislation (til it was out’ed).  Here’s the book:

Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men

Dr. Leo Godzich of “nameonline.net

Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men - Dr. Leo Godzich

of course, the other website is not so up-front that the CEO writes books like this; it’s got a little softer approach:

NAME - National Association of Marriage Enhancement

(When you get some time, search “Godzich” on my blog — I did report some of the federal funding (and political connections – can you say “Bush”? of this particular nonprofit, the “NAME”).

The official bio of Godzich:

  • Leo Godzich

  • Leo Godzich is the founder and president of NAME, the National Association Marriage Enhancement and the host of the International Marriage Conference as well as being a leading force behind the Covenant Marriage Movement. NAME is a network of churches and couples committed to biblical marriage ministry. Currently, NAME is developing counseling centers in the U.S., Canada, Africa and Australia. Mr. Godzich is Pastor of Special Projects at Phoenix First Assembly of God in Phoenix, Arizona, the sixth largest church in the country, according to Time Magazine. He and his wife oversee a local marriage ministry to hundreds of couples with amazing results in restoring broken marriages and building stronger marriages. The Godzichs conduct Together Forever Marriage Seminars at churches and hotels around the country. He is the author of Is God In Your Marriage? and Public Relations and the Church. He has appeared as a guest and host on the Trinity Broadcasting Network programs and has been featured on the 700 Club. He also preaches the gospel around the world from Europe and Israel to Africa. Prior to entering the ministry, Mr. Godzich was an award-winning journalist, with more than 300 articles published in variety of publications. Pastor Leo Godzich, his wife, Molly, and daughters, Emily, Bethany and Christy, live in Phoenix, Arizona.

(this temporarily disrupted my peace, here, considering 7th Day Adventists and megachurch Assemblies of God in light of the OFCBI and federal funding to further “help” Men made from Dirt  become GOOD Daddies who help women understand that they came from Men…. and of course were the worlds first sinner and brought forth the world’s first murderer, etc.. — …  Those two groups in particular are so controlling.  )

Back To Ballard:

  1. Women In Fatherhood Inc. » Frances Ballard

    She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood 
    womeninfatherhood.org/main/frances-ballard/ – Cached – Similar
  2. Princeton – News – Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address How to 

    Sep 11, 1997  Princeton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, 
    http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q3/0911-ballard.html – Cached
  3. IAV | Book: The Fatherhood Movement: A Call to Action

    This book brings together many of the leading voices of the fatherhood movement.  such asCharles Ballard of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood in 
    http://www.americanvalues.org/…/bk-the_fatherhood_movement.html – Cached – Similar

This is the 1997 release of his speech at Princeton (Dr. Ballard’s, I mean):

News from
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Communications and Publications, Stanhope Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
Tel 609/258-3601; Fax 609/258-1301
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Patricia Coen 609/258-5764
Date: September 11, 1997

Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address
How to Return Fathers to Families

Princeton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, will speak on “The Status of Fatherhood in America: How Do We Return Fathers to Families?”** at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs on Tuesday, September 23, at 4:30 p.m. in Robertson Hall, Bowl 5.

**I neglected to provide the link to the photo of Dr. Ballard above:  here it is:  You’ll note the washington DC website I copied the contents to contains the phrase ““Turning the hearts of  fathers unto their children”   THis is taken from the Bible.  The original is an active tense verb, and the subject of that verb is God, not man:  For the areligious among us, take it from me (or this quote) that these people are both misquoting and taking out of context the original — which is talking about John the Baptist preparing the world for the coming of Jesus Christ.  Well, actually, that was how John the Baptist was interpreted, so lets’ start with the original (at least in the current canon compromising this KJV) — which is the last book of the Old Testament, and I heard 400 years before before the birth of Christ.  It’s been, by contrast, about two thousand years SINCE the birth of Christ, and while I”m at it, exactly 400 years (1611) since this King James Version.

MALACHI 4:

5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse..

(funny how the beginning AND the end of the quote is simply left out, and the middle is turned into a process that some religious person can market.

In fact, here’s that very short chapter:

1For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

4Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,with the statutes and judgments. 5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse

AND in the New Testament, “Luke” it is given as a prophecy (referring to Malachi no doubt) given over the miracle birth (by conception, but miraculous because Elizabeth, cousin to Mary, mother of Jesus, had been barren) about her baby who would be filled with the holy ghost from birth, making him great:

LUKE  1

15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord

and in its proper context:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were nowwell stricken in years.

8And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, 9According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense12And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Now, I’m sticking this out here for the atheists and agnostics, and those who haven’t been exposed to a certain type of religious thinking.  This phrase is not addressed to everyone, it was specifically addressed to people that considered themselves God’s chosen.  And it was never something that individuals were supposed to do by governmental mandate or religious program — it was the EXACT opposite, and required holy spirit to communicate, and to do, i.e., prophecy.

GO FIGURE, someone smelled money and influence, and figured they might as well run with the phrase.  Now I have this question:  HOW MUCH influence (and cash) would you trust a group with that FORGOT the beginning, the end, and the context — and twisted and extended the middle of (changing a divine mission prophecied to come to ONE man (only) of the stature of Elijah (well known in OT for his miracles and many other things) — to apply it to ALL men, as coached by SOME men?     Does the original sound like a social program or spiritual renewal?

Also, this is sold as taking people off welfare and for the public good — as a FINANCIAL benefit to the entire United States (which has no official religion, we say).   And yet in context, it is prophesying a coming day of wrath — or (Malachi) that this had better happen or the earth will be smitten with a curse.  How much further off target — from their own scriptures! — could this possibly be.  And these are not obscure Scripture either — the book of Luke is read, religiously (at least chapter 2) every single “Christmas” season and has been for centuries, by Protestants and Catholics (Can’t say about these two sects, I’m not in them.  But they call themselves Christians, so go figure.)

Malachi read:  “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant” — yet this very set of faith-based social interventions and the fatherhood-based grants systems causes a real “forgetting” of the US law (supposedly based on those 10 commandments, they like to say, right?) — that talk about due process, and fair judgments.  These operate when it comes to “family court” as a literal set of bribes — which pervert the cause of justice based on facts & evidence, not therapy and influence!

That doesn’t mean Dr. Ballard is a bad guy — I just believe this whole system is completely out of whack, and unbelievably hypocritical.  If someone is going to do social reform — do social reform.  But don’t blame it on God, and don’t inflict your private visions of him on the rest of us, we do not all subscribe!  I would take Dr. Ballard over megachurch leader Dr. Godzich any day, but I object to paying for either of them through federal tax system collected by the IRS!  I have lived (as a woman) in urban areas, and my father had no father.  I did not come in with “both guns blazing” and try to force “motherhood programs” on poor people promising them this would reverse poverty and fix the community!  

By the way, nor did I tell other people how to raise their children, and try to get national laws passed to make sure it’s one size fits all, with a few cultural differences to make it sound more legitimate!

(BACK to that 1997 Princeton anouncement, then)

Founded by Ballard in 1982 in Cleveland as a local grassroots program, the institute is considered a model fathering program, “dedicated to encouraging fathers to become involved in the lives of their children in a loving, compassionate, and nurturing way.” With its home-based outreach program, the institute has restored more than 3,000 fathers to their families. Fathers who might otherwise join the ranks of “deadbeat dads” find role models among the institute’s outreach workers, from whom they learn the skills of modern-day fatherhood. “Most men are capable of responsible fatherhood,” Ballard has said. “All we need to do is lead them to it.” Now based in Washington, D.C., the nonprofit organization has opened centers in Milwaukee, San Diego, Nashville, Tenn., and Yonkers, N.Y.

Ballard’s own young adult life could have served as a case study for the institute. At age 17, he fathered a child but abandoned the boy and his mother, joining the armed forces to avoid his responsibilities. Drugs and alcohol followed, as well as prison time for a crime Ballard says he did not commit. While in prison, Ballard had plenty of time to think about his son and decided to care for the boy when he was released. Ballard eventually adopted his son, earned a high school diploma, an undergraduate degree, and then a master’s degree in social welfare. In 1976, while working at a hospital, he observed that numerous women were having babies out of wedlock, with the fathers nowhere to be found. He gathered the names of nearly 600 fathers who had abandoned their children, then visited and counseled the men. From that simple beginning, Ballard’s institute grew into a national organization.

Ballard’s talk is being sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School.

HEre are some more links (I searched “Family Justice Center Alliance” and obviously got more than are on the Casey Gwinn Circuit, but including some of these as well.  It’s a great little tool, as is your local Secretary of State’s listing of corporations and fictitious business names, combined withe any decent “990 lookup” or nonprofit finder (including the IRS’s own).

Type City State
National Family Justice Center Alliance Company San Diego CA
Alameda County Family Justice Center, Incorporated Company Oakland CA
Anaheim Family Justice Center Foundation Company Anaheim CA
Bexar County Family Justice Center Foundation Company San Antonio TX
Family Justice Center of Erie County Inc Company Buffalo NY
Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County Company Tampa FL
Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County, In Company Tampa FL
Friends of The Family Justice Center, Inc. Company San Marcos TX
Friends of The Riverside County Family Justice Center Foundation Company Riverside CA

Here’s Corporation Wiki for “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” (note:  doesn’t seem to be current, I understand the listed CEO is no longer).

Here’s one “Kids’ Turn” (SF — and not current, I know the President Steve Kinney just moved over for, I believe, a Greg Abel) .  “Kids Turn, Inc.” shows only Claire Barnes.    (These are obviously generated by computer searches, probably of Sec of States or IRS records… and simply pull up who’s on the Board, or was…)

Here’s Kids Turn San Diego (one person, listed)

Kid's Turn logo

Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.

Linda Brandes

Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.

Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.

“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.

For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

Remember the Brandes “$6 million isn’t enough” divorce?  This article says Linda’s gambling debt  is $30,000 — a month.  Their six homes were worth more than $40 million, and he has 10 Ferarri’s etc.  They don’t have children, I think.   They are themselves engaged in a lockdown fight over wealth — a lot of it.  But, of course it’s important to teach OTHER parents to keep their kids out of the high-conflict situation, and charge ’em to be (forcibly — court-ordered) taught, too.

Children in the Middle CoParenting Services and Kids in the Middle (same owner:  Bradley (S.) Craig):   It may seem small, but it’s web-based and government-laced, and court-ordered sometimes.   Believe I posted this, but here it is anyhow: – great logo, right?

Children in the Middle  (notice “PARENTING COORDINATION” links to the left….)

BRADLEY CRAIG, received his Master’s Degree in Social Work at UTA and is a Licensed Social Worker and Certified Family Life Educator. He is a noted co-parent educator in the North Texas area, and has developed a number of parent education programs for families raising children in two homes. He began specializing in working with families raising children between two homes in 1992 when he was hired by Tarrant County to conduct social study investigations and provide mediation sessions. He helped them design an orientation for litigating families offered by the county.

In 1997, he developed the Children in the Middle Co-parenting Education class. Brad left the County in 1997 to open up a program called Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc., a comprehensive agency designed to help adults raise children between two homes.In addition, he began offering consultation sessions where he would meet with couples and their significant others to develop a shared parenting plan. Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc. was closed in December of 2003 when Brad was hired to develop and maintain a co-parenting program with a social service organization. He is currently in private practice and contracts with organizations to provide services to families.

As a social worker and family life educator, Brad is a trained family law mediator and provides family law mediation training currently with other organizations. In addition, he offers training for other professionals to structure approaches to help these children being raised between two homes. He works with divorcing families and those with continuing custody/parenting time issue as a Family Mediator, Collaborative Law Allied Professional, Co-parenting Case Manager, Co-parenting Coach, Educator, Parenting Facilitator, and Parenting Coordinator.

Brad has written curriculum for co-parent education programs and has developed educational videos. He has been a guest speaker on many television and radio programs and is often asked to speak at local, state and national conferences on co-parenting issues. He hosted an ongoing cable television series “The Children in the Middle Show,” aimed at educating viewers about both the effects of parental conflict after a separation on children and the services available to help families through co-parenting issues.

Brad continues his education through the following organizations:

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)
Texas AFCC 
National Association of Social Workers
National Council on Family Relations

International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
Collaborative Lawyers of Arlington and Mansfield

Phi Kappa Phi
Tarrant and Dallas County Family Law Bar Associations

They (he?) also does parenting coordination, once the $450 (each) deposit from parents is on file, aloing with the court order.  Check it out…

  (top recommended reading for “Adults” is Warshak’s “Divorce Poison.”

Fathers are so under-represented and mistreated throughout the land, as a gender — and because of their gender.  What can we do about that?

Hire Warren Farrell to Coach some Boys into Men, or should we go with the Family Violence Prevention Fund/Futures without Violence version of Coaching boys into men?  Or should we go with the Pentecostal megachurch versions of Dr. Godzich, or the Dr. Ballard versions?  Do we have a choice, or is a  fatherhood program choice coordinator going to become necessary?

(just Kidding…..)

The CFDA Summary Report form will create a report of all grant dollars allocated by CFDA number by one or all Fiscal Years since 2005.

(note:  the program I’m talking about came into being 10 years before 2005):

CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title Number of Awards Number of Award Actions CAN Award Amount
93.086 ACF Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 237 1,277 $577,721,113
Page Total 237 1,277 $577,721,113
Report Total 237 1,277 $577,721,113

Access and Visitation, only $10 mill/year (annually, since 1997).

leave a comment »

Oh No!

 

I just lost the top half of my last, colorfully-illustrated, and highly annotated, sarcastic scatalogical post,  “Thrusting Abstinence Education on the Unwary Public”  (as summarized, with links, by Wikipedia, in about 2005).  It’s coming.  I’ll expose it soon.  It exposes the money that traded hands in private before the PR professionals, using their media connections, pushed two policies that are now coursing through the bloodstreams of the 2 largest United States Executive Branch departments and affecting, I say, all of us.  These were the Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Abstinence Education initiatives (as to HHS) AND . . .. AND . . . .the “No Child Left Behind” policies (as to Educ.)  

 

Regarding that. . . . .

I figured, since the Bush Admin public servants want to Push its way into the public’s thoughts (first) and pants, skirts, or burqas, etc.  as to trying to regulate whether (let alone with whom!)  we (or our children) do or do not engage in sexual intercourse, whatever they find where they don’t belong is their own problem, and any tone of response communicating “get out!” is appropriate.  The moral being, #1, don’t take rides from strangers promising Health, Human Services, or any other ecstatic experiences or transportations, or accept candies from them, either, and #2, more of us need to restructure our lives so as to keep better track of our track of our Congressmen, and whatever % of them are Congresswomen who vote on how to dispense $$ collected from us through taxes.  If these are being used Inappropriately (and failing kids K-12, then trying to back track and teach an abstinence Congresspeople themselves do not exhibit, either as to finances or their personal sex lives (not unilaterally for sure is most definitely INappropriate).

Who knows, the candy {whether in form of ideas, or psychotropic, as in Ritalin, etc. through the school systems, etc.) might have drugs.  Besides which, anyone calling you, or people in general “Human” probably isn’t.   Would such a person call their own offspring, or spouse, a “human”??  Then how come other, more distant people of the same species become suddenly “humans” and need “servicing.”  

 

Marriage affects health, sure, but in definition is a commitment between two individuals who have exchanged vows, generally in front of witnesses in their community, and have also a certain public document.  By definition, and usage, it’s private!  Where it becomes public is only where an individual in it breaks a law, particularly as to domestic violence and child abuse, but also any others.  

 

Similarly, a nation is not a living, throbbing organism to be run from the top and have its temperature taken by elected officials and parts re-arranged at (its will).  We are not bees, we are not ants, we are not to be treated like them either.  Our elected and/or appointed officials are not bee-keeprs or ant farmers, even if and (when) they may think they are and such activities have apparently given their otherwise meaningless lives purpose, by labeling others misery or happiness.  

 

In PARTICULAR, we mothers are not to be bred for our children, and then judged as to our health by virtue of whether the “sire” of the kids is in the house or out of the house.  And that, friends, is what this nation is currently (at our own expense) in the business of.  Studying itself.  The top half is studying the bottom half, only it’s not even close to “half.”  The bottom half (sic) exists to serve, and pay the top half (sic) to study it.

 

That’s how I read the situation currently, anyhow.  I may be jaundiced by my particular run through the last 20 or so years, but I have networked, read, studied, and collaborated plenty, as well as read what others are networking and collaborating about as well.  When it’s one own’s life & kids (as opposed to, say, job) at stake, one tends to study more closely.

 

Moroever, the columnists promoting this already had their hands in the till by taking money from the public in the form of grants.  So the hand was ALREADY in our pockets financially.     Moreover, it appears the infamous (to me at least) “No Child Left Behind” (which takes the cake for vague, amorphous rallying cry if I ever heard one.  First of all, it’s false — what about private schools?  What about where are we going?  what about the talented children already being held back in the schools, which is from what I can tell, probably the majority of them.  What about keep your hands off my kids too, until you can talk sense?  This initiative also started in similar manner — a man was paid to promote it, but failed to mention the pay.)

So, as to Abstinence Education, thus I figure anyone (promiscuous, married and faithful, or married and hot-Mike-Duvall, or abstinent, or celibate, or in fact ANYONE) should be able to give them a hard time about this.  Especially because what was NOT exposed was whose $$ (ours — federal grants) was in whose pockets before the inspired (by $$) PR eulogies began.  I guess you get the general idea of how I felt about that.  The moral there, and with this Access and Visitation grandiose talk is, when someone on the federal dole comes up to you UNSOLICITED especially, saying “you need a ride?  You look lost, you need some direction?  You look poor!  I’ll help you — just sign on the line (and give me your offspring) here.  Come, let me give you a (mind/face/family-) lift — then the appropriate response is to ignore the talk and survey the surroundings, particularly for the closest exit.  And any other strangers (to you) in the vicinity behaving oddly.

ANYHOW, another post.  THIS one, is on a grants system set up back in, I gather 1996:

  •  2  years after National Fatherhood Initiative (1994)
  •  One year after Clinton wrote the (in)famous, “let’s revamp the Exec. Dept. to include more Dads (1995).  
  • 3 & 4  years before Congress voted”inexplicably” that the true crisis for the United States was fatherlessness, and they “resolved” (National Fathers Return day being one such resolution) to DO something about it  (in both houses:  1998/1999)
  •  only 5 years before the half-bald, mustached, slightly-smiling, white guy to the right (see photo) was “unanimously” appointed Secretary of the HHS (2001-2007), and I gather in 2007, he kinda sorta was encouraged (??) to step down.  At least he resigned.
  • But not before the ball was really rolling on this idea that the REAL problem is Kids Minus Dads.

 


 Since he’s white, middle-aged and half-bald,(and right-wing conservative), (and apparently well-off)  why doesn’t he limit his concern to what he actually has lived?  But know, he and his NFI prominent thinkers are going for the usual suspects, African American mothers who aren’t married to their children’s fathers.   But attacking African American mothers, unmarried, isn’t QUITE PC enough, so the circuitous route is to express for or the kids lack of ROOTS (as defined , to their Dads).  

File:Horn, Wade F.jpg
Psychologist Wade Horn, from NFI to HHS, and out again.).  

DO YOU think I’m kidding?  I’m not!

 

JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)

Topic:  National Fathers Return Day

Mr. LIEBERMAN. (speaking)  Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues. Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report, can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers. 

(in some cases, those fathers got shot, in some cases those fathers were not interested in them to start with.  In some cases those Dads may have been in a war and gave their lives for the country.  In some case those fathers were violent.  Perhaps in some cases those fathers may have been sports idols and are on the road.  Does THAT put them at risk, per se?  In some cases those fathers were womanizers.  Should we put the Dads back with their sons and daughters to learn that this really doesn’t matter, when it’s Dad?  In some cases, perhaps Mom OR Dad had a religious awakening, mabye like Mr. Horn’s, in which case the uninterested (in that brand of God) spouse may wish to continue (or re-act) by doing drugs or watching pornography, or being promiscuous.  

I know one family (not African American) whose Dad decided to come out of the closet, with his new paramour, while his offspring were adolescents.  Guess what.  Those kids didn’t sleep in his home.  Those poor (well, they weren’t poor) kids would have fallen under the Access Visitation grants definition programs.  They had a noncustodial parent.  If their Dad were nasty, or either parent poor, he could’ve been recruited through the child support program to further harrass her or impoverish the kids.  It only takes one bad apple to get the whole family ensnared til kids reach age of majority.  

Suppose Mom finds a second, healthy marriage.  According to these theories, the kids are still at risk, because it’s not “Dad” in the home.

 

(LIEBERMAN, to CONGRESS, 1999, con’td.) We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in 
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.

 

We are NOT amused at what’s actually taking place in government grants la-la-land. 

The first attempted post  was about a Wikipedia article (about 2005) highlights who was paid what to screw us nationally, and that’s not much of an exaggeration.  I’m talking about grants and initiatives that ended up transforming the role of the courts, and there was also a reference to the illicit origins (i.e., a PR person was PAID off from  Dept. of Educ. Fund) to start “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.”  Which, in my state, last I heard, means that approximately 42% of them are up to snuff, and this is considered “good,”  however, if a child came up wit 42% on a test, that was considered failing.  WHich pretty much describes the difference of standards between “government” behavior and our own.  Also, if I only got 42% of my children actually literate after they’d been in my care for a few years (versus K-8, let alone K-12 years), I’d give myself a failing grade too.

Well, since all my technical (wordpress) wits was far below the level of the rhetorical wit, this crudely dropped the readers midstream, with no buildup or momentum, into the usual back-story commentary on the Wikipedia entry on the not-exactly-breaking-news that columnists and PR sorts sometimes do pay attention to what side their bread is buttered on be for buttering up the ideas of the person with the butter.

Ah well. . . . . 

 So I decided to “punt” and go to this topic:  ACCESS & VISITATION GRANTS, where the real “conflict of interest is” in the courts.  

 

Anyone that doesn’t like my profiling Wade Horn according to his race, gender, state of follicle challenge, age, and demeanor can go jump in a lake.  I don’t like being profiled according to my gender, or having my household profiled according to how many adult males biologically related to my children in it, rather than to whether or it has a violent, battering, assaulting, property-destroying and chaos-inducing male (biologically or not biologically related to my children) in it.  He can’t change his race, I suppose.  He could even change his gender, if this were part of his right-wing religious preferences which I bet it ain’t.  

I can’t change my DNA, nor can my ex, nor can my kids.  But what I CAN change is whether or not I am going to sit around my home being slapped because I’m female in front of children, and mine happened to be female.  Then let some (male) _______  (or female) come to me, after having ignored years of that, and then push this dogma that the real problem is, there’s not a “man” in the house.

There WAS a man in the house, and that was solved with a restraining order, temporarily.  

I don’t feel like changing my gender either.  And it makes equally as much sense (i.e., NONE) for a bunch of men (and some women) to get up there and saying, it’s a GENDER problem, starting with African American children (of either gender) — and they did!  See below! —  not having their OWN fathers living with them as it does to say it’s a RACE problem.  I dare a bunch of Congressmen to get up there and have a national white folk day.  And get it nationalized, with a straight face.  CALL it that.  Push it all over the state, county, and nonprofit institutions just like fatherhood and healthy marriages has been.  State that as a lot of black folk are in prison, obviously the problem is their race — not the prisons, not poverty, and  not communities, not behavior.  And not racism.  I am waiting for the day.  

With President Obama now, no one would dare (let’s hope!)  But one profile we CAN all gang up on is mothers, especially single mothers.  Good grief!  In another day and time, this would be Jews.  In another, Tutsis.  In another Hutu.  In another Armenians.  But the gender for all times to hate (and particularly if it stops hating its own, or protests) is for sure female.  They must give up their kids and make sure that they have contact with Dads, even if Dad kills them (and this has happened), kidnaps them (and this has happened) and even if the ongoing conflict with a chaotic or controlling personality introduces years of needless conflict — AND more poverty — into the children’s home.  And if Dad can’t restrain himself, or might rape, kidnap, beat, or hurt the kids during a visitation, no matter.  There is ANOTHER government-funded and/or free-market-niche to make sure they still have contact:  “Supervised Visitation.”  

Now that’s not really safe either.  No matter.  There’s ANOTHER program to train the supervisors.  How’re they going?

2008:

 

Danger Zones:  Battered mothers and their children in Supervised Visitation

Supervised visitation centers (SVCs) have developed rapidly across the United States. Increasingly, courts are restricting contact between abusive intimate partners and their children by ordering visitation or exchanges to occur at SVCs. This article describes some of the key lessons the authors learned over 18 months of planning and then another 18 months of implementation at a SVC developed specifically to serve families for whom domestic violence was their primary reason for referral. The authors have organized their experiences around five major themes: (a) battered women in supervised visitation, (b) how battering continues during supervised visitation, (c) how rules at the SVC evolved over the first 18 months of implementation, (d) the importance of well-trained visit monitors, and (e) the need to embed SVCs within a larger context of coordinated community responses to domestic violence.

 Key Words: battered women • batterers • children • supervised visitation centers

 This version was published on November 1, 2008

 

2004:

Six Crucial Issues in Supervised Visitation

There is no way to predict whether a specific batterer is likely to kill his partner. {!!}}  Even though data are available about batterers who actually commit such murders, the batterer’s violence behavior alone does not provide enough information about accurate predictions about which batterers will go on to kill the partners. Psychotherapists can use a variety of checklists and other instruments to help determine the level of risk for a lethal incident, but these assessment devices have not been validated by empirical research. [16]

Who conducts risk assessment?

Despite their close ties with domestic violence shelters in their communities, many supervised visitation program staff do not have the level of expertise necessary to conduct formal risk assessments. Therefore, it should be domestic violence professionals who should conduct the assessments, not visitation personnel:

 

For those who haven’t “got” this yet, the majority of these studies are, (I finally “got” this) not about our safety or our children’s safety, or our children’s best interest, or to prevent family violence.  From the front lines, and a front lines person who knows many families going through this AND has attended conferences, and probably reads as much as a lot of the professionals (at least to pass for one in a number of situations; all I lacked was the degree) on this, and has a REAL vested interest — my life, my family’s lives, my livelihoods, the safety and well-being of the communities I was in during all this stuff (before and after separation) and so forth — I pay attention, and try to place accumulated information in a growing database and I refile as necesary when stuff “doesn’t fit.”  

It’s not about our lives, it’s about the professions.  Here is a statement from a real well-respected site, now 5 years old, saying that the issue is not that we are bringing supervised visitation into the picture at all, but that it’s just that the visitation personnel are not properly trained by professionals, domestic violence professionals.

Here’s a question raised (finally!) by someone addressing a(nother) conference of ALL kinds of professionals associated with this topic about preventing violence, protecting children, and all kinds of REALLY nice healthy topics.  I am thinking that PROBABLY the conference (Jackson’s Hole, Wyoming?) might have been an clean safe place. This (male) professional in the field started the first Domestic Violence Unit in Washington, D.C., he says in his opening remarks.  

He broaches again the question I’ve twice posted on this site, in articles from 1989 and 1992, as to whether children need relationships with their (abusive) fathers.  Let’s see if he qualifies in our eyes as a Professional.  But first, the quote.   

 

2009, June 2:

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?


 

Even the question is a little “framed.”  “have been abusive . . . in the past” is not the typical situation of a woman trying to leave abuse with her children.  This mindset implies it was “over with” and that while broken bones, teeth, bruises,  and blood may indicate “being abusive” (i.e. COMMITTING a pattern of misdemeanor or felony-level domestic violence), stalking, property destruction, intimidation of relatives, or keeping one’s ex in a nonstop pattern of defense against allegations in family court arena do not.

Oh yeah, incidentally this was the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and his short speech is on the date link.

It appears to me to be the present policy (I include practice) that mothers moreso than fathers, are considered dispensable to children.  

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?

 

Actually, by the time one sorts through how contradictory one policy is from the otehr, and then read about the conferences where organizations sponsoring BOTH sides of the contradictory policies collaborate together (but the parents involved are not invited, generally, nor their kids) I’d have to say that in the long run, one concludes that when it comes to dispensing TAX DOLLARS (my shorthand for grants, federal, local, state, and private) what’s really dispensable, and is being lost, are:

1.  Justice.
2.  Children.
(With justice, children will be safe, as long as laws against domestic violence and child abuse remain on the abuse, and SHOULD they ever start being consistently defined, and enforced). 
and
3.  OPM.  Other People’s Money AND OPL.  that’s other People’s Lives.

 

What really seems INdispensable, once underway, appear to be the systems dispensing 1, 2, and 3, above.

 

I am going to (re-)introduce you this concept  “Access and Visitation” and its costs, starting with the HHS own site describing it.  If the prose is lame and lacks vigor, just understand that I blew my wad on the first topic, so this is a pale second offering from a drained commentator.

However my commentary cannot possibly be as lame, nonsequitur, and incoherent as the concept of Designer Families at Public Expense, as executed by a centralized opaque bureaucracy  in cooperation with private and nonprofit businesses, not to mention religious organizations that haven’t quite yet “got” that hitting women ain’t legal.

This is where “Access Visitation” concepts meets the “Supervised Visitation” concept.  One encourages and ALLOWS certain services (this is the HHS source of grants) and the other DISCOURAGES but does not forbid, practically the same types of activity (this is the DOJ/VAWA source of grants, as I recall).  

 

One is the government paying a LOT of government institutions (you have no idea, but I assure you, I do!) to make sure “NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS” have “ACCESS AND VISITATION” to their children, even if it means getting them free legal help while in prison to modify their custody orders, something I don’t recall getting of one second past the time our case hit the family law venue.    

The converse of this is, when a parent is really bad and needs to be “spanked” or “supervised” somehow, then there is SUPERVISED VISITATION.  I could’ve used solme of this and requested it, in fact, one reason was, I didn’t want the kids kidnapped.  i asked for this in 2005 and was told No.  Then when my kids were taken on an overnight in 2006, and we show up in court, I asked for it again, and was curtly told, there’s no money (meaning WE didn’t have some to fork over) for this.  The result was, visits were so traumatizing I was hard put to get them.  There was also no real exterior witness or regulation of the fact that the second this man got our children, theyw ere basically, not going to be seen by me again, even when a court order had stipulated, every othe rweek.  So there you have it on SUPERVISED VISITATION.    

 

Sometimes this also is used to punish mothers by forcing them to pay to see their chlidren after they speak up about something (seems like it could be almost anything — child abuse, harm done to the kid by the other parent, or some other violation of existing standards) and are silenced by having their kids switched, SUDDENLY, to the other parent.  This has been described elsewhere better than I am summarizing here.  

 

But, til I find the missing witty intro to a version of BUSH-WhACKED around MARRIAGE INITIATIVE type post, I give you:

OCSE Access and Visitation Grants Information

 

I suggest filing this under Congressional Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview

With an annual appropriation of $10 million, 54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands) have been able to provide access and visitation services to over a half million non-custodial parents (NCPs) and their families since the program became operational in 1997! In FY 2006, States contracted with over 300 court and/or community- and faith-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services to NCPs and their families.

 

NCP is a “NonCustodial Parent.”  Primarily, fathers.  Note, that the CP (which obviously is another adult) does not even exist as an entity.  it’s NCP’s and “Families.”

“STATES CONTRACTED” — Yes, the feds pay the states, and we’re not yet QUITE sure what happens once it hits state level, although some diligent research DOES ascertain that it’s pretty darn hard to track after that.

 

I. Enabling Legislation

The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Goal: “..to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”

 

Cognitive dissonance:  “It’s about money.  It’s not about money, it’s about the children.  It’s about reducing welfare distributions.  No, it’s not, it’s about noncustodial parental access.  Aw heck, Im not really sure!  No it’s NOT a pay-per-hour-per child scenario (i.e., children as property), it’s about families.  Well, on the other hand, though we really need to entreat these men to get on the stick and get some work (including after they get out of jail) so we will help them for free, LEGALLY, to get back at those Moms, get more time with their kids, in exchange for which we will then lower child support obligations (but, listen closely, this is NOT, we repeat, NOT a pay per child per hour arrangement) (unless it refers to SUPERVISED visitation) and maybe then, if we treat the disgruntled — or unemployed — or incarcerated — NCPS nice, they will respond in kind, step up to the plate and pay the past due child support.

Alternatively, we can switch custody and put HER in jail if she doesn’t pay, because women don’t need to be BRIBED to support their own children, generally speaking.  And, again, we’re not ordering, we’re just “supporting and facililating’ (modification of custody orders).  Without telling the custodial parent in advance, of course.  

 

II. Allowable Services

According to the statute, States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:

  • Mediation

Mediation is “premitted” for the States, but “mandatory” for the parents in many states, including mine, and that’s a PROBLEM when violence has been involved, already.  Typically by the time the order was obtained (at least I know my case and many others), attempts to “mediate” the concept of not being hit, abused, threatened, etc., have already failed.  Hence the protective order to start with.  For protection, not negotiation!  Well, mediation puts two parents in front of one mediator, which typically (given the little time he/she is going to have) will pick a side and stick to it, throughout the course of the case, which, given these factors, will probably stop when ALL kids hit 18.  Or one parent has worn out, given up, or simply gone homeless, meaning, can’t fight back.

Moreover, all the opposing, “NCP” has to do is start a debate on almost any issue between them, and then it goes to mediation. This is simpler than presenting facts and evidence in the courtroom, adhering to all those rules of court, etc.  All he/she has to really do is win the favor of the mediator, who then (although this isn’t strictly legal, it’s practice) sways the judge who then upends whatever the last status quo was.  Note, abusers are great manipulators, it’s kind of their profession, that two-sided thing, or the abuse couldn’t be kept up for so long.

  • Development of parenting plans
  • Education

(And a REAL market niche for the would be parent educators, therapists, and counselors (see next item)

  • Counseling
  • Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)
  • Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
  • In other words, as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, once we figure out whether money, or the child’s best interests is the issue, we will — again, outside the vision and awareness of the CUSTODIAL parent, bargain with the NON-custodial parents and help them de-stabilize the children’s life, repeatedly, and on a proceess that takes place outside the courtroom.

    (Responsibility/Opportunity/Responsibility/Opportunity — which is it?)
         

    III. Annual Funding

     

    • $10 million is divided among the States annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.
    • Funding Formula (according to statute):”The allotment of a state for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the state living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all states.”
    • Minimum Annual State Allocation $100,000 This statutory provision ensures that states with small populations of single parent households with minor age children are guaranteed a base amount of $100,000. Those states with larger populations are awarded an allotment according to the prescribed funding formula.
  • Required State Match States are required, by law, to provide a minimum 10% match of the Federal grant amount. This match requirement can be fulfilled via cash or in-kind contributions by the state and/or local grantees.
  • This isn’t a section I’ve examined too much.  I HAVE searched for the funding to states under these grants, and was appropriately shocked at amounts, and who was getting them.

    IV. State Administration

     

    • Designation of State Agencies Following enactment of the AV Grant Program in 1996, the then-Governors of States were asked to designate a State agency that would be responsible for receiving the grant funds. Roughly half of the State AV Grant Programs are administered by State Offices of the Courts and the other half by State IV-D Agencies.

    In California, it’s the California Judicial Council, which is THE policysetting arm of the Judicial branch in the state.  Then it goes to the Administrative “office of the Courts,” and so forth.  So we have pretty much a socialist type setup here.  Read on.

    • Funding Responsibilities States are required (that’s “REQUIRED“) to ensure that funds expended under the Access and Visitation Grant respond to and support the program goal which is “…to establish programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”. 

    Comment:  The thing that facilitated noncustodial parents’ access to their children PRIOR to this was called a court order.  It was signed by a judge, stipulated some terms of custody & visitation, and people who interfered with this were (depending on when the law I am thinking of was passed) to comply, or suffer possible contempt of court (order) sanctions, and fork them over to the otherr parent.  The thing was done in a process called, formerly, the “LEGAL” process, also casually referred to in some circles still as “DUE process.”  It’s what our country is about at its most basic denominator:  Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth.  Remember those?  So, these grants and grant programs can’t quite come out and say “ORDER NONCUSTODIAL PARENT ACCESS” because, after all, they come from the U.S. Exec. Dept., which is supposedly separate from the Legislatives, which is supposedly separate from the Judicial.

    This was actually intentional, from what I understand of the ffounding fathers.  They wanted these strong powers distributed among different players.  NOT centralized in one or just a few players, in which case we’d be an oligarchy, not a republic (cf.  Pledge of Allegiance, US Citizens, if you forgot what that means).  “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.  And to the republic for which (this flag) it stands, one nation, under (expletive deleted, according to some sources), indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice, for all.”  While we know it doesn’t exist yet, this is the pledge and that is the gol.  Notice:  “Justice” not “program goals.

    JUSTICE is a process.  It is a MEANS.  “Program Goals” is an end, and apparently the end justifies the means here.  

     

      1. shall administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit entities“;
      2. shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
      3. shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs
    • Reporting Requirements The enabling legislation requires states to monitor, evaluate, and report on services funded through the Access and Visitation Grant Program. This statutory requirement is satisfied through the annual completion – by states – of the “State Child Access Program Survey” which includes:
      • State agency contact information;
      • Services funded;  {{Note:  “permitted activities,” above.}}
      • Provider agency contact information;
      • Number of parents served;  {Define “SERVED!” — forced through the programs??}
      • Socio-economic and demographic information on families served; and
      • Outcome data (i.e., number of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services).
    COMMENT #1.  McDonalds “serves.”  (1 billion served — did they mean hamburgers, or patrons?)   But the fact is, the desired OUTCOME of these grants is to modify custody orders, basically, or make sure unenforced ones then get enforced.  
    I have looked at one of these reports.  It ain’t much.
    Here’s a Self-report on this (Margot Bean, from the Child SUpport commissioner.  i STILL think it odd that the child support agency should be enforcing a grant whose design is to influence the judicial process.  I have experienced this personally, and saw the connection, although in the courts involved, a pretense of separation is maintained.  It’s a “DEAR COLLEAGUE” letter.  As a litigant, of course, I am not a colleague and went forward like a lamb to the slaughter, not knowing how many millions were going to my state (approximately $10, over the years), to get a “required outcome” to what I myself wished and wanted to be a law-and-evidence-based process.  Guess if you ain’t “in the IN crowd,” forget it!
         

     

     

     

    DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER

    DCL-07-15

    DATE: May 24, 2007

    TO: STATE IV-D DIRECTORS AND STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAM COORDINATORS

    RE: New publication which assesses selected State Access and Visitation programs client outcomes especially with respect to subsequent payment of child support

    Dear Colleague:

    I am pleased to provide you with a copy of a new report entitled: “Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes.”

    Since 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has been responsible for administering “Grants to States for Access and Visitation.” To date, OCSE has awarded $100 million dollars to states ($10 million per year) to “…establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children,” as mandated by Congress.

     

    I cannot speak loudly enough to express how profound a conflict of interest this remains.  Parents are recruited through jails, through child support offices (when in arrears) and sometimes flat-out through courtrooms by flyers, to participate in programs that are intended to sway the legal process, and THROUGh these programs.  Many women leaving violence, or protective mothers, protest that the safety of their children should be left in the hands of someone who is having business funneled to them through these courts and through government mandate (and how are we to know whether or not actual money?  It has happened, from what I understand) to tip the balance in the courtroom.  THIS PROCESS makes a farce of the courtroom process.

     

    In order to achieve this end, States are allowed to fund a range of services including  (hint, hint, hint…) : mediation, development of parenting plans, education, counseling, visitation enforcement (including supervised visitation and neutral drop off), and the development of alternative custody and visitation guidelines. Between FFY 1997-2005, over 400,000 parents were recipients of AV services.

     

    I’d estimate then, about 50% of them unwillingly, or unwitting that they have a right to refuse.  Moreover (personal experience), quite often the mediator’s report is not even received before the hearing!  I have twice out of three times received it IN the courtroom, which is hardly the place and sufficient time to reply and consider its ramifications!  

    This study assesses participant outcomes resulting from the Access and Visitation Program in 9 states for mediation, parent education and supervised visitation services. Mediation was studied in Missouri, Rhode Island and Utah. Parent education was assessed in Arizona, Colorado and New Jersey. Supervised visitation was looked at in California, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The primary findings for the 970 cases studied are as follows:

     

    Let’s review this report here. Out of, in their own words “54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands)”  only 9 (literally, only 1 in 6 states) were studied, and only 970 cases total.  That’s approximately how many per state, and now we have math lesson #1 about this department:  DEMONSTRATION SAMPLE — hardly any.  APPLICATION FROM DEMONSTRATION (or even EVALUATION) SAMPLE — to the rest of the country. This study was in 2007 (10 years after program started).  

    • Child support payments increased from 53 percent to 93 percent by service in the 12 months following service provision. {{DOES THIS INCLUDE THE SUPPORT ORDERS HAVING BEEN MODIFIED DOWNWARDS, WHICH IS ALMOST INVARIABLY THE RESULT OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THEM, TOO}}
    • Child support compliance rose by 20 percent to 79 percent for unwed cases; but did not increase for divorce cases.

     

    (I’M A DIVORCE CASE, AND THE REDUCED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS WAS BASICALLY TREATED AS A JOKE AFTER THIS PROCESS.  IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE A PERSON WHO ISN’T IN COMPLIANCE AN INCH, AND THE DOOR THEN OPENS WIDE TO NO COMPLIANCE.  THIS IS WHY THROUGHOUT THE SEPARATION, I WAS TRYING TO STABILIZE ADN INSIST ON COMPLIANCE, AND AT EVERY TURN, I WAS DISCOURAGED FROM THIS, AND EXHORTED TO GIVE.  FINALLY, I HAD TO “GIVE” MY CHILDREN.  WELL, NOT FINALLY, ALSO A LOT MORE, INCLUDING THE SENSE THAT ANY COURT ORDER HAS ANY VALIDITY OR FORCE.  THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF JIMMYING THE COURT PROCESS FOR A DESIRED OUTCOME, I BELIEVE.}}

         

    • The level of child contact by the noncustodial parent rose from 32 percent to 45 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.  (HOW ABOUT 13-15 MONTHS?)
    • The behavior of the youngest child as reported by the custodial parent improved by 26 percent to 41 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.

     

    WAS THIS ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITY OR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (REFERRING TO ADULTS!), OR ABOUT GRADING CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR?  LET ME RE-READ THE LEGISLATION.  ALSO, I KIND OF WONDER ABOUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF WHO IS MEASURING KIDS’ BEHAVIORAL PERCENTAGES, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT, AND SUPPOSE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT EXAGGERATED?  GOOD GRIEF!  “MY KID WAS 10% BETTER, THE OCSE SHOULD KNOW….”

         

    • Twenty-five percent of both parents reported an improved relationship in the 12 months after service provision. The rate was the same for all service types.

     

    Another way of stating this is that “75% of parents reported it didn’t make a damn bit of difference as to their relationship, high-conflict, violent, or casually friendly.

         

    • Seventy percent of parents who mediated a visitation/custody agreement reached agreement.

     

    If some of these cases were anything like mine, a good deal of threat was involved in the process.  For example, when my kids went missing, I wasn’t about to be allowed in front of a judge unless I went through the gatekeeper, the mediator.  I requested another one, but no one available for over  month.  So what would you do?  Let the kids stay MIA or try to get it to court?  That’s called extortion! it’s not a real choice!

     

         

    • Nearly all of the parents who received parent education were satisfied by the education.

     

    (or so they said, supposedly).

         

    • Ninety percent of parents who participated in supervised visitation characterized this service as a safe place to conduct visits.

    Applying the findings in this study should help states design, fund and measure better programs. For additional copies of this report, please contact OCSE’s National Reference Center at 202-401-9383 or OCSENationalReferenceCenter@acf.hhs.gov

    Sincerely,

    Margot Bean
    Commissioner
    Office of Child Support Enforcement

     

    (whatever.  YOu see about the level of reporting).
    That’s all I have time for today, but i have been meaning to bring up this topic again.  So I just did.
    Again, the financial picture is $10million/year to compromise due process in the courts and force the above programs on parents trying to divorce. This is NOT mentioned in the court facilitators offices (at least for Moms, that I knew of).  As many times as I was in that child support office, also, not a whiff of it.  All I could smell was the dysfunction.  I just didn’t know where it was coming from.
    2008, summarized, on this site;
    Office of Child Support Enforcement
    State Access and Visitation Grants – FY 2008
    State/Jurisdiction Federal Allocation State Match Total Funding
    Alabama $142,379 $15,819.89 $158,199
    Alaska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Arizona $169,198 $18,799.78 $187,998
    Arkansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    California $957,600 $106,400 $1,064,000
    Colorado $125,800 $13,977.78 $139,778
    Connecticut $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Delaware $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    District of Columbia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Florida $497,059 $55,228.78 $552,288
    Georgia $295,222 $32,802.44 $328,024
    Guam $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Hawaii $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Idaho $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Illinois $344,357 $38,261.89 $382,619
    Indiana $191,496 $21,277.33 $212,773
    Iowa $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kentucky $122,440 $13,604.44 $136,044
    Louisiana $139,592 $15,510.22 $155,102
    Maine $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Maryland $166,481 $18,497.89 $184,979
    Massachusetts $161,374 $17,930.44 $179,304
    Michigan $292,451 $32,494.56 $324,946
    Minnesota $133,277 $14,808.56 $148,086
    Mississippi $109,483 $12,164.78 $121,648
    Missouri $171,561 $19,062.33 $190,623
    Montana $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nebraska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nevada $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Hampshire $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Jersey $217,801 $24,200 $242,001
    New Mexico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New York $549,720 $61,080 $610,800
    North Carolina $271,792 $30,199.11 $301,991
    North Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Ohio $349,127 $38,791.89 $387,919
    Oklahoma $108,016 $12,001.78 $120,018
    Oregon $100,213 $11,134.78 $111,348
    Pennsylvania $327,030 $36,336.67 $363,367
    Puerto Rico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Rhode Island $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    South Carolina $142,115 $15,790.56 $157,906
    South Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Tennessee $188,867 $20,985.22 $209,852
    Texas $687,405 $76,378.33 $763,783
    Utah $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Vermont $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virgin Islands $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virginia $207,722 $23,080.22 $230,802
    Washington $175,056 $19,450.67 $194,507
    West Virginia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Wisconsin $155,366 $17,262.89 $172,629
    Wyoming $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Total $10,000,000 $1,111,108.34 $11,111,108
    How this translates elsewhere, CFDA Code 93597.
    TAGGS, interactive search, year 2008 only.  First, you can click on the Grant #.  This will then show you this year, and a particular designated state agency.  Then click on that agency, and see what else it’s doing.  
    What you will see is centralization, I believe, and a whole panorama of events and activities you were possibly aware of (or, I was just a babe in the woods in this category, DNK):
         

         

     

    Number of rows returned: 54
    Rows 1 through 54 displayed.
    Records Searched: 147753

    Award Number Award Title OPDIV Program Office Sum of Actions
    0801GUSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801VISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801AKSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801ALSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 142,379 
    0801ARSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801AZSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 169,198 
    0810CASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 957,600 
    0801COSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 125,800 
    0801CTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801DCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801DESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801FLSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 497,059 
    0801GASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 295,222 
    0801HISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801IASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801IDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801ILSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 344,357 
    0801INSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 191,496 
    0801KSSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801KYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 122,440 
    0801LASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 139,592 
    0801MASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 161,374 
    0801MDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 166,481 
    0801MESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801MISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 292,451 
    0801MNSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 133,277 
    0801MOSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 171,561 
    0801MSSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 109,483 
    0801MTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 271,792 
    0801NDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NESAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NHSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NJSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 217,801 
    0801NMSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NVSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801NYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 549,720 
    0801OHSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 349,127 
    0801OKSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 108,016 
    0801ORSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,213 
    0801PASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 327,030 
    0801PRSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801RISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801SCSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 142,115 
    0801SDSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801TNSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 188,867 
    0801TXSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 687,405 
    0801UTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801VASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 207,722 
    0801VTSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801WASAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 175,056 
    0801WISAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 155,366 
    0801WVSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 
    0801WYSAVP  2008 SAVP  ACF  OCSE  $ 100,000 

     

    NOW, the THEORY behind “access visitation” includes the concept that doing this will help the deadbeat NCP (Noncustodial parent) to be more warmly inclined, or able, or less discouraged, or have incentive, to pay up.  This is why it’s related also to welfare reduction.  So, basically, it’s a project about reducing outstanding deficits, and is of course administered by the OCSE.  So we should presume that its purpose is somewhat related to the OCSE, which is child support collection.  

    SO, at $10/million/year for (so far about 12) years, is this enough?  NO, there is still more unexplored territory when it comes to Child SUpport Demonstration projects.  Even after they reported on a whole 970 cases nationwide in 2007.

    I just  looked under a different code (see chart) and here are the new explorers:

    WELL, the first one below, Center for Policy Research isn’t exactly new, in fact Jessica Pearson is behind a whole lot more in these matters, and in the family law field, than meets the average eye.  (See website).  She most definitely qualifies as a heavyweight, along with her (and six other’s) “Center for Policy Research” and an apparently? related “Policy-Studies.com which (I have to double-check, but it’s already posted recently) got a whopping $4 million (one year) recently for abstinence education too.  Coincidentally, both organizations out of Denver.  When you click on the site, it reads (on the URL address frame, at least on my computer):  “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”

     

    POINT BEING, if we already have all these other Child Support, Child Welfare, and other special demo projects going on, why all the extra, extra funds for Access Visitation?

     

     

    About PSI   

    PSI improves the lives of people every day by helping health and human services 

    organizations reach out to the people they serve; qualify them for essential services; and 

    manage caseloads with precision, speed, and superior customer service. With more than 

    1,400 employees spanning 57 programs in 28 states and the District of Columbia, we help 

    our clients significantly improve program performance. For more information, please visit 

    http://www.policy-studies.com. 


    Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) provides outsourcing, consulting, and information technology services to government clients. PSI also supports private sector health organizations in their efforts to strengthen strategic performance and growth. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, the company has more than 1,200 employees in over 40 sites nationwide. In 2003, PSI was named the sixth fastest growing private company in Colorado by the Denver Business Journal. For more information about PSI’s products and services please visit 
    http://www.policy-studies.com.

    View Jobs for Policy Studies I

     

    http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Policy-Studies-Inc-Reviews-E22614.htm

    (Funny review from two employees:  

    Its not just a job, its only a job!

    Pros

    A stable paycheck and the coworkers are usually pleasant. A great place for people looking for just a job and who don’t want to work too hard.

    Cons

    Some of the technical folks seemed hesitant to make changes or use newer technologies. Bureaucracy was rampant and individuals could not make changes or improvements. Communication was completely lacking, and senior management would decide what they though was best rather than listen to the folks who were doing the job.

    Advice to Senior Management

    Be more open to the experience of the people in the remote offices. Discuss ideas before making broad policy and business practice changes.

     

    “Proceed with caution

    Pros

    Work with human services agencies, the people at the project level are usually very talented

    Cons

    Sr. Management has driven off key staff, few opportunities for advancement, poor communication about important events, high spend on initiatives that are risky

    Advice to Senior Management

    Get back to the basics of what made PSI successful.

     

     

    Fiscal Year OPDIV Grantee Name City State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0085 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,829 
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0098 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,908 
    2008  ACF  CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL  GRAND RAPIDS  MI  90FI0087 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION CANDACE COWLING  $ 124,674 
    2008  ACF  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office  CLEVELAND  OH  90FI0093 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION FRANCINE B GOLDBERG  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS  DENVER  CO  90FI0094 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  BEN LEVEK  $ 99,800 
    2008  ACF  Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.  SAN ANTONIO  TX  90FI0086 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION RICHARD M DAVIDSON  $ 125,000 
    2008  ACF  IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES  DES MOINES  IA  90FI0095 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  MARIE THEISEN  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0088 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0097 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS  RALEIGH  NC  90FI0099 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KRISTIN RUTH  $ 78,842 
    2008  ACF  NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM  NEW YORK  NY  90FI0092 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL MAGNANI  $ 24,325 
    2008  ACF  OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  OKLAHOMA CITY  OK  90FI0100 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KATHERINE MCRAE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT  SAN JOSE  CA  90FI0101 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RALPH MILLER  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE  TOKELAND  WA  90FI0089 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DEB DUNITHAN  $ 49,934 
    2008  ACF  Sagamore Institute, Inc.  INDIANAPOLIS IN  90FI0090 DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL $ 24,995 
    2008  ACF  TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  AUSTIN  TX  90FI0091 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL HAYES  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)  WASHINGTON  DC  90FI0096 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RENEE HENDLEY  $ 68,355

     

     

    Search on “Center Policy Research”  (modest results, really).

         

    Fiscal Year Grantee Name City State Award Title CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2009  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 50,000 
    2008  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,829 
    2008  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,908 
    2007  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,820 
    2006  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 24,730 
    2006  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 198,664 
    2005  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 100,000 
    2004  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION  NEW  DR JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,926 
    1996  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  SYRACUSE  NY  HOW POOR HEALTH INFLUENCES WORK AND RETIREMENT  Aging Research  SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS)  NEW  DWYER, DEBRA S  $ 35,910 

    And here, FY 2000-2009, is a cute little chart showing the top 10 states for receiving these Access/Visitation grants from USASPENDING.GOV.  IN 2002, apparently someone was very enthusiastic or reported differently, whereas in 2006, the data (or its reporting) took a nosedive.  However, it’s at least a resource for CFDA 93597, “Grants to States (again, to designated agency in each state, and then distributed locally to get the PROGRAM GOAL OF MORE TIME FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH THEIR KIDS.”

    I’ve been noncustodial for some time now, and was in the court many times the first year, none of which visitation was happening as order, which I repeatedly brought up.  I didn’t see anyone too concerned about this in the various courts (including custody & child support hearings) I was in, or the mediator’s office (see above, mediation was supposed to help).  Hmmm. 
    WELL, this is enough for one post!   And another long one, alas!

     

     

     

     

     

    %d bloggers like this: