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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘Jane Venohr

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…[First Published Oct. 20, 2011]

with 3 comments


“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense… First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words

BLOGGER’s UPDATE MESSAGE Aug. 15, 2018: First published Oct. 20, 2011, not updated since except to add post title w/short-link label (a more recent admin. habit) and change the background color to white (necessitated when blog upgrade retroactively changed the default background color to “yuck pale green”), add a post border line and my now standard font: fairly routine changes.

Otherwise I’m not attempting to improve its curb appeal, not even for quotes (now I often add boxes around them), missing or expired images to logos (now I often take screenshots to avoid that happening), and especially not trying to correct TAGGS.HHS.Gov margins; TAGGs itself has had a major restructure since them).  My purpose is for quoting on Twitter.  I think the message is still relevant, still “missed” by too many, and worth repeating.

Some terms, individual and nonprofit or program names now much more mainstream as specific public policy models, I was questioning this far back; just over two years after the entire apparatus was cracked open on comprehending the basic concepts behind “Federal incentives to States” under Welfare Reform (two specific funding streams) + where groups like Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ cult-like, court-connected, nonprofit-spawning  group behaviors style=”(it being a membership association primarily of judges, family lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, and such — people MOST likely to make a FINE living from family court referrals, if not already public civil servants in that capacity!) fit in.

Not including this message and above label, the post is still About 21,000 words (note: that includes all words within all TAGGS tables too)..

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…

First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words, by LGH (“LetUsGetHonest”)

(Today [Oct. 2011], I simply blogged, and continued — incorporating some discussion about our two main databases, about access/visitation grants, demonstrating the importance of doing trademark registration searches on groups (as in Colorado) and following up on a California-based group (influence found in Colorado by way of Washington) which, having been formed in 1970 as “Mothers Anonymous” and intended to help mothers involved in child abuse stop it, was within one year of incorporation changed to “Parents Anonymous,” got its stuff trademarked, was already, or got “in” with the HHS & DOJ — and is doing, currently about $18 million worth of business with HHS & DOJ combined.

The influence of fatherhood promotion is definitely showing in its materials, as well as the habit of marketing, marketin g, getting the trademark licensed, certifying accreditation to teach one’s own private curriculum brand — AND with close ties to Los Angeles County Judicial System among its board members.  This group was THE top grantee of a certain category (in the year 2002), and I hadn’t even heard of it before.

I did not finish with the El Paso County, Colorado information (at bottom), and connecting the work of CPR & PSI to actual Child Support Enforcement Groups (via a different, trademarked name), but although it’s LONGwinded — I guarantee you, taken in small installations, this IS a very informative post.

I also catch TAGGS omitting DUNS# (such that many, many grants will remain unseen) and usaspending.gov doing the exact same thing — with the DUNS#, $697K grants showed (for parents anonymous).  Omitting the DUNS$ the $18 million surfaced.  O Mi God . . . ..

I am publishing without apologies:  Read at your own risk!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Oct. 21, 2011 update:

Concern #1:

March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate.  Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic:  drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – –

The letter is signed by:  Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist.  Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters.  The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.

[article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid.   Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate.  Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].  

(If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)

Concern #2:

A Wikipedia article (flagged by Wikipedia as probably less than objective) shows how many firms ICF began acquiring, and notes that its CEO is from MIT.  What I’m concerned about is why HHS lists this corporation as “City” and not a contractor…..  And its habit of acquiring company after company….  Reminds me of Maximus, the child support giant…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

We are still on this topic:  Who are the groups that got these grants?

Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Kenneth J. Wolfe
(202) 401-9215

ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) today announced $119,393,729 in grant awards to 120 grantees to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), the grant awards will help fathers and families build strong relationships to support the well-being of their children.

As ever, the missing noun, “mothers.”  Leaving it out is accurate, as these do NOT help mothers build strong relationships with their kids, rather, it helps completely eliminate contact with the children in some cases, in order to be more fair to fathers (supposedly) in the courts.  Once a family court has eliminated such contact, including by refusing to do anything about ongoing violations of existing court orders, or ongoing threats making attempts to re-establish broken contact a Russian Roulette for some mothers, many, many of the organizations set up to help “BUILD STRONG RELATIONSHIPS” for the kids, refuse to help mothers — at all — even contact them.  It is a win-win situation for any substandard father whose real goal is to hurt that mother through taking her kids.

It is a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, who will have clean-up duty, or pay for ongoing monitoring procedures (supervised visitation centers) which themselves sometimes come up fraudulent.

“A strong and stable family is the greatest advantage any child can have,” said George Sheldon, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “These grants support programs that promote responsible parenting, encourage healthy relationships and marriage, and help families move toward self-sufficiency and economic stability.”

The Healthy Marriage program awarded a total of $59,997,077 in grants, which include 60Community-Centered Healthy Marriage grants and a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage grant. The Responsible Fatherhood program awarded a total of $59,396,652 in grants, which include 55 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood grants and four Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grants.


After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage  / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.

My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database.  Til just now.

I also started a new page on this blog (2011 Healthy Marriage Grantees . . . Speed- Dating), but its layout isn’t much better.

I uploaded my printout (which is horizontal and wont fit on this post).  Using the TAGGS list, instinctively having discovered the grants series, only to discover that someone had fudged entering the “principal investigator’s” last names – – I had only one group left to locate:  ICF, Incorporated out of Fairfax, Virginia, which got a $1.5 million grant to push marriage education, presumably.

Finally I googled the ridiculous set of initials “NRCSPHM” after speculating on their potential meaning (looks like I didn’t read the press release carefully enough, having just skipped to the list of grantees), and found a grants opportunity announcement from San Bernadino County, CA — leading to the interpretation:







= NRCSPHM, “obviously”

How grandiose.

Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Intiative, plus those working in the child support and welfare  fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?

Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..

Just for the record, some marriages need to be broken up because they are just a little to close for comfort, either for the person being assaulted, or for the inappropriate sexual relationships with minors in the family.  And those of us who have gotten OUT of some of those situations, and family lines where this was occurring, do not appreciate standing by for the next decade and watching public funds to used to propagate ridiculous practices based on paid-for theory that doesn’t account for exceptions, doesn’t require grantees to really even be legal entities, doesn’t MONITOR the funds from start to finish, and can’t show any results more than accounts of warm bodies who ALLEGEDLY sat through their classes.

We are having ongoing murder/suicide around custody “disputes,” while the groups running the thing run off and meet in exotic or plush conferences, tax-deductible, to run mutual trainings, tax-deductible, and make up new themes to describe the “flawed parents” they are (sigh) forced to deal with in the process of rescuing children and eliminating the concept of crime as crime, to be replaced with new definitions they have (privately) agreed upon, and how to get these “solutions” voted into state laws.  If you’re lost, this paragraph was talking about the AFCC; any paragraph about the related CRC would have to talk about the practice of financing this through child support and welfare diversions.  That was called “Welfare Reform,” FYI.

There was already a “NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER” in California — Dennis Stoica, registered agent:

OK, I let off enough steam (don’t worry, I’m pissed, but not armed, except with information) to get to the point of this post.

I finally found the missing $1,500,000 grant, and grantee.

Do you know why earlier search hadn’t located “ICF, INC”??  Well, looks here like someone decided to put spaces inbetween the initials in the name, although in the ACF press release the acronym for the project award had no spaces:

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
Award Title Sum of Actions

Then I looked up the name, with its idiosyncratic TAGGS database entry, spacing between the letters of the name.  OH — there was about another $1 million of grants?

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
I C F, INC  FAIRFAX VA 22031-6050 FAIRFAX 072648579 $ 2,477,256

The company under which Healthy Marriage (a.k.a. “Responsible Fatherhood,” same diff…) shows as “ICF International” (see below).  But 

under ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.” in Bloomberg  (Businessweek/Investing), after noting “no key executives listed,” and a 1969 founding, shows why we should be giving this company a financial boost, with a $$5.5 million start-up grant, rather than an actual contract:

ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract

Office of Acquisition Management (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/Headquarters, has awarded a $107,631,975.00 modified federal contract on Feb. 1 for professional, administrative, and management support services to ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.

ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., announced that it has won a $8,462,890 federal contract from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Acquisition Management, Cincinnati, for technical and regulatory support for the development of criteria for water media.

ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., won a $4,919,708 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management for race to the top technical assistance network under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  [“ARRA”]

Well, no, actually more like $3,656,370 million since 2007, and this organization is categorized as “City Government,” although it’s a private, for-profit corporation, from what I can tell in the real world outside TAGGS:

Recipient: I C F, INC
Address: 9300 LEE HIGHWAY
FAIRFAX, VA 22031-6050
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: FAIRFAX
HHS Region: 3
Type: Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment )
Class: City Government


Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90PD0271  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-27-2011 072648579 $ 977,256 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 2,477,256


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2010 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 2 0 ACF 09-17-2010 072648579 $ 500,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 500,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number @@##Amount This Action
2009 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 2 ACF 06-15-2009 072648579 $- 702,966 
2009 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-18-2009 072648579 $ 500,000 
{{LGH:  See FOOTNOTES}} Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $-202,966
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 0 ACF 09-21-2007 072648579 $ 882,080 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 882,080


Total of all award actions: $ 3,656,370

{{{FOOTNOTES:  These comments appeared in FY2009 Total “Amount” column.  Unclear whether they’re HHS’ or mine.  Probably mine, from 2011 post..quoting from ICF International website at that time}}

Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.[3]In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.[5]

In 2010, ICF acquired Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.[6]

In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC

This is a major corporation doing major business with the US Govt and others; it was founded originally by a Tuskeegee airman, and has deep connections to the defense industry and technology.   (read up from its site).  It went public (Trading on NASDAQ) as of 2006 for $12.00 a share and is danged impressive!

This is the “SHORT” description.  AGAIN, I note that the TAGGS database did NOT give its accurate name (omitting the “INTERNATIONAL”) for some reason spaced out the letters of its name (which the company, obviously, does not do) and so forth.  Here is website description from the news release on its going public in 2006

ICF International (Nasdaq: ICFI) partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and improvement. Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 1,800 employees serve these clients worldwide. ICF’s Web site is http://www.icfi.com.



Here they are describing their “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” work (no mention is made of “marriage” in the overview).  They are experienced in transforming communities, and no doubt, their work will indeed continue to give father(hood practitioners and promoters) the PR edge and corporate influence, plus public presence through social media, that mothers — who are losing their kids to these fatherhood programs in droves, now — do not have someone doing for our cause, although we give birth to these children, after 9 months (Usually) sometimes nurse them, alter our lives to take care of them, and have a President who has only expanded the programs that his Presidential forebears put in place, which cause this trouble to women leaving abuse while there is a family court system waiting, with open jaws, to direct traffic to one of their family-strengthening programs…

ICF helps U.S. federal and state agencies, grantees, nonprofit agencies, and service providers in reaching communities, fathers, and families with the message of how responsible fatherhood is critically linked to nearly every aspect of a thriving community.

Our experts bring skills from the fields of youth at risk, education, children and youth, poverty, and family strengthening and can see the links among these areas. Although the issue has been recently spotlighted in the media and in policy, ICF’s work in this area spans years.

ICF contributes toward finding ways to help providers implement programs that improve outcomes for children and families. We have helped service providers implement systemic changes to bring men into mentoring, civic life, and neighborhood stabilization efforts in ways that have wide-ranging impact.

We help organizations get the information that they need to develop programs that support fathers and families through a range of services including:  (See site for the list):

… CLIENTS (and we see it’s not the OCSE, but the OFA)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

  • Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
    • Office of Family Assistance (OFA)

The most recent one they are doing acknowledges — taking TANF monies and trying to direct traffic to a FBCO (Faith-based group) — which in the case of women trying to leave abuse, which SOMETIMES includes abuse by priests, preachers, or pastors, or at least coverups of this BY them, after being made aware of it (it’s part of the religious territory) will then have the same types of groups rooting for the men they are trying to keep a safe distance from.  I”m going to post the list of projects, current and past, done by this organization.  (No WONDER things are getting rough around the edges in family courts!)

PLEASE NOTE:  the ACF Press release mentions this $1.5 million grant going to the “healthy marriage” grantee portion (as if this wasn’t primarily promoting paternalism anyhow) — but as far as I can tell, ICF International considers the project to be filed under “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”  That is the program link.


{{Sev’l expired-link logos from 2011 were removed during 2018 quick-edit update//LGH}}


Now that I have a DUNS#, let’s see how much business other than HHS grants, they do with us, meaning the U.S.


Healthy Marriage Grantee does over $1 BILLION Of BUSINESS with the US Government.

(notice its name shows different here, too).


  • Total Dollars:$1,116,743,207
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 6,935

For example, this grant:

Transaction Number # 5

PIID: HHSP23320110015YC (Definitive Contract)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)
Product/Service Code: R408 : Program Management/Support Services
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount: 

(NOTICE the other database {{USASPENDING.gov}} doesn’t add the spaces between initials of the group’s name). . . .HHS is a world unto itself, for sure…)

From the TIMELINE tab (on this DUNS# for ICF, INC) it shows that 2003 was a low, 2009, a substantial jump, and 2011 looks to be a banner year for the company.

Of the $1 billion plus of business, $32 million were received in 84 grants, the most (or, largest amount) in 2009.

  • Total Dollars:$32,702,456
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 84

NOT that you can rely on this database, either (i’ve found by experience, but here’s the other acknowledgement — it aint’ complete, or accurate, or reliable);

I checked “Health and Human Services” (5 grants) and came up with a smaller number than are on the TAGGS database, by about $1.5 million:   The last reward does not show yet.  (however in other searches, I’ve found grants in prior years, over $1 million, that didn’t make it onto USASpending ever, apparently.  I have typically thought of this as USASpending UNDER-reporting, and only recently (when associated with all the other “anomalies” of the TAGGS database) considered the possibility of HHS OVER-reporting, which would be consistent with the practices of some of their court-affiliated grantees, a few of who have been caught (I’m thinking particularly in the supervised visitation field:  Karen Anderson, Genia Shockome cases .. … )

  • Total Dollars:$2,156,370
  • Transactions:1 – 5 of 5

COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

OMB has not included subcontracting award data on USAspending.gov and has no specific plan for collecting such data.

The USASpending.gov Web site has been live for more than two years so the public can see where its tax dollars are going, but the site’s data has not been complete nor accurate, according to a new report.

USASpending.gov went live Dec.13, 2007–a month earlier than the legislated deadline. It’s a Web site compiling a comprehensive list of the more than $1 trillion in financial assistance awarded through contracts, loans and grants. Congress mandated such a site in its Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which became law in September 2006.

Since the Office of Management and Budget launched the site, OMB has fallen short of several of program requirements, the Government Accountability Office [“GAO”] reported March 12.

Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:

House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data

March 15, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

On Friday, Ellen testified in front of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Her testimony mostly focused on the findings from our Clearspending project, which assessed the data quality of the grant programs in USASpending.gov. It was heartening to see the committee taking the issue of data quality in USASpending.gov so seriously. While admittedly not a sexy topic, this issue has serious implications in decisions that the government makes about our federal spending. To quote Rep. Issa’s (CALIFORNIA) opening statement, “The failures to make the data right is the reason we’re not getting a responsible government”.

Clearspending found nearly $1.3 trillion dollars Clearspending logoin misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.

Chris Smith, the CIO of the USDA, testified that the reason the grants were not reported was because they went to individuals, and the law governing grant reporting does not require reporting for grants to individuals. However, the actual program description describes these grants as formula grants to states. The entity receiving the grant is a state, not an individual, and therefore the grant is subject to the reporting requirements. Smith also mentioned that the transactions were under $25,000 and therefore not subject to the reporting requirement. While this may be the case, it seems unlikely. The program in question has a $10 billion bu

You Will Be Watched on USASpending.gov…Maybe Even Prosecuted


I intended to write about how innovative and exciting USASpending.govis, because it opens up extensive government budget databases: you can search, browse, and even write programs to query the system.But, that changed when I read this on the home page:WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.
Wow.I guess Uncle Sam doesn’t really want to open up his budget for public review.

dget. Let’s say that each state gets an equal payment once a month. That would still be over $16 million dollars per transaction–not even close to the $25,000 minimum. It seems that the reporting guidelines have been misinterpreted in this case.

and, a rather frightening 2007 article on USASPENDING.gov from “DOTGOVWATCH.ORG” indicates, while we are flopping around hoping to get some sensible information, or doing so is likely to be watched, and that the home page contained this warning:

WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.  {link has moved since….}


National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage 


Funding Opportunity Title: National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage
Funding Opportunity Number (FON): HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207
Program Office: Office of Family Assistance
Funding Type: Discretionary
Funding Category: Cooperative Agreement  (WITH WHOM??)
Announcement Type: Initial
CFDA#: 93.086
Post Date: 06/28/2011
Application Due Date: 07/28/2011


The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is announcing the solicitation of applications to competitively award cooperative agreements for demonstration projects that support “healthy marriage promotion activities” as authorized by The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291).The cooperative agreement awarded under the Funding Opportunity Announcement will support the development, implementation, management of a National Resource Center for Marriage and Relationship Education (NRCMRE).The NRCMRE will support marriage and relationship education (MRE) program development, implementation, and integration. ACF is responsible for Federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities.  The NRCMRE will provide MRE information, resources,and technical assistance designed to assist in the development of a broad approach to serving families and children by incorporating MRE into already existing services.

WHAT”S NEW?  Welfare Reform has always supported DHHS running social science experimentations on the American Public, and required states receiving assistance — access visitation assistance — to help the Secretary of HHS (NOTE:  Presidential appointee, not elected) — run them:

This SEpt. 1999 “ACTION TRANSMITTAL” (internal HHS document posted on-line) regarding 45 CFR 303.109 shows that there was not even a requirement to monitor what happened to the grants added until 2 years after they’d been in operation!  Nor was there a stipulation for protection procedures.  It provides a nice history of the Access Visitation procedures, which apparently started in 1988 with $4 million and have been at $10 million/year since 1996 or so.  Obama Administration likes to stay on the good side of the fatherhood movement and so has been promising to increase and expand this.

Recommended browsing for review, and for newcomers to the concept that the Federal Government is interested in your family court case, and tweaking the outcome of it through federal incentives to the states.

Apr 28, 1999 AT-99-007 Final Rule – Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

The intro gets a little technical, but read it anyhow:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children & Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement


ISSUED: April 28, 1999


SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

BACKGROUND: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs is a recent program to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to and visitation of their children. $10 million per year has been granted to States since 1997; it is a continuing capped appropriation. Funds are granted to states based upon the number of children in single family households, a $50,000 minimum per state will be increased to $100,000 this year. The range of grants is from $100,000 to nearly $1 million per year. State programs are managed by agencies designated by the Governor; many states do not operate the program through the IV-D agency. Funds may be used for the following activities: mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

ATTACHMENT: Attached is the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15132-6). This is a new regulation mandated by Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act which was enacted by Section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This rule is consistent with the President’s Memorandum of March 4, 1995 to the heads of Department and Agencies which announced a government-wide Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce or eliminate mandated burdens on States and others.


DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

David Gray Ross
Office of Child Support Enforcement

. . .

SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.”  This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .

To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror.  Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children.  I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption Incentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa).  Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.

All the fatherhood fundings seem to come to this dept. as well as the access visitation fundings.  I found it tied into the Marriage Education stream as well, at the sate level, and linked to a TENNESSEE group selling curricula, a (nonprofit?) called FIRST THINGS FIRST.  The item in question was trying to encourage black families to get and stay married, specifically.  I think OHIO is a bit afraid of black people; they should move to East or West Coast (or Chicago) and “get real!” vs. trying to regulate breeding behaviors through selling marriage education!

Let me quote this 1999 HHS Action Transmittal (of a final rule regulating access/visitation grants) — because it’s not a half-bad summary, or birds-eye view of how some of these programs (including the healthy marriage system also) really got entrenched and became the norm:

AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to $4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.

Typically the process of encouraging someone to comply with a court order is contained right in the legal process.  You file a contempt order with the court, and the judge rules on this, or sanctions someone.  What necessity was there to develop programs to “encourage” U.S. citizens to comply with rule of law, or a court order?  I do not believe this could’ve been the genuine purpose, just the alleged purpose.  Designing programs to manipulate people’s behavior is manipulation, period. using public money to do so, I say, is wrong.  We EXPECT people to adhere to a common standard, and then use the existing state and local court systems, so all know what the standards are, and there can be a common expectation of ethics.  Alas, this system was much more distant from the people affected (i.e. voted on in washington; but some of us live on the other coast).

The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects”. The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).

Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis. Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants 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. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.

As you can see, Congress wants these programs in operation. As it says, they are directed towards fathers (admittedly then, and probably still (though less so now, about 15 years later) who are the main noncustodial parents and ones paying child support (although — is anyone keeping track??))  So right here, unknown to me (I was in a marriage, getting assaulted at the time, like many other women), my government was setting up programs to encourage INCREASING noncustodial parent time beyond whatever we would eventually decide ourselves, without these programs’ involvement.

Personal/Anecdotal re:  Mediation:

This also resulted — in my case — of going straight to mandated mediation upon a restraining order having been made permanent, and in that condition (while I was still in shock, and probably he was also) a court order was figured out in a VERY short time frame (one appointment), where I was not in shape to protect my boundaries, informed of the access visitation programs, or knowledgeable even about the rules of court for DV cases.  Our mediation almost completely defeated the prime stipulations of the restraining order.  Bad idea!   But because a restraining order was such a huge leap, at the time, our family didn’t know what it’d just been cheated out of, on the basis of anticipation that their father was going to bail out on child support (before any was really set, even!), and needed more policy to encourage him to pay.

Here is how this Action Transmittal responds to comments raised by DV advocates, or at least some, as to safety issues.  Please note that this is 1999, and only NOW has any provision whatsoever regarding safety to the custodial parent been raised:

Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.

In 2006 (10 years later) and in countless instances inbetween, a woman was murdered during an exchange of children.  However, as her husband had buried her, and no body was found, it was an unusual high-profile trial:  Two children (6 & 8) were there when she was murdered during the routine, court-ordered exchange.  Finally, the man was convicted, and as part of his plea-bargain, helped the police by leading them to the (shallow grave) 3 miles from his home:  Hans & Nina Reiser case.   DastardlyDads blogspot keeps count (I couldn’t handle doing this, have no idea how the person in question does):  see (February 2011 post)

175 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USAAn update to our previous 76 Killer Dads, 88 Killer Dads, and 138 Killer Dads lists.

“This is NOT a comprehensive list of all U.S. fathers who have killed their children in situations involving domestic violence and/or child abuse. This list is limited to articles I have found where there is an identifiable child custody, visitation, and/or child support angle in the children’s deaths. Even then, I can’t claim that this is a comprehensive list of child custody, visitation, and or child-support- related murders. Quite often, newspaper articles just don’t provide enough information to make a judgment call.”
This person was simply reading the newspaper accounts, and keeping a count.  Notice — PLENTY from 2008 – 2010.  There is no question that the presence of these access and visitation grants  enabled and encouraged some very bad behaviors, such as murder.  It has also made it nearly impossible for marriages which really should have been split up and NOT have continued involvement by a perpetrator of violence upon mother Or child(ren) — to become separate entitities.
 Why?  Because sometimes the child support arrears literally extorts the father into waging a custody battle he may not even want.
Recently (for Pete’s sake!) an assistant deputy attorney (I forget exact title), a mother working for the California Attorney General, had her little girl abducted on a court-ordered (?) visitation, and despite her frantic calls to get the baby back, FBI didn’t issue the Amber Alert (per procedures to WAIT LONGER when it’s parental involvement) and there was a murder -suicide.  GUESS WHAT:  THIS POLICY ENABLED THAT (Samaan/Fay).  If even someone working in this arm of government cannot save her own child’s life, what have we come to?
IF they do persuade/encourage/facilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their children in cases where there were BAD, VISITATION-OBSTRUCTING MOMS (and NOT prior abuse, violence, or threats in the relatioship) —
ANYHOW, here was the 1999 response to what I’d call women’s rights organizations to this policy and these grants:

Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by commentators who wrote about domestic violence.

No they don’t.  Not really.  I do not believe the people responding here were themselves in situations where a life was at risk, possibly theirs, possibly their offspring’s, around custody issues.  If it had been, the response would’ve been less “detached” and “handsoff” in nature:

Access and visitation by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and their children must be addressed when it is a problem.

CAN?  It already had been; the wording should have been “has led.”  And “dangerous situations” doesn’t use the word “lethal” in any way, which it should’ve.

But — because of child suppport ,and because of child psychologist reports about continuing contact, there MUST be no complete separation from the criminally behaving parent.

It is our intent to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both parents.

“Weighing sensitively” replaces, evaluating the truth of . .. But the, we’re talking family courts…..

In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows: “(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and children.”

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.

Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and being used to ensure safety.

Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be used.

Alternative forms of conflict resolution, most likely involving the same stable of family law mediation providers, i.e., AFCC personnel who tend to minimize DV and discredit it.


This “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects,” I have read.  Highlights from this one, published by HHS, acknowledge that the purpose is SPECULATION that more access might mean more child support payments — however, also cites child psychology as it being better for the child to have contact with both children.  This being in 1996, and two short years after the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) passed, failure to mention it is notable.  Responding to “fathers’ rights groups” IS mentioned:


As set forth in the Family Support Act of 1988, this evaluation explored the effect of two waves of Child Access Demonstration projects on the amount of time required to resolve access disputes; reductions in litigation related to access disputes; improvements in compliance with court-ordered child support amounts; and promotion of the emotional adjustment of children. It also assessed the extent and nature of child access disputes as well as parental satisfaction with the demonstrations.


Recent research in child psychology shows generally that close, frequent, and positive contact with the father following divorce and separation is beneficial for the child.

Child access is also important for child support enforcement. Recent Census data and research studies have indicated that where noncustodial parents have visitation rights or joint custody they tend to be more compliant with child support orders, although it is difficult to show cause and effect since the parents wanting to see the child may also be the better payers. Desire for increased child contact may follow child support payment rather than vice versa. Moreover, denial of visitation is seen {{by _ _ _ _ _ _ _??}} as the major reason for nonpayment of child support for noncustodial parents who have money to pay child support.

Whatever the reason is, the person is noncompliant.  Trying to set up programs to “get inside their head” as to why is based on some philosophy, I guess, that it’s more important to please noncompliant parents (NB, at the time, primarily fathers) than to establish — for both parties and for stability for the kids — an expectation that a court order is a court order.  Same for visitation.

There has been considerable pressure {{from fathers and fathers’ groups}} for the system to give support to the needs of noncustodial as well as custodial parents.

In 1996, it’s obvious that then-President Clinton’s 1995 Executive Order to incorporate more ‘Fatherhood” in federal agencies was already out there.  No mention of this seems real odd.

Over 43 States authorize joint custody. There are currently over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs and over 280 fathers’ rights groups organized throughout the country to facilitate child access by noncustodial parents.

Of course there are!  The Children’s Rights Council (Maryland) had been around since the 1980s; and the HHS itself had just provided a tidy grant to start the National Fatherhood Initiative aslo.  Regarding “over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs”  — the organization most pushing mediation has been the AFCC.

A co-founder of AFCC includes Jessica Pearson (hear tell, see NAFCJ.net, also her name is on at least one of its earlier incorporations in California, from Denver; I’ve posted it more than once on-line here).  This report was done by

Congress responded to the continuing public debate about the problem of noninvolvement by noncustodial parents and resulting litigation by directing HHS to conduct State demonstration projects relating to a variety of means of facilitating continuing involvement by the noncustodial parent.

In 1996 a new Federal grant program for child access and visitation programs was established nationwide.  (etc.   . . . You can read it. . .. )


This is a later (after 2002) summary bearing the typical evaluation credit:  Center for Policy Research / Policy Studies, Inc. (both in Denver).

Its writers (compilers, I gather) are Jessica Pearson and David Price, for the respective agencies.  I’ve profiled both these corporations plenty on the blog and associated Dr. Pearson clearly with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Its language is apparent here, in discussion A/V funding when it comes to “high-conflict families.”  I think this section pretty much Says it All — in describing the largest court system in the country (California’s) zero mention is made of the phrase “domestic violence.”  Notice the substitutionary words, applied to BOTH parents, not just one.  THey are viewed as a unit, and not as individuals:

The phrase “high-conflict” is used 40 times (approximately once every 4 pages on averate) and an entire chapter is devoted to how to deal with such, “parents.”


“To investigate and provide long-term access assistance to families with entrenched disputes and/or serious allegations of parental misconduct, using a variety of court-ordered services.”

“serious allegations of parental misconduct” clearly puts said misconduct into the “behavioral” realm and not criminal.  Readers should understand that the authors, by association, would consider “parental alienation” serious misconduct, as well as alleging or reporting, or having allowed a child to report, any serious misconduct.  There are no moral values or standards outside the dispute resolution industry here, apparently:


Brief investigations by trained court personnel when parents exhibit high conflict behavior, with recommendations to the court on needed services.

It is not necessary to conduct any extended investigation, or read reports of non-court personnel, such as police reports, or CPS reports.

Translation:  This is a “Catch-22.”  If there HAS been “serious parental misconduct” it is going to cause conflict — unless one parent can be extorted or intimidated into silence (which this system helps do). . . .  NO reference to ascertaining the cause of it shows up.  The knee-jerk solution is tell the court to “recommend needed services”

I will translate this formula for driving business to related professionals, or court-affiliated nonprofits another time here:

ANY CONFLICT is an excuse to INCREASE BILLABLE HOURS (whether to Title IV_D provided, or force the parent(s) to pay) to some “SERVICE.”



More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

  • Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
  • Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access
  • Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.
  • Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children
  • Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.
  • ␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**
  • ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.

(**aka, do not rape, etc.)

A 12-week curriculum for domestic violence?  (There are 52-week batterers intervention programs, and they aren’t even proven effective…excepting getting out of a jail sentence for DV)

the word “mother” occurs 42 times and “father” more than 100 times.   The document is well worth reading to understand how the court “thinks” about parents walking into its doors, while providing services that the federal government (as of the late 1990s) pays 90% of the expenses for, and that any state paying less than $100K for statewide services will still get $100K for statewide services anyhow.

I have not tracked to what extent this program has been expanded, or the Administration hopes to expand payments for it as of 2012.  I have stomach issues and it’s early in the day, might need to keep any meals down  . . .

David A. Price is a very interesting professional: He publishes consistently opposite the CPR group, and/or with Jane Venohr, Ph.D. (who has been staff in both CPR & PSI), for example, in Colorado:

Multiple Initiatives Grant

Notice the authors.  (Thoennes is also CPR).   In the selection above, the piece citing David Price has credit like this:

Jane Venohr, Ph.D.

David Price, Ph.D.

Policy Studies Inc.

999 18th Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 863-0900

(on the left — and on the right side, is CPR)

Esther Griswold, M.A., Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555

However, Jane Venohr has been (from the start?  Certainly for a long time) “CPR” — she is one of the 3 key leaders, out of 6 women listed in “About Us.”

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate


Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

So for purposes of the study, Jane wore her PSI had with Mr. Price, and someone else wore the CPR had.  This is common among AFCC-personnel; if you don’t know the common association, you just don’t know.  Perhaps in all professions, but I sure notice it among the court’s.   ALSO, in Colorado, “David A. Price” is only associated with two corporations, one of which (he) voluntarily dissolved in 2008, apparently, namely, a law firm:

Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Address Type Count
80204, US
Registered Agent 1
Registered Agent 1

The first one was formed (note) in 1984, and he has been filing consistently — unlike many marriage grantees– even this past month! It’s also a nonprofit.

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID # Click here to sort in ascending order. Entity Name Entity Type Date Filed Entity Status
1 19871583603  CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES Nonprofit Corporation 08/15/1984 GOOD

I believe I have pointed this out before, but Policy Studies Inc. has 12 trade names, many of them relating to child support; (always) notice the dates of incorporation:

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Address Type Count
CO 80202, US
Trade name Registrant 12 
[Next 2>]
Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

and the last two:

Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM

The “Parent Opportunity Programs” have been studied, noted as problemmatic for mothers, by National Alliance of Family Court Judges (Liz Richards).

The El Paso County Child Support Services site has a section on this, what appears to be an access-visitation-funded program, one would think from the description:

This would seem to be a government site, judging by the phrase “El Paso County” and how official it looks.  However the URL is clearly  a *.com:


By Contrast, for example, Jefferson County, CO child support site is clearly a government site (see url http://co.jefferson.co.us/cse/index.htm)  Notice, central to the site:

Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

Fatherhood Program 

Learning to be the best dads we can be!

The purpose of the Fatherhood Program is to provide education and support for those individuals desiring to enrich their lives and their child(ren) while providing peer based engagement, motivation and indefinite support to individual fathers and families.  These fathers will be educated about practical parenting styles and skills.  Emphasis will be placed on the critical need for fathers to be active in parenting their children {{Access & Visitation…}} as well as serving as positive role models for other children in our communities.  The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives,{{also code for access and visitation, possibly including help modifying support or custody orders}} becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community.
Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated.  The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan.

The  ‘Fatherhood Case Manager’ is listed as a DHHS employee:

“The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.”  (ACF/OFA, meaning, probably, National).  “Colorado WOrks” is no doubt their welfare program).”  Suppose a noncustodial mother hits this page?  We do exist, even as the silent minority!)

SEE HOW THIS WoRKS, yet?  LInks to, for example:



. . .(I explored this site a bit, which includes a home for abused children, and “Circle of Parents(TR), which also turns out to be HHS/OFA funded:

Families First received a Partners for Kids: United Hands Make the Best Families Responsible Fatherhood sub- award grant from the national Circle of Parents® office, to provide training and technical assistance to these two sites. The project is funded by the U.S. DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.



“Mission Statement : Prevent child abuse and neglect and strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups.”

Anything HHS-funded and purporting to prevent child abuse is likely to do this by promoting father involvement . . .  It’s how the cookie crumbles:

About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert. **  

 CIRCLE OF PARENTS RECEIVED $4,800,000 IN “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program” funding from the OFA from 2006 through 2010, a five-year period.  The first two years, a flat $900K each, then each subsequent year $1,000,000.   Here it is, all = award 90FR0098.  (Found in 3 minutes — I didn’t think of it on first posting — taggs.hhs.gov / award search / selected Year 2011/cfda 93086, and scanned the (178) results).  This group shows no 2011 award, but its presence in the list shows prior awards.

Circle of Parents®   EIN 800106957

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
CIRCLE OF PARENTS  CHICAGO IL 60611-3777 COOK 623444994 $ 4,800,000

The “Chicago” connection makes me wonder whether Jeffrey Leving is involved.  (See FFCA conferences, a large part of which each year appears to be drooling over (and coordinating how to get) the next round of fatherhood funding from whichever HEAD representative from the HHS/ACF shows up to remind them, “Who’s Your Daddy?” when it comes to caring about them enough to donate public funding from US Taxpayers (of both genders).

Here’s the Tax Return signed 4/15/2011 by CEO Cynthia R. Savage, with a very moderate salary (for the field) of $73K.  Then again, most if it apparently comes from grants taken away from TANF to start with, or other HHS funds used to promote fatherhood, after setting up organization after organization with websites and other “technical assistance” to dominate the PR on a topic, and sell trainings or curricula, usually.

Revenue (that year):








Circle of Parents IL 2010 $65,404 990 31 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2009 $68,336 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2008 $52,969 990 28 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2007 $26,843 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2006 $83,638 990 24 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2005 $16,914 990 18 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2004 $3,803 990 25 80-0106957

Here’s one project of the group (note the format, graphics, high-quality media) that directly states it was funded by the above grant #90FR0098):


it is from Douglas County, KANSAS and designed to make Dads feel more comfortable in toddler playgroups, including a section called “DADDY & ME.”

NOTE:  KANSAS was making news at a petition site recently:  Topeka has declared it cannot afford even its domestic violence laws any more, they are too expensive, it is decriminalizing domestic battery, expecting the county to pick up the slack.  I kid you not:

Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.  Oct 4, 2011, Liz Goodwin.

 For a perspective, Google “Claudine Dombrowski” on my site — I have posted some of her court docket on there, and related the time when she was arrested for not bleeding after a severe assault, in the right county.  Actually she wasn’t reporting, simply seeking treatment at the time.  One of the assaults involved a crowbar, and this particular case has made it (along with Jessica Gonzales Lenahan) to the IACHR, as human rights violation perpetrated by the United States on its citizens.  The handling of this type of violence throughout the land has been resulting in — eventually, and in many, many cases — simply switching custody to the offender and letting the victim go repeatedly to court to fight for contact, while trying to stay sane in knowledge of who is caring for her kids, and (sometimes unsuccessfully) alive.   Another article on this topic.    NOTE:   TOPEKA IS THE CAPITAL OF KANSAS.  NOTE #2 — the head of the HHS department came from Kansas.
{{An acquaintance of mine forwarded the article (which I knew about), and said she’d submitted a comment, responding to a petition on this matter, that funding be found to allow the Women and Children of the state of Kansas to leave the state, for their own safety.}}

This article from “The Nation” sites the recent “Seal Beach, California” shooting — around a custody dispute.  The ex-wife and 7 bystanders were murdered. Obviously, what’s needed is more promotion of “responsible” fatherhood to counter murderous fathers.  It is more important to let Dads know how to feel comfortable while pushing strollers and at parks, than to stop that insanity!

[Tagline:] Topeka, Kansas, decriminalized domestic violence to save money. It’s not the only city to cut services to survivors of abuse, just as the need escalates.

After Chad Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County in Topeka, Kansas, had his budget cut by the County Commission last month, he announced that he no longer had the financial resources to pursue misdemeanor domestic violence cases, essentially handing them off to the city. The City Council, in turn, voted last week to decriminalize domestic violence so that it didn’t have to pay up. This put the ball back in Taylor’s court; he now says he will review cases sent to him by Topeka police and pursue them on a case-by-case basis. During the game of hot potato, suspected abusers walked free—reports range from eighteen to thirty people. Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):


Karen Schrader, Training and TA manager for Circle of Parents:

In 2006, Circle of Parents applied for and received one of (only) Five “Responsible Fatherhood Community Access” grants from the HHS/OFA.  She specifically mentions connections to “FamiliesFirst” in Colorado, two Dads in particular being among their national leadership, but until this ($900K grant, probably part of a 4-year agreement) they weren’t “specifically focused on fatherhood.”  HOWEVER, “the grant provided the opportunity to move the ‘cultural norm’ of our Circle of Parents network, and the ‘cultural norm” of local community-based/faith-based home visitation programs  farther along the continuum of engaging and supporting fathers.”

Provided the opportunity?  Translation:  We took the grant, and so agreed to tailor it towards fathers…..  LIke they’d wanted to all along, but not having access to free HHS funds was hampering their ability to change the culture of the organization.  (How much “culture” and a 2-year old organization have, to start with? MORE LIKELY — the organization was formed with a view to this in mind, and very much with an awareness of the HHS funding streams available. Only the 990s would tell, most likely, though.

NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE INFLUENCE in a $4.8 million national networked nonprofit discovered with links directly to (at a minimum) Colorado Child Support Enforcement site.

One of our strategic objectives was focused on changing the organization’s cultural norms around embracing fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), experts in the fatherhood field, joined forces with Circle of Parents to help show us the way. We needed to assess where each grantee was on the scale of father-friendliness.

is called fawning, obsequious pandering to whoever has the money, and probably conflict of interest, too.  It’s disgusting!   The sole purpose of this organization appears to be transforming LOCAL groups into so-called “father-friendliness.”   The Executive Order that endorsed this activity, in 1995, came from a philandering Democratic President with a history financial corruption preceding the PResidency (i.e., “Clintongate,”) and with need of a personal cleanup crew to handle that philandering.  This is the SAME LANGUAGE 15 years later.

Each local and state grantee completed a father-friendly check-up assessment and created an action plan to increase their abilities to engage fathers.

Knowing that organizational change was important when we wrote the grant, Circle of Parents created a multi-level training and technical assistance system to assist the Network state and local grantees in becoming more father-friendly. In addition to NFI, expert consultants such as a domestic violence professional with experience in working with males and Bernie Dorsey of the Con- scious Fathering Program of Parent Trust for Washington Children, were engaged to provide much-needed direction and guidance. By year 3 it became clear that we needed to be more intentional in our efforts. We added additional training events and technical assistance focused on not only organizational assessment, but also staff self-assessment. If organizations are going to change their cultural norms, the staff must make personal changes as well. Circle of Parents’ commitment to father outreach and engagement will continue long after the grant ends in September. In this issue, we’ve focused on North Carolina as one illustration of the far reaching impact of this grant both on the state and local levels.

Karen Schrader took $50,100 as Program Administrator from the over $1 million of government grants (i.e., money taken from poor households food stamps, cash aid, or children’s child support / enforcement) to act as a talking head for the NFI policy set up in 1994, when this group got a conflict-of-interest-type grant from HHS, having a co-founder that was then WORKING for the HHS.  (Wade Horn, to my recall).

The third employee was paid $34,000 — would support most single-parent families adequately most places in the US — if they were NOT constantly dragged into father-friendly high-conflict custody ligitation, thanks to programs like this — to support the talk and promotion of this one group.  Membership dues one year, $13,000.  That might go a long ways to supporting a family, or helping a family get some of its infrastructure in place (like transportation) to enable access to work. Or medical care, you name it.   $642K of this $1Million plus was given away to other organizations.  Father-friendly ones only, I”m sure . . .  $217K was, again, salaries and benefits to do this; $31K in travel (wouldn’t YOU like to have a $31K travel budget?) and in IRS form Part IX, “Statement of Functional Expenses” they have nothing under “Professional Fundraising” (who needs it, with this kind of a HHS grant backing!), but  $162K in “other program expenses,” meaning, expenses directly related to doing their program.  Of course, their “program” is to transform the culture of (whoever they interact with) to become more father-friendly to start with . . ..    

Their “Program Accomplishments” are generic, and out of $1,189,089 expenses for accomplishing them, $1,054,454, or over50%, were via government grant, and in the process, said “program accomplishments” produced around $5k revenue as well.  Details for this $1.1 million of expenses (note, the average Circle of Parents(tr) HHS grant was $1 million, so if I were the HHS (and thought anyone was watching), I would want some account of where it went.

990 reads:  “See Schedule O” (usually attached to the end of the tax return).   “

Did the organization complete Schedule O — is checked “No.”

AS SUCH — this is a TYPICAL GRANTEE . . . .  Incorporated shortly before some new uptick in fatherhood / marriage funding, sustained and set up almost entirely by it, and with the primary emphasison “Technical Assistance & Training” which I translated as “PR” and “Web site support.” plus conferences, training, membership fees to do it YOUR way (insert brand name  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ).     990s are VERY interesting, and often tell a different story and the front face of the organization, although Karen Schrader was astonishingly honest about “just what” Circle of Parents(tr) really is.

Of course, I picked up on it immediately from their website, because they aren’t the only organization transformed into father-friendly by HHS infusions.

The newsletter – JUNE 2011 — was posted at the link “SMART START & NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, Inc.”

What is Smart Start?

Smart Start was created in 1993 as an innovative solution to a problem: Children were coming to school unprepared to learn.”

Their FUNDERS page speaks loudly — it’s basically a laundry list of organizations that also do fatherhood promotion, plus a pharmaceutical, a tutoring program (Kaplan), a school supply, and (last year) over $1 million from W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  Oh yes — and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation which Domestic Violence advocate & public policy influencer Ms. Starosek worked for, above . . ..


   USASPENDING.GOV — as I have to say, seems habitual — is not reporting one of these $900K grants (the 2006 one, even though USASPENDING.gov has time slots back to 2000 for its data), and only 4 out of 5 awards, resulting in:

  • Total Dollars:$3,900,000
  • Transactions:1 – 4 of 4
 However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.
The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now.  (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)
ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.

Its listed as a partner on this group:  “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC:   (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise).  I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.

FRIENDS is an acronym for Family Resource Information, Education, and Network Development Service.

FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) is a service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We are a federally mandated Training and Technical Assistance Provider for CBCAP lead agencies.

How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP (FRIENDS) is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Children’s Bureau to provide training and technical assistance to designated CBCAP Lead Agencies and Set-Aside Grantees. For more information about the Children’s Bureau, please see their web site.

SO, certain groups (probably including “circle of Parents” with its $4.8 Million “Promote Responsible Fatherhood” grant) are “SET-ASIDE GRANTEES” and the rest of you, good luck getting a foot in the door.   What is CBCAP?  Another acronym leading back to “CAPTA” which appears to lead back to welfare reform, or at least matches the time frame — 2006.   It was reauthorized in 2010, and I bet there are mothers all across the country, in these custody wars, still wondering “what happened?” and why are abusers getting access to children STILL, even when the visitation happens in a supervised visitation center (Trumbull County, OHIO recent:  Convicted juvenile sex offender Dad & Mom take “parenting classes” and get access to their 2nd baby (first one, removed at birth, was beaten to death in foster care before she turned 2), and the facility this happens in “just happens” to be a fairly direct (and statewide) project of — guess what — “OHIO.FATHERHOOD.GOV.”   Gives a whole new meaning to “access and visitation,” not to mention “Parental involvement.”

What is CBCAP?

CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.

What legislation supports CBCAP?

The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).

Why were CBCAP programs created?

CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.



 ** For “expert” read “heat shield.”  I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.”   The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.”  A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.  

A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach:  It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system.  As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.    

 Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)

Note:  North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it?  For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?

WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well).  The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare.  And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either.  SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!

I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years).  Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants.   (OCSE comes under HHS).  OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed  — or at least “promoted” — through:  Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations.  I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case).  Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting).   She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice.  Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and I suspect this is probably because of the associations more with policy-makers and government councils, that people going through the custody-child-removal system enabled by the grants, and the policies behind them.  It is simply an entirely different point of view, and results in an entirely different voice.

FYI — we can speak.  Victims, unless their larynxes have been injured in an assault — CAN speak.  most I’ve met are articulate (discounting some for the PTSD), and don’t need ongoing interpretation.  They are often adults, and are eyewitnesses of their own experience, and often networked well enough to know others’ common experience. They are often the best voice of what they have consistently experienced, and this voice has been lost.  Federal Policymakers are not INTERESTED in the roadkill to their rhetoric as applied at the state level.  They are interested in maintaining political viability by continuing to get grants for their associates, knowing FULL WELL that there is no adequate oversight, and no real document results in the objectives under which these programs were (improperly) sold to Congress to start with (Welfare Reform 1996).

(NORTH CAROLINA:  Years, All   CFDAs 93597 (A/V) and 93086 (HM/RF) series).  Circle of Parents, in taking on this DV expert made sure NOt to hear “the voice of the victims” of family court coverup of DV.. . …  ….. , meanwhile complying with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.109 (as to these grants), or at least its sentiment, in taking on a token DV person to lend legitimacy . . . .

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/21/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/17/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 405,528
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/26/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 525,161
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 490,465
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 06/06/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 0
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 530,482
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0001NCSAVP SAVP 2000 08/22/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0101NCSAVP SAVP 2001 08/23/2001 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 08/06/2002 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 23,880
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/11/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 30,070
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0401NCSAVP 2004 SAVP 09/15/2004 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0501NCSAVP 2005 SAVP 09/14/2005 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0601NCSAVP 2006 SAVP 09/19/2006 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 268,587
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0701NCSAVP 2007 SAVP 07/20/2007 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 278,157
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0801NCSAVP 2008 SAVP 01/30/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 271,792
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0901NCSAVP FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 12/23/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,258
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1001NCSAVP FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 11/25/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 279,933
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1101NCSAVP FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 10/08/2010 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 286,100
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 05/31/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 12/02/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 216,494
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 01/04/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 205
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 09/01/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 02/24/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 08/16/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 02/25/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 132,019
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 08/24/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/25/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR LINDA ROBINSON $ 514,308
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 519,625
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ELIZABETH CARROLL $ 548,181
OFA Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. Other Social Services Organization 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 09/27/2011 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY $ 725,000
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 375,685
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/16/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 538,524
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 550,000
Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.

(THAT was just for effect, and you could find a similar chart in any other state). 


“PARENT TRUST FOR WASHINGTON CHILDREN” logo alerts me to, probably another grant behind this one:  There are only so many icons available showing human figures looped together by a heart, or heart-type logo! . .  Besides, the leading page is “BUILDING STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES” which is a government theme.  When it comes to REAL families, somone is a father, someone a mother, someone gives birth (possibly more than once, creating siblings) and the term is “RAISING” my/our children, not BUILDING them!  An entirely different mindset is involved in “BUILDING a family.”  Builders are not the house, they are outside the house!   The house is made out of material they manipulate, according to some master plan, or at least SOME plan.  However, life comeso after childbirth, and from the perspective of the individuals, people GROW, and hopefully good values are instilled, safe places,future hopes, associations — and real, living connections.  The life force from within is the verb “GROW” and the artificial, social-science-focused (i.e., focusing on the theory, policy, or others involved) results in terms like “BUILDING FAMILIES,” (Plural).  Particularly as many of these policies are resulting in partially dead, or wholly dead families (i.e., murder/suicides), wasted years, wasted tax dollars, and time taken out of building their own futures, according to their OWN plans which just may happen to fit their own reality better than an “almost one size fits all” policy from above  . . . . . . (well, you can tell what kind of mood I”m in today on all this mess!) (it’s reall organized, but in practice, it’s messing with other, important realities, like due process in the courts, and the ability to make independent choices, by MOTHERS!)(and, many FATHERS, too!).  

This one, apparently, is marketing “Professional Trainings” especially “Conscious Fathering”(tr).  Contact your local affiliate to buy it:

Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”

with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)

 (It took a while to locate, but it’s a project of the Seattle Foundation, self-described as the largest  funder in King’s County) or at least helped by them):  

Parent Trust for Washington Children 9/10/2010 $15,000.00 support general operating expenses. 

EIN# 911036940, I’ll check TAGGS (yes, they have been filing, at least):  recorded here under a different name (and no DUNS#)…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

(“Mutual Support” programs?  How about put some of that to tracking down that “undistributable child support collections” held at the state level, no doubt in Washington, like other states!)

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
1998 90CA1648  DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 0 ACF 09-14-1998 $ 50,000 

There are thousands of “90CA” awards.  To narrow it, I picked 1998, and only WA, D.C. & CA (most projects get tested in CA, why not?) — narrowing it down to 18 awards.  Parents Anonymous apparently got started in California anyhow, and the washington group eventually changed its name:  Here we go, from TAGGS:

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
1998 CB D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND DC 90CA1645 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW CAROLYN S ABDULLAH $ 50,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS CA 90CA1646 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW LISA PION-BERLIN $ 50,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW TANYA PHAM $ 100,000

I just looked up “Parents Anonymous” and behold — only CA & AZ show any DUNS#s . . . . the umbrella organizations?  Are they ALL running “Conscious Fathering(tr)” professional training classes, and if so, for how much?  Notice, CA gets the biggest grants…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (earliest grant shown 1995, Budget Year, 2) CLAREMONT CA 91711 LOS ANGELES 090749326 $ 2,828,196
PARENTS ANONYMOUS   (THIS GRANT IS 2010….) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA 119833135 $ 792,550


Showing: 1 – 9 of 9

TAKING the DUNS# “090749326” to USASPENDING.gov, we see they have “only” missed over $2 million of grants here:

  • Total Dollars:$697,225
  • Transactions:1 – 2 of 2
One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group  leader???) – 2010
and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities
Date Signed:
August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount: 

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)
Date Signed:
July 02 , 2007 

Obligation Amount: 

“parents anonymousa inc.”??  This is supposedly an extension of an earlier grant we don’t see there:

Obligation / Action Date  07/02/2007
Starting Date  09/30/2006
Ending Date  09/29/2008

BUT, when I omit the DUNS# and just search on the name (in quotes, Prime Award search) I see this — and have to say, just go look yourself:

  • Total Dollars:$18,936,970
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 25

This includes more from the Arizona group, and Buffalo and Erie County (NY, PA, I guess).  There are grants or contracts from the Justice Department, and under the term “DRUG-FREE”, as well as (now we know where the term “Strengthening Families” comes from:

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX0001: 03 (Grants)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Date Signed:
August 17 , 2000Obligation Amount: 

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX000104 (Grants)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2001Obligation Amount: 

They are basically THROWING money at this group, and the Arizona branch (again, looking at transaction details, DUNS# is often missing).

In 2002 (this is from “USASPending.gov”), same program:  they got $2.7 million

cfda 16;541 comes under ”


(OK, I finally looked up the project title).   The DOJ awarded a $16 million grant to Parents Anonymous — to try out and assess its own programs!  This is the AUdit Report saying their evaluation was “adequate”!!

Here they are seeking donations:  Be a Circle of Friends ($500), Patron ($1,000), Hero ($1,500), Champion ($5,000 and get to speak at national conference), or Benefactor ($10,000).  They havent figured out privileges for $10,000 and above yet . . . ..    Contact “Meryl Levine.”  I have a feeling it MAY be this Meryl Levine (from NJ, actually, but look at the details and compare to what Parents ANonymous is doing).  The pay for Parents Anonymous VP was over $100K/year.)

DO THESE CONNECTIONS have anything to do with getting THOSE grants?

CALSWEC Standing Committee

Return to Home  

Let’s take a look at who “CALSWEC” is, with HQ at UCBerkeley:

Created in 1990, the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) is a consortium of the state’s 21 accredited social work graduate schools, the 58 county departments of social service and mental health, the California Departments of Social Services (CDSS) and Mental Health (CDMH), the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, professional associations, and foundations.

CalSWEC is the nation’s largest coalition of its kind working to provide professional education, student financial aid, in-service training, and workforce research–all directed toward developing effective, culturally competent public service delivery to the people of California.CalSWEC’s main office is at the University of California, Berkeley.Download a copy of the CalSWEC Fact Sheet (October 2011).

Child Welfare CommitteeThe Child Welfare Committee is responsible for leading and overseeing curriculum, stipend, and other issues of social work education pertaining to public child welfare. It includes members of the Board and community volunteers interested in child welfare social work. Committee members are listed below.
Committee Chair
Charlene Reid, Director
Division of Social Services
Tehama County Department of Social Services
Barrett Johnson, Director, Child Welfare In-Service Training Project, CalSWEC
Meryl Levine, Vice President of Development
Parents Anonymous Inc.
Viola W. Lindsey
Department of Social Work and Social Ecology
Loma Linda University
Kristina Lavato-Hermann
School of Social Welfare
San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos
F&E Steering Committee
California Department of Social ServicesDavid Meyers, Sr. Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the Courts

Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of California
Mark Miller, Training Director
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family ServicesKate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program
Department of Social Work
California State University, Northridge

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Seal and Site Header


Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Grant Number 1998-JS-FX-0001, Claremont, California

Report No. GR-90-04-013
August 2004
Office of the Inspector General

Executive Summary
The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of a Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Parents Anonymous located in Claremont, California. The purpose of this grant was to build and support strong, safe families in partnership with local communities by utilizing the Parents Anonymous model that helps break the cycle of abuse and delinquency. As of August 20, 2003, Parents Anonymous was awarded a total of $16,673,900 to assess strengths and needs of Parents Anonymous programs. The grant supported national training, technical assistance, outreach, referrals, and program materials and publications. In addition, the grant funded Parents Anonymous’ efforts to design a children’s program model, and a national database system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about Parents Anonymous.Our audit revealed that controls over the accounting process and records related to the grant were adequate. We found Parents Anonymous to be in compliance with OJP’s grant requirements. We reviewed Parents Anonymous’ compliance with essential grant conditions and found no weaknesses in the accounting records.These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I.

(WELL, here are two of those reports from the OIG):

Sort by date/ Sort by relevance

DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports
 At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous
Incorporated, Audit Report GR9004013, August 2004. 
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached

Audit Report
 Claremont, California. Report No. GR9004013 August 2004 Office of
the Inspector General Executive Summary. The Office 
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm-3k- Cached

Guess I’ll have to write for it:Prior to 2010, only the Audit Executive Summaries have been posted. All the Executive Summaries have been cleared and are arranged within the appropriate state directory for convenience. States not represented in this distribution do not have Executive Summaries available for inclusion at this time.

AS WITH THE HEALTHY MARRIAGES CURRICULA — it seems the JUSTICE DEPT. is helping a specific organization disseminate its own, specialty, program material.  There is ONE little minor detail with this grant going to this organization:  . . .. and that’s called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  (whether it’s above, or below, I looked at the founding documents and find that a long-time L.A. County Judge (haven’t checked out whether other mental health professionals in the employee of the County, or working FOR the Justice Department) (or, as to HHS, in the family court system or around it) – – – were, at the time the grant was awarded.

Note:  California board had an L.A. County Judge (eventually became a judge ) on the group since 1973, and it might be worthwhile to see who else those board members represent.  Meanwhile, I want to know about this Justice Program “strengthening families all across america” program.  It’s probably a bunch a hooey, based on how frequent there are these family-court-related massacres, one state or another.

In the year 2002, the DOJ gave away $52 million (grants) in “Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Programs.”  The top Ten Recipients included:  #1, Parents Anonymous (the City of Los Angeles itself being #7)”

Top 10 Assistance Recipients FY 2002

2. DARE AMERICA$2,475,000

Do their state registrations show?

AZ as charity,- yes:


(at the same street address, as a “dba” also)


in 2003 (* 2008) it also picked up the trade name:  “PARENTING ARIZONA:  SAFE CHILDREN, STRONG FAMILIES” (Search will probably expire, but file ID 300792 may help on the corporations search website).

Pennsylvania (per corporate website) has plenty of these by county.

CALIFORNIA HAS ITS USUAL ASSEMBLY OF:  Formed, dissolved, suspended, with one survivor:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

Lisa Pion Berlin, Ph.D. apparently influenced the CAPTA legislation, and here is the main site, Los Angeles area:  Every other term is trademarkeed…


Dr. Pion-Berlin is a renowned expert in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has authored legislation to strengthen the prevention focus of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and is frequently called upon by national and state policymakers along with the media to share unique solutions for implementing effective community-based child abuse prevention programs, achieving meaningful Parent Leadership and Shared Leadership, and creating child welfare system reform to ensure safe and strong families. Dr. Pion-Berlin also speaks on a variety of parenting topics such as: (see site).

Her son? husband? relative? (It’s an unusual last name) is a filmmaker; this one is about hazing

The ” National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council, helps promote Parents Anonymous(r) Inc.

With a unique blend of highly respected public figures and experts in the child abuse field, the National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council focuses on increasing public awareness about Parents Anonymous® Inc. and its effectiveness in strengthening families and preventing abuse and neglect.    

(in fact, I can only see one person, maybe two, on the list that is not some celebrity from a TV show….)

(Heavy emphasis on trademarked classes and training parents to teach them, as a means to prevent child abuse.  In other words,parenting classes. Guess where I am gong next…..)  The theme is having Parents (not just social staff employees) involved.  This (next) says that in 1994, they got funding to form the NPLT (tr) concept:

Parent Leadership and Parent Leaders

Parents who are committed to helping to create change in their homes and their communities are called Parent Leaders. They may be parents, grandparents, kinship care providers, foster parents or anyone in a parenting role who speaks from his/her own perspective – – and not in a staff role for an organization. Those who are most effective, however, are Parent Leaders who have personal experience in the systems they are working to change.   

In other words, we’d rather you be an insider, but speak as a parent.  

Parents Anonymous® Inc. took Parent Leadership to a new level in 1994 when it received funding to create the first National Parent Leadership Team® (NPLT), thereby ensuring Shared Leadership on a national scale. The creation, development and study of this first NPLT, initiated the Parents Anonymous® Inc. Parent Leadership research agenda. We brought 12 members from across the country on board. Over the years the Team has continued to grow and members work in partnership with Parents Anonymous® Inc. in all matters related to programs and policies.

OK, this is probably the Grants we just saw above (Taggs) for the California group — the time frame matches, as well as the name of teh grant.  TIHS is probably why the fatherhood emphasis gets in there — because of the HHS funding…  The above quote was from a newsletter put out by a Childrens Center associated with Harvard? or at least with a harvard.edu address:   ©2011 Judge Baker Children’s Center

I don’t know how common this last name is, but here is a David S. Pion-Berlin  teaching at Univ. of California/Riverside, showing a Ph.D. from International Studies in 1984, Univ. of Denver 



Yes, Dr. (in what?) Lisa Pion-Berlin takes credit for her husband, David S. (Political Science, Latin Americanist) and having been raised by her wonderful father (Nazi Refuge) — no mention whatsoever is made of any mother.  IN context, I can understand why, but again — this site is emphasizing Dads, on father’s day.

Value The Importance Of Your Fathers Daily

Celebrating Father’s Day this Sunday is essential to focusing on their critical role in our children’s lives. We all need to make sure we embrace fathers daily and value their importance! I have experienced first hand two extraordinary Fathers: my own dad, Kurt Berlin and my husband, David Pion-Berlin.

I was raised by an extraordinary Dad who has challenged me to be a caring, responsible and contributing member of our society. He still practices law in DC at 85 years old and provides me with valuable input and support (even when I don’t ask) in my role as Mom and as President and CEO of Parents Anonymous® Inc.

(OBVIOUSLY this is a very website-oriented, and heavily trademarked group, with frequent new programs and initiatives, every single one (that I’ve seen) with a slick website.  I noticed heavy First 5 (California) group, which is a red flag to me; there were questions regarding their funding in the news, including conflicts of interest between someone on its board directing moneys to another charity he was on).

“The Shared Leadership”  plan would seem to be incorporating parent-input, and thus good.  But (see my notes), the type of parent input preferred is someone IN the system, and the influence could readily go both way.   Again, I simply found this group (at all) by pegging (yet another) fatherhood training certification affecting Jefferson County CO, from Washington State, and as it happens, originated in Southern California. http://www.nationalparenthelpline.org/what-we-do/mission-history.  

As a domestic violence survivor become a custodial mother become a custody-challenged custodial mother (fatherhood funding influence is clear, in hindsight), become a NONcustodial mother and from there increasingly impoverished (i.e., repeatedly losing work), I know FIRSThand the feeling of a fantastic website full of empathetic terms and hotlines, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE or something), which refers people to local agencies that (in the situation I just described) do not help anyhow.  They can be good listeners, however — just not provide actual help.  The same goes for other similarly high-web-profile groups like NCADV, DVLEAP, etc. — they are on the policy side, and not on the actual help side.  Those who don’t have personal referrals to real sources of help will be sorry on calling the official numbers and hoping for real, tangible, in-time, valid resources — as opposed to the appearance of resources.

Here is the “Charitable Trusts” record of the Parents Anonymous satellite groups.  Only the main one survives, as we can see:


Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY 056591 Charity Dissolved SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Charity Not Registered MISSION VIEJO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. 057939 Charity Inactive REDDING CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. 015477 Charity Current CLAREMONT CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST Charity Not Registered CULVER CITY CA Charity Registration Charity


AS early as 2001, we can see their revenues and assets are JUST FINE; even in these hard times, they are not suffering too bad:  EIN# 23-7278097, and the founding articles filing is 47pp long on-line here  

Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-01
Total Assets: $502,908.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $4,312,507.00
RRF Received: 21-FEB-02
Returned Date:
990 Attached:
Status: Accepted


Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
Total Assets: $1,775,724.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $1,584,661.00
RRF Received: 12-AUG-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

 As I said, they are selling classes and have copyrighted material (plus their websites have the “Donate” buttons, legal as they are a charity).  Unlike many of the fatherhood group organzations, this SMART bunch (original board, or early board, included a woman who later became a judge) have (to this date) a lot of grants and a lot of program service revenue, the proportion is closer to half.  (2009:  $

667,716 contributions/grants — $902,923 program service revenue (what they are DOING as a nonprofit is actually bringing in revenue). Plus about $1K investment, and $8K “Other” revenue.”  (which their tax form will explain).  The nonprofit purpose has become technical assistance to spread the gospel about their (copyrighted) concept, and presumably write off expenses, like $940K salaries, etc.  (in other words, they more than wrote off the program service income earnings).

  • “Parents, children and youth transform their attitudes, learn new behaviors, build on their strengths, and create long-term positive changes in their lives through proven effective, quality Parents Anonymous Programs implemented by our accredited network organizations”

Got this business model yet?   . .. by our accredited network organizations.    What do they do?

  • Parents Anonymous Inc provides training and technical assistance,develops publications and conducts research on meaningful Parent and Shared Leadership, systems reform and effective community-based strategies to strengthen families.  Expenses $1,302,041

This work – promoting one’s own work and business model — earns Dr. Pion-Berlin $195K per year, VP Meryl Levine $111K, and  another VP Sandra Williams $122K, for 40 hour weeks.

Other earnings (revenue)  660K Government GRANTS, plus $863K Government CONTRACTS, and like I mention, $39,194 (or about a good secretary’s annual salary), accreditation fees.   No royalties show up …. 


And, of the original 10 (1972) members of the Board, including one just labeled “Betty L., Los Angeles” (no address — guess that was one of the anonymous parents), the top 4 (except Secretary) are two J.D.s, an M.D., and what looks like a social worker, an ACSW and an MD/MPMH (mental health practitioner):

  • Pres Jean Matusinka, J.D. 3401 Club Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90064
  • VP Roland Summit, M.D. 1000 W. Carson Street D-5 Torrance, CA. 90509
  • Sec  Margot Fritz 7373W. 83rd Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045
  • Treas. Gerald Tarlow, J.D. 3812 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA. 90505
  • Helen Boardman, ACSW 2115 Fargo Los Angeles, CA. 90039
  • Leigh Colitre 8035 S. Vermont Los Angeles, CA. 90047
  • Garold Faber M.D.,M.P.H. 13543 S. Hawthorne Boulevard Hawthorne, CA.
  • Norman Fleishman 6063 Hargis Street Los Angeles CA. 90034
  • Betty L. Los Angeles, CA.
  • Ed. Welz 13106 Glenfield Detroit, Michigan 48201

 In 1996, Amendment stated that any remaining assets would be distributed by the Superior Court where the principal office is (which just so happens, I believe, to be Los Angeles…)

If this corporation holds any assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the County in which the corporation’s principal office is located, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.

Hopefully, none of those on the board will have any inappropriate relationships with said Superior Court, or, if a judge is involved in said distribution (which looks like a sizeable amount), he/she will have been REAL honest on the “conflicts of interest” filling.

THEN AGAIN, common sense tells us, this is Los ANGELES COUNTY (see Richard Fine, etc.) and that is a little much to expect.

 Some of the incorporators:  Jean Matusinka, J.D. became (or was) a judge and a prosecutor of sex and DV crimes; this is her 2006 Obit (LA times), she died at 66, from lung cancer, unfortunately: 

Judge Jean Matusinka, 66; Professor, Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor

Obituaries | PASSINGS

April 02, 2006|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Judge Jean E. Matusinka, 66, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and former deputy district attorney, died Monday of lung cancer at Torrance Memorial Hospital. Since 1990, she had been handling a civil calendar at the Torrance courthouse and was hearing cases until a week before her death.

Born in New York City, Matusinka graduated from Hunter College with a degree in history and earned her law degree at Brooklyn Law School in 1966. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970, she joined the district attorney’s office in L.A. as a deputy district attorney. She specialized in sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence cases. She was instrumental in forming the child abuse and domestic violence section and the sexual crimes program of the central trials division.  Matusinka was one of the prosecutors in the early days of the McMartin Pre-School molestation case in the mid-1980s.

{{tis case keeps cropping up in association with judges, or nonprofits (incl. one in Brooklyn), and deals with hysteria, ruined the preschool operators, and etc.  “The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end. ” The link I gave details Matusinka’sinvolvement.}}

She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. One of her first jobs was presiding over the calendar in the downtown criminal courts building. As a judge handling criminal and civil cases, she gained a reputation for toughness, fairness and decisiveness.   She was also a clinical professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine’s Institute of Psychiatry, Law and Behavioral Science.


 THIS USED TO BE “MOTHERS ANONYMOUS, INC.” and @ SEPT. 1970, had the stated purpose of:  “

  • The specific and primary purposes are to perpetuate .an organized program for mothers who fear they might or are actively engaged in any form of physical or emotional abuse towards a ch1ld.
  • To help and rehab1l1tate mothers who do engage in physical or emotional abuse towards a child
  • • To have and to exercise all the rights and powers that are now or mayay thereafter be granted by law.

 By 1971, the name had been changed to “Parents Anonymous.”   

(Back to Jefferson County Colorado’s Fatherhood Program’s “Famlies First” link to “Circle of Parents” where, naturally, one is going to find a fatherhood program paid for by yours truly, the US HHS.) 

Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.

Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.

For additional information, on this program choose an option below.

What services we offer!View our classes! Contacts!Your resources!Find out what you need to know!

However, my question was — is what appears to be the EL PASO

Parent Opportunity Program

In an attempt to nurture and grow the relationships between non-custodial parents and their children, El Paso County Child Support Services has developed the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP). Through individualized case management, POP works with non-custodial parents to achieve personal family and career-oriented goals. By achieving these goals, parents can both bond with their children and learn to become better providers for their families.

(the ‘evolving nature of child support,” you’re in it…..)

POP also offers various legal and community services to eligible parents. POP case managers are able to find legal help and mental health counseling for parents in need of them. POP provides services through a community partnership comprised of El Paso County Department of Human Services, Center on Fathering, Goodwill Industries, and Child Support Services of Colorado.

To be eligible to receive POP services, applicants must be non-custodial parents who are residents of El Paso or Teller Counties and have an income of not more than 185% of the federal poverty level.

Obviously, they are targeting IV-D cases, and will be able to get some funding for them from the government.

(An aside, but looking up “El Paso County” we find that in Oct. 2011, it discovered that the state had shorted it $1.3 million from sales tax collected, but not sent back to the county.  An additional $830,000 is apparently still under discussion:

El Paso County Recoups $1.3 Million from State

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Colorado has shortchanged El Paso County in the amount of sales tax revenue collected by the state but not sent back to the county. . . . The discrepancy follows a years-long investigation into the money that’s collected by Colorado and remitted back to the county monthly . . .Such discrepancies may not be unique to El Paso County. Douglas County officials say the state’s been off about $200,000 a year since a 1 percent capital improvement tax was passed there in 1996…

Colorado officials sent letters to the county’s 14,000 vendors, advising them of potential reporting errors.

Part-time employees researched the discrepancy and found errors in which collections were posted to other entities, vendors provided wrong information and data was incorrectly keyed in.

That resulted in the $1.3 million going back to the county from the state. Twenty-seven additional audits totaling $830,000 are pending with the state.

“We’re happy to hear it’s working out well for the county. We think this is a good partnership for everyone,” said Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revnue. The state has upgraded its computer system and has converted paper files and manual data entry to a new electronic system, Couch said.

ANYHOW, MY POINT BEING — remember to research trademark names and registrants.  In this case, Policy Studies, Inc. IS “El Paso County Parenting Opportunity Project” which is described (below) as a unit within the child support department.   Knowing, as you do now, that CPR and PSI (dba in this case El Paso County POP) have personnel in common, at least did have Jane Venohr, Ph.D. in common (and they pubish together), being the nonprofit and for-profit prongs of evaluation — here is a 2007 “Colorado Parenting Time Project

The evaluation is, this time, conducted by 3 CPR people — but NOT Jane Venohr; instead, by Pearson Thoennes and instead of Venohr, “Lanae Davis.”

They speak of the El Paso POP as though objectively and not associated with it, in this report:

Cover page: (formatting appears differently in the original)

Submitted to:  Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80218*

Submitted by:  Center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303.837.1555 http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org

(the offices are 0.5 miles, or a 3 minute drive, away from each other)….PSI (or, El PasoPOP) as of 2002 was 1 mile, or a 6 min drive away)


September 2007

[Authors} Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. ~ Lanae Davis, M.A. ~ Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.

CPR has three Ph.D.’s — Venohr is the 3rd — but only used two for this report.

Prepared under grant number 90FD0096 from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement (DHS).

Points of view expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of OCSE or DHS.

Here is the HHS grant that paid for it (the study):

This $125,000 award was made in 2004 (El Paso POP having become a trade name shortly before, in 2002).

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Address Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions

I imagine that the “F” stands for Fatherhood (or possibly “Family”) and “D” Demonstration….

Here’s a “9wantstoknow” 2009 investigation complaining about what people used food stamps for.  Pauline BUrton, this time, stood up for their right to choose (understanding there are limits):   Interesting!  At this time (2009, shortly after the report) at least, her office was:   “. . . . Pauline Burton, Colorado Department of Human Services director of the office of self sufficiency, whose office runs the food and cash assistance program”   If the people concerned about what people used their food stamps for actually knew what their government was using TANF & OCSE funds for (diversionary projects), they might feel differently!    Her knowledge of who was on Food Stamps obviously would provide some links to people (like the noncustodial parent/father involved) who might want to be in the POP demonstration project….

(I say “Father” because so many women I know have never been able to receive help from any A/V program, including after requesting it and when visitation orders were being ignored.  I was in this position, but knew nothing about the A/V system and so didn’t know I could ask).

Executive Summary

The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving them improves parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of a total of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity:

␣ In both counties, a high-level treatment group was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency retained with grant funds;

␣ In Jefferson County, a low-level treatment group was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and

␣ In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial parents assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.

I am curious, and selected TAGGS search “90FD to find over 400 projects nationwide.  Limiting it to Colorado it was (I forget, but fewer than 50).  I then reduced it to “NEW” grants and came up with these 11, stretching from the year 1999 through 2010.  There is only one other principal investigator, and I am going to talk about some fo the “abstracts” which reveal the purposes.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of these “research” type OCSE grants went to the same organization(s)?

Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

Abstracts include:

Grant 90FD0111:  “early intervention in all cases with NEW ORDERS, NEW delinquencies, high orders, and/or TANF involvement.” (year, 2005)

In targeting New Orders, this is about to become standard practice now — requiring ALL child support orders to entail diversionary funds to “access visitation” activities.   Going after delinquencies gives the facilitator an edge to highly suggest the parent participate (too much delinquency could result in jail), etc., etc.

JOHN BERNHART is apparently Division Director of Colorado Department of Child Support Services.

I also (searching) found him on a 2007 “Colorado Family Support Council” website, and felt it relevant to describe:  They are like other states’ child support training agency, and run conferences to train each other, being a nonprofit:


The Colorado Family Support Council was organized in 1974 under the umbrella of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC). Seed money in the amount of $500.00 was provided to the Family Support Council by CDAC.

The purpose of the Colorado Family Support Council was to promote understanding of family support issues and to provide a forum for child support workers to discuss problems, solutions and further the direction of the program.

Since training has always been perceived as an important element in the effectiveness of the IV-D program, the council began sponsoring an annual training conference for those working in the field of child support. In addition to the annual conferences, the council has sponsored numerous regional training sessions on topics of interest. In 1985, CFSC merged its annual conference with, and became host of, the national conference in Snowmass.

In 1991 the Council incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The purpose of the council had to change slightly to drop lobbying efforts to keep its educational tax preference status. Donations made to CFSC are now tax deductible for many tax filers.

In 2005, the Council started its website at http://www.cfscinc.org to keep its membership informed of pertinent information and assist its board of directors in conducting the business of the organization.

And this past 2010, one of the conference VENDOR/EXHIBITORS happened to be PSI, which, again runs an access/visitation grant right from El Paso County Child Support Services as “El Paso County POP” At least, I believe that’s what “PSI” below represents:

Thank You, Vendors

Thanks to our 2010 sponsors and exhibitors. Their contributions help us to host an outstanding conference with affordable registration fees.


Orchid Cellmark


Systems & Methods Inc


(upper right).  (Orchid Cellmark probably gives DNA printing or paternity tests;it looks familiar).

IRS filings (go back to 2001, here):








Colorado Family Support Council CO 2010 $44,401 990EZ 8 84-1180995


This post could go on indefinitely.  I will summarize some of my own recent finds, and hope it has provided some tools:

My recent finds (as a consequence of doing this post):


  • ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC.  — an organization to be watched, and of concern that a company with such roots in the defense industry is producing dubious or potentially conflict of interest reports about water safety (Percholate contamination, which apparently does, in excess, affect the neurology of children, infants and fetuses, among others).  The Massachusetts EPA, after reading a report to which ICF contributed, still chose to set stricter standards.
  • Why are groups getting multi-million federal contracts already also getting any GRANT as well?
  • Why does the HHS call this organization “CITY” but it appears to look like a corporation to me?  Who are they, really?
  • where the ACF called the grant “Healthy Marriage” (as supposedly contrasted with “Responsible Fatherhood”)? while the ICF website is quite clear which it is?
  • This group is doing over $1 billion of business in various fields with the US, AND is in on the fatherhood business too, perhaps it bears a closer look.
  • PARENTS ANONYMOUS is ap”parently” a favorite of both HHS & DOJ departments, which concerns me as one of its original board members was involved in the judicial department of Los Angeles County.  Again, $18 million is a lot of business.  Almost every times PARENTS ANONYMOUS moves, it trademarks something.
  • CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr) (inc. 2004) got $4.8 million of grants from HHS 2006-2010 (so far identified), and is an NFI front, obviously, with connections to (at a minimum) the Colorado Child Support Enforcement System.  This represents what HHS is promoting – -a policy of organizing corporations around the internet, and co-opting their language.
  • (though I knew this already)  REMEMBER TO CHECK  — always — “dba’s” and Registered Trademarks of any organizations being looked at.  Example:  PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support, aka (ALSO), “El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program”) — and, then (as “PSI” itself) reviewing the Access Visitation programs run by, itself (under the POP registered name) — in association with another nonprofit it shares personnel with, CPR.  Knowing that the founder of Center for Policy Research (Jessica Pearson, being an original) also co-founded AFCC, from my understanding (and there is a California Corporation entity under the name) . . . .. . I’d have to say the “CIRCLE OF (fatherhood-friendly, custodial-Mom-antagonistic) is fairly complete, and drawing in the drawstrings . . . .
  • LAST, but not least — it’s becoming more and more clear that BOTH the public access databases TAGGS and USASPENDING.GOV (which was required by law) — are deceitful and inaccurate.  I have begun to question, moreover, whether rather than USASpending.gov UNDER-reporting, possibly HHS is OVER-REPORTING, and directing funds towards groups that will cooperate with it in programs that are not properly monitored, and a ripe breeding ground for kickbacks and money laundering.
Prior to looking at this last ground of grantees, and a bit more at the CHMC, I would’ve been less prone to saying this, but the evidence is accumulating quickly.  I believe its possible that the entire programming is designed simply around high-emotion terminology (families, Dads, Kids) to enable hiding federal funds disbursed to, for lack of a better word, cronies.  This is not “taxation with representation” but taxation without it.

Reader Quiz — What Decade Were These Stories? About Fathers..

with 2 comments

My last post (Luzerne County) was at least a triple-header, ending with some emotion over a mother of three who has taken her case to the international level in disgrace at the U.S. treatment of her civil rights.

I am changed as I blog also. Maybe it’s just another bunch of incidents to you, but to me, I learn and expand the context of this system, look at its history, reflect when compared with my immediate reality and acquired readings.

What I learned — yesterday — is this: Restraining orders are not enforceable, and probably never were. IF a police officer wishes to arrest, or needs to, the RO may make his job easier. But if he or she witnessed a violation of it, and does NOT wish to arrest, the protected person has no entitlement to that arrest, no matter whose life is at risk. Now that “Castle Rock v. Gonzales” has gone to the Supreme Court and been turned back, it is being quoted in similar cases to protect the officers (not the women or children). While most of government’s operations are self-justified on providing services and protection to the populace, who they are diligently training to expect this from them (and not from within or their local communities). This is closer to feudalism, serfdom, and monarchy.

U.S., Rome, or the British Empire?

It’s time to expose the truths that in the United States of America, and have moved from being “the colonies” (with the colonized populations that came along, or were removed from their lands during westward expansion) to being colonized (if not virtually cannibalized) by our own elected leaders, many who have some real “bad attitudes” towards those they are supposed to represent and serve. Power tends to congregate with power, and unless it’s kept in check, will simply continue to do so, justifying it with manipulation and manufactured “needs.”

  • (#1) we are closer to monarchy then ever before, and willingly/passively in more denial of it also, and
  • (#2) that this emperor has no clothes has been known for a long time; but the tacit “Bread-and-circuses” agreement to pretend we don’t know, is wearing as thin as the “social services” provided by the superstructure. and
  • (#3) in a country such as the U.S., with this Constitution elected officials are sworn with an oath to uphold, the pretense that in practice we are actually OPERATING as a republic (not democracy) is even more deceptive.

Who has the bread, the weapons, and the supply lines to the decision-makers? Who’s issuing the propaganda? That’s the power base. As of about 1980, 1991 (creation of the Health & Human Services/Administration for Children and Families Dept./Operational Div. in the Executive Branch of Government of which the CEO is our President), the fields of propagation (family design) and the downward to Head Start & Home Visitation (education) up through university (foundations sponsoring studies and institutes, often regarding fatherhood and marriage, and the entire work force) have gone from idolizing motherhood (while tolerating beating mothers) and, in response to mothers getting OUT of some of that (feminism/violence against women movement, battered shelters, etc.) to scapegoating single mothers on welfare (for being on welfare), (see bottom of my post), to simply eliminating the word mother from association with the word “family” or “children.”

This is starting to resemble the planned production of human beings from womb to tomb, with the aide of pharmaceutics, apparently, and mental health professionals to categorize and drug the dissidents, which any mother in her right mind would be when she’s been beaten in the home, or terrorized there (or for attempting to leave it) and has noticed — which is what mothers do — the effect of this on her children. They are educated to subjugation and only to the level of their intended place in a fully managed society.

When I say “womb” to “tomb,” I do mean just that . . . . It’s being studied and categorized, and one major database is at ICPSR below. Fertility, lethality, and population studies in 3 urban centers (Chicago, Boston, San Antonia, TX).

Those “in” and cooperate on the planning and distribution of this will prosper, while the supply lasts, and receive government grants and contracts in abundance, which will then compromise them from informing the subject matter (human beings) what the overall plan is. For example

  • HQ in Denver: PSI (“policy-studies.com” is the URL, “Performance, Services, Integrity” is the motto)
    • Under Child Support Enforcement (one of the 3 major “solutions” area they outsource):
      • Noncustodial Parent Programs (“Through our innovative approach, PSI can help increase your collections and improve results for families. Our NCP program expertise extends across the following areas”)
        • Case management and community resource referrals
        • Enhanced child support services
        • Employment and training assistance
        • Peer support for NCPs
        • Parenting and conflict resolution classes
        • Access and visitation services
        • Mediation services
        • Mental health and substance abuse referrals
        • Legal referrals
  • HQ in Los Angeles: AFCC (“Association of Family & Conciliation Courts“)
    • AFCC brings together members of multiple disciplines in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, from all over the world. As a nonprofit professional association, AFCC is unique because members do not share a common profession. Instead, AFCC members share a strong commitment to education, innovation and collaboration in order to benefit communities, empower families and promote a healthy future for children.
    • “History of Innovation and Positive Change”For more than 45 years, AFCC and its members have served as a catalyst for generating major reforms. Dispute resolution processes such as child custody mediation, parenting coordination, and divorce education are just a few of the innovative ideas developed by AFCC members. AFCC developed Models Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediators, Child Custody Evaluators and Parenting Coordinators. Task forces and special projects address the ongoing challenges faced by AFCC members and the families they serve. AFCC actively disseminates innovations and ideas {“Parental Alienation, anyone? Mandatory mediation, anyone? Shared parenting, presumption anyone?”} to its members. The ripple effect can be seen in courts and communities throughout the world. {ONE of those stories I copy at length, below, in blue. The ripple effect was most definitely felt, and you can read about it, below.}
  • HQ in Denver: what I call “CPR” (Center or Policy Research) [Since 1981, 6 women, only!]

Did I mention that Jessica Pearson is also (per some sources) a founding member of the AFCC, if not also CRC?

  • In fact AFCC, CRC, CPR, PSI, HHS funded studies, and conclusions that MOST of our nation’s real poverty, inner-city, crime & juvenile delinquency problems is simply the ration of sex/conception/marriage, i.e., too few fathers (as opposed to, poor-quality fathers) in the home, and that the solution to this is through seamlessly blending mental health services with child support services, with the legal process — tend to congregate around similar key players.
  • Don’t believe me? See RandiJames’ “The List or Liz Richards pointing this out in 1993 “Fathers Rights and corrupt judicial cronies,” or again, in 2010, to the House Ways & Means Committee (found at House.gov, this committee, June 17, 2010 hearings, on left side), or an indignant “Fathers Battling Injustice” 2001 complaint “Liz Richards Hates Fathers with a Passion, which provides (if you scroll down) a good listing of key players and their interrelationships — including those on the CRC (Children’s Rights Council) 501(c)3 incorporation papers, and tying into others pushing mediation and Gardner’s “PAS” philosophies through the courts. I’ll try to upload that listing….

Around 1998, a disgruntled grandfather — and CPA — started tracking some of the founding documents of this AFCC, and has something to say about the money trail related to Jessica Pearson of CPR, and AFCC, who weems to be (with others) women of some real foresight and planning, and ingenuity in desgining systems — and evading tax accountability. THIS is listed UNDER “Is Justice for sale in L.A.” a.k.a. at “johnnypumphandle.com”

    • :Mr. Bryer’s Tort Claim of 1998. You can hear his tone of indignation and upset, and he flat-out calls this Mafia, RICO, money-laundering, etc. The people he is talking about are listed in part, above. I doubt if he ever got justice, or compensation (let alone more discovery), but at least me blew the whistle!. People who want to “reform” the courts ought to at least read the material. OR, they could go back and try to reason more with a professional that may or may not be one of these type of conspirators from long ago. The system remains, I’m pretty well deducing at this point.
  • Another take on AFCC et al.: He’s not talking psychology or sociology, but money, IRS, EIN#s and incorporations…
    • DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED ( by this complaint) are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!

      I previously attempted to get this discovery – in the lawsuit BRYER vs PENTONEY – but 298 judges and commissioners in LOS ANGELES were disqualified on a ruse orchestrated by JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER – a ring leader of the scheme. JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER’S name is on the signature card of BANK OF AMERICA account listed under the name LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EIN 95-6000927.

      I was forced into the corrupt county – ORANGE COUNTY – where a co-conspirator named JAMES P. GRAY told me he would throw me in jail if I tried to make any more discoveries. FEARING FOR MY LIFE in a county that is FOREIGN to me – I dismissed my case without prejudice and continued to seek discovery away from the strength of ORANGE COUNTYCONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN. In California – the organization filed as a CIVIC LEAGUE – Revenue and Tax Code 23701g. A CONCILIATION COURT is NOT A CIVIC LEAGUE. The exemption certificate was mailed to a lawyer named Michael Aaronson at P.O. Box 1055, San Carlos California 94070. The STATE 3500 papers states the organization was to improve marriage counseling. However, conciliation court is a STATUTORILY mandated function of the COURT – not a private corporation for lying and thieving judges and their court staff. The income was alleged to be derived from dues and contributions. In reality, the funds came from laundering legal education money through the COURT CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT through the FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

      In an incredible BREACH – a Judge from Detroit Michigan was listed as the Second Vice President His name is Victor J. Baum. The corporation number is 576876. I have no record of what EIN they used.

      In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. [CPR, above, dates to 1981 also as a nonprofit] This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.

    • (WI, Colorado, L.A. and IL if you can keep up with that…)
    • I just found a strange, but possibly corroborating 1986 document, the “February 1986 Newsletter of the Alabama Court News, “Newsletter of the Alabama Judicial System” On page 3, it reads, under headline: “Federal Grant funds Sexual Abuse Study:
    • The Research Unit of the …(AFCC) and the American Bar Association have been awarded a grant from the federal dept. of Human Development Services* to study sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases. The goal of the study is to find how court officials [such as…?] are presently handling such matters, identify preferred procedures, and develop educational materials on the subject.” “Court officials [sic] desiring to participate in the study should contact AFCC at the following address:

    • [Wow… Preferred procedures for handling sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases, such as — Gardner’s theories? They want to educate judges how to rule?] Also – it says since 1981 — at that address:]
    • [*Note: the HUGE “HHS that now dispenses welfare, child support, medicare, head start funds, and sometimes is the largest (as to expenses) Exec Branch Dept — was formed in 1991, as I recall. This is 5 years earlier).

  • In fact the information arm is one of the most important, to quell rebellion before it gets going.

Maybe Rome went down because of lead in the pipes, or maybe some “karma” (or god) just got sick of all the slaughter for entertainment. Ever read about what happened in that Colosseum?

Back to this millennium — and the last decades

of the last one (1980-2010). In re: marriage, abuse, divorce, custody..

And the concept of “protection from abuse” or “restraining orders” as if they were NOT certifiably insane, as to fulfilling their supposed purpose of protecting or restraining.

While the literature tends to focus on, “it’s just a piece of paper and can’t stop a bullet,” the ones we REALLY can’t count on are the arresting officers. It’s an additional component of Russian Roulette that a woman can’t afford. And suing for any sort of damages on the basis of, they had a duty to protect, a procedural due process right to the victim, a substantive due process right to the victim, or in short, any consequences that “absolute judicial immunity” or the 11th amendment wouldn’t make LEGALLY protected (let alone the practical aspects) — they don’t, and probably never did.

Some judges are crooked — I don’t know how many. Some attorneys are also, and get nailed on RICO like the Luzerne judges did, RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations“) being a criminal enterprise. There’s a case I may post out of suburban Chicago (older) where the husband (an attorney) did murder for hire, but not until he’d conspired in advance to wire-tap (jealous), someone had been prepared to dispose of the body (i.e., of his wife) and someone had been prepared to obstruct the investigation. (Alan & Dianne G. Masters, West Suburban Chicago, 1982 she disappears~ 1988 RICO charges)

As RICO does require some organizational skills, and Masters had already been engaged in other forms of crime, all the players to add murder-for-hire to this were in place, and he didn’t resist the temptation to engage, showing us to drop our illusions that every person in public office, or in positions of power, influence, and with access to streams of $$ isn’t per se there for service. Some are, some aren’t. And the ones that aren’t would be normally attracted to people in compromised situations (like a troublesome traffic ticket, an illegal enterprise of their own, or divorcing with children from a frighteningly dangerous spouse who’s already committed some crimes against your body, or your child’s). This attorney was acting more like a pimp with a stable, and some affiliate marekting reps in uniform. Maybe he liked the thrill of the danger and risk (one sees definite business skills that migh twork just as well in legal activities) or maybe it was simple greed.

It didn’t save her life, and no one was ever charged for murder, but the three “perps” got caught on racketeering and put away for a good many years, and fined. Oh yeah, and he had a $100,000 life insurance policy on his wife also.

So are some officers. And some are good. – – – – that’s just life. Why, then, (though) when women come for help, were they then (1990s) and now (2000s) doling out protection from abuse orders as if they were reliably enforceable? They aren’t. They’re real good at getting men angry though.

~ ~ ~ ~I can’t put my story up (or too much of it). But it’s been so many years in this system here. My infrastructure is repeatedly broken down, year after year, and access to things like transportation, (sometimes food), internet, health care (uninsured presently) just shouldn’t be.

~ ~ ~ ~If you have not been in a situation similar to the one I’m about to post (the part below is summary of her judicial proceedings after deciding to leave– having gotten a real severe beating (while naked), a threat for another, having had a young daughter molested by a visiting stepson, her husband was no inner city young black male, but a nasty computer analyst who’d (it turned out) abused his first wife, too.

~ ~ ~ ~Sleep deprivation is a factor and technique of weakening someone (I know). Attack on personal private parts (ditto). Rules almost uniformly designed to remove one’s humanity, with severe punishment for falling short (and they’re impossible to fulfil) with no rule for him. . . . .Having to choose which child you can do more to protect, potentially sacrificing something important for the other. Having your strength or skills as a professional work against you post-divorce. Historic revisionism (no remorse or acknowledgement of injury, and of course the father was the real caretaker all those years). Health care professionals treating injuries and not really asking questions. Your kids watching the assaults.

I’ll pick up this story mid-stream. See if you recognize the characters: judge, psychologists, attorneys (#1, 2, and 3), theme of supervised visitation, and her knowledge that if she requested it, he’d go for custody, professionals continually minimizing the situation and playing their own games . . . all too familiar.

I want to say something about “stories.” THEY HELPED ME while I was in the abusive relationship. One of the cruelest things is the isolation and dealing with the man’s anger when he perceives you may be connecting with someone who might validate or connect with you, and to whom you might report. You might get out, but there also may (or may not) be retaliation for doing so. Or you might be put through hell beforehand, so you get out, in public, in trauma, shaking, or in shock. One trick pulled frequently in our home (with kids) was I’d have enough gas in the car to get there (when a car was available) but not enough to get back. Hearing of women who got out HELPED me. If nothing else, to feel less guilty.

I pick up the story mid-stream, and admit that I am exhausted today.

Overall, I found the lawyers and psychologists very self–promoting and egotistical. It seemed as if everyone was having a good time, playing the game of litigation and psychology. All the while, my life was on the line. My children and I did not matter. I also felt like the lawyers and psychologists were running a cash register business at my expense. They were a lot more interested in my money than my welfare. The first two years of my divorce proceedings cost me more than twenty–five thousand dollars.

As incredible as it might sound, the judge who heard my custody case had an outstanding protective order against him by his ex–wife. I also sensed very strongly that the judge did not like me. For these reasons, I told my lawyer I wanted to seek the judge’s recusal. My lawyer dismissed me, saying, “You’ll just get someone worse.”

@ @ @ @ @Z

I probably never would have gotten Daniel back, except that Russ’s live–in girlfriend (with whom he is still living) contacted the children’s psychologist to report that he was abusing Daniel. This was four or five months after Russ had gained custody of Daniel. I think the girlfriend made her revelation partly because I had told her that Russ was planning to seek full custody of Elizabeth, too. Russ was not really taking care of the kids; the girlfriend was. When she learned that he would be going after Elizabeth too, she said, “WHAT???!!!” I think she cared about the children and knew that Russ’s having custody would be harmful and dangerous for them, plus, I doubt she was interested in being the caretaker for both kids.

After learning about Russ’s abuse of Daniel, I immediately went to my lawyer (Lawyer #3), demanding an immediate petition for a change of custody. He said we could not seek a modification of custody because it was too soon. He said, “Let the ink dry on the judge’s custody order.” That was the last straw and I fired him.

I got a new lawyer and a new psychologist. I recorded a telephone conversation with Russ’s girlfriend about the abuse of Daniel. Russ’s girlfriend was subpoenaed, and because of the recording, I knew––and Russ knew––that the abuse of Daniel would come out. Even if Russ intimidated her into changing her testimony, I think he knew that the tape was credible.

Faced with a situation he could not win, Russ folded. He agreed to a modification and I regained custody of Daniel. I grabbed at the chance to get custody back, even though I had to agree that Russ could have unsupervised visitation with the children. I knew Russ would never agree to supervised visitation. I did not want, and could not pay for, another long, drawn–out battle in court. Besides, based on what I had seen, I did not want to risk what a judge might do.

As far as I am concerned, Russ agreed to the change of custody to save face. No one in authority ever held him accountable for his abuse. People in authority, like the judge and the psychologists, always supported him and held a good opinion of him. Russ wanted to maintain his good image at all costs. By giving up custody of Daniel without a fight, he could avoid the public humiliation of being outed as an abuser.

He portrayed the custody change to the children as a sacrifice he was making because he loved them so much. “This is what’s best for you,” he said. Once again, he took no responsibility for doing anything wrong in abusing Daniel. He showed no remorse.

Even after I had custody of both kids, Russ continued to engage in repeated violations of my protective order through phone harassment and stalking. Additionally, his son, Chip, was there unsupervised when the kids visited Russ. Apparently, though, Chip did not abuse either child further.

@ @ @ @

C. Attitudes Need to Change More than the Law

Domestic violence law is certainly far better than it has been in the past. We have seen progress in the legislative, [77] judicial, [78] and executive [79] arenas. Positive legislative reform is on–going, though there is a backlash as well, driven primarily by the Fathers’ Rights movement. [80]

Changes in the law are important. With better law, good people (judges, police, etc.) can do more and bad ones are limited in the harm they can cause. Law can also have an educational effect. A judge or police officer who initially resists laws and policies that are appropriate for domestic violence cases may ultimately come to see their value.

Mary’s story shows, however, that the primary problem is not with the law but with the human beings who interpret and administer it. The legal system betrayed Mary, but not because it lacked the power to act differently. The judges, psychologists, and lawyers could have protected Mary and her children. They could have understood woman battering, or made a point of educating themselves about it. They could have let go of their stereotypes about what batterers and their victims “look like” and how they act. They could have reexamined their values, under which abuse of Mom is irrelevant to Dad’s fitness as a parent. The list continues indefinitely.

Mary’s custody judge easily had the power to find that full custody with Mary was in the children’s “best interest” [81] and that Russ’s visitation had to be supervised. [82] The judge could have warned Russ, not Mary, that he had to be on his best behavior or he would lose even supervised visitation. The judge could have ordered Russ to undergo batterers’ counseling as a precondition for even supervised visitation. [83]

My point is simple: this did not have to happen. Without in any way ignoring or bending the law, Mary, the children––and Russ––could have been dealt with appropriately. Mary and her children, especially Daniel, may pay for the system’s sexism, ignorance, and indifference for a lifetime. And, as Mary says, society pays too when the aftermath of abuse spills out, as it often will, beyond the family.

@ @ @ @

F. Any “Solution” Not Based on Battered Women’s Experiences
Is Doomed to Failure

We cannot know what to do about domestic violence unless we listen to survivors’ stories. In them are the keys to solutions. Battered women and formerly battered women are telling us what works and what does not. People with professional training can help, but only if their actions and recommendations are based on what battered women and formerly battered women say. [116]

Women like Mary tell us that mediation, joint custody, and couples counseling can be terrible for battered women, [117] yet certain professionals continue to advocate for these things in domestic violence cases. [118] Their arguments, however, are from the viewpoint of the mediator or the system, not the battered woman and her children. [119] Women’s safety concerns are either not addressed or minimized. [120]

Proponents of mediation in domestic violence cases express a near–magical belief in mediation and mediators. They believe that the mediator can tell when mediation is not appropriate or when it should be stopped [121] (another example of the helper’s ego surfacing). Sadly, the only expertise that seems to count is the mediator’s. Battered women’s expertise does not seem to matter. [122]

Sometimes, it seems that battered women’s voices are getting more and more lost. The field has become professionalized, [123] semi–respectable, [124] and partially funded. [125] There has been a parallel tendency to turn the focus away from the victims and toward the professionals. [126]

I do not want to be misunderstood here. I have absolutely no nostalgia for the “good old days” when shelters did not exist or led threadbare existences, and when a professor who wanted to teach Domestic Violence would have been laughed off campus. I have been doing domestic violence work far too long for such foolishness. I relish the voice, the power, and even the respectability that our movement has achieved. But people who really care about battered women must remain ever vigilant against those whose solutions come from their own professional experience and not from victims’ lives.

@ @ @

As a mother and wife, I absolutely agree that families need rules. Nothing is sadder than a house where “anything goes” and there are no rules; everyone is unhappy, especially the children. [131] Nor do I think that every rule, even if somewhat imposed by one family member over others, is abusive.

But rules are different in a batterer’s house. They are never negotiated; they are always imposed. [132] And rulemaking is a one–way street: the batterer sets rules for other family members, while he does exactly as he pleases. [133] Russ ordered Mary not to watch comedies on television, just as he announced that he was quitting his job. Mary knew that even suggesting alternatives might result in violence. But Russ could be away for days at a time, and Mary was not to question his actions.

The rules in a batterer’s house are not just for his comfort and enjoyment. They are an integral part of his plan to control and isolate his partner. [134] As Mary said, the rule about no comedies on television meant she could not exercise her sense of humor, an important part of her self–image. Batterer’s rules also control matters such as whether and when she can leave the house, and how she can spend money. [135] Many rules reinforce the victim’s isolation, such as rules about not having any of her friends over or going out with other people after work. [136][137] She might hear something that made her feel good while listening to the radio, or she might hear a description of domestic violence and recognize herself and start planning her escape. Looking out at the world from her kitchen window (or having someone else look in and see what was going on) might decrease her isolation. Even “little” rules, like “don’t play the radio when I’m gone” and “keep the curtain in the kitchen down” are part of an overall pattern of isolation.

In the functional family, rules are negotiated and renegotiated. [138] One partner may give in to the other, but both partners engage in some give and take. The rules may not fulfill everyone’s needs, but they do not destroy family members’ self–esteem either. [139] In functional families, people are basically satisfied with the rules. [140]

Second, the batterer’s list of rules is ridiculously long and ever expanding and changing. [141] While his partner and children are struggling to comply with his existing demands, new and often contradictory rules are added. [142] This again is in marked contrast with the non–abusive “dinner at six” dad. We have all known non–abusive families where one member (usually, but not always, the father) must be catered to, but his demands are limited and stable. Further, the demanding but non–abusive family member is capable of being satisfied. “Just feed him on time and he’s a happy man” is not something an abused wife would say.

Finally, there is the punishment imposed for non–compliance with rules. [143] The non–abusive man does not beat or rape his wife or children if dinner is not on the table at six. He may pout for a while, or whine, he may even occasionally yell. His reaction may be unhealthy, but the other family members do not live in terror of what will happen if the rules are not met.

Identification protocols for battered women should include questions about rulemaking. [144] Something like this would be good: “Every household has rules under which it operates. Tell me about the ones in your house. What are the rules? How are they established? What happens when they’re not met?” With a sympathetic ear and a little prodding, a battered woman may quickly identify a long list of onerous and changing rules, imposed by the abuser and ruthlessly enforced by him. [145] If she is still in the relationship, or just getting out, she may describe the rules matter–of–factly, and may consider them normal. [146] One advantage of asking about the rules is that she may talk about them much more readily and with less shame than about the violence she has experienced. [147]

H. How Physical and Non–Physical Abuse Work Together:
Why Do We See It as Torture When [XxxxxXxxx] Generals Do It,
But Not When It’s the Guy Next Door?

People are still very ignorant about domestic violence and how it works. If you talk to people and read news reports, the emphasis is always on physical violence. [148] Mary encountered this ignorance when the psychologists, judges, and lawyers minimized her danger because the last severe beating occurred a year and a half before Mary left Russ for good.

~ ~ ~ ~

In other settings, we are well aware of how torturers combine physical and mental abuse to get and keep power over their victims. [154] Appendix B is one of my favorite charts, adapted from Ann Jones’s book Next Time, She’ll Be Dead. [155] In the left–hand column are non–physical torture methods that Amnesty International has recognized and cata

logued. [156] Totalitarian regimes often use these techniques against political prisoners. [157] In the right–hand column are battered women’s descriptions of how their batterers used these same techniques to control them. [158] I have added some examples from Mary’s story to what appears in Jones’s book.

Those who work with battered women must understand the interplay of physical and non–physical abuse. When seen in context, a “slap” is not just a “slap”; it is a warning that the victim must comply with the batterer’s demands “or else.” Repeated phone calls to her at work are not just a sign of a little insecurity. They are part of an overall scheme of isolation and control. Busting up the furniture at home, or throwing the cat against the wall are not unfortunate temper tantrums; they say, “you could be next.” [159]

We should recognize domestic violence as the human rights violation it is. [160] We should draw analogies between domestic violence and torture, [161] to kidnappers and hostages. [162]


(hover cursor above to find the copyright and which attorney related the story).

Hover over THIS and I’ll tell you when this woman married & got her RO.

It could’ve been a decade later, and wouldn’t have read much different. I found this story after, with curiosity, searching on the man who wrote the article below. I hope readers may go back (click on this link, the “READER QUIZ” link) and actually read Mary’s Story, which was an actual case (name changed), and too damn typical. I doubt a person who has experienced abuse would respond the same as one who hasn’t.

NOW, for comic relief, of the monotous drone of fatherlessness being the nation’s crisis (and we have JUST the solution to fix it . . . . ).

Fall of marriage seen linked to decline in domestic murders Drop in homicides called ‘ironic benefit’ of change

The decline of marriage and the breakdown of stable relationships have produced a paradoxical benefit: Domestic murders have declined, with the most dramatic reductions among African- Americans, a University of Missouri criminologist reported yesterday.

“We’re living at a time of dramatic changes in marriage, intimate relationships and family structure,” said Richard Rosenfeld, speaking in Baltimore at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Those changes have had an ironic benefit in reducing the number of intimate-partner homicides.”

Dr. Rosenfeld’s findings are the flip side of the much-reported increase in young men killing young men, which he said may be attributed in part to similar factors — family instability and lack of supervision by harried single parents


(author date & cite show when cursor hovers over link)

OK, now that you know when Dr. Rosenfled (a criminologist, not a PSYchologist) found out that the decline in marriage rates among African Americans meant reduced DV homicides among African Americans (although young men were killing each other more, they weren’t apparently killing so many wives or “intimate partners.” )

Let’s say what the head-honcho elected mostly white men were saying about the same year:

I searched the 104th Congress (1995-1996) for the word “fatherless.”

As we know, fatherlessness has been for so long blamed on the nation’s troubles that you can barely walk somewhere in a government agency, or any social service community agency (after you come back from either a Catholic church, where the (celibate?) priests are called “Father” in direct disobedience to Jesus’s command in the gospels, “call no man Father.” Or, an evangelical Protestant, not quite mainline (or, megachurch) where, after the ranks were being drained to women, they are adding testosterone to the doctrine, and teaching men to be more sensitive (in men’s groups, of course).

If you want to go without the straight-up religious variety, there’s always “The Mankind Project” and one can get a seminar of the Robert Bly type. There are fatherhood practitioners everywhere one looks, practically.

All I really wanted was the conversation where a legislator expresses shock and dismay that African American boys and girls are waking up on homes without their fathers. (NOTE: The “Mary” story above happened in the late 1980s, and HER 3 kids were waking up with their father in the home. In fact, her little girl Elizabeth, at age 3, had gotten an early introduction to sex when her stepbrother came there for the summer and molested her, after which her mother had another job of making sure they weren’t left alone together. (That couple were white and suburban, so maybe they didn’t count in this topic).

I got a little more than I expected in this 104th Congressional record:


I met a man who was an administrator of one of the hospitals in my community in the 15th District of Florida, and this gentleman told me that, before he had moved to Florida, he had lived in Oklahoma, and he had taken part in a program where he would go into inner city housing projects and read to young children in those projects. This program started because it has been shown in research studies that, if you read to a child, you can improve their reading score. Actually there are some studies that show that, if you read to a child, you may actually be able to raise their IQ slightly, {{Noble cause. Some Oklahoman going to raise inner city kids’ IQs}} and he told me something that I will never forget.

So this anecdotal evidence of an unnamed Florida Hospital Administrator, about (how many years previous?) that administrator going into the projects (hence, he wasn’t from them) was not 2nd-hand but 3rd-hand hearsay — if the event ever indeed happened. The impassioned delivery is to state how Welfare is Cruel — listen up how this is done:

He was going into those projects and reading to those kids, and those children were, by and large, children of single parents on welfare, and he would ask, many of them 5, 6 and 7-year-old children, `What do you want to be when you grow up?’ And, yes, some of them would say I want to be a fireman or a nurse, but some of them would say:

`I don’t want to work. I want to collect a check.’

Not all of them wanted to be firemen or nurses (separate by gender; I don’t know how many female fire”men” there are these days, but we know there are lots of male nurses… And probably were in 1996, too..)

Mr. Speaker, a program that does that to millions of children is not a program of compassion and caring to children. It is a program that is cruel and mean spirited to children.

Here’s the process — a man in Florida heard a man in Florida talk about his experience trying to improve the iQ of little kids in the projects (did he talk to their Mamas?) in Oklahoma, and concludes that (although even in the story some WANTED a profession, others wanted a check) FEEDING such children was mean-spirited and cruel…

Today a young male being born to a mother, a single mother on welfare in the United States, has a greater likelihood of ending up on drugs or in the penitentiary than graduating from high school.

I showed in “Luzerne County” that you don’t have to be poor or (presumable here) black to be a crook. There’s a difference between being a crook and actually being jailed for it. It should be common knowledge now, and I bet then (1996) that America, being the largest jailor (per capita) has those jails disproportionately filled with black males. Some of them got their assaulting their mother’s attacker, too. He’s taking two statistics (if that) and creating a CASUAL connection rather than a CAUSAL one. Of course, how many poor black males — or females of any social status or color — were there in Congress in 1996 to comment on his reasoning process?

And the young females, (single mothers have both boys and girls, right?) — are THEY ending up on drugs or in jail?

The problem that we have with illegitimacy in our Nation today is a problem that has been created by the program that we are trying to change, and you cannot fix this problem by tinkering around the edges. The illegitimacy rate in this country has gone up from 5 percent to almost 25 percent in the white community. In the black community it has gone from less than 25 percent to, in some areas, as high as 70 percent.

If you look at what correlates best, what correlates in communities with problems like teenage pregnancy, drug use, illiteracy, juvenile crime, the thing that correlates best in those problems in those communities, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of illegitimacy, the amount of fatherlessness in those communities. A program that perpetuates and cultivates things like this is a cruel and mean-spirited program, and that program needs to be changed, and our bill makes a serious attempt at doing that.

We are not talking about tinkering around the edges. We are talking about promoting family unity, discouraging teen-age pregnancy and illegitimacy.

The fact that this program perpetuates it, Mr. Speaker, was driven home to me when I was a medical student working in an inner-city obstetrics clinic, and I had a 15-year-old girl come in to see me who was pregnant, and I had never seen this before, and I was so upset. I was grieved to see this. I looked at her and said her life is ruined, she cannot go to college, and I said to her, `How did this happen, why did this happen,’ and she looked up to me and told me that she did it deliberately because she wanted to get out from under her mother in the project, and she wanted her own place and her own welfare check.

Again, on the outside looking in, and one anecdote.

This program needs to stop. The people have asked for it; we are trying to deliver.

WHICH people? I mean, these are elected representatives, are they really speaking for their constituents?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Members of the minority to stop their partisan rhetoric and join with us in reforming welfare and creating a program for the poor and the needy that strengthens family, does not undermine them, that strengthens the bonds of marriage, because it is strong families that make strong communities that makes strong nations, and our Nation cannot survive with a perpetuation of a program like this.

Is it the lack of marriage, or the lack of fathers that counts? Because I tell you one thing that makes lack of fathers — WARS. Another thing that previously, broke up families in a callous manner is called slavery.

Who created ghettoes? Who created the two-tier school system, good for some lousy for others (a factor to this date). Who directed one populace into “jobs” and the others (elite ones) into how to run businesses and understand investments, political connections, foundations, and skills that would go along with that goal?

So if you want to know how much we (we WHO???) have invested in the old welfare program over the past 30 years, it is roughly the equivalent of the value of all buildings, all plants and equipment, and all of the tools of all the workers in the United States of America. No society in history has ever invested more money trying to help needy people than the United States of America has invested.

Yet, what has been the result of all of those good intentions? What has been the result of that investment? The result of that investment, 30 years later, is that we have as many poor people today as we had 30 years ago. They are poorer today, they are more dependent on the Government today, and by any definition of quality of life, fulfillment, or happiness, people are worse off today than they were when we started the current welfare system.

When we started the War on Poverty {{and another war in Southeast Asia to follow up on the Korean war I guess}} in the mid-1960s, two-parent families were the norm in poor families in America. Today, two-parent families are the exception. Since 1965, the illegitimacy rate has tripled.

I know that we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are going to lament the passage of this new welfare reform bill. But I do not see how anybody with a straight face, or a clear conscience, can defend the status quo in welfare. Our current welfare program has failed. It has driven fathers out of the household. It has made mothers dependent. It has taken away people’s dignity. It has bred child abuse and neglect, and filled the streets of our cities with crime. And we are here today to change it.

Grammar: Is this guy going to “own” the welfare program, or objectify it? First it was guilt trip, “we have created” and net thing it’s got an independent life, like a disease, perpetuating itself of its own accord, where it can be separated from the rhetorical bosom of the speaker, and be viewed running around tearing up the place. As an “it” it can now have stones thrown at IT first. And after the vivid picture of 5, 6 , 7 year olds wanting to collect a welfare check (“millions of them”) (Seriously, that’s the subliminal message — guilt trip first, it’s ours” and then relieve the guilt by blaming the same thing “we” created, and QUICK, call to action.….) Some action is needed to take away

Let me outline what our program does. I think if each of us looks back to a period when our ancestors first came to America, or back to a time when those who have gone before us found themselves poor, we are going to find that there are two things that get individuals and nations out of poverty. Those two things are work and family. I think it is instructive to note that those are the two things that we have never applied to the current welfare program of the United States of America.

This man seems totally unconscious of the fact that SOME ancestors came to America in the bottom of a slave ship; that a lot of wealth, including likely some of the wealth that helped put people in Congress, came from came from businesses that included plantation labor, sweat shops, and some very, very hard work. When he says “us” as to doling out benefits, he also seems to have forgotten that those taxes came from employees’ wages, courtesy a few reforms dating back to 1939. He seems to have forgotten everything about “Jim Crow” and era of attempting to turn back the clock on some serious industriousness by freed slaves.

The bill before us asks people to work. It says that able-bodied men and women will be required to work in order to receive benefits. It sets a time limit so that people cannot make welfare a way of life. It seeks to change the incentives within the welfare system. And I believe the time has come to change those incentives within the welfare system.

I admit I’m maybe sensitive to this because I know HOW HARD I worked over the years, and none harder than while in a battering relationship that could’ve been a variety of the one above (but a decade later). This relationship, within marriage shouldn’t be happening any more in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, but it is.

Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers

(SEPARATE TOPIC, above)) just saving the link).

%d bloggers like this: