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

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

Posts Tagged ‘Kids’ Turn

So, Who wrote the PBI-published Guide to Pennsylvania’s “New Child Custody Act”?

leave a comment »

Continued from my last post on, well, the publishing arm of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, and several topics. Part of being (who I am) is the tendency to Look Things Up. So, I started looking up those attorneys who helped explain the new custody law in Pennsylvania.

This 7,000 word post has a very detailed chart at the bottom (hard to produce, as to html) and has soaked up too much of my time (I am still typing in “html” compose mode, visually). I then probably made it a little worse by introductory prose paragraphs. BUT, I still maintain that it’s valuable information to consider — these points are not raised enough among parents. Feedback solicited (comments). One way to understand the post may be to FIRST scroll down to some of the charts (for a visual) then go back and read the explanations.

On the other hand, I don’t owe anyone anything on this matter. I did my own lookups, networking, collaboration, and beyond that — whatever gets posted is public service announcement. It’s not addressed to people who are comfortable with groupthink (on the courts), uninvolved or unconcerned about the significance of dysfunctional (etc.) courts on the country, or the presence about money-laundering possibilites that each such setup presents, or the undermining of representative government in favor of the therapeutic, over-diagnosing, medicating, institutionalizing, iatrogenic “Nanny State,” and not a very nice nanny, either.

Iatrogenic (from “Wikipedia” definition):

The term iatrogenesis means brought forth by a healer from the Greek ἰατρός (iatros, “healer”) and γένεσις (genesis, “origin”); as such, in its earlier forms, it could refer to good or bad effects. . . .The transfer of pathogens from the autopsy room to maternity patients, leading to shocking historical mortality rates of puerperal fever (a k a “childbed fever”) at maternity institutions in the 19th century, was a major iatrogenic catastrophe of that time. The infection mechanism was first identified by Ignaz Semmelweis.[2]

OK…

So, yes, Pennsylvania had a Custody Law Revamp passed in 2011

.

Jan. 2011 article (fairly substantial) in the Legal Intelligencer on the new custody law.
(more on how it happened, at bottom of this post). This post looks at a PBI release with many attorney authors (plus a single Judge, and some AFCC Psychologists, i.e., Arnold & Kasey Shienvold, Ph.D.’s) on the impact of the new custody law. See article for some issues it raises.


In fact, at the bottom of this post — something you probably won’t find anywhere else on the Internet — is a chart of the authors, with columns for “how AFCC ARE they?” and basic descriptors. While AFCC is hardly “The Skull & Bones” of Yale, it still is an association which many more judges and attorneys have adopted the mindset of, or may even be members of, without saying so on their website. In other words, its influences are felt – they are real — but not always mentioned directly.

While I did (or started) this for Pennsylvania — it really could and should be done for EVERY state as an ignorance-reducing movement for people who like to complain about judges, the courts, evaluators, GALs, etc. It has not been done (yet) for the primary reasons, as far as I can tell, is limited resources (i.e., you’re looking at a volunteer blogger, and family court veteran, which generally means, SOMETHING was stripped violently and suddenly (but in a process that still somehow manages to last for YEARS) out of one’s life — whether children, or assets // income, social support networks, or all of the above. So the people that are most motivated to report (or should be), are often least financially positioned to. (I’m working on it!).

And those who have funding, as nonprofits themselves, associating with other nonprofits for clout (just like AFCC does) and press, and a “day in the sun” — are less than motivated to examine the function of Nonprofits (per se) as a topic relevant to the family courts AT ALL. They too, would rather form coalitions and self-selecting groupings to run conferences, publish, attract followers, and proclaim theories.

RELEVANCE of answering the “How AFCC ARE they?“: Membership in AFCC, or agreement with and repeated references to its standards are throughout the family law system — yet the organization has been at many levels functioning as a monopoly (while private in association, conferencing, funding, etc.) trade association among my PUBLIC employees. It has a definite mindset towards matters which tend to bring custody cases to the courts to start with — domestic violence and child abuse, in particular. Or, co-parenting when there has been DV or CA. And yet the organization — for all its own self-promotion, dramatic conferences with flashy brochures — is under-reported in the MSM press, and is scarcely mentioned !!! by advocates involved in the stopping domestic violence and child abuse industry.

As such, few people have even ruffled their feathers, or disturbed the seas on which they operate, let alone questioned the practices AS an organization. VERY few, although definitely some have. And yet this organization — and the others that work under, or with it (much of my blog names and describes them, specifically) — is able to operate with more influence and less accountability by virtue of it being “under the radar” of people who need to know MOST about it — which is 1. parents, and 2. all taxpayers.
Read the rest of this entry »

Maryland’s Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron…

with 3 comments

This post is PR on something I just discovered recently and, to be honest, am distressed enough about to follow up by phone with the leadership of some of the groups involved, asking they why these things should be happening statewide.  The dialogue illustrates what’s going on, but is a little complex, and unless you have an interest in monitoring the expansion and methods of expansion of the family law bureaucracy WITHIN or as an ADJUNCT to our court system, you may not want to go through it all.

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

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

assn.gif (5213 bytes)  ”

Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral Practices in The Courts

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

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

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

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

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

per “Johnny”

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

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

with one comment

Why?

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

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

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

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your concern.

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

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

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

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

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

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

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

Key in this EIN#

470942805

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

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might want to look at this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This site writes their rationale:

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

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

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

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

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

rdjustice@monitor.net

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

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

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

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

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

Hearsay #1:

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

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

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

Hearsay #2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUH?

 

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

  • Working for whom?*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:  “IS What We’re Doing Working”

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

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

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

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

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

. . . .

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

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

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

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

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

. . . She moved out, not him….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted this on August 17, 2009

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

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

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

Kathleen Russell*

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

Connie Valentine  (CPPA)

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

Phyllis Chesler  

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

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

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

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

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

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

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

 

Dara Carlin*

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

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

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

Rita Smith*  

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

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

Mo Therese Hannah

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

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano


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

For Scrantonians — To Assert is Fine, but To Prove is Best. Study How Kentucky Got Its 70 Judicial Center Projects, 9 Court Programs (including 11 Divorce Ed. courses so far). You’re Next!

with 8 comments

This post sounds more state-specific than it is.  When pilot programs and model courts are being coordinated with help from outside the state to within any state, there’s little state-specific about the courts taking place these days.  Remember also the influence of federal funding, and the speed of change facilitated by our lovely internet technology (think, approximately 1980s becoming more popularly accessible — but governments (especially military, who of course need great communications and data processing), academia, and lawyers will generally be further ahead than most of the public).

Original Post Published 12/21/2011.  I had occasion to refer to it, and began updating 9/8/2015, in part because the Kentucky State Court had re-arranged its website, creating broken-link-syndrome.   On noticing they, too, unified the court system, and by “Judicial Article” in 1976 created an “AOC” with a Chief Justice (i.e., centralized operations), I immediately remembered the NYS Unified Court System and its “Public/private partnership” with the under-reported “Fund for the City of New York,” (first funded 1968) which was labeled at some point, possibly post-1993, the Center for Court Innovation.

The Center for Court Innovation being often mischaracterized in print, I decided it was time to talk about how the system is set for privatization, and of course, global alignment internationally.  This would be hard to achieve directly and get past most voters — but it’s already been arranged to do it INdirectly, under the lable just improving systems, and helping families, communities, and in the public interest.

Tax-exempt, tax (and privately) funded, and WHERE did your famous legal rights go??  Perhaps a better question to ask is where did the money go, which might help answer the former questions.

I added a substantial section (light-green background) to my 2011 commentary and word-battles (at a few points) with a now-defunct forum in Scranton, PA.  It will become a separate post soon, I hope.  If so, this one will be shortened, with a referral link.  Maybe.  (Catch it while you can…)

🙂


 

Righteous Indignation, Determination to do something, and a Healthy Sarcasm  — admirable, I love it.

Also one has to love anyone who can file enough Right To Knows, get information sufficient to file a CIVIL suit against a FAMILY court racket(eering set of individuals), have (I believe as a result of that and related) suit, the FBI come charging in to haul off evidence (for what purpose, remains to be seen)  and post it for all to see.  And keep posting.  Again, I came here from Kentucky — after I found some dude from this area (Dunmore, PA) getting his product marketed through the Kentucky Family Court System, which has a ridiculous number dof “Divorce Education” programs and one that clearly uses extortion to get Dads in arrears into fatherhood program probably aimed at about 6th grade (maybe tops, 8th) level of intellect.  And that is called a “Court of Justice”!

 Judicial Center Projects **

Since 1998 the Kentucky Court of Justice has completed, authorized or begun construction on 70 new judicial centers.

These new facilities have given Kentucky citizens safe, efficient, cost-effective buildings in which to exercise their legal and constitutional rights

[**Original Post was 12/21/2011; Updates, Link Correction (different background color)  @ 9/8/2015]:

The Courts.ky.gov web pages have changed since this post, and no longer so clearly display the 11 divorce education programs below. More info at.  Notice the AOC was put in place in 1976 by “the Judicial Article.”  Their summary provides no link to that article, or description of who issued it, was there a referendum, did the judges come together in decide, or what.

 Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts

The Administrative Office of the Courts is the operational arm of the Judicial Branch. The AOC supports court facilities and programs in all 120 counties, with its main campus in Frankfort.

The AOC was established in 1976 as a result of the Judicial Article. The Judicial Article created Kentucky’s unified court system and made the chief justice head of the state court system, also known as the Kentucky Court of Justice.


Read the rest of this entry »

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017)

with 5 comments

POST TITLE IS: 

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017) (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-WN”

My practice of adding borders and listing the post title with shortlink is more recent.

Currently this post is NOT listed on any Table of Contents (my lists only go as far back as Sept. 2012)…I see that many of the logos will not display, and that this post as written was about 10,000 words long. This update made only because a basic search on the blog for an organization I’m writing about again brought it up. (Update this time is only minimal format changes for easier reading; is not in detail and doesn’t include fixing broken links/missing logos, or more recent information on the organizations referenced).//LGH Oct. 30, 2017.


INTRO:

Overall, I seriously doubt that it’s possible to clean up or straighten up the family law system — at all, and I am utterly serious in saying this.  There is too much incentive for fraud, and too much need to “pay the mortgages” in the courthouses by ordering more services, and too little oversight and tracking of the funding.  There are too many public employees forming nonprofit corporations to franchise for-profit curricula (marriage, parent education, etc.) — in the old NonProfit/ForProfit combo.

There are too few tools in many states to track WHO is repeatedly forming corporations that go belly-up, only to have a partner or other person formerly on one board just go forth and from another one — in another state.   Many of these groups, as my last post showed, are membership organizations — membership is charged, conferences run, and we have some evidence from county payrolls or vouchers from court-connected professionals, that the public is billed to fund attendance at nonprofits whose ONE purpose is to expand their services.  Child support is one of the worst of these, but they come in all flavors.

Despite the bleak outlook — I still report and I am going to finish reporting on this field of Parent Coordination until it is CLEAR what the AFCC professionals’ intent is in establishing this field and, if possible, having it legitimized at the state level by establishing standards, or by mandate.

The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts runs many task forces at a time, as part of its strategic plan to expand (itself) and transform the “old” language of criminal law into more friendly-to-its-practitioners concepts.    One of them which they are taking VERY seriously in promoting — and I take VERY seriously in protesting — is Parenting Coordination.

Parents didn’t ask for this — it’s no grassroots movement, and from what I can tell how it’s been (1) advertised (2) pushed and (3) practiced — there’s no genuine NEED for it either.  For that matter, I see no historical record that parents as a sector (both male and female) asked for the family law system, either.

Why I’m addressing it — again:   

(1) AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS.  NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS AS THEY DID.

The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too:  Parenting Coordination:  A Bad Idea

Here’s less than half the list — and so far I agree with ALL of them.  Thank you, Liz (Kates, the FL Family Law attorney, not Richards, of NAFCJ.net)
© 1996-2011 argate.net        frcp:

  • Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
  • Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
  • Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
  • Parenting coordination violates privacy
  • The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
  • Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
  • Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
  • No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
  • No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.
  • Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
  • Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
  • Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
  • Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract
  • There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
  • Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
  • It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
  • Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
  • Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
  • Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds
  • Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
  • Parenting coordination is not confidential
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
  • Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders
  • Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights
  • Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
  • They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
  • They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
  • Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
  • Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
  • Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power
  • Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
  • They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”
  • They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
  • They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
  • Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
  • Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
  • Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
  • They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post).  I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida.  They have since succeeded, I believe, too.
Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow.
This is primarily what AFCC does.  From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.”  The problem (sic) is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints.
Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits!   {{It looks like I didn’t post that link, or it wasn’t saved to final… unless it’s shown in the DVLeap 2010 brief.}}

“The Court’s parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process… The Special Master Order’s requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy… The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy…”

AFCC could care less.  They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.

  •  Even the brother of the Marriage Promotion President, the “Family” family, George Bush — as Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, FL (2004) had the sense to object based on sound principles.  A newly formed (probably for this purpose) chapter of AFCC strategized, lobbied, publicized, practiced, and finally managed to ram it through, over his veto.  It only slowed them down slightly.

June 18, 2004   

Ms. Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State Florida Department of State

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

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

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

 

  • He lists 5 objections, two of which clearly recognize that it in effect allows a parent coordinator to function as both judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights, and one of which is that it fails to protect victims of domestic violence.   I also note from the language that it looks like a Committee (not the general legislature) attempted to have this substitute for an existing Senate Bill. . . . . 

(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —

  • The People fixed on training parent coordinators have a terrible track record when it comes to staying incorporated(I found another one today — Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals, or “SAIF.”  Formed in 2006, it’s already behind in its filings, in the state of Indiana. And it appears that, again, a nonprofit/for-profit combo, originating not with litigants, but with the professionals, was set up to give (again) some family law attorneys the right to crow about their own parent coordination training seminars they helped run themselves.  By and large, that seems to be the situation in Indiana — which it seems New Hampshire liked a lot, too. Termini/Boyan are Georgia/Pennsylvania — but same general idea.

(3) The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive.

Here’s an example, from a family law attorney, a bona-fide certified one  (although the nonprofit membership she cites all over is anything but “bona-fide” when it comes to filing charitable returns in the home state!)

It’s even from an Amicus Brief (I THINK it got filed, although this isn’t the stamped version). Actually, this is where the title to my post came from:

 

CASE NO. C064475

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________

RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________

Face sheet as posted at CaliforniaParentingCoordinator.com (using link from this 12/14/2011 post).

[Three images, inside blue borders, added in 2017 update.  See also their list Table of Authorities].

 

In the statute of authorities for this brief, bearing the name “Leslie Ellen Shear” and “Stephen Temko” (although the certificate of interested parties form bears the name Shear, and is dated 1/27/2011), after the legal and rules of court list, comes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents from Amicus Brief (source url shown on gray window-frame at top of image).

 

 

 

“Treatises, Law Reviews and Other Authorities” – and on reading it, I see it quotes, among others:

  • The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)
  • AFCC itself (at least twice)
  • A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others.  These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.
  • Herself, like 3 times, in:
    • Shear (2008) In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass-roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute 5 Journal of Child Custody 88…………………………………………..5, 18, 25  (cited on page 5, 18 & 25).

(I’m also adding this quote in 2017 update, from the Amicus Brief):

ACFLS’s purposes in appearing as amicus are to protect and perfect the parenting coordination service model in California family courts, discuss the implications of the issues raised in this case for the future of parent coordination in California, and address the implications of those issues for other family court appointed neutrals including but not limited to child custody evaluators4, minors’ counsel appointed per Fam. Code §3150 et seq., mediators, therapists, members of collaborative family law teams, and other court appointed or connected quasi-judicial dispute resolution professionals.

In other words, to protect her own kind….

 

Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination.

Another set of professionals tried to write “Kids Turn” into law around 2002, right? (see my “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch post.”) then-Governor Gray Davis (properly!) vetoed even the version of it put out which didn’t overtly say “Kids’ Turn” on its face.

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

On page 4, quoting AFCC person Greenberg (whose writing I also ran across) cites who came up with the idea, vaguely characterized as:

In 1994, the concept of parenting coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who realized that some high conflict families remained chronically mired in conflict and required something different. . . For these families, the traditional tried and true approaches to containing familial conflict such as litigation, mediation, forensics, and therapy had not worked. Thus, the concept of parenting coordination was conceived as a different and needed dispute resolution intervention.

(Tried and True?  [is that really an appropriate phrase for use in an amicus brief?]

Try “Tried and found seriously wanting.”  Don’t believe me?  Look here.  I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida.  Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one: even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that murder) miss their Daddy.  And they shouldn’t even be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc.

Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children.  And the shooter was a retired police officer!

Dad accused of killing son wants custody rights to surviving kids; judge lets him have unsupervised contact (Orlando, Florida)

POSTED: 5:56 pm EST December 13, 2011
UPDATED: 6:45 pm EST December 13, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. — A former Orlando police officer accused of killing his son was back in court, arguing for custody rights to his other children. 

Timothy Davis Sr. won a victory of sorts Tuesday when a judge granted him the ability to pick up his younger children from school, including his 9-year-old daughter who authorities said witnessed the killing.

The retired police officer is accused of shooting his son, 22-year-old Timothy Davis Jr., to death at their Apopka home in what he said was self-defense after his son attacked him, injuring his knee in October.

Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife.

Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper.  I do not call this ‘tried and true.”  This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action  appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps.

Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter.   This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:

by KHOU.com staff

khou.com
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

KATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.

According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.

Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children.   Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.

Sorry to bring up this very unpleasant reality-check, but when in Amicus Brief a parent-coordinator pusher talks about previously tried methods that work — the definition of “works” or “tried and true” apparently / generally just means “tried, sometimes resulting in death, physical or sexual abuse of minors post-separation, or having minor children showing up in child pornography in father’s possession.”  All of these were from December 2011 news articles, only.

Keep these incidents for a point of reference while I quote from p.12, a whole chapter on how parent coordinators have such difficult parents to deal with, “poor them”:

 

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage.** These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.

Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Families 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

**Difficult-to manage parents are the bread and butter of the family court.  They are the income producers.  Assigning them to parent coordination is yet one more source of income for the professionals, taken from either the parents, or (looks like there’s some effort to make even broke parents participate in this too — AFCC-CA has a workshop or presentation, on the 2012 hearing on this).

Perhaps the professionals in question should re-think the business of “managing parents” to start with.

So, the opening quote to this chapter is from two long-time AFCC professionals (Coates/Deutsch) in an AFCC publication?, although it’s only 2004, using an AFCC-originated concept and term, “high-conflict families” (although I hear Bill Eddy now says they are high-conflict individuals — see my post on “yet another AFCC wet dream.” and his High-conflict Institute….)

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to re- turn to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs,* and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

* perhaps this speaks to the quality of the co-parenting educational programs, more than the parents.

* or perhaps they are pissed at being forced to take co-parenting classes to start with, not mentioning affected if they also have to pay.

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents.

A casual dismissal of whether it’s just one — or both — parents here.  We KNOW that many of these cases — not just some — are in fact cases involving danger, abuse, and etc.   These cases do NOT belong in family court at all — but they are there because of greed of professionals, and because of the fatherhood movement (backlash to feminism) that incentivizes and insists that single motherhood is bad for kids.  For that matter, even if Mom remarries happily, it’s still supposedly bad for the world if biological father isn’t in his kids’ life.

In short — Ms. Shear and Mr. Temko (whoever drafted this) — are, with their colleagues — unable to literally distinguish between one parent and another when discussing “parents” in front of others who have some privilege (like a statutory justification) or grant to give them.

BUT — their own handbooks, and some appellate cases already involving parenting coordination, show clearly that they are QUITE able to distinguish one parent from another, and not only do, but literally plan how to, target mothers, specifically, for badmouthing and possible intervention in the form of getting the kids away from her.  (I have two links to parent coordination handbooks on this post, you can check them out.).

The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

You can’t see it here, but on the pdf it shows:  in this quote, we have a triple-layer AFCC site.  I believe Johnston is probably Janet Johnston (AFCC Board, or was).  Kelly, (below) who’s being quoted in the section, if it’s Joan B. Kelly, has been called the “grande dame” of AFCC and mediation promotion in the family law courts.  She runs a Northern California Mediation Center, and obviously publishes too.   And Shear is AFCC.  So — if so — that represents:

AFCC Shear quotes AFCC Kelly quoting AFCC Johnston, as to parent coordination, which is an AFCC idea.  (this is FAR more common than most people — who are less obsessive about looking things up than me — realize.  I have labored through some pretty detailed writings (NYState) where when they ran out of ideas, they simply restated them, and I literally read ALL the footnotes too, most of which were “ibid.”   

Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

I don’t know how to state this clearly enough.  The difficulty any professional has — who by definition holds an option to quit the profession (which they chose) in dealing with a ‘difficult client” is no comparison with the difficulty of dealing — year after year thanks to policies — with an “ex” who has threatened to kidnap or kill, who has beaten one before, or who may be and/or has molested children, possibly one’s own (dep. on the case) before.   Suppose the shoe was on the other foot?  Again, if professionals don’t like the difficulty they have an option — find another line of work.

But thanks to their insistence on THIS line of work, i.e., at public AND private expense, and explicit danger to the communities — almost no parent — and I’m going to say mother, specifically– can actually get free from real criminals they’ve had children with, even when he’s already in jail.

I know of one case where the person has already done time in an unbelievably severe situation, and this mother/daughter who already went through hell — is being stalked again.  Until she’s safe, I’m not naming names, but once she is/they are, I will – because this case was high-profile and has been in the news.

One point of view is dealing with comfort, and potential burnout, in the performance of one’s duties that have internationally networked, federally-funded, county-judicial-level endorsed, and more — support groups.  The other is of staying alive, housed, and after that, functional and employed at all.

If one continues to read the Amicus, it continues to complain and blame.  The next quote by Shear is of Shear.  Here’s a little further on in the Amicus:

Parenting coordination is a very intrusive model, inserting state authority into the daily family lives of parents and children. With those intrusive powers comes a duty to exercise restraint, discretion and wisdom.

This work often creates the perfect storm. Parenting coordinators struggle to avoid being triangulated into the family’s conflicts.

Well, they triangulated themselves in there to start with, intentionally!   Which shows a lack of:   “restraint, discretion, and wisdom” per se.

From page 18 (“just one more”!) – This chapter complains that California hasn’t legislated parenting coordination by stipulation (i.e., authorizing it by force)  yet:

The only thing that is clear about appointment of parenting coordinators in California is that family courts are without jurisdiction to make them without a stipulation. Moreover, no published case has upheld orders resulting from a stipulated appointment of a parenting coordinator.

The quote from Greenberg in this Amicus acknowledges that professionals in California & Colorado (two hotspots of family law leadership; Center for Policy Research/Jessica Pearson et al. are in Denver) “spawned” the concept.  Or rather, it “was spawned” — we can’t name an individual father, so perhaps it was a sort of psychological gang-rape that produced the idea (just kidding).  Unlike “collaborative law” which actually names a father, “Stu Webb” out of MN. . ..      And that this began in the 1990s.

We are now in 2011.  Perhaps it’s time to admit that it’s a bad idea to start with; if even in California — where AFCC originated — they can’t get it into law!

The text continues — and understanding that I don’t know the underlying case, have not read the entire brief and am not an attorney, I’m to add a comment to the next section:

Of course, courts have no power to modify statutes. Statutes prescribe and proscribe what courts may do.

Damn right they do! On the other hand, has that really slowed down AFCC initiatives, has it?  I think there’s been a track record of resounding success, if getting around constitutional and statutory limits pending changing the statutes to accommodate more income streams to court-connected (or formerly court-connected, like retired judges) professionals… is what’s intended.

The California Constitution (art. VI, § 22) prohibits the delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. A trial court lacks either statutory or inherent power to require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services, even where it may have the authority to make the appointment. (People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703)

The Court of Appeal reversed trial court orders delegating authority over the visitation schedule to a child custody evaluator, requiring one of the parents to participate in psychotherapy and requiring that all future custody mat- ters be heard before the same bench officer in In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 811, 816–817 because there was no statutory authority supporting such a delegation.

Just GUESSING here, but perhaps if over a 21-year period (in one state), it’s still being stated that there are Constitutional limits on delegating Judicial power, and three years later the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) brings it up in a reason for vetoing a parent coordination stipulation — there just MIGHT be a good reason!   Parent Coordination is hardly an Occupy San Francisco (or anywhere else in California) grassroots protest or demand, is it, either?

We’re third generation fatherhood programs out here, we are also probably at least second-generation post-TANF (1996), post fatherhood (i.e., about 15-16 years since they passed), and perhaps– just perhaps — the last thing this state needs is more ideas originating from this nonprofit and all its collaborators in therapeutic jurisprudence great ideas.

Perhaps — just perhaps — it’s a good thing if constitutional and statutory limits on out-sourcing the judicial function mean something around here, for a change! Be content with what you got so far, as authorized by access/visitation (three categories of potential program fraud enabled) and all the marriage promotion money too, plus lots of the nonprofits — like ACFLS — not even bothering to report into the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG) anyhow!

(REASON 4)

(4)

Moreover  — like most AFCC promotions — the language promoting parent coordination continues to refuse to think or talk in terms of legal rights to INDIVIDUALS as the Declaration of Independence asserted, which helped kickstart the USA, claims they are.   The language of parent coordination is continually pluralized, or group-talk.  It does not, really, acknowledge that a person could be a member of a family (like “parent” “father” or “mother”) and yet really have — and deserve — equal standing as an individual in any matter, before the law.

Here’s an example from ParentCoordinationCentral.com (Termini/Boyan site).  These are the supposed GOALS OF PARENT COORDINATION:

  1. Educate parents regarding the impact of their behaviors on their child(ren)’s development.

    [supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers.  They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]
  2. Reduce parental conflict through anger management, communication and conflict resolutions skills. 
    [increasing the expense of divorce, treating parents like kids, undermining judicial authority, & due process, and invading one’s privacy sure will “reduce parental conflict”!! . .. And I haven’t even got (this post anyhow) to the training manual which has an openly hostile attitude towards mothers, it’s unbelievable).
  3. Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.
    [goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior.   Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]
  4. Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.
     [Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well.  Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans.  I mean — the concept is ridiculous!  What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]
  5. Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to  adjust more effectively with the new family structure.
    [You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/  Again, go have your own and show it to us.  Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]
  6. Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.
    [that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]
  7. Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the  recommendations of the Court.
    [Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up.  One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena.   It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .
    Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails.  It entails respecting its laws.  I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]
  • The NH “Parent Coordinators” Association of 2009 “FAQs” suggest a benefit is:
  • Q. What are the benefits of Parenting Coordination?

Parenting Coordination offers a much better way of resolving parenting plan issues than returning to court. And the resolution comes much faster than waiting for a court date and then the court decision. The Parenting Coordinator educates the parents about the harm to the children of hostility between parents, mediates issues as they arise, and if the parents are unable to resolve minor issues, makes the decision.

As ever, when selling their services, AFCC professionals see themselves as the mature adults on the scene, and the parents as a “plural,” and refuse to assign responsibility where it’s perhaps due.  They seem to utterly lack curiosity in fact-finding as to that matter.  This is understandable, because they deal in “psychology” more than law– which is the culture of the association.  While two individual parents are often involved, in the marketing prose, it’s always “the parents” v. “the helping professionals”

However, once in the door, and in practice — then they are quick to blame ONE parent, often the mother, and recommend severe intervention, often removing of contact with the children to counter supposed “alienation.”   In other words, they are hypocrites — professing neutrality and to be helping, but planning in advance (in this case) to do harm to one gender — the female, should she as a parent (mother) counter them.

I blogged this earlier, but again (from the same site) — here is their “sample” report from the handbook:

Handbook

A handbook for the purpose and practice of parenting coordination prepared by PCANH.

 Parts of this were credited (fn1 inside) to “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” in Indiana.  This is a nonprofit formed in 2005, EIN# 432074631 with principal listed c/o “Gloria K. Mitchell.”

So of course I looked this person up — she is a Rising Star Super Attorney, member of National Association of Counsel for Children, and works in a four-woman firm.  The nonprofit, however, is categorized as “exempt — earning under $25,000).  website’s “Divorce and Parenting Research Links” is typical, plus a direct link to the Children’s Rights Council” (hover URL).  CRC is pretty big in Indiana…  Six years after passing the bar, Ms. Mitchell was on the Executive Committee of Family Law Section of Indiana Bar Assoc., and chaired it in 2005.   The articles of incorporation show it’s a 501(c)4 (not “3”) and by address its place of business is another law firm in Noblesville, Indiana:  Holt, Fleck & Romini.  If the image (showing org.’s purpose) doesn’t show, it’s viewable for free on the site below.

Entity Name Type Entity Type City / State
FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC. Legal Non-Profit Domestic Corporation INDIANAPOLIS, IN

Gloria K. Mitchell, and the four attorneys in the law firm, 
Though only incorporated in winter (February) 2005, by summer (July) 2005,  Indiana, “Families Moving Forward”** already had a “Parent Coordination Committee” and presented the following report in this context:

Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum

3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute

and Family ICO Training Session July 28-29, 2005*

 *Note:  the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened.  Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005.     So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.
I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.
Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart  (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF):  notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation.   In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage:  Legislating Family Values”  Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here  Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.
But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.
Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties.  She is a partner.

Amy concentrates her practice in matrimonial and family law matters. She was one of the first Indiana attorneys trained  in collaborative law, and she has been instrumental in introducing the approach in Indiana. She has practiced collaborative law since 2007, has attended several conferences of the International Association of Collaborative Professionals,* and has been trained by collaborative law founder Stuart Webb. In addition, Amy also practices traditional litigation.   

*Readers probably may not remember, so I’ll remind us.  the “IACP” is another incarnation, membership association — out of many — formed by AFCC-type professionals, as you can see by the description:

iacp,collaborative law,collaborative practice,collaborative divorce,international academy of collaborative professionals

ACP is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, an international community of legal, mental health and financial professionals working in concert to create client-centered processes for resolving conflict.

I probably blogged it, too.  I remember looking up the various websites, corporate registrations, etc.   Here’s their About Us/History narrative.  I notice a good chunk of it (after inspiration by “Stu Webb” in MN) took form in the Northern California family court association nonprofit factor, aka the SF Bay Area, including Oakland (East Bay) and other well-known cities:

In May of 1999, the first annual AICP [=American Institute of Collaborative Professionals] networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.

The Collaborative Review has been published continuously since May, 1999. The work begun by initial editors Jennifer Jackson and Pauline Tesler. . . 

Jennifer Jackson (FYI, I’ve never met, spoken to, or dealt with her in court) is kind of branded in my mind as having helped start up Kids’ Turn (SF):

FYI — here is another Super Lawyer, high-profile, longstanding success.  Her “about” page lists many accomplishments. Notice which comes first; notice also the variety of terms which are basic to the field:  I’ll bold them:

About Jennifer Jackson

Before becoming a family lawyer in 1985, Jennifer Jackson was an illustrator and photographer, raising three children.

A LITTLE LOCAL COMMENTARY relating to this Super-Productive/Super Attorney and her many Nonprofits:  

I know artists, including photographers and illustrators.  It’s not that easy to make a living at; this speaks of either a good prior divorce settlement, (or not marrying) or some substantial education somewhere along the line, undergrad plus law school.  That’s quite a set of accomplishments, but I don’t think represents an indigence.  See Resume:

  • BA with Honors in 1966, became family lawyer (passed bar?)
  • 1985, with Professor’s Assistanceships (in law school) on child-related and mediation topics.  Maybe I can assume that almost 20 year gap is called “Mom” and “Wife” time.
  • In 1987, she helped found Kids’ Turn and was simultaneously involved in PTA Board at “Campolindo High School” where her kids probably attended.   Campolindo is — well, its site describes it well:

“Located in the hills east of the University of California, Berkeley, Campolindo serves the professionally-oriented and well-educated suburban communities of Moraga and Lafayette. Students, teachers and parents work together to provide a positive climate for learning where mutual respect, trust and esteem are valued. ” . . .”In statewide API (Academic Performance Index) ratings, for the fifth year in a row, both the Acalanes District and Campolindo are ranked in the very top percentiles of all public high schools in California with an API score of 919. Nationally, Campolindo is recognized regularly in Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best High Schools in America”.  The Association of Californa School Administrators honored Campolindo’s Principal, Carol Kitchens, as the Secondary Principal of the Year in 2009

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community.   A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.
To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.
Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs.  Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.
(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans:  166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime).  As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people.  As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000.   The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

Blending this background of creativity, caring and flexibility with her legal training enhances her practice of family law and expands the options for her clients.

Jennifer believes that a lawyer must be actively involved in her professional community, and that life is about making a difference. Jennifer is one of the founders of Kids’ Turn, a program for separating families begun in San Francisco which has expanded exponentially in size and in quality of service to children and families.

(If you know my blog, you know EXACTLY why and how Kids’ Turn “expanded exponentially in size” — see family law attorneys, evaluators & judges on the board, see access/visitation funds “facilitating” parent education programs. . . . .As to the quality of service?  That’s debatable, but as I haven’t sat through any of the classes — except to note they use the word “parental alienation” a lot in stating benefits, i.e., “reduces parental alienation” type claims.  I’ll withhold judgment on this, as should others who haven’t  !!)

She is one of the founders of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and served for eight years as co-editor of its journal, The Collaborative Review. She has had leadership roles in her professional organizations at local, state national and international levels, and is a past president of the Northern California chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Within five years of passing the bar, she is serving as a judge pro tem– how common is that? Or this?

Standing Committee on Custody, North: Chair 1988-1990

San Francisco Bar Association

Executive Committee, Family Law Section: Chair, 1992; Member: 1987-present
Fee Arbitration Panel: 1988-1990
Barristers Club, Co-Chair, Family Law Committee: 1988-1990
BASF Delegate to the State Bar Convention: 1989, 1990
Volunteer Legal Services Program Volunteer Attorney: 1986-2000  

[[This is almost another topic — I’ve footnoted it [VLSP* at bottom of post, a section in itself….]

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

Jennifer has been given an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named one of the top 50 female lawyers (“Super Lawyers”) in Northern California in all areas of practice by Law and Politics Publications for the past five years in a row. Jennifer practices alternative dispute resolution exclusively; she has trained extensively in mediation and collaboration, and is committed to keeping clients out of court and at the negotiating table.

The IACP has created Standards for practitioners, trainers and collaborative practice trainings. It has promulgated Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners, and continues to support excellence in collaborative practice through resources, training curriculum, practice tools, mentoring and a comprehensive website, allowing collaborative practitioners to continue our tradition of sharing and learning from one another.

Where we are going…

Today, the IACP has over 4,000 members from twenty four countries around the world. We are dedicated to educating the public about the Collaborative alternative. We are committed to fostering professional excellence in conflict resolution through Collaborative Practice. We invite you to peruse this site to learn more about IACP, our services and initiatives.

Amy is the past-chair of the Family Law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association (2003) and is president of Families Moving Forward, Inc., a multi-disciplinary non-profit organization devoted to developing healthy approaches to family transitions.. . .[Law Degree summa cum laude Indiana Univ. School of Law, 1999; admitted to IN bar same year, graduate “with high distinction” in 1986. ]

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation.  What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are.  As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).
 ** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC., is an interdisciplinary organization of attorneys, mental health providers, accountants, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in Indiana, by reducing conflict and cost, creating healthier outcomes for children, and enhancing the satisfaction of professionals serving families.

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)
This report is on-line at “SAIF” where it probably was presented:

Seminars For Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals


This For-Profit group incorporated as below in Indiana, with the address “9000 KEYSTONE CROSSING, STE 600, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 (which is “HuirasLaw,”  Wm. E. Huiras, although the Registered Agent is another attorney, Robin Brown Neihaus (LinkedIn)

Date Name (Type)
7/27/2006 SEMINARS FOR ADVANCED INTERDISCIPLINARY FAMILY PROFESSIONALS, INC. D/B/A SAIF  (Assumed))
(the entity filed one report in 2008, file notes, it owes 2010/2011 – perhaps IN is only every 2 years).

Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):

The sample report begins with a situation between father and stepfather which was hostile.  Both wanted to coach on Little (10) Joey’s baseball team.

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

5. Mr. Smith and Mr. Doe should attend counseling sessions together to attempt to resolve their(For example, the mother did not want the father to volunteer on Fridays at school any longer. She maintained that the children were emotional and upset on those mornings and did not want to go to school. The teachers were contacted and reported that the children looked forward to and enjoyed their father’s presence.

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting

Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp.

AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force: Christie Coates, J.D., M.Ed. (Chair), Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., (Secretary), Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D. , Philip Epstein, Q.C., Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William Jones (ret.), Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D

. . . .

The following new publications have been developed since 2002 while dated products were been eliminated:

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

There are scholarly articles galore about this.  One by matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. (and a parent coordinator) uses the phrase repeatedly in the abstract — but to access the article one-time costs $34 and permanently $155.  Needless to say, not many people who have parent coordinators in their lives can afford to read up on it….

“In 1994 the concept of parent coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who

WHILE PROMOTION EFFORTS TEND TO PHRASE PARENT COORDINATION PASSIVELY (as if a natural development), IN PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE FIELD:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

And I am going to show you what apparent frauds some of the prime “trainers” are in this field too.     But first, let’s look at the upcoming 2012 conference called:

The New Frontier

Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts:

This is an upcoming (Feb. 2012) meeting of the California Chapter of the AFCC.  An entire day is dedicated to a workshop on Parenting Coordination, and a secondary one talks about how to get it in there — even if parents are indigent.

Here are the presenters’ bios (please scroll through).  Some are more than a page, others short.  Notice the types of professionals involved (typical), Judges, Attorneys and Psychologists, Mediators, etc.    Some have been around forever (Joan B. Kelly, Dianna Gould-Saltzmann) others seem newer:

Abbas Hadjian, JD, CFLS

Graduate of Tehran University School of Law and Harvard…

Abbas Hadjian, Esquire devotes a substantial part of his family law practice to educating the Farsi‐speaking community on the comparisons between the American and Iranian legal system and recently published “Divorce in California,” which is written in Farsi. He is an expert on Iranian culture and laws.

(from his website, partial description of an amazing background):

Mr. Hadjian was born, educated and lived in Iran until 1980. Between 1959 and 1968 Mr. Hadjian was a professional journalist in Iran, with positions including editor, writer, reporter, translator and commentator in major Iranian publications and news agencies. His profession a journalist required and helped Mr. Hadjian’s foundational understanding of the Iranian legal, social, economical and political structure. Between 1962 and 1966, Mr. Hadjian attended the School of Law, Political Science and Economics in Tehran University. Among others, he received courses in Iranian Constitution, Civil, Family and Probate law, furthering his understanding of the legal, social, economic and political infrastructure of his native country.

Upon graduation. Mr. Hadjian became a political appointee in the Office of the Governor General, Iranian Southern Ports and Islands (Persian Gulf), where he acted as a ranking civil officer in the region until 1978, the year of the Iranian Revolution. As deputy to the Governor General in social and economic affairs, Mr. Hadjian relied heavily on his legal studies and implemented them in real life situations. In 1975, Harvard University accepted him to the renowned Edward S. Mason Program for Public Development on full scholarship, acknowledging five years of Mr. Hadjian’s services in developing the Persian Gulf region as one year of post-graduate studies. He was awarded a Masters Degree in Public Administration

A related site from “Culture Counts.net” (site has three diverse professionals) has a page about fatherhood, the new normal, which “surprisingly” reminds readers about:

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

  • Children display increased self-confidence.
  • Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.
  • Higher grade point averages.
  • More likely to mature into compassionate adults.
  • Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

  • Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.
  • May reduce health-risk behaviors.
  • Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.
  • Happiness and increased physical activity.
  • Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.
  • Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.
  • Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.
These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute.  It must be important:

9:00am – 5:15pm

All Day Institute (2)

(I2) Inside Parenting Coordination Practice in California: Managing Roles, Responsibilities, and Risks

  • Lyn Greenberg, Ph D
  • Alexandra Leichtner, JD
  • Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS
Apparently even indigent people need parent coordination — there’s a workshop on how to get it to them:
  • W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordination Program Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent FamiliesHonorable Lorna Alksne// Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA // Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD  // Lori Love, Ph D


http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.html

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage. These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Fami- lies 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to return to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs, and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents. The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

+ + + + = = = + + +  = = =

[VSLP*].  This footnote comes from a fragment of attorney Jennifer Jackson’s resume, which itself came from a bio of another nonprofit, Families Moving Forward, Inc. in Indiana.  I was following up in another nonprofit, “International Association Collaborative Professionals” and I guess you can see about how curious I am about the inter-relationships of various nonprofits.

I looked at the staff.  This one caught my attention — because of the specialties, not him personally:

Chris Emley (in 2011, or at least now on the website.)

Chris is a certified family law specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, with 41 years of experience focusing on child custody litigation.  He has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1991.  He has helped to govern VLSP since its inception in 1979.  He received the State Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 1983, the Legal Assistance Association of California’s Award of Merit in 1989, and two Awards of Merit from The Bar Association of San Francisco (1977 and 2004).  He was a BASF board member from 1979 through 1981, and chaired the Lawyer Referral Service Committee.  Chris was Vice President of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, Chairman of the Board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and Chairman of the Board of Legal Services for Children, Inc.

There happens to be one pro bono group in the SF Bay area which used to help women leaving violence and eventually in the news (and had I known at the time to check all these 990s, I’d have seen the notation that it specialized in helping NONCustodial, low-income fathers, I’d have realized why this group refused to help so many mothers stuck in the family law system.).   The presence of a Certified Family Law Practitioner on the board of VSLP, with his emphasis being on children’s rights, and without question, children in ANY institutional system these days need help and representation, does make me wonder who is helping with women’s rights when it comes to actual mothers who aren’t in jail for killing their batterers (which have some groups advocating) — but actually dealing with the horrors of year after year in a custody battle with a violent or abusive ex, and doing so without even a grasp of how it works, or who pays its bills.

General Comments:

I don’t see anything in VSLP which remotely deals with the situation, and was able to get no actual help (legal representation of any sort, pro bono) in my case either, not past the initial restraining order, and a perfunctory (and NOT in court) attempt to renew it, which I was told would be a non-issue, it’s often granted automatically!  No one came to court where I, like many, many other “custodial” mothers after leaving abuse, was blindsided by a prior ex parte movement consolidating renewal with a divorce and custody matter, thus shifting the case into the family law system, where it remained, and where the actual topic of ongoing DV was drowned by the type of talk we see in these realms — psychological states, not literal deeds!

The moral is, every program and every nonprofit has its target clientele.  As the target clientele (for keeping in their proper place) in so many federal grants to the states are fathers (when it comes to custody matters), it would make no “sense” for the government to also pay the opposing side, the protective mothers!

[[Interesting program, project of SF Bar: its family law person Chris Emley also on Board of “Legal Services for Children” which (as of 2001) got funding from City & County of SF, SF Dept. of Public Health, and SF Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families.

Its address seems to be a few doors down from Kids Turn:  1254 Market vs. 1242 Market Street.  “Legal Services for Children” (2010) shows no Chris Emley on the Board, but its main purposes are:  1.  Guardianship for children wanting it; 2.  Helping kids dealing with expulsion and school-related issues; 3.  Immigration. . ..It also represents children in foster care and helps support LGBT youth.  200 Volunteer attorneys gave over $1mil worth of their help.    The group received over $1 mill. of contrib& grants, and gave $65,000 to a DC nonprofit, National Juvenile Defender Center (EIN# 02060456.  On “Foundation Finder” this EIN doesn’t pull up a tax return…..for any year.  Nor does a name search! However from NCCSdataweb, I see that it was incorporated in 2002 (legal services for children, in 1975).  This “National Juvenile Defender Center” interests me:  2002 income, 0.  A 2007 letter from Andrea Weisman, signed DC Dept of Youth Rehab. Services (“DYRS”)  (shares address with a Board member of NJDC, Mark Soler, 2002) expresses the serious problems of Youth in Adult Facilities.  Weisman and Soler (again, board member of the group which got $65K grant from the West-Coast “Legal Services for Children,” which takes funding from various depts. of SF and its city & county) worked together (1999?) on “No Minor Matter:  Children in Maryland’s Jails.”  Weisman notes she got a $1.6mil grant from OJJDP.   ]]

National Juvenile Defender Center:  

2002– income is zero.  By 2009 — they are into Technical Training and Assistance.  And ExDir. Patricia Puritz as only paid director, gets $134K salary) — and have landed over $5 million of grants, and earning $10K from investment income and have some serious program income in 2010 ($119K= almost (but not quite) enough to pay their own Exec. Director:.  Check it out.  So why, in the following year (revenues down to $405K — but probably some leftovers, wanna bet?) did a group in SF just grant them $65,000?  Or was that a sort of tax equalization between them both.  I live in the same state as “Legal Service for Children, Inc.” and we know that our K-12 schools are taking a serious hit?  Why should enough money to feed, clothe and house three families in this area for a year, be given to a nonprofit out of DC that just got $5 million the year before?

http://njdc.info/about_us.php

The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) was created in 1999 to respond to the critical need to build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in the justice system. In 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center separated from the American Bar Association to become an independent organization. NJDC gives juvenile defense attorneys a more permanent capacity to address practice issues, improve advocacy skills, build partnerships, exchange information, and participate in the national debate over juvenile crime.

They operate 9 US Regional Centers; the California one is in SF and among its projects is:

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

In 2008, California was selected by the the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as one of four sites in the nation to participate in the foundation’s Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN).  The four JIDAN sites, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey and California, join the four MacArthur Models for Change “core” states of Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington to form an eight-state network.

The California team is led by the Youth Law Center, and includes members from the Center for Families, Children and the Courts of the California Administrative Office of the Courts; the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law & Policy; the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office; theSan Francisco Public Defender’s Office; the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office; andHuman Rights Watch.

The eight-state network is coordinated through the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), and engages juvenile defenders, policymakers, judges and other key stakeholders in designing strategies to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice. California was chosen as a result of its demonstrated ability to achieve measurable reform on juvenile indigent defense issues.  California’s JIDAN work will be centered in the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

The Exec. Director of this “NJDC.INFO” nonprofit (inc. 2002) was in 2003 appointed by the Governor of Virginia to a Board of Juvenile Justice:

This bio/blurb places Ms. Puritz Professionally, prior to here, she was ABA Juvenile Justice Center, etc.

Much of this relates to the “OJJDP” and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.  This is an entirely different category than “Parenting Coordination” through the family law center; it is dealing with things such as the US being the world largest per-capita jailor, that those in jail are disproprotionately minority, that horrible things are happening to youth while in confinement, etc.  By comparison, the “Parent Coordinator” issue seems like kids’ play unless one begins to wonder how many of the youth in detention had parents stuck in the family law system, which definitely cuts down on actual parenting time and focus!

p://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/policy/juvenile_justice.html

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, When Police Shoot / Shoot Back, Where's Mom?, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

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

WIth Them in Spirit Tomorrow — Pennsylvania Parents Protest Apparent Court Cronyism (12/2/2011, Lackawanna County)

with one comment

 

This information is on a public forum, so I took the liberty of copying it here — from a thread from “Scranton Political Times” “Doherty Deceit Forum

It’s a quick post, but covers topics I’ve been blogging for a long time:

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

PRESS RELEASE SENT OUT AT NOON TODAY

Second Lackawanna County Family Court Kids 4Kash Protest Set For December 2, 2011

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Scranton, Pa

The second in a series of demonstrations in what The Protesters have labeled The Lackawanna County KIDS 4 KASH Corruption Scheme will begin at 9am this Friday in front of the Family Court Building at 200 Adams Avenue. The protesters, many of whom are family court litigants, are in disbelief and outraged that President Judge Thomas Munley has not taken any action against the Court Appointed Guardian ad Litem, Attorney Danielle Ross. Unbelievably, Ross who is currently under investigation by the FBI and the Administrative Office of the Pennsylvania Court (AOPC) is still being assigned new cases every week.

{{WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF PARENTS SIMPLY REFUSED TO PARTICIPATE?  REFUSED TO PAY? AND THE JUDGE THEN TRIED TO INCARCERATE? }}

Their investigation of Ms. Ross was set in motion when a parent named Bruce Levine contacted Detective Michelle Mancuso from the Lackawanna County District Attorneys Office about discrepancies he found on Ross invoices for the services she claimed she provided as Guardian. As fate would have it, right about the same time, a thread directed against Ross called Kids 4 Kash was started by political activist Joseph Pilchesky on his contentious website, http://www.dohertydeceit.com. Fundamental to Pilchesky’s website is The First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech.

The site encourages antagonistic dialogue about current local and global issues that is often times abrasive. Users that post comments on topics typically remain anonymous; therefore, it provides a safe venue for other parents and litigants to share their family court horror stories and eventually their identities with one another. Several of those parents that connected with each other on the website began to turn over Ross’ invoices to the authorities, which eventually lead to the involvement of the United States Attorney General’s Office.

The FBI began their investigation with a subpoena requesting all documents involving each and every case to which Attorney Ross was appointed and a Grand Jury was convened. In days to follow, many additional subpoenas were served upon court employees including the Lackawanna Count Court Administrator, Ron MacKay. When federal agents showed up at MacKay’s office located inside the county’s main Courthouse, he was sequestered and forced to remain in the hallway while agents searched his office. After about an hour, the agents left the Court Administrator’s Office with several boxes of documents.

It is unknown at this time what the FBI confiscated from MacKay’s office. As to why they raided his office, those close to the case strongly believe that the scope of the federal investigation has broadened well beyond the alleged fraudulent billing practices of Attorney Ross. Rumors of case steering and monetary kickbacks are out there.

The status of the AOPC investigation into the Guardian ad Litem Program, as well as Home Evaluation and supervised visitation payments, is unclear at this time despite the fact that on November 2, 2011, AOPC Attorney, Michael Daley, stated in open court that it would be available two weeks ago. To date, a RTK letter that was sent to the Court requesting the report has gone unanswered. Reliable sources within Family Court speculate that there are at least two plausible reasons for the delay. On one hand, there are many who are convinced that the AOPC investigation amounts to little more than a smoke screen used to give the Court a few months to cover its tracks and get its act together. While others believe that public pressure has forced AOPC investigator, Joseph Mittleman, to hold off on finalizing the report. He states that the AOPC is obligated to look into alleged acts of attorney misconduct as well as to conducting interviews with alleged victims of Family Court corruption.

Protests will be held every Friday starting at 9am in front of Family Court. The goal is to bring forth public awareness and gain support in the effort to expose what appears to be a moneymaking racket devised by the members of the Judiciary and several Child Custody/Divorce Professionals who do business with Family Court. The individuals with whom the Court most frequently Orders Family Court litigants to consult are Guardians Danielle Ross and Brenda Kobal, Lackawanna County’s sole co-parenting coordinator, Anne Marie Termini, Kids First presenter, Chet Muklewicz, Court mediator, AnthonyLibassi, Psychologists Drs. Ronald Refice and Arnold Shivenhold, and various child visitation supervisors affiliated with the Scranton Counseling Center.

The Parties who have been forced by Order of the Court to see these providers, attend numerous appointments, whether they need to or not, and pay enormous fees (if they are not declared indigent) have a lot of unanswered questions. Until those questions are answered, the only logical conclusion is that the Court and these providers are unjustly enriching themselves not only with the millions of Federal and State Grant dollars allocated for indigent Lackawanna County Children and Families but also money from private-pay litigants.

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

 

“SHIVENHOLD” I’m fairly sure means “SCHIENVOLD”  who is AFCC leadership:

 

Here’s one filing in which Mr. Shienvold was called as Expert Witness for the Father, who wants primary physical custody of the children, and after the mother submitted to custody reports preceding a “Custody Trial” the mother then, of course, had to make special motions to actually read what was reported about her, and apparently planned to call him up and interview or cross-examine him.  The father then protest — aw heck, look at it yourself.

 

http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a29038_05.pdf  (his name is apparently mis-spelled here, too).

 

I have already posted on the forum that Mr. Scheinvold is a primary player in the Pennsylvania Commission for Justice Initiatives, and a key AFCC person, as was at least one of their judges, and that Harhut, Termini, and (was it Ross?) were presenting in Brooklyn, 2009 together at an “NACC” association meeting on matters related to Guardianship and Domestic Violence.

 

He is ALSO the “President-Elect” of AFCC, meaning his influence will be upon more parents than just those in this area.  I hope they figure this out quickly in time for the next generation of children, that an international association with a checkered history is helping run the courthouses, but right now, most don’t seem too interested in this, they are scrambling to survive, and have not looked up to the horizons.  In other words, for control to operate freely, it’s connections to other control must remain subterranean.  AFCC is hardly “subterranean” when it’s publishing statewide model custody evaluation standards, inventing new fields of practice faster than the previous ones can be caught and complained about (Parenting Coordination) and with personnel (over 3,000 membership) including, for example, at least a few on the California Judicial Council Administrative Office of the Courts.

[AFCC]

President Elect 
Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D.
Harrisburg, PA

Arnold Shienvold is the founding partner of Riegler, Shienvold & Associates. Dr. Shienvold received his Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in clinical psychology from the University of Alabama and has specialized in dealing with high-conflict families since he began his practice in 1980. Dr. Shienvold is a member of the American Psychological Association and is a fellow of the Pennsylvania Psychological Association where he also serves on the custody evaluation task force. Dr. Shienvold is a past president of the Academy of Family Mediators and a past president of the Association for Conflict Resolution. He is also a member of the Pennsylvania Council of Mediators.

The PA Adminsitrative Office of the Courts and FBI are supposedly investigating the Lackawanna County parents’ complaints, so I hope they take it upon themselves to figure out — quickly — who the Pennsylvania Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) is comprised of, paid by, and answerable to.

 

  1. [PDF]

    Commission for Justice Initiatives in Pennsylvania Changing the 

    www15.brinkster.com/ncfcpgh/Report.pdf

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – View as HTML
    Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D., brought great understanding of the dynamics of separation, ….. 3 Site visit by Judy Shopp April 5, 2006; Dr. Arnold Sheinvold provides 

    You’ve visited this page 5 times. Last visit: 11/30/11

I don’t know that these parents have yet accepted that a State-Level “commission for Justice Initiatives” report (2007) called “Changing the Culture of Custody” with Mr. Shienvold listed front and center as a consultant actually relates to problems they are having at the county level

 

Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D.


Dr. Shienvold is the founding partner of Riegler • Shienvold and Associates.

Education
Master of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in clinical psychology from the University of Alabama. He specialized in child clinical psychology and completed his internship at the Ohio State University Hospital.

Area of Emphasis
Dr. Shienvold has specialized in dealing with high conflict families since he began his practice. He is recognized locally and nationally as an expert in the areas of custody evaluations and family mediation. In addition to his direct clinical practice in those areas, Dr. Shienvold has consulted to public and private agencies, taught and lectured at a multitude of professional conferences and schools and published papers on these topics. Dr. Shienvold continues to see individuals and couples in therapy and he has an active forensic practice. Additionally, Dr. Shienvold has served as a professional facilitator for group meetings.

 

 

Yep.  High-conflict families.  Here’s a website I found in Australia (where AFCC has active membership, FYI) which calls “High Conflict” what it is, if I may quote them.  As an added bonus, I stuck two or three comments on this post, which is a year old now.  I hope that by the time 2012 is halfpast, the people in Scranton area will figure out (accept) what they are dealing with in the Unified Family Courts per se — which is an expense-paid (by txpayers) largely immune from responsibility, self-referring, self-propagating multiple income stream and often tax-exempt cash machine for paid membership of  about 5 different organizations (all playing at monitoring each other, instead of, more commonly, referring each other and providing business referrals to make them look  more expert than they really are.  If “expert” means, learning a business-specific jargon,  and to have a greater conscience about one’s cohorts than one’s clients — then a 12 year old, for example, has already learned to speak his or her own cultural language among peers, and probably knows as much about bullying, gangs, exclusion and arbitrary standards for who is IN and who is OUT.

In order for this field to continue until each generation of Family Court professionals retires (and eventually some will die of old age, though many of the originals are still collecting royalties, probably through Kids’First type operations nationwide), it MUST continue the lie (that’s  L.I.E.) that adult parents are by and large to be treated like misbehaving children, or punished until they play along.

This has been going on SO LONG that what they are studying and conferencing about now is basically a contaminated sample (of people and personalities).  In addition to the many factors of society contributing to any parent’s “psychological profile,” is probably such things as motherless children, children in foster care because there’s an incentive to put them there, kids who run away from abuse because there was no other safe option (they do not all turn out as well as Alanna Krause of Northern California, whose father, once he got custody, sent her away at age 13 to some kind of reform camp), and a series of protective mothers who feel it necessary to flee the US, or the state — although they, too, are quite likely to be hunted down and incarcerated.

 

10 Reasons The Family Court is Not Just About Conflict

1. Family Violence is often referred as “High Conflict”, “Entrenched Conflict” to mask the severity of the situation.

Mentioned in the latest report on Family Violence in Family Courts, high conflict has often been a tool to diminish support for victims within the media and inside the courts andwritten judgments.
For Instance, a judge referred to death threats, property damage and stalking towards the mother as, “High Conflict”:

 

 

Here’s a 3-page outline from a 2007 Texas Meeting of the AAML ( a group which initials anyone with a family law case should look up themselves!)

DEALING WITH CLIENTS WHICH ARE TOO HARD TO LOVE

The presenters gratefully acknowledge the work of Arnold T. Sheinvold, Ph.D. Dr. Sheinvold is the managing partner of Riegler, Shienvold & Associates, a comprehensive psychological practice in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. The materials in this presentation were developed and presented by Dr. Sheinvold {{that’s SHIENVOLD}} at the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers’ 2007 Midyear Meeting. The presenters appreciate Dr. Sheinvold’s generosity in sharing his materials with the Texas family law community.

(and lists the personality types — borderline, narcissistic, histrionic, antisocial, etc.)

 

Here’s a 2006 article (abstract, I guess) from the FAMILY COURT REVIEW — which is a publication jointly published by AFCC & Hofstra Univ. in New York, listing this psychologists among others the parents are protesting, a number of AFCC personnel, including Philip Stahl, Ph.D. which virtually guarantees there will be (more) conversation about parental alienation (one of Dr. Stahl’s favorite topics), etc.

  1. Task Force for Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation,

  2. David A. Martindale Reporter,
  3. Lorraine Martin,
  4. William G. Austin Task Force Co-chairs,
  5. Leslie Drozd,
  6. Dianna Gould-Saltman,
  7. H. D. Kirkpatrick,
  8. Kathryn Kuehnle,
  9. Debra Kulak,
  10. Denise McColley,
  11. Arnold Sheinvold, {{per his website it’s “SHIENVOLD”}}
  12. Jeffrey Siegel,
  13. Philip M. Stahl

Article first published online: 7 DEC 2006

DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.129_3.x

Issue

Family Court Review

Family Court Review

Volume 45, Issue 1, pages 70–91, January 2007

Additional Information(Show All)

 _ _ _ _ _ _ _

 

Ronald Refice

 

A Bit About How It’s Done”  (familycourtmatters Sept. 2011 post)

Here’s one of my former posts showing people samples of how to look things up — corporations, associations, just stay persistent!

Today’s Post is “all over the place” but provides a sampler of how — with as clumsy tools as various states give, the habit of searching for corporations and people who incorporate them, and then comparing boards of directors, whether they actually file tax returns or not, and whether while the press is all about justice, children, and helping resolve conflicts, a view at the nonprofit characterization many times simply categorizes the group as “Board of Trade” “Business Promotion” — which is what it is.

 

Too bad Thomas Szasz professor took up with a cult that’s been literally booted out of a country, the Church of Scientology — but think about what’s being said here:

Thomas Stephen Szasz (play/ˈsɑːs/sahss; born April 15, 1920) is a psychiatrist and academic. Since 1990[1] he has been Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at the State University of New York Health Science Center in SyracuseNew York. He is a well-known social critic of the moral and scientific foundations of psychiatry, and of the social control aims of medicine in modern society, as well as of scientism. His books The Myth of Mental Illness (1960) and The Manufacture of Madness: A Comparative Study of the Inquisition and the Mental Health Movement (1970) set out some of the arguments with which he is most associated.

 

I wonder how the book compares to Phyllis Chesler’s “Women & Madness”

 

His views on special treatment follow from classical liberal roots which are based on the principles that each person has the right to bodily and mental self-ownership and the right to be free from violence from others, although he criticized the “Free World” as well as the communist states for their use of psychiatry and “drogophobia”. He believes that suicide {{!??!}}, the practice of medicine, use and sale of drugs and sexual relations should be private, contractual, and outside of state jurisdiction.

In 1973, the American Humanist Association named him Humanist of the Year and in 1979 he was honored with an honorary doctorate[2] at Universidad Francisco Marroquín.

 

Who wants a CONFLICT-FREE SOCIETY?  Is this some sort of death-wish, or a wish for a sedated society?  Or a managed society, as opposed to one where leadership is not shut down (because most leaders are going to cause some conflict; in fact some of the most significant leaders around — Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Nelson Mandela, Lincoln, John F. Kennedy,  and others –  (may I say Jesus Christ in this context?) — end up getting assassinated — yet their work lives on.  Most particularly, Gandhi was assassinated, but through NONViolent protest and understanding the economic system, helped get the British Empire out of India.     Maybe all of us should re-read his “moment of truth”  and get to ours, quicker, building upon what others before have actually learned — and not continually recreating from scratch as if the world has no history.

These groups are causing the conflict themselves by a number of habits:

  • It appears to be greed, dishonesty (chronic, though I can’t say all) and wishing to turn our justice system into their personal ATM and Rx-dispensary.  Psychologists can’t force-medicate people (I think), so the next best option is to become a Parent Coordinator adn get off on wrecking kids lives based on the fact that one of their parents disagrees with the other, and ignoring the fact that this might be because one is genuinely dangerous (or simply an _ _ _ hole hell-bent on punishing the other).
  • Using federal grants to assist one side of the party — and this is the fatherhood movement, sorry you honest Dads — to tip the scales.
  • Building courthouses when the rest of the country needs LESS micromanagement, not more of this kind.
Any one seeking to control language seeks to eliminate the First Amendment (typically for gain) and do so through a propaganda-driven war on the unaware.   AFCC has admitted it seeks to control language.  The associated groups do not respect the basic concept of due process — which requires no conflict of interest.

Go, Lackawanna!

I hope that protesters, besides correcting the spelling of “SHIENVOLD” (for credibility reasons), also feel free to search my site reporting on LibassiMediation being built by revising rules of court, into the custody modification form, my comparison of KIDS FIRST to KIDS TURN (California)*

And come to realize that a fifth column of psychologists, psychiatrists (adult, child, whatever) and mental health experts is basically a “Family Court Archipelago.” Even physicists have to examine their fundamental assumptions from time to time (cf. Newton, Galileo, and the recently publicized “String Theory”) not the least by at least examining evidence.  in this field — ONE NEVER HAS TO; It’s just about become THE primary field of the US Government (world’s largest contractor, and debtor) — and there are no right answers.   There is only a caste system:  Paid Expert v. Humble Subject matter).

 

 

 

*which is virtually a training ground for the California Family Court personnel (almost everyone has been on its boards, not to mention a person who was “most-wanted” or close to it as a Tax Evador — Halsey Minor (I think he’s on the Board too), plus the defenders of the high priestess of Satan against the High Priest (LaVey, and I”m using the terms loosely), operating at the time out of the same address were, it seems, Kids Turn was operating (2nd floor, 1242 market Street) and I posted that link also.

 

THE MYTH OF MENTAL ILLNESS, from ARACHNOID.COM/Psychology

with thanks to its author for presenting another outlook on the “experts” causing the trouble above.

The evidence-based revolution in psychology.

Copyright © 2011, Paul Lutus

For decades there has been increasing evidence that psychologists can’t reliably diagnose or treat mental illnesses, or mental illnesses aren’t objective illnesses as that term is understood, or that psychology has no testable scientific content. Psychologists’ reaction to this long-term trend has been to add more human behaviors to the “mental illness” category, in order not to lose more ground to medicine.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)5, what many call the “Bible” of psychology and its single most important guide to practice, shows this trend clearly — each new edition contains more conditions thought to merit the label “mental illness.” Here is a count of “mental illnesses” included in the DSM by year:*

Year Number of mental illnesses
1952 112
1968 163
1980 224
1987 253
1994 374

Obviously this trend might reflect an increase in our understanding of mental illness, and there might really be hundreds of legitimate mental illnesses. But let’s take a closer look at some conditions listed in the current DSM, conditions thought to require intervention by a mental health professional:

  • Stuttering
  • Spelling Disorder
  • Written Expression Disorder
  • Mathematics Disorder
  • Caffeine Intoxication/Withdrawal
  • Nicotine use/Withdrawal
  • Sibling Rivalry Disorder
  • Phase of Life Problem

Hmm. It seems if you don’t like your older brother, or can’t spell or do math very well, you aren’t just growing up, you’re suffering from a mental illness and need help from a professional. But I favor another explanation — as time passed and psychiatrists and psychologists realized they couldn’t reliably diagnose or cure real mental illnesses, they decided to repurpose themselves as academic tutors, babysitters and hired friends for wealthy patrons.*** For this strategy to work, the DSM needed to include ordinary states of being that could only justify the help of a teacher or sympathetic friend. In other words, in rewriting their profession’s guidebook, for self-serving reasons psychologists deliberately blurred the distinction between everyday problems and mental illness.

**For an account of the struggle to include just a few women in the review board, see “Backlash:  America’s Undeclared War on Women.”  For a bonus, you can also read in this book (probably available at low cost or used, or library) a chapter on Robert Bly and Warren Farrell — after he recanted his prior feminism (Warren Farrell these days wants to start a White House Council on Men and Boys, I heard).  It’s pretty funny.
*** Actually, the statement in blue may be a rational explanation for AFCC’s origins.  They quickly realized that the wealthiest patron around was the United States Government (i.e. those who fund it).  One of its founders was a prison psychologist.  Other hotshots in this in this AFCC association come from (or still work in) psychiatric hospitals.  COmbined with the wonderful reputation the legal field has for ethics and honesty (:  (:, it sounds like a dynamic duo to me:  Psychology plus lawyers, plus judges, most of who probably used to be lawyers anyhow.
profit (apart from sheer conniving and greed, the joy of “getting away with it” and being somewhat close to the top of society, without actually having to do more than rehash the catechism yearly in slightly different terms, and assign outreach coordinators and “evangelists” to connect up with people already ensconced in the judicial and psychological professions, etc.)
ONE FINAL NOTE — ACESTUDY.org
Long-term trauma and abuse (“Adverse Childhood Events”) is going to have an impact on growing children.  As such, abusing children would become literally profitable.  StoppingCourt-Ordered Abuse of Children might be contrary to the purpose of the courts from the start, which was to ensure psychologists increasing respectability, whether earned or not earned.
I don’t want to dismiss anyone’s Ph.D. lightly.  But with a Ph.D. there comes a responsibility to make sure it’s not just the same thing, Piled Higher and Deeper.  And in this particular field, it had very little foundational depth to start with.
This can be seen in the tendency to pompous declarations and mutual self-admiration among many of the associations, and in some cases (I doubt in Dr. Shienvold’s) far too many false credentials.
(That’s all I have time for on this post.)

Child Support-TANF “The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Part 1: Rise and Expansion (“Spinning”)

leave a comment »

SOME OF THIS MATERIAL & MORE DETAILS ALSO AN EARLIER POST

Someone sent homeless through child support garnishments after custody switch sent me the following.  This person was not merely working “poor” but for a long time working FT middle class CS-garnished wages homeless.

This person is a mother, and having trouble getting “Access Visitation” services from organization whose names say “Father,” while the supporting legislation, however, says “parents,” which she is.  By “having trouble” I mean, there has been no help whatsoever, and there is no mother-child contact at all.  the case is typical.  As far as I know this person is not a welfare caseload, though probably would qualify easily.  If the purpose of these funds is to reduce poverty, it has backfired.  However, that’s not my main argument.  That homelessness was a direct result of the supporting legislation for putting welfare funding to groups like this:

10/03/11 – ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

What grandiose and beneficial sounding words:  “Healthy Marriage & Responsible Fatherhood.”  What makes us think this can be purchased, and that by increasing centralization, then distributing without oversight, poverty and “unhealth” will somehow result?   Unfortunately the thinking is more like this:   I work, my wages are taxable, I don’t want to go to jail, don’t rock the boat too much.  Too much radical change is too much social unrest. ….    We don’t want riots, so I will continue to be obedient to the powers that be, rather than run up against them and risk losing even more..

But the closer I look at these grant awards, and the grantees themselves, the more shocked I am at the Take the Money & Run element.  And at another disturbing one.  Not including funds LOST in the system (through grantees that don’t file, states that don’t distributed funds they’ve collected, etc.), the profits are increasingly going simply to very much FOR-profit organizations that are good with PR and Media.  Three examples that come to mind are:

  • PREP, from two professors at UDenver, withlongstanding relationships with grants-funded investigations.  They incorporated to form “PREP, Inc.” which your tax dollars are helping market, and I can show how and where.  These professors are both also Advisory to  the huge “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative”
  • BOOT Camp for New Dads (Originating from a California professional, being marketed to hospitals, who must pay a “licensing” fee, around $3,000)
  • TWOGether corporate affiliations (I’ve found so far in TX & PA, but probably all over by now)
  • Dibble Marriage Institute Curricula (The Dibble Marriage Institute basically IS an off-loadable set of curricula & toolkits.
These groups take the Kids’ Turn model one step farther– it’s more automated curricula, and it’s being distributed through more federally (usually HHS) supported avenues.  Businesses contracting with the federal government (and states) is nothing new — but we are talking about what has to be immoral — businesses using the theme of protecting children, and saving America, eliminating poverty (etc.) — and using that to form new businesses along the MLM or Direct Marketing Model, dispensing trademarked boilerplate material — and doing it through nonprofits.
The organization and collaboration of the marketing plan is definitely with HHS involvement.  Here’s an example on a “CHILD WELFARE INFORMATION GATEWAY.”  Keep in mind that to this administration, child welfare and father involvement are synonymous, due to federal policy. EXAMPLE:

The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children

Child Welfare Information Gateway
Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau Rosenberg, Jeffrey., Wilcox, W. Bradford.
Year Published: 2006

Section II
8. Fatherhood Programs

Nationally and locally, there are numerous fatherhood programs that strive to meet the various needs of the many different fathers and families. These programs fill the gaps left by social service agencies, which have limited funding, suffer from case overloads, and are unable to offer activities beyond the scope of their responsibilities.

8.5 Examples of Fatherhood Programs

As the manual has shown throughout, there are numerous needs and reasons to strengthen the roles of fathers. A wide range of programs exists to meet many of the needs of fathers and their children. The following were selected as examples of programs that span the fatherhood initiative spectrum.

“The Fatherhood Initiative Spectrum,” I love it….

  • {{LGH note:  My post “Footloose in Tuscaloosa” needed followup, which points to this Trust Fund}}
  • The Dads 101 Program and Male Involvement Campaign
    Working to prevent shaken baby syndrome
    • This, if anything, would seem to be a vital program.  Even so, my last post (before this one) shows how a black father spent a year in jail improperly, on accusation of in part having shook his baby.  Turns out a Shaken Baby Syndrome type group had just been funded; within one month or so from formation of the Child Safety Program at Penn State, they had two children in foster care and Dad in jail, and what looks like suppression of contrary witnesses (i.e, there was another cause of the symptoms) from the same Child Safety Program team! The couple sued.  See also “Courthouse news” which reported on this one.
  • Dads Make a Difference Program
    A school-based program led by teens
  • Family and Community Violence and Prevention Project and 50/50 Parenting
    Working to prevent family violence and to improve couples’ relationships
  • Fathers and Children Together (FACT)
    Working with incarcerated fathers
  • The Fathers Network
    Working with fathers of children with special needs
  • First Things First
    Strengthening families through public education campaigns
  • Golden Dads
    A national campaign to promote responsible fatherhood
  • Great Beginnings Start Before Birth
    Working with fathers-to-be and their partners
  • Leading by Example
    A faith-based fatherhood initiative and mentoring program
  • Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP)
    Enhancing and supporting healthy marriages
  • Project Fatherhood
    Helping at-risk fathers learn how to parent effectively
  • Project MECCA and Another Choice for Black Children
    Supporting children and families during and after adoption
  • Shalom Baby – Bootcamp for New Jewish Dads
    Working with fathers prior to and immediately after birth
  • Stay-At-Home Dads
    How to start a playgroup or local dad-to-dad chapter
  • BootCamp for New Dads is a trademark, goes back to this corp. & person.
    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C2004518 02/14/1997 ACTIVE DADS ADVENTURE, INC. GREG S BISHOP
    Gregory Bishop wrote a 1994 article praising Optima, which oversees 5% of Orange County’s $10 Billion health care system.  He has a connection to the hospital system, and markets BootCamp for New Dads.  As described on “Dads Adventure” site:
    Dads Adventure, Inc. Provides Major Funding & Outreach
    Formed to reach more new fathers and help fund Boot Camp for New Dads, Dads Adventure, Inc. publishes Hit the Ground Crawling: Lessons from 150,000 New Fathers. Crash Course for New Dads: Tools, Checklists and Cheat Sheets and Dads Adventure magazine, and operates DadsAdventure.com. Together, they take full advantage of emerging media technologies to meet the various learning styles of the younger generation of men. Dads Adventure, Inc. also financed the development of Boot Camp for New Dads, and provides major funding for ongoing operations through sponsorship fees and royalties.
    Maybe it’s a great product. However, this is definitely a “emerging media technology” with some of these funders — as they fund the expansion of “Boot Camp for New Dads.”

    In addition to our partners Boot Camp for New Dads is fortunate to have a strong network of local supporters who share our mission and goals. They include:

    • Boot Camp Coaches who month after month lead our workshops and prepare men to be fathers.
    • Program Coordinators who champion Boot Camp within their sponsoring organizations and work to obtain the resources each program needs.
    • Veterans dads who return to Boot Camp with their baby to pass on what they have learned to the next group of rookie fathers.
    • New moms who encourage their spouses to participate in Boot Camp and appreciate the critical role they have in raising their child together.

    Funding Support
    Funding for the expansion of Boot Camp for New Dads has been generously supplied by the following organizations

    • Annie E. Casey Foundation  {{funds other marriage/fatherhood projects, in a big way}}
    • Irvine Health Foundation
    • Johnson & Johnson Foundation
    • Orange County Commission on Families and Children
    • Pacific Life Foundation
    • Windgate Charitable Foundation

    In addition, Revolution Studios has supplied substantial funding to BCND for movie rights to Greg Bishop’s life and Boot Camp for New Dads.

    I’d heard of “BootCamp for New Dads” before, but actually tracked who it belonged to and where it came from (California) in the process of trying to locate the actual corporate status (if not income) of someone on another group, “Ohio Practitioners Network for Fathers & Families” and correlate its self-description with the State of Ohio record.  As often happens, the records do not tell the same story, with the website typically claiming a longer corporate history than it has.
    Below, I also took a quick review of the DIBBLE INSTITUTE (which is ALSO not filing its charitable registry in California, where it resides)

    It’s time to say NO! to the off-roading of public expenses into private profits based on, we’ve always done it this way, at least since the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, which is when the child support system (principal funding & enabling institution got underway).   Mainstream Media discussion of these awards is nearly ZERO, although interagency, association-specific, and conference-based discussion of these awards is how to get more of them and justify getting more.boiI looked at some of the grantees, and recognized several.  Top Group:  “HEALTHY MARRIAGE”:

    Healthy Marriage Grantees

    Legal Name Organization City
    State
    Award Amount
    Auburn University Auburn
    AL
    $2,489,548
    Healthy You, Inc. Dothan
    AL
    $681,956
    John Brown University Siloam Springs
    AR
    $724,428
    Arizona Youth Partnerships Tucson
    AZ
    $634,536
    Creciendo Unidos Phoenix
    AZ
    $359,796
    Cambodian Association of America Long Beach
    CA
    $570,000
    The Dibble Institute for Marriage Education Kensington
    CA
    $794,846
    Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Sacramento
    CA
    $798,825

    “Kensington, CA” is a wealthy part of Berkeley.  Dibble is a Distributor (as I understand it) and many of the other grantees are dabbling with their materials.

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    THE DIBBLE INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION 114381 Charity Current BERKELEY CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

    The pattern they follow is similar to many grantees.  Big Talk, Big Claims on Website, Major co-collaboration, and short shrift when it comes to complying with local LAWS that charitable organizations (in CA) have to actually register ANNUALLY as charities, and as corporations.   Why is our government continuing to give major funding to groups that don’t?  Is there more than meets to the eye, is it more than just “we’re understaffed and overwhelmed,” that the Office of Attorney General never seems to catch up with these groups who don’t file — at ALL??

    Dibble address is a PO Box in Berkeley, they began in 2002 (says this record) and rapidly increased both assets and income (probably through HHS and foundation grants).  NO founding documents are available on-site, no tax returns (at least in California) and unless their returns are sitting at the OAG, and there’s a shortage of data entry clerks, they are doing so illegally, from what I can see (note disclaimer).  I think I see just fine — because other groups in the similar situation, and with less “failure-to-file” history DO get scolding letters from the OAG:  “Where’s our $75 fee for registration?”

    iscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
    Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
    Total Assets: $758,255.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $1,337,654.00
    RRF Received: 19-MAY-11
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted
    Related Documents
    No Related Documents
    Prerequisite Information
    No Prerequisite Information
    IRS Return Data

    See that “No Related Docuents”?    That ought to be full, so public can look at where that $1,337,654 allegedly came from and (in the process) seeing Program Accomplishments (and costs), and how much the Board of Directors are getting paid.  Now, because this income shows, we CAN go look it up with the comforting knowledge that they probably paid federal (and probably not state/local) taxes.  If thats comforting…  And that the institutions receiving privileges and pay, charged with fixing the unhealthy marriages that (allegedly) cause poverty and trouble the public at large, because of the noble cause they are in, don’t have to play by the rules, or obey normal laws regulating corporations (for public safety from scams), although if an individual behaved like this, s/he would be at risk of jail promptly.

    So, WHAT I WILL DO, on individual organizations (and you might consider doing):

    Check the 990 finder:

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Dibble Fund CA 2009 $537,324 990 23 68-0435573
    Dibble Fund CA 2008 $874,877 990 18 68-0435573
    Dibble Fund CA 2007 $696,077 990 18 68-0435573
    Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2006 $161,204 990 16 68-0435573
    Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2005 $94,274 990 14 68-0435573
    Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2004 $78,488 990 16 68-0435573
    Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2003 $92,429 990 18 68-0435573
    Dibble Institute for Marriage Education CA 2007 $721,321 990 18 68-0435573

    TAGGS LISTING, meaning how much HHS grants have they gotten. Does not include contracts, just grants:

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  BERKELEY CA 94707-0881 ALAMEDA 948592779 $ 3,679,498


    At least $1 million has been Healthy Marriage// an ongoing one (above) is reaching Teens, and another 2011 grant, “Building Brighter Futures,” use “Discretionary”

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2011 90FM0010  BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES 1 00 ACF 09-27-2011 948592779 $ 794,846 
    Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 794,846

     

    WELL, WELL, WELL — another Grant Series includes grants to several of the I-failed-to-file/we changed our name/ OOPS! category of grants recipients, nationwide – – the “90FM” series.     There are 70 grants including $2,500,000 to “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,”  which does not exist as a corporation (or nonprofit) any more.

    Before this (Probably leading up to the renamed “Building Brighter Futures” is the 20065-2010 grant award 90FE0024, a total of $1.7 million.  Shouldn’t this group have to send off an RRF from time to time (like ever?).  ALthough we, the public, cannot view this, it’s my understanding they have to tell the OAG their Schedule B of donors (or donors over $1K) so someone is keeping track of any improprieties, i.e. donations correlating to legislation being pushed, or to at least PRETEND to avoid conflicts of interest when, for example, someone running the local grants allocation in the county determines who gets the contract.  Or when there’s a judge on a board — or a custody evaluator — and a judge is driving business to the nonprofit, or contributes to it as well.

     

    Interesting, The Dibble Operation has two different 990 filings with two different revenues for 2007 (Plus a few different names entered):

    address 728 Coventry Road, Kensington, CA a modest (for these parts) single-family residence.  Nearby streets are named Stanford, Oberlin, Beverly, etc.   Coventry possibly named after a Cathedral in England.

    What they are doing with this grant described here — teaching that cohabitation is bad to Los Angeles Teens, and other skills.  http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/

    The Dibble Institute has been awarded a $794,000 grant for up to three years to teach youth and young adults in the Los Angeles Unified School District healthy relationship skills. The grant is from the Administration for Children and Families. …

     

    THIS IS HOW IT WORKS:  Become a Nonprofit.  Get a grant, hire a curriculum designer, get more grants, and market it, helped with gov’t funding, in gov’t funded institutions.  This need not be necessarily limited to the divorce arena — why not go for the public schools, too?

    The website has a store, plus some free resources, and a log-in for “Grant Instructors” (only) to access their materials:

    Grant Instructor Login

    Welcome! Thank you for participating in The Dibble Institute’s Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant.  Access resources to help you

    • Teach the relationship skills program you selected — or —
    • Report back to us on how well you did and get your benchmark payment

    Login Here:Password:  Are you interested in changing the world and getting paid to do so? Then, The Dibble Institute wants to talk with you! We are looking for qualified instructors or youth workers who will teach healthy relationship skills to teens. Our program provides FREE curriculum, student materials, and a benchmark payment to you upon successful completion of the teaching and reporting. To learn how to apply and participate, please contact Natalie Middleton by phone 877-435-8033 or email:Natalie.Middleton@publicstrategies.com. Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant Number: 90-FE-0024/03.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

     

    Notice that PUBLIC STRATEGIES is a *.com, not a *.org — it’s a FOR-profit, and I’ll bet a very good profit, too.  The grant series “FE” is pretty evidently “Fatherhood Education.”  Not exactly gender-neutral, eh?  “PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC.” is Oklahoma-based, and if you use my “search” field on this blog, I have elaborated upon who they are. Or google “Mary Myrick.”  The HHS appears to have “made” this PR firm, very few of their clients are NOT somehow related to the major Oklahoma Marriage Institute. (OMI) and the originators of some of the product above (for example, “PREP”) are Advisory to, as I recall, OMI.

     

    ABOUT US:  The Dibble Institute:

    The Dibble Institute for Marriage Education, a nonprofit organization, helps young people learn how to create healthy romantic relationships now and in the future.
    It is indeed a nonprofit organization, and even has an EIN#.  However, according to the OAG website it CERTAINLY is not in compliance as to filing, and doesn’t seem likely to any time soon.  Too busy moving product and finding new markets, I guess, to fill out a one or two-page form and send it the registration fee.

    We offer tools for teaching the practical skills essential for enhancing friendships, dating and love.  Just as important, we assist teens in creating the personal vision that keeps them on a positive path.

     

    It’s an unreporting to the state of California nonprofit organization, and as such has to be I believe operating OUTSIDE the confines of the law, while marketing materials to Los Angeles schoolchildren, as enabled by this grants system.  Charles Dibble (itself) was an aircraft engineer.  Now his Institute is designing web pages and curriculum, lots of them — perhaps young people can be taught to operate like aircraft engines, predictably, fail-safe, and perhaps all the parts of them can be organized, coordinated, and fine-tuned with attitude adjustments.  Is that desirable?  Look at the panorama of programs from this one group.  I sincerely doubt the founder was hurting for a retirement income (more likely something to do with his retirement), but certainly it’s got to be a good one.  PARTICULARLY IF NOT PAYING STATE TAXES AND ACCOUNTING PROPERLY FOR MONIES RECEIVED.

    The Dibble Fund itself appears to be a curriculum which other grantees, such as TWOGether in Pittsburgh, PA, utilize:

    Curriculum & Program Credibility: The TWOgether Pittsburgh High School Education Module for Healthy Relationships meets the requirement for the Pennsylvania Department of Education Academic Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences. The selected curriculum is The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education, which includes two components: Connections: Dating & Emotions and Connections: Relationships & Marriage.

    (I was aware of a TWOGether in Texas, and gather they have now expanded):

    TWOgether Pittsburgh is a coalition of like-minded agencies and individuals who believe in the strengthening of marriages. The coalition includes Family Guidance, Inc., as the lead agency, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Women’s Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh, Smith Brothers Advertising, and a team of Evaluators led by Dr. Stanley Denton.

    TWOgether Pittsburgh is the most intensive marriage support initiative ever in the greater Pittsburgh area. It is a five-year, $8.35 million federally funded project to strengthen marriages and families in the region. (Healthy Marriage Initiative Websitehttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage )

    Apparently this is a baby corporation — only 2 years old.






    Twogether GP, LLC 3916468 Limited Liability Company Active 11/10/2009
    Twogether, L.P. 3916633 Limited Partnership Active 11/12/2009
    Rec

    Based out of a 3-bedroom, 3-bath home in Allentown, PA, whose (or which area’s) market values took a nosedive in Nov. 2011






    FAMILY GUIDANCE, INC. 399002 Non-Profit (Non Stock) Active 2/13/1964
    Re

    FAMILY GUIDANCE, INC. is overtly evangelistic Christian, and hooked into the HHS/ACF terminology and grants system.

    This about us page is unusually detailed and admits that in 2005, it was very much involved in ACF funding.

    STATEMENT OF MISSION

    Family Guidance, Inc. exists to bring hope and a future in Jesus Christ to vulnerable children and families of all cultures throughout western Pennsylvania. 

    . . .  (Note federal funding, religious influence, and Fatherhood Emphasis throughout — although both men and women pay taxes that help support this, not to mention, and atheists and people of non-evangelistic-Christian religions)

    In October 2000, the Manhood Mentoring program was launched to reach high-risk fatherless teenage boys, and  DADDs (Dedicated and Devoted Dads), was born in 2001. Dr. Leckie retired on December 31, 2001, and became Founder and Retired Chairman.

    In 2004, Family Guidance embarked on a dramatic initiative to expand and improve the quality of the ministry’s camping program.  Check out the progress of our Camp Capital Campaign.

    In 2005, Family Guidance embarked on a exciting initiative called the Learning and Mentoring Program (LAMP.)   In conjunction with the Gang Free Schools Project run by the Pittsburgh Board of Education, Family Guidance is helping to reach and mentor kids who are at risk for Gang-related activity.

    In the Fall of 2005, The Marriage Works was introduced.  This is a program funded through the Administration for Children and Families which is a partnership between Family Guidance, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry and the National Fatherhood Initiative. The program provides marriage enrichment, couple mentoring, and fatherhood and parenting classes to couples who reside in the East End of Pittsburgh.  This became a springboard for the TWOgether Pittsburgh Initiative, launched the next year.

    This is a narration, step by step, of how federally-supported (faith-based) organizations collaborate and form new little babies.  As it says in Genesis, “Be fruitful, and multiply, replenish the earth.”  Only they are doing corporations & curricula, not babies.


    In the Fall of 2006 TWOgether Pittsburgh was introduced.  This is a coalition comprised of Family Guidance, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, Smith Brothers Advertising and project evaluator, Stanley Denton.  This initiative, unprecedented in scope in the Pittsburgh area, seeks to partner with 30 local congregations to provide marriage enrichment, pre-marriage preparation, couple-to-couple mentoring, and divorce prevention. TWOgether Pittsburgh will also provide education on marriage and families in high schools and a media campaign regarding the benefits of marriage. The program is funded through a five-year grant from the Administration for Children and Families.

    TWOGether Pittsburgh contains a name that sounds familiar to me, but notice the phrase:  “Parents, Fathers, or Blended Families.”  Talk about “the invisible mother….

    Ken MacLeod
    Program Director, Marriage Preperation for Couples and
    Marriage Enrichment for Parents, Fathers, or Blended Families

    California Secretary of State search on “DIBBLE” Corporations.  Two pagers

    HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT?  OF SUPPORTING PR COMPANIES AND OTHER WEALTHY FIRMS AS A WAY TO REDUCE THE WELFARE CASELOAD, ABUSE, ETC.?  HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE MONEY GETS COLLECTED, THEN LOST, BUT WHAT IS DISTRIBUTED, GETS DISTRIBUTED FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT, LIKE STREETWALKERS, LINE UP THEMSELVES AND SOLICIT BUSINESS WITH THE HHS/ACF, LOOKING FOR A “JOHN”?

    CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT:  RISE & EXPANSION.

    I think I have evidence we need an overhaul of the HHS — not just the OCSE part of it.  Collectively, it is behaving like this, and the figure at the front of the pack does not represent a present or former President.  But it does represent some REALLY bad executive orders, and eventually, laws.  My evidence is not in this post, which is simply reminding us of some of the HOW of the expansion of the welfare state — through the child support system expansion to include non-welfare cases.  ALL of these reforms appear to have come after the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) finally was (forced?) to register with its own EIN# and incorporate, well over a decade after it apparently began operating (illegally, tax-dodgingly) in the Los Angeles County Courthouse at 111 Hill Street.   (Beware AFCC post summarizes some of this)

    Everybody cheer and look to our leaders…..

    On October 17, 2003, a U.S. Senator Robert Byrd  used this fairy tale for an analogy.  He is indignant and saying it’s time to stop — referring to a different topic.  I am not nearly so eloquent, so here is his, as posted the next day at “commondreams.org”:

    by US Senator Robert Byrd
    Senate Floor Remarks
    October 17, 2003

    In 1837, Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a wonderful fairy tale which he titledTheEmperor’sNewClothes.  It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness.  It is the story of the Ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his appearance and his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour of the day.

    One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers.  They convinced the Emperor that they could weave the most wonderful cloth, which had a magical property.  The clothes were only visible to those who were completely pure in heart and spirit.

    The Emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work immediately.  The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature, began to feign work on empty looms.

    Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came back exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of them could see a thing.

    Finally a grand procession was planned for the Emperor to display his new finery.  The Emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth, inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments.

    Under a royal canopy the Emperor appeared to the admiring throng of his people – – all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the rogue weavers’ tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of heart.

    But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the Emperor had nothing on at all.  He had no clothes.

    Always make sure to have some children without tact (or Ph.D.) or conflict of interest, or fear — in your life.  Fear or public embarrassment makes for stupid behavior, and ignorance of what is a more realistic danger, to be handled.   . .. .   Is that a beautiful analogy or not?  The rogues completely understood the social order — but they forgot the kids.

    Senator Byrd was talking about the war in Iraq, and how it was rushed through the Senate; I will shortly compare it to another “rushed through” legislation that has cost us dearly also, over time.  His next statement:

    That tale seems to me very like the way this nation was led to war. . . .

    We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

    We were told that the throngs of Iraqi’s would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

    We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.

    We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy “yellow cake” from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.

    We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

    There have been some so-called, in fact self-called, “prominent thinkers” many years ago, but they have turned out to be “vapid thinkers”  — or rogues.  I believe, rogues.  What I’m about to show is too outrageous for mistake, and certain characteristics show a similarity with the weavers in the fairy tale.   Like a recent Harry Potter movie, a swish of the hand, a little vapor, and a protesting dwarf gladly let the imposter into the vault.   Eventually, looking daft and with a silly smile on his face, he was vaporized by the resident dragon, having forgotten how to cow the beast with noise.  …. In addition to weaving wonderful tales, there was a strong-arm rushing through of the legislation:

    Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the Administration’s policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room — that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods � have had our patriotism questioned.   Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice.  We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.

    The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack.  The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms.

    Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world’s greatest deliberative body is being snubbed.  This huge spending bill has been rushed through this chamber in just one month.  There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87 billion, without a single outside witness called to challenge the Administration’s line. ***

    Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I quote: “I don’t have time.  I’m completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.”

     

    ** that is EXACTLY how some of the marriage/fatherhood legislation, and in particular the access/visitation portion of welfare reform, got passed.

    In 1996, as part of welfare reform, some legislation was rushed through (this is hearsay, but credible given how accurate the rest of her work has been, from Liz Richards of National Alliance for Family Court Justice) at the 9th hour by (none other than) Ron Haskins, creating the “access visitation” loophole to welfare reform.  I do not think even those of his party knew about it.   This legislation expanded the purpose and intent of the 1975 Child Support Law — TItle IV-D of welfare – based on a theory which has yet to be proven true.  A quick summary, I don’t want to be too pedantic, just to review the expansion:

    Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, “Child Support Enforcement Program

    In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed families, the Federal Government took its first steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her {{interesting….}} parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.

    Note:  “Dealt with at the State level by the courts….”

    By the early 1970s, however, Congress recognized that the composition of the AFDC caseload had changed drastically. In earlier yearsthe majority of children needed financial assistance because their fathers had died; by the 1970s, the majority needed aid because their parents were separated, divorced, or never married. The Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program (CSE), enacted in 1975, was a response by Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public assistance, and to establish paternity for children born outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them.

    Well, like most institutions, why limit a good thing to the original purpose?

    The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.

    So here begins the Federal INCENTIVE influence . . . Federal AFDC already existed….     Now read the next paragraph carefully, and if you remember any of my former posts about missing in action “Undistributable Child Support” (already collected), and/or the outsourcing to private companies which then sometimes end up defrauding the public, being sued for the fraud, and paying multi-millions in settlement, then going on to get more contracts where they can do it again — then listen to this (2000) description:

    Basic responsibility {{translation:  If parents ask, your screwups ain’t our fault}} for administering the program is left to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining support payments.

    So, when the Government began to give matching funds, it also began to demand more of a role in designing the systems – – removing the center of control further from the states:  “Federalism” — but for a good cause, to reduce welfare and make the world a better place by reducing poverty .  . .  except for ONE thing:  the addition of clientele — I’ll bold the wording:

    The program requires the provision of child support enforcement services for both welfare and nonwelfare familiesand requires States to publicize frequently, through public service announcements, the availability of child support enforcement services, together with information about the application fee and a telephone number or address to obtain additional information. Local family and domestic courts and administrative agencies handle the actual establishment and enforcement of child support obligations according to Federal, State, and local laws.

    Actually, by 2000, the process had been removed from the courts and required (by the Federal Emperor Government) to be handled in a statewide distribution unit.  In short, it wanted more CONTROL.  I can see some sense to the idea that a parent who flees to another state to avoid supporting his offspring might require some federal coordination — BUT — that’s not what was written into the 1996 Welfare Reform law…

    Alternately, the states could forfeit the federal funds to help collect. . . .The child support program generally does not provide services aimed at other issues between parents, such as property settlement, custody, and access to children.

    As of the year 2000, that statement was false.  The Child Support program as a net to haul in individuals perhaps behind on it, or to help them abate arrears, also encourages (fathers) to take advantage of some new improved programming:

    In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds.

    The states did not have the option of the former AFDC programs, which were abolished.  THey have populations needing help — and they could either line up (see graphic above) and toot the horn, soliciting more clients for the child support program — including NON-welfare parents — or they could personally deal with hungry people, including single parents — themselves, after they had gotten used to federal help.

    In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.

    Note:   locating the assets of parents.  If one is going to have a good court case, finding out where the assets are is real important.    Anyhow, “many of them major” is an understatement.

    In 1998, almost $3.6 billion was spent by State child support programs to collect $14.3 billion in child support. The combined Federal-State program had 55,300 employees.  (HIRING 55,300 people– including attorneys and no doubt computer specialists — to reduce the public expense of welfare…..)

    REMOVING CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM DESIGN FROM THE COURTS, AND GIVING IT TO AN APPOINTEE BY THE HEAD OF HHS, WHO IS A PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE.  As it says, government By, Of, and For the People, as dictated by ONE person in authority.  Note:  Formerly it had been in the courts.

    THE FEDERAL ROLE

    The Federal statute requires the national child support program to be administered by a separate organizational unit under the control of a person designated by and reporting directly to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Presently, this office is known as the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE).The Family Support Act of 1988 required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Support within DHHS to administer a number of programs, including the Child Support Enforcement Program.  {Wonder what other programs . . .. .}

    Currently, this position is entitled the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families.

    Tell your grandchildren how we got the OCSE.  They should know.

    As of 1996, this article shows up, Child SUpport Enforcement (CSE) officially got into custody matters –but those are matters at a state level, right?  NO matter, the centralized system had a better idea — and $ 10 million was allotted to it.

    Child Support Enforcement and Visitation — Should There Be a Federal Connection?  (WIKILEAKS, “CRS REport for Congress” updated June 20, 2000)  (read at least the gray inset at the top).

    In recent years, Congress has moderated its position against using federal CSE funds to promote enforcement of visitation rights. In 1988, it authorized CSE funding for child access demonstration projects in six states, and in 1996 it (1) permitted the Federal Parent Locator Service, which is under the direction of the Administrator of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, to provide information on the location of custodial parents and children to noncustodial parents and (2) authorized an annual $10 million entitlement of CSE funds to states to establish and operate access and visitation programs. Some view these recent steps as too intrusive on state and domestic court authority, while others contend they are long overdue and do not go far enough.

    OBVIOUSLY not — these are now heading up towards $1.7 billion, thanks to those profiting from the $10 million and programs set up and enabled by this.

    The same author, and type of report, in 2007 (spanning the years 2002-2005) has a lot to say, but I’m reporting the “OTHER” factor, which crops up only on page 9 — interesting, becasue the intent of child support enforcement is allegedly to get it to the children.  This talks about where it wasn’t happening:

    Child Support Provisions COnsidered but not Enacted

    Congressional Research Service Report RL33881

    Child Support Provisions Considered But Not Enacted During the 2002-2005 Welfare Reauthorization Debate Carmen Solomon-Fears, Domestic Social Policy Division February 15, 2007

    Abstract. This report provides a brief discussion of 12 child support provisions that were considered during 2002-2005 within the context of welfare reauthorization but not enacted in P.L. 109-171 or any other federal law. To the extent that some of these provisions had broad support, they may be considered again in the 110th Congress. The Administration has included several of the provisions in its FY2008 Budget.

    (NOTE:  This was only Wikileaked in 2/2009 – not being I supposed broadcast too widely).  From page 9:

    In recognition that custodial parents rely heavily on child support to meet their children’s basic needs, both House and Senate bills over the last several Congresses have included a provision that would have required the Secretary of HHS to submit to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee a report on the procedures states use to locate custodial parents for whom child support has been collected but not yet distributed.

    At least our Congressmen seemed to understand that sometimes money is collected, but not distributed, in any business, and possibly was being in this system also.  The thought that that Secretary of HHS ought to show some accountability for the huge amount of control given him/her.  Obviously the measures didn’t actually PASS though, to do this.

    According to the proposal, the report must include an estimate of the total amount of undistributed child support and the average length of time it takes undistributed child support to be distributed. Also, to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate, the report must include recommendations as to whether additional procedures should be established at the state or federal level to expedite the payment of undistributed child support.

    Although data are available from FY1999-FY2005 on undistributed child support collections, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated that during much of that period the amounts may not have been accurate because state CSE agencies had different interpretations of what constituted undistributed collections.22

    Possibly because the system was too complex, possibly through CSE obfuscation or poor communications.

    In 2002, a former Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Sherri Heller, said that the problem of undistributed collections has always existed. However, the Commissioner stated, “automation is helping us to quantify the problem that has always been there. I don’t think that automation or state disbursement units created the problem of undistributed collections. I think it’s shone a spotlight on it.”23

    Undistributed child support collections increased from $545 million in FY1999 to a record $738 million in 2001, and dropped to $479 million in 2004. In FY2005, nearly $497 million in child support was collected but was not distributed to custodial parents; 60% of that amount was in the process of being distributed24 and 40% ($201 million) was considered unresolved,25 and thereby had a lower probability of being distributed to custodial parents.

    Because I’ve picked up this image, let me quote the article too, Posted on September 26, 2011 by Bryan Thomas in “NOMIZO.com

    (posting it doesn’t mean I’ve analyzed the author’s position and agree with it — it means that, in addition to the illustration, a few choice phrases suited my purpose today…)

    The emperor has no clothes, cash, credit, or credibility

    Emperor is being used here as a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole. In reality, the entire U.S. government is in danger of losing the confidence of the American people and the world. In all of the debt ceiling news coverage during the past few months, one major element seems to be missing. It is the simple conclusion that our government has forgotten what leadership is and what leadership does.

    Well, too many of us have adopted a “we need an emperor” mentality, forgetting who helped create the many problems that supposedly such a strong leader might rescue us from.  We also have DEFINITELY forgotten that this country came out of revolutionary thinking in the history of the world — the concept that religion should be put under restraint, and monarchs, and that certain unalienable rights — the right to live, to have liberty, and to pursue happiness, was granted to the people not by monarchs, but by a “Creator”   And that their purpose in existence is not to furnish someone else’s wealth, gotten by treachery, deceit, or force, OR abusive taxation without representation.

    Fourthly, our government leaders are operating by a “Double Standard” and are not following the financial principles that all American citizens and businesses are expected to obey.  . . . Somehow, our government has developed a spirit of entitlement that enables them to operate above and beyond these financial laws and principles. In the process, they have forgotten that the money they are spending is not theirs, but it belongs to the American people. . . .

    Does it?   Well, for one our leaders have put us in permanent and impossible to get out of hock to the Federal Reserve Board, and then pretend that if (the rest of us — not the leaders) tighten our belts, we might just be OK — which is called lying.    We bought our currency at interest, then took it off the gold standard, then made sure that in the local schools, most people are taught values, not math, history, literacy, or how to become financially independent in the way that people who are running the place did.  That old trend to replace law with monarchy is always there — it’s human nature when power is handed over. 

    Fathers, Mothers, Nonparents, Taxpayers :  WHO are you working for?  And if you pay taxes where are they going?  What’s happening to the grants distributed, largess to the largest and smallest companies who dance to the tune set long ago from Washington, D.C.?   

    I’ll tell you who cannot tell you where your taxes went, as the dollar declines in value hurting the most people who have nothing BUT dollars (no land, no assets, no offshore bank accounts, and in fact, little grasp of the economic system, just of how to last til the next paycheck and try to make sure there is one.)

    My ridiculous title reflects some states a single trail led me to, these past two days, when I learned about the October 3, 2011 announcement of $119 million more in Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood Grants went.  Here’s the list:

    News and Media Releases:

    2011

    Oct-Dec

    10/05/11 – ACF awards $28 million to improve well-being for children in child welfare

    Let us not forget that this version of improving well-being = putting more fathers back with the babies, and selling programs like “Boot Camp For New Dads,” or “PREP,” plus of course abstinence education material through “faith-based community organizations.”

    10/04/11 – ACF announces $2 million in grant awards for Tribal TANF – Child Welfare Coordination

    10/03/11 – ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

     

    I am under 8,000 words, and not finished with this topic yet.  “To Be Continued . . . . .  ”

    I am going to post the 70 recipients of the new grant series starting “90FM” (but it’s still CFDA 93.086, which is Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood category).  I am angry about the dishonesty in a number of grantees previously researched, in particular the chameleon “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.”  I sense money laundering — otherwise, they could pick an incorporation, FILE, and stick with it.

     

    Also reprehensible is the amount and style of self-referrals; it’s basically the country-club atmosphere feeding off welfare funding, while the public at large figures someone is actually doing something about welfare, or that this money is going to help feed, clothe, house, or provide health care to needy children and families.  It ain’t.  It’s getting diverted & lost in the system, and NOT being tracked from those distributing it, or another arm of government, either!!!  If you’re not angry enough to act after some of this, you’re probably either numb from some other cause, or on drugs in order to think about it.

    The AFCC recently has on their site a pretentious declaration styled after the Declaration of Independence, rather than a straight religious creed (which it, in effect, is).  They state “WHEREAS” (yada yada yada), emphasizing that there is a “CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER” from lack of resources to the courts.

     

    This group is not unionized and doesn’t need to be — they are running the judicial system nationwide, and get activist judges in high places, and help pass legislation favorable to their particular groups.  I have caught them repeatedly at this (SB 557, Family Justice Center Alliance, or an attempt to actually write “Kids’ Turn” into the California Law — (Gov. Gray Davis vetoed it).  In Ohio, a similar action was able to write the spinoff group, “Kids First” into the Procedures and get its name on to the court from for ANY custody modification.  Citizens of Pennsylvania are onto this and have been reporting it, but I believe it’s still there.  How is this not a form of racketeering, with the exception that this group has enabled to get their activity (along with domestic violence and child abuse, kidnapping, stalking, etc.) DE-criminalized by  lobbying for laws to legitimize professional niches they have created  (Parent Coordination, and pushing Parent Education, Counseling, Supervised Visitation, etc.).

    MANY of these groups including the one I just showed above, are not just “faith-based” but outright evangelistic.  What they want is your money and access to your children, for mentoring purposes.  I have dealt extensively with religious circles, and know how this works.  It comes from the conviction that a theocracy is certainly better than limiting religion to the restraints that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and others realized it HAD to be if the republic, and the country would stand.

     

    BUT — and don’t forget this — NOT all the Marriage/Fatherhood grantees are in it for evangelization.  Money, itself (and access to young children without their parents around for “transformative” group therapies) are equally potent motivators.  And I have to acknowledge that this must be so; if they were as values-driven as they claim to be, we would see more corporate status-maintained, charitable-registrations-kept-up-to-date grantees.  WE aren’t.

    Does the HHS care?  I don’t see that it does — they are still doling out the largess, as is the Ways & Means Committee and whoever rubberstamps this legislation — away from the public radar — year after year.

    (GRrrrr!   !!)

    martinplaut

    Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

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

    Red Herring Alert

    There's something fishy going on!

    The American Spring Network

    News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

    Family Court Injustice

    It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

    The Espresso Stalinist

    Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

    Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

    Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

    %d bloggers like this: