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

‘We Must Have a Stomach for the Details and Willingness to Look at the Numbers…’ (Orig. Jan. 2018 on LGH Front Page | Updated, Supplemented & Published Sept. 30, 2019).

leave a comment »

POST TITLE: ‘We Must Have a Stomach for the Details and Willingness to Look at the Numbers…’ (Orig. Jan. 2018 on LGH Front Page | Updated, Supplemented & Published Sept. 30, 2019). (shortlink ending “-aYW”, length:  about 7,500 words)

“…As These Situations** Continue to ‘Morph,’ ‘Evolve’ (and Expand)  Our Collective Stomach for Noticing the Details WILL Impact Our Collective Level of Freedom (LGH Front Page, Sept. 5, 2019).”


THIS POST is an OFF-RAMP with INTRO, REVIEW and INTERNAL CONNECTIONS TO EARLIER WRITINGS.  I moved a short section with details on a specific parent education/anti-parental alienation curriculum targeting parents, a section written probably in January 2018, from my Front Page to this new post.  That starts several paragraphs below, under:

“**These Situations” as referenced in post title:”

This post is also exhortation and some paragraphs are in second person: direct address, not third-person, descriptions.  The direct address tends to draw of my experience on-line (admittedly limited, but I have been blogging a long time, and Tweeting, at times more intensely, several years, commenting on others blogs, on-line journals, formerly more active in forums, etc.  So there is a basis for that subjective “grow up!” commentary).  As usual, it’s subject to further revision and I’ll likely move the “Read More” link up higher after a few days or a week. //LGH.

It shows a drill-down, related posts previously posted on the topic (and the main organization featured) and some tactics used in concealing the money trail originators were and still are so eager to access, that is, forced-consumption of behavioral modification classes as a market niche feeding off public institutions — often through judicial order to start, followed by attempts to then legislate it into practice, and involving the family courts.

Those who came up with these concepts were “insiders” obviously aware which federal funding streams were most likely to support it before it hit the public conscience, as they have continued to this day.  Family courts and anything dealing with young children (and young children’s parents) were always a target population.

Talk about reforming family courts because of their corrupt, flawed, broken, or unsafe status decision-making is beside the point until the infrastructure — basic financial details, gatekeepers, and To/From sources of revenue — is exposed.  There’s a movement and attempts to get parents (especially mothers) to self-identify as “dumb” by re-tweeting, posting, circulating references to numbers without any surrounding context on social media.  Circulating such things without fact-checking, or demanding more specifics from the source IS dumb; it shows gullibility and puts a “for-sale” sign on the promoters.


How hard it is to respond with a “Sez Who” or “When?” instead of mindlessly RT-ing or re-Posting? As a group, are “we” really so co-dependent on others’ approval that asking that is a new group dynamic? That’s cult-like behavior, and encourages more of the same.  If you’re going to engage in such behavior, then quit complaining when your kids are taken by others of similar behavior intent to program them unfairly against you, for profit or just for fun and spite.  It’s time to grow up and expect others around you, for continued associations, to start doing the same.  Adulthood can be contagious, but it’s not time-free or a free ride mentally.  If it’s not put together FOR YOU as an engaging story, then your attention wanders?  …. 


(Moving on,…): The goal of centralized control of not just the system, but also reform of the system mimicks specific business models becoming popular around the same time, but developed earlier (i.e., I call it the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan model:  University Center (for credibility and citations), Bain (a consulting company with strong political — and Harvard/Boston connections) and “Bridgespan” representing the philanthropic (i.e., nonprofit niche) consulting. I don’t care if people call it something else, just that they get a glimpse of it by sticking their OWN heads into some of the documents which aren’t 100% spin, advertising, and vague, and quit making excuses for not doing so.  Learn to chew on the information and spit out what’s roughage, not real substance.

Look if an abuser continues to tell you you’re stupid, can’t do anything, incompetent, as an excuse for hiding his (or her) financials within a household, while engaging in theft, threats, bullying, and other forms of violence, would you know that’s wrong?  So what’s the big difference when the same behaviors occur on macro-economic and micro-economic sectors too?

Develop a stomach for the details now; it’s already late in this game, and understanding it really does help.


HERE, I wrote and inserted three inset (boxed sections with bulleted lists and hyperlinks) listing connecting to other posts to This post introduction and off-ramped section:  In order, these insets are:

  • KIDS’ TURN POSTS (in Introduction), and
  • HEALTH SYSTEMS FLUSH WITH CASH prior posts
  • PARENTAL KIDNAPPING posts, because they overlaps with KIDS’ TURN creators,..

…KIDS’ TURN Creators who just so happen to have strong connections to the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) which also has maintained throughout high interested in convening, conferencing, and coordinating internationally, at least in Commonwealth (and some European) countries how to run their own programming through what increasingly looks like a privatized court system run internationally also, parallel to the public ones, but with different standards (and more conflicts of interest built in).  While this is now more out in the open (see my Twitter threads on CAFCASS, AFCC, and NCJFCJ and the involvement of private UK famous foundations such as Nuffield, Leverhulme, etc.) it’s always been there as I was reminded in revisiting some of the earliest posts.

If you’re unfamiliar with “KIDS’ TURN” specifically as started in California, by looking at this understand that it stands in for “Parent Education Psych-Educational Re- (or De-)Programming,” was sold as an antidote or vaccination against “parental alienation” (which sold well in certain quarter obviously), it was a FRANCHISE operating through Nonprofits, and its founders being highly positioned within the state-level court systems (i.e., AFCC had staff members at the California Judicial Council AOC/CFCC as well as consulting retired judges, other judges etc. working throughout the system for many years), PARENT EDUCATION was in California one of only three limited purposes for those Access/Visitation Grants, and it in general represents a developed field, specialized, and intentionally “vertical” monopoly, self-sustaining once up and running.

Whether or not the classes successfully turned kids’ heads or immunized them against “parental alienation” isn’t the issue.  Setting up the business operations was, and still is.  Getting on the “community referrals” list at local courts, organizing it over larger geography for referrals (particularly to AFCC membership) and setting up the direct ability for donors to the private nonprofits to, potentially, bribe a judge with an open case before them also on the board (or staff) of said nonprofits. 

It has crossed my mind more than once that my coming out of nowhere as an unknown blogger in 2011 to showing some of the “Kids’ Turn” board members, court contracts, and set-up may have had something to do with its eventually going underground (as shown below on this post, which I’ve had up almost two years now in part).  I certainly don’t know for sure, but I do know my posting at the time was intentional, and that imitation operations under slightly different names can be seen in other states.


At the post bottom (short) section (tan background) comments briefly on how databases I’ve used since starting this blog at times change, or change hands.  This complicates tracking programming over time.  Generally, I find it really hard (without a letter-writing campaign or multiple subscriptions to databases which may or may not have this information) to get information pre-dating this century.  That’s a problem when so many key organizations running program started in the 1970s (some) 1980s (many more) and even 1990s (still more, especially the kind dependent on massive public grants to exist):

  • PUBLIC (GOVT-OWNED) AND PRIVATE DATABASES ALSO CHANGE, EVOLVE, ARE BOUGHT & SOLD.

While that’s obvious, it’s also significant, but I don’t have much to say other than point it out, this time.


The post is exhortation and show and tell, and also that I’ve been saying this for years now, under MY banner:  “Let’s Get HONEST.” That’s a group effort, not a solo effort.  Getting honest I find more than getting “even” (unlikely), or even some form of imaginary revenge without consideration about who might already be counting on that motive to move ALL system even further away from accountability.

The stomach for details and willingness to look at the numbers are basic survival skills and essential to safeguard against, essentially, crooks who know how to play both the words and the numbers to access public resources and sell policy.  There is no substitute for the conceptual understanding of whether or not, and if not, how, books can be cooked, tales spun, and how a legitimate cause, so stated, so often masks fake advocacy by simply withholding and failing to operate “above-board” when the operations involve public funds.

Some private organizations don’t need, except enough to justify tax-exempt status and don’t directly take public funds; they are privately funded but target the public institutions we still support.  Read enough tax returns and you’ll see many of these also pay cities, counties, school districts, and/or universities (both public and private) to run pilots of their coordinated (or, proprietary) causes which eventually, most people will be subjected to and pay for through taxation.


More can always be done as there is always more to research and because organizations tend to “evolve” constantly in this sector, but my main concern is how few people seem to be even starting to look such things up, admit they exist, and after admitting they exist, speak of them in terms of what they are as much as what they’re doing.

“What they are” individually, if it’s an “entity” is going to be either public or private; if private, it may be a whether a nonprofit taking mostly government funding, mostly or only private funding, or some of both, or a part of government itself.  It is where the two sectors connect, start mimicking each other in project and purpose names that the support for them — which comes from the public “purse” in many ways, and should be taken personally if squandered, lost, or misappropriated.

When you start reading tax returns (which should happen soon if it hasn’t, including — try it on for size — some really big ones: just look at the categories, browse for general understanding) it should not take too long to run across private foundations which are, systematically, directly grantsing funds to government  entities across jurisdiction lines (i.e., in-state, out-of-state from wherever the foundation is registered) to promote or test private-purpose programming.

It’s rarely a one-way or interest-free street, the “commerce” (information, capacity-building, Social Science R&D, etc.) between private and government functions.

Read the rest of this entry »

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 2 comments

Why?

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

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

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

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your concern.

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

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

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

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

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

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

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

Key in this EIN#

470942805

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

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might want to look at this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This site writes their rationale:

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

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

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

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

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

rdjustice@monitor.net

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

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

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

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

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

Hearsay #1:

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

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

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

Hearsay #2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUH?

 

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

  • Working for whom?*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:  “IS What We’re Doing Working”

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

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

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

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

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

. . . .

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

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

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

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

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

. . . She moved out, not him….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted this on August 17, 2009

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

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

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

Kathleen Russell*

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

Connie Valentine  (CPPA)

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

Phyllis Chesler  

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

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

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

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

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

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

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

 

Dara Carlin*

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

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

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

Rita Smith*  

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

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

Mo Therese Hannah

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

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano


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

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!   !!)

    Double-Dipping into Public Finances: OK because “Republicans are doing it too,” and other same-old/news…

    leave a comment »

    Let’s talk about money, who has no idea where it’s gone, where the federal government gets its receipts from, and what happens when you leave politicians in charge of it.

     

     

    This post is a miscellany — but this Change.org link explains why you should tell your legislator NOW to cut the (crap) funding of federal incentives to increase the welfare load, while claiming to be reducing it.

    Cut TANF  / Title IV-D Programs which represent $4 billion of waste

    TANF = “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.”  Its funds are helping propagate and expand needless programs in the family law arena that hurt both fathers & mothers and definitely don’t produce what they promise, nor are they properly monitored.

    Child Support nonprofits then run state, regional, and at least one national conferences on how to turn normal cases into Title IV-D (welfare) cases; then money goes into problems designed from top-down, not bottom-up.

    Meanwhile (and parallel), associations comprised of Family Law professionals, themselves sometimes tax-dodging &/or not properly incorporated/registered nonprofits  hold conferences on how to profit from Title IV expansion, and force parents (and kids) into classes and programs they neither want, nor need, sometimes billing them for it.  Interest maintained in child support undistributed is lost, or retained improperly (which has been acknowledged at federal level, although you won’t find it on the evening news), leaving an incentive to NOT distribute funds.

    Overall, it’s producing public blight and undermining due process.

    A friend of mine put this Change.org information out, and NOW is the time to talk to legislators about this in common sense terms.   She summarizes:

    Why this is Important

    This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF [&]  IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry—no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:

    1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)

    (the “Contingency Fund” is Federal provision of money to states in years of economic downturn; it’s receipt is provisional depending on the states behavior & spending).

    2. ID Code 75-1552-0-1-609, lines 0005 and 0009 [$990 million] (p. 473)

    3. ID Code 75-1501-0-1-609 lines 0002, 0003 [Access and Visitation] [$1.7 billion] (p. 474)

    Access and Visitation historically has been $10 million (not $1.7 billion) per year, and has even at that level been a source of protracted custody litigation, and a gender-specific (fathers emphasis) attempt to change the judicial process into an “out-come” based process, which is establishing another form of government, essentially.  Because doing this is illegal at the state level, the federal grants say they just “facilitate” programs to increase access and visitation of noncustodial parents.    The organization “Kids’ Turn” which I’ve highlighted (SF and San Diego, CA nonprofits) benefits from these grants, which fund “parent education” among other things.  It’s my understanding that most judges and family court lawyers are not really hurting for cash flow.  There are states trying to make “access visitation” programs mandatory for every custody modification, as I recall, and it was one of Obama’s promises (through HHS) to a fathers and families group to do this.  I’ve written plenty of this topic, search it on the blog….)

    4. Discretionary “Child Support Incentives” to States [$305 million] (p. 475)

    This is talking about the 66% Federal incentive to states for child support enforcement (which could also include such activities as fatherhood programs, marriage education, parenting classes, etc., as I understand it:)   This particular link refers to ARRA (I’m just providing general glossary of the concepts)

    BACKGROUND:

    A Federal match of 66 percent is available for State administrative costs of carrying out child support enforcement program activities under title IV-D of the Social Security Act (Act). ARRA temporarily changes the child support authorization language to allow States to use Federal incentive payments provided to States in accordance with Section 458 of the Act as their State share of expenditures eligible for Federal match. This change is effective October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010. The requirements of Section 458(f) of the Social Security Act and 45 CFR 305.35 regarding “reinvestment” of incentive funds remain in effect.

    This change is in effect for any incentive funds expended during FY 2009 and FY 2010, including incentives earned and not expended in prior years (i.e., prior to October 1, 2008). Incentive payments expended during FY 2008 (October 1, 2007-September 30, 2008) are not eligible for additional Federal funds.

    5. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Healthy Families” [$1.7 billion] (p.476)

    A family with its civil and legal rights intact is likely to be a healthy family.  What, really, are those being used for?

    6. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Abstinence Education” [$1.7 billion] (p. 477)

    Yes, former President George Bush lives:  Abstinence Education.

    You know what that is?  Obviously it doesn’t apply to our Congressional Leaders (see previous US Presidents, Governors, and other legislators, or Rep. Weiner. Federal Grantswire says that entities “soliciting” to teach teenagers (and I kid you not, some parents caught in custody battles!) how not to have sex can get formula grants to do this:

     

    Authorization (040):
    Title V, Section 510 of the Social Security Act.
    Objectives (050):
    To enable States to provide abstinence education, and at the option of the State, where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock. The Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) appropriated funding for this program through FY 2014.
    Types of Assistance (060):
    FORMULA GRANTS
    Uses and Use Restrictions (070):
    Pursuant to Section 510(b)(2) of Title V of the Social Security Act, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program that:
    (A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
    (B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
    (C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
    (D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity

    Turn off that recent movie, “What Number Are You?” in which a woman runs up sex with 20 men and believes that her odds of finding the right one are going to decrease if she goes over this….  Also turn off “Crazy Stupid Love” in which one ladies’ man teaches a monogamous jilted husband how to pick up women, which of course he does easily with a makeover and more domineering attitude.   Also pay no need to the endless procession of married Congressional leaders caught in the act, or trying to get some action going (Rep. Weiner using Congressional gym as backdrop for lewd photos of himself; LA Times, “New Half-naked Photos:  Rep. Weiner calls for press conference” June 6, 2011, just in time for Fathers’ Day…; some tweet’s of a man’s crotch were reported; he represents portions of Brooklyn & Quuens, and this was his 7th term…)

    No, Abstinence education isn’t aimed at everyone.  And it’s not because those pushing it  as a group really do believe in abstinence for themselves:   It’s aimed at poor people who might have children that become welfare recipients, and while I won’t mention color, I’ll relate that the Congressional Record in passing welfare reform certainly did.  It’s not that we really disapprove of sex outside marriage, or promoting promiscuity as desirable, if not the ideal — but really, what this is about (besides the business angle of getting the grants — which probably aren’t tracked any better than the A/V grants or collected child support is) is allegedly the  public debt load, and as a friend of mine put it, the ruling elite which — face it (or look at Congress), still are white males, not wanting to lose their place in society by greater fertility among people of color.  By sharing the characteristics, poor white men, and with their participation in fatherhood ego-bolstering activity, can share in some of the trickle-down glory & control by programs that restore control over women and children who dismissed or left them, sometimes for very valid reasons…

    (But I’m getting off from the budget angle here, sorry).

     

    Seriously:

    7. Line 0129 “Faith Based Initiatives” [$1 million] (p.479)

    Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.

    Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.

    Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.

    These frivolous programs spend without restraint and direct money to places HHS cannot identify (as noted by the OIG and GOA reports on the second page.) There is no oversight. DHHS’s position is that once the money goes to the states, they are not responsible for oversight. Fraud is rampant, yet the OIG does nothing to enforce the laws to protect families.

    90% of the parents paying child support are fathers. Using child support enforcement programs as a vehicle, these extortion based programs force fathers to elect between criminal penalties and inciting “high conflict” family court litigation to create a “need” for their own publicly funded services. These irresponsible programs cash in on the “incentives” by placing children in unstable homes, and then starve the entire family onto some sort of public assistance. We can identify no legitimate purpose for these programs and request that Congress take the following actions:

    (for more, click on the link):

     

     

     

    . . . .   Below here is me collecting various articles and thinking aloud about this whole mess.  Quite honestly, I’m tired!

    You might be too if you lived in California!!

    “Almost” comical, if I don’t think about it too hard:

    Some Gov. Jerry Brown appointees get pension and paycheck

    Gov. Jerry Brown had vowed to rein in pension costs. But some of his appointees are receiving double payments totaling more than $200,000 a year.

    • Ann Ravel, the chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission, said she rightfully earned her pension after working as an attorney for Santa Clara County, whose retirement benefits come from CalPERS, from 1976 until her retirement in 2009.
    Ann Ravel, the chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission,… (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)
    September 29, 2011|By Shane Goldmacher and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times

    Reporting from Sacramento — Every month, Ann Ravel gets a paycheck from her salary as chairwoman of California’s ethics watchdog agency and a second, bigger check from her public pension as a retiree.

    The double payments, which total more than $305,000 a year, represent the kind of costly pension perk that Gov. Jerry Brown has vowed to rein in.

    . . .

    But since he assumed office nine months ago, Brown has appointed numerous officials like Ravel to state jobs in which they can simultaneously collect a full salary and a public pension.

    One is earning $234,000 in combined wages and pension to serve on California’s state’s unemployment board, which the governor wants to eliminate. Six Brown appointees to the state’s parole board are layering wages atop pensions.

    “That should be against the law,” said Marcia Fritz, a certified public accountant and president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, which seeks to end what she called “double dipping.”

    “It violates the whole premise of having a retirement program,” she said.

    California law forbids rank-and-file state employees to draw full-time government wages and state-administered retirement benefits at the same time. But an exemption exists for political appointees to more than a dozen powerful boards and commissions, where members can legally earn both.

    Taxpayers are footing the bill. The state treasury must cover $3.51 billion this year for California’s beleaguered pension system, known as CalPERs, though payments to active state employees account for a fraction of that sum.

    As a candidate, Brown pledged to stop pension abuses. In March, he rolled out a 12-point plan for reducing pension costs that included “limits on post-retirement public employment.”

    But only six weeks earlier, the governor had appointed Ravel, 62, to chair the Fair Political Practices Commission

    HEY, Isn’t that the group that ruled against county benefits going to California Judges, who by law were to be paid by the state?  Richard Fine, etc.?

    ANyhow, it must be OK because Republicans do it too.

    “The Republicans were doing it too,” said Ravel, a Democrat.

    The same day Brown appointed Ravel, he also tapped Robert Dresser as the $132,179-a-year chairman of the state’s Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board.  Dresser, 70, defended taking the salary while receiving $102,955 in annual pension payments after decades as a state attorney.

    “What I am doing is consistent with state policy and law,” he said.

    “It is unclear from state records how often such appointments occur….”

    It is unclear from state records how often such appointments occur, but previous governors also made them.

    . . .

    A group of GOP legislators sought to ban the double earnings in budget negotiations with Brown earlier this year.

    When those talks collapsed, Republicans introduced their own measure, but it never received a hearing in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

    Now, taxpayers are stuck “paying for double dipping at the expense of real programs such as education and public safety,” said Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach), one of the Republicans who had been in discussions with the governor.

    The issue has come before the Legislature before. In 2009, state senators grilled Anthony Kane, a Schwarzenegger appointee to the parole board, about his retirement as a deputy prison warden and his subsequent collection of a pension and board salary.

    “That was not my goal, to retire and come back and be a commissioner. That wasn’t the plan,” Kane said, according to a hearing transcript.

    The state Senate declined to confirm Kane then. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), one of Kane’s questioners, pledged new legislation to end the exemption for political appointees.

    He never introduced such a bill.

    NO — He introduced a bill to retroactively immunize California Judiciary for taking county-paid bribes in cases before them where the County was a party — that’s the SBX-211 that got rammed through right around the time, these guys were getting REAL fed up with Mr. Fine’s whistleblowing…..I blogged it.

    WHILE WE’re HERE — about those Judicial Disclosures (Form 700s):

    Fair Political Practices Commission Described (Chairman is salaried, the other 4 are paid $100/day).  THe Political Reform Act was passed by a ballot measure in 1974, to:

    The Political Reform Act is designed to assure that:

    • State and local government serve all citizens equally, without regard to status or wealth
    • Public officials perform their duties impartially, without bias because of personal financial interests or the interests of financial supporters
    • Public officials disclose income and assets that could be affected by official actions and disqualify themselves from participating in decisions when they have conflicts of interest
    • Election campaign receipts and expenditures are fully and truthfully disclosed so voters are informed and improper practices are inhibited
    • Elections are fair
    • No laws or practices favor incumbents
    • The state ballot pamphlet gives useful information about state measures so voters can be less dependent on paid advertising for information
    • The activity of those who lobby the state legislature is regulated and finances disclosed to prevent improper influence on public officials

    (etc.).

    Link to Info on “Statement of Economic INterests (form 700) forms.

    A statement of Economic Interest (FORM 700) is a state form on which state and local government officials publicly disclose their personal assets andincome that may be materially affected by their official acts. Agency employees, including some public officials who are designated in a conflict of interest code are required to disclose certain financial interests according to the disclosure categories assigned to that position in their agency’s conflict of interest code.

    Certain public officials, including public officials who manage public investments, are required to disclose all financial interest. These officials make full economic disclosure in accordance with state law, rather than their agency’s conflict of interest code.

    Download Form 700 from the Fair Political Practices Commission.

    Judges file with the clerk of their court; retired judges are to file directly with the FPPC (in California).  Now we know where to get those forms from, too.   2010 RonKayinLA Article  summarizes the California Judicial Scandal in taking county benefits payments while ruling over cases involving the count(ies)  “No man is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome.”

    Here’s a Fair Political Practices Commission article (also in the LA Times) reporting on how a well-known campaign manager witha  modest lifestyle was engaging in some very illegal practices for major politicians, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, whose daughter, the Hon. Katherine Feinstein, presides over the SF Unified Court system, which was recently closing all those courtrooms for lack of cash, and arguing with the AOC / Judicial Council about how to keep some of them open…

    Dubious Durkee Doings?  (my title):

    ARticle 1 — Sept. 23, 2011:

    Dianne Feinstein’s campaign sues bank and Kinde Durkee, alleging fraud [Updated]

    September 23, 2011 | 12:59 pm

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein is suing her former treasurer and her campaign’s bank for fraud and breach of contract, alleging that the bank was complicit in a massive fraud case that has rocked the political world.

    The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday against First California Bank, Feinstein’s former treasurer Kinde Durkee and her company, Durkee & Associates.

    Feinstein complaintDurkee was arrested Sept. 2 on a federal fraud charge after allegedly embezzling possibly millions of dollars from her clients, who include Feinstein and many other prominent California Democrats.

    The complaint alleges that First California Bank was “at the heart of the illegal transfer out of plaintiffs’ accounts.” It quotes a letter from the bank to clients acknowledging that it appears Durkee had commingled funds and made transfers between accounts and that the balances credited to any given account may not accurately reflect the funds belonging to the associated campaigns.

    “Despite knowledge of this pervasive pattern of misconduct, First California Bank continued to provide banking services to Durkee and Durkee & Associates, LLC, for many years, happy to collect the fees and interest generated by the scores of accounts Durkee maintained at the bank,” the complaint stated, going on to suggest that other banks and professionals may also have been complicit.

    The complaint cites multiple instances of checks written without authorization and misreported fund balances, including a balance summary dated July 2 that reported Feinstein’s Senate account had a balance of $2.3 million when, in fact, its balance was about $266,000. Bill Carrick, Feinstein’s longtime campaign consultant, said the full extent of the funds taken from Feinstein’s account is still unknown because the bank has not handed over records.

    ARTICLE TWO

    The politicians and consultants who trusted the Long Beach resident with millions of dollars saw little to hint that she might become vilified as the ‘Bernie Madoff of campaign finance treasurers.

    (after descriptions of what a modest and low-profile lifestyle she and her husband led….)

    …As the treasurer considered the “platinum standard” in California, Durkee oversaw at least 360 bank accounts for almost 100 candidates, six dozen political action committees, about 60 Democratic clubs and committees and a handful of nonprofits. The ongoing federal investigation has triggered turmoil in state Democratic circles, with politicians, including members of the Los Angeles City Council and Congress, locked out of their accounts and worried that millions of dollars may be lost. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein had $5.2 million, according to Durkee’s last report, but the bank can find just $662,101.

    “I never saw her driving a Ferrari. She lived a very non-pretentious life,” said state Sen. Louis Correa (D-Santa Ana), who met her when he first ran for office 17 years ago. “You see a persona and then you see this, and the picture doesn’t fit.”

    The image that emerges from Durkee’s political world is of an intentionally low-profile player who rarely discussed her personal life. She had a sweet voice and a pedigree that inspired trust. She was the protege of a Los Angeles accountant {{Glazer}} who had a national reputation for his ethical standards and the daughter of a beloved Lutheran minister memorialized as “gracious, warm, caring and ever-present.”

    Ya gotta watch out for the religious ones, I keep telling us!

    Durkee registered Durkee & Associates as a limited liability corporation four years after Glazer’s death. She lists herself as the owner and her husband and her two sisters as members. The firm’s website said it had been in business since 1972. Her rates were cheap and politicians found her responsive.

    The top one here? (which shows a Burbank address):

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    200327910101 09/22/2003 ACTIVE DURKEE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC LAURENCE ZAKSON
    199928710057 10/12/1999 ACTIVE DURKEE PROPERTIES, LLC DONALD L. JONES

    “Everybody knew Kinde Durkee was the person to go to,” said state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino). “She was just the nicest person you could ever talk to.”

    Federal investigators say Durkee admitted she had misappropriated money for years and filed false campaign finance reports. A Times review of those campaign records for about 180 state and federal committees found that she reported they had $9.8 million in cash on June 30. But First California Bank put the value of all Durkee-controlled accounts it could identify on Sept. 21 at $2.5 million. Durkee also had at least one account at City National Bank.

    Durkee’s arrest on suspicion of mail fraud stemmed from the allegation that she drained $677,181 from an assemblyman’s account and, making about 30 complicated transfers, used it to pay business and personal expenses.

    Durkee has been accused of covering up for an employee who embezzled. Two years ago, state Sen.Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) learned from state auditors that a Durkee employee had embezzled $57,166 from her campaign. She called for a criminal investigation in a six-page letter that detailed how Durkee failed to tell her of the theft and filed reports that did not disclose it. A state audit concluded that the same employee siphoned $8,244 from state Board of Equalization member Jerome Horton, but again Durkee’s firm did not report it. Durkee paid at least some of the money back.

    The treasurer rarely drew much media attention. But in 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Durkee was the treasurer of Californians for Obama, which raised more than $10,000 but spent much of it on expenses, including payments to Durkee’s firm. Asked to explain her involvement, a Durkee representative said: “She does not talk to reporters.” In 2009, the news broke that Kehoe had fired Durkee.

    Durkee did have a public record that her loyal clients simply brushed aside. Since 2002, the state Fair Political Practices Commission has assessed fines 11 times against committees that used Durkee as treasurer. Durkee typically cooperated with these investigations, sometimes accepting blame and paying the fine. Earlier this year, she did just that, agreeing to pay $13,000. But that case became her firm’s undoing.

    A commission investigator noticed that Durkee appeared to shift money from client accounts to her firm’s without permission and shuttle some back when needed to cover checks. The FBI was alerted.

    john.hoeffel@latimes.com
    patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com
    jean.merl@latimes.com
    Times staff writers Abby Sewell and Richard Simon contributed to this report.  Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

    November 16, 2010 (Can’t wait to read the November, 2011 version of this letter):

    from the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Services, courtesy David A. Lebryk, Commissioner

    Dear Citizens of the United States” —

    [Summarized annual report].  

    In accordance with the provisions of Section 114(a) of the Act of September 12, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 3513(a)), I am transmitting herewith the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

    This statement presents budget results and the cash-related assets and liabilities of the Federal Government with supporting details.

    • We have receipts of  $2,161.7 billion, which is $57.4 billion more than 2009
    • We have outlays of   $3,456.0 billion,  which is $64.1 billion less than 2009 outlays
    • Obviously, the “outlay” number is bigger than the “intake” — by $1,294.3 billion, but that was less than last year.

    (for those of you who had a public school education, but somehow made it to this page anyhow, I note that there was no decimal given on the $3,456 billion.  By supplying one, I get $1,294.3 (not .2) billion, but after a while, billion, trillion, it tends to blur, right?…  0.1 Bill is only $100 million, that ain’t a whole lot overall.

    Where this money comes from, “RECEIPTS BY SOURCE” shown in a nice pie chart.  — 42% is INCOME tax, 40% is “Social insurance and retirement receipts” (i.e., payments into SS & retirement accounts, nationwide?) – and a whopping 9% “Corporate Income Tax,” 3% Excise (sales) taxes, and 6% “other” OUTLAYS BY FUNCTION (4% for Education and Training, 20% for Social Security, and TANF comes under “income security — 18%)

    WHOSE MONEY IS IT?  WHERE DOES IT COME FROM?    42% INCOME TAX (on individual wage-earning persons), 9% CORPORATE TAXES

    WHO DECIDES HOW THIS MONEY IS SPENT, REALLY?

    Foundations & Corporations that influence political campaigns, politicians, and “craft” legislation to favor their interests.  

    Have you heard of ‘ALEC”  – American Legislative Exchange Council” ??

    Preview

    In their terms:

    Our Mission

    The mission of the American Legislative Exchange Council is…

    …to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty, through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public.

    …to promote these principles by developing policies that ensure the powers of government are derived from, and assigned to, first the People, then the States, and finally, the Federal Government.

    …to enlist state legislators from all parties and members of the private sector who share ALEC’s mission.

    …to conduct a policy making program that unites members of the public and private sectors in a dynamic partnership to support research, policy development, and dissemination activities.

    …to prepare the next generation of political leadership through educational programs that promote the principles of Jeffersonian democracy, which are necessary for a free society.

    History . . . . if you can spell Neo-Con, very Big Business:

    Former ALEC chairmen (a roster of legislators….)

    More than 30 years ago, a small group of state legislators and conservative policy advocates met in Chicago to implement a vision: A nonpartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty. Their vision and initiative resulted in the creation of a voluntary membership association for people who believed that government closest to the people was fundamentally more effective, more just, and a better guarantor of freedom than the distant, bloated federal government in Washington, D.C.
    At that meeting, in September 1973, state legislators, including then Illinois State Rep. Henry Hyde, conservative activist Paul Weyrich, and Lou Barnett, a veteran of then Gov. Ronald Reagan’s 1968 presidential campaign, together with a handful of others, launched the American Legislative Exchange Council. Among those who were involved with ALEC in its formative years were: Robert Kasten and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin; John Engler of Michigan; Terry Branstad of Iowa, and John Kasich of Ohio, all of whom moved on to become governors or members of Congress. Congressional members who were active during this same period included Senators John Buckley of New York and Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and Congressmen Phil Crane of Illinois and Jack Kemp of New York.

    Let’s talk JUST a little bit about Paul Weyrich.  Here’s a nice photo from Wikipedia, and some data:

    Paul M. Weyrich (October 7, 1942 – December 18, 2008[1][2][3][4]) was an American conservative political activist and commentator, most notable as a figurehead of the New Right. He co-founded the Heritage Foundation,[5] a conservative think tank and the Free Congress Foundation, another conservative think tank. He switched from the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church to that of Melkite Greek Catholic Church and was ordained protodeacon.  (Protodeacon is an honorific rank given to certain married deacons in Eastern Christian churches. )

    In 1966,[5] he became press secretary[citation needed] to RepublicanU.S. SenatorGordon L. Allott of Colorado.[5] While serving in this capacity, he met Jack Wilson, an aide of Joseph Coors, patriarch of the Coors brewing family. Frustrated with the state of public policy research, they founded Analysis and Research Inc., in 1971, but this organization failed to gain traction.

    (Weyrich)….Founding the Heritage Foundation

    Can you spell, Unification Church monies, National Parenting Day and Sun Myung Moon?  ???

    Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Rightthink tank. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” It is widely considered one of the world’s most influential public policy research institutes.

    History

    The Foundation wields considerable influence in Washington, and enjoyed particular prominence during the Reagan administration. Its initial funding was provided by Joseph Coors, of the Coors beer empire, and Richard Mellon Scaife, heir of the Mellon industrial and banking fortune. The Foundation maintains strong ties with the London Institute of Economic Affairsand the Mont Pelerin Society.

    With a long history of receiving large donations from overseas, Heritage continues to rake in a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars from Taiwan and South Korea each year.

    In autumn of 1988, the South Korean National Assembly uncovered a document revealing that Korean intelligence gave $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation on the sly during the early 1980s. Heritage officials “categorically deny” the accusation.

    Heritage’s latest annual report does acknowledge a $400,000 grant from the Korean conglomerate Samsung. Another donor, the Korea Foundation – which conduits money from the South Korean government – has given Heritage almost $1 million in the past three years.

    . . .

    Meanwhile, there was also a connection between Heritage and the Rev Sun Myung Moon (founder of the Moonies). This first appeared in a 1975 congressional investigation on the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) activities in the US.

    The report noted, “In 1975, Ed Feulner … was introduced to KCIA station chief Kim Yung Hwan by Neil Salonen and Dan Feffernan of the Freedom Leadership foundation”.

    Salonen was head of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church in the United States. The Freedom Leadership Foundation (FLF), a political arm of Moon’s Unification network, was linked to the World Anti- Communist League.

    In the early 1980s, the KCIA began making donations to Heritage Foundation. In turn, Heritage established an Asian Studies Center.

    And

    AND I want to point out (again) along with the ultra-conservative influence and agenda, the same funders and policy-influencers at this 501(c)3 are often — VERY often — found also behind fatherhood and fathers’ rights institutes at universities, projects to demonstrate how fatherhood will reduce welfare roles, “Fragile Families” studies, etc., etc.

    Another set of factoids, these are from “Sourcewatch” on the Heritage Foundation:  I posting a LARGE section for effect.  Remember, above, the 9% corporate tax (and that this group is a NONProfit….)

    Funding

    The Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation. In its annual report it states that “we rely on the financial contributions of the gemeral public: individuals, foundations and corporations. We accept no government funds and perform no contract work.”

    2006 Budget

    In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

    While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKlineNovartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giant Microsoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), PfizerPhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). [2]

    Historical funding

    Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:

    Right Web says of the Heritage Foundation:

    “The foundation received $2. 2 million from the Federation of Korean Industries in the early 1980s. Initially it was believed this donation came from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (which would make the Heritage Foundation a foreign agent of Korea), but the Federation later stated that the donation came at the encouragement of the KCIA.”
    “The Heritage Foundation’s income has increased every year since 1981. The progression has been: 1981–$7. 1 million; 1982-$8. 6 million; 1983–$10. 6 million; 1984–$10. 7 million; 1985-$11. 6 million; 1986–$14. 0 million; 1987–$14. 3 million; and 1988–$14. 6 million. In 1988, foundations provided 38 percent of Heritage’s income, individuals provided 34 percent, and corporations gave 17 percent; the remainder came from investments and sales of materials.”[5]

    That information came from “ALEC EXPOSED” …..

    ALEC Corporations

    ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org.

    So here comes Paul Weyrich:

    In 1973, persuading Joseph Coors to put the money in, Weyrich and Edwin Feulner founded the Heritage Foundation as a think tank[5] to counter liberal views on taxation and regulation, which they considered to be anti-business. While the organization was at first only minimally influential, it has grown into one of the world’s largest public policy research institutes and has been hugely influential in advancing conservative policies. The following year, again with support from Coors, Weyrich founded the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (CSFC),[5] an organization that trained and mobilized conservative activists, recruited conservative candidates, and raised funds for conservative causes.

    Under Weyrich, the CSFC proved highly innovative. It was among the first grassroots organizations to raise funds extensively through direct mailcampaigns. It also was one of the first organizations to tap into evangelical Christian churches as places to recruit and cultivate activists and support for social conservative causes. In 1977, Weyrich co-founded Christian Voice with Robert Grant. Two years later, with Jerry Falwell, he founded the Moral Majority. Weyrich coined the phrase “Moral Majority”.[8]

    Over the next two decades, Weyrich founded, co-founded, or held prominent roles in a number of other notable conservative organizations. Among them, he was founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of state legislators; a co-founder of the Council for National Policy, a strategy-formulating organization for social conservatives; co-publisher of the magazineConservative Digest; and national chairman of Coalitions for America, an association of conservative activist organizations. The CSFC, reorganized into the Free Congress Foundation, also remained active.

    Under the auspices of the FCF, he founded the Washington, D.C.–based satellitetelevision stationNational Empowerment Television (NET), later relaunched as the for-profit channel, “America’s Voice”, in 1997. That same year, Weyrich was forced out of the network he had founded when the network’s head persuaded its board to force out Weyrich in a hostile takeover. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates says this was “apparently for his divisive behavior in attacking GOP pragmatists”.[9]

    From 1989 to 1996, he was also president of the Krieble Institute, a unit of the FCF that trained activists to support democracy movements and establish small businesses in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.[citation needed]

    Frustrated with public indifference to the Lewinsky scandal, Weyrich wrote a letter in February 1999 stating that he believed conservatives had lost the culture war, urging a separatist strategy where conservatives ought to live apart from corrupted mainstream society and form their own parallel institutions:

    More from the ALEC website “History” page….

    From Clearinghouses to Think Tanks

    Following the end of the Reagan Administration, the Task Forces, under the leadership of Delaware State Senator Jim Neal, gradually began to shift from clearinghouses of ideas submitted by ALEC members into freestanding think tanks and model bill movers. They began to actively solicit more input from private sector members, seizing upon ALEC’s long-time philosophy that the private sector should be an ally rather than an adversary in developing sound public policy.

    To date, ALEC’s Task Forces have considered, written and approved hundreds of model bills on a wide range of issues, model legislation that will frame the debate today and far into the future. Each year, close to 1,000 bills, based at least in part on ALEC Model Legislation, are introduced in the states. Of these, an average of 20 percent become law.

    http://notseeamerica.com/ALEC-Alumni.html 

    Here’s an article on Wisconsin’s historic (progressive) opposition to “for-profit bail bonding” (criminalized in other countries) and ALEC — which is funded in part by for-profit prison operator, “CCA” (Corrections Corporation of America) — is trying to get that very practice into Wisconsin:

    Wisconsin’s history and public policy reflects the red/blue divide. It is the state that gave birth to the Republican Party, which supported slavery abolition, and the John Birch Society, which opposed the civil rights movement. In the first half of the 20th Century, the state elected both progressive hero Robert “Fighting Bob” LaFollette and right-wing extremist Joe McCarthy. It is the state that elected both former Senator Russ Feingold (D) and Representative Paul Ryan (R).

    Wisconsin also produced Paul Weyrich, who in 1973 co-founded both the Heritage Foundation and ALEC (and in subsequent years, Free Congress and Moral Majority). Weyrich’s ALEC, it seems, has been a factory for many of the state’s most recent right-wing policy initiatives.

    Wisconsin’s Progressive Traditions Resist For-Profit Prisons and Bail-Bonds

    Elements of Wisconsin’s criminal justice system reflect Wisconsin’s progressive traditions. Since 1979, Wisconsin has been ahead of most U.S. states in banning commercial bail-bonding (46 states still use it), joining the rest of the world in recognizing the practice as unacceptable (it is criminalized in countries like England and Canada). Posting another person’s bail for profit has a record of corrupting the sentencing process, and puts the decision of whether an accused person goes free in the hands of a profit-oriented business.

    …Both the for-profit prison industry and the for-profit bail-bond industries have done so through ALEC, the national organization that facilitates corporate-sponsored “model bills” for legislators to introduce in their states.

    ALEC and For-Profit Criminal Justice

    The American Bail Coalition (ABC), the for-profit bail bond industry’s national organization and lobbying wing, calls ALEC the industry’s “life preserver”. ABC pays for ALEC membership, and a representative sits on the ALEC corporate board (the “Private Enterprise Board”) as well as ALEC’sExecutive Committee. The trade group boasts that “during its two decade involvement with ALEC, ABC has written 12 model bills fortifying the commercial bail industry.”

    The nation’s largest private prison operator CCA is also an ALEC member and funder, and pays for a seat on the “Public Safety Task Force” that approves ALEC model legislation dealing with crime and penalties. Since the late 1980s and 1990s, ALEC has created model bills that lengthen sentences, which have dramatically increased incarceration rates, and bills that privatize prisons, putting more of those inmates under the control of for-profit corporations.

    Wisconsin politicians have long ties to ALEC. Former Governor Tommy Thompson was involved in ALEC’s early years. Milwaukee’s groundbreaking “school choice” program was based on ALEC model legislation. ALEC alum Scott Walker’s first act upon becoming governor was to introduce an omnibus “tort reform” bill mirroring many ALEC bills. But, the state’s progressive traditions have thus far trumped efforts by ALEC’s Wisconsin legislators to open the state to commercial bail-bonding and private prison industries. But they are still trying.

    http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/07/10902/alec-profit-criminal-justice-and-wisconsin
    Many of the problems with ALEC are mirrored (probably on a smaller scale) in the practices of the AFCC conferences, surrounding the family law field.  Conferences are held out of state, policies set, new fields discussed and invented, and without scrutiny by the average taxpayer or litigant.  The practice undermines the concept of justice, and full information available to the person going in front of a judge for a decision in their case.   ANyhow, here’s the description of ALEC:

    ALEC Exposed

    Almost always drafted outside of the state with little or no input from state residents (but significant input from corporate interests), ALEC bills have made substantial changes to laws in all 50 states and in some ways determined how state taxpayer dollars are allocated. The full list of legislative membership in ALEC is not public, and legislators introduce ALEC bills in the legislator’s own name. ALEC conferences allow elected officials to hobnob with some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, often behind closed doors and without public scrutiny. This secrecy has prevented state residents from holding their elected leaders accountable for passing laws that serve out-of-state corporate interests at the expense of the individuals that live, work, and vote in the state.

    This practice is good for the corporations, and bad for the public in general.  THey do not have a seat at the policymaking table, and are misled into thinking their legislators are simply legislators.   ALL of this is enabled in part by the class distinctions made possible by the income tax (competition of nonprofit with for-profit corporations), changes ot the tax laws in the 1980s, and the increasing restriction of options the non-wealthy have to live their lives privately, and as they please so long as its not hurting or cheating somewhere else.
    I recommend reading this article — although I am new to awareness about ALEC, the effects are tangible.   A Wisconsin Professor Conlon began to out them, and the GOP
    A visit to the “About” menu on ALEC’s website will give you a sense of the organization’s history, its current members, and its funders. But to get to the true depths of collusive corruption, you need to visit the site’s “model legislation” page, the gateway to all the bills ALEC has drafted. Unsurprisingly, you can’t view that legislation unless you’re a member.Alas, becoming a member of ALEC isn’t so easy. You have to be an elected Republican legislator (PDF) who pays roughly $100 per biennium to join after being thoroughly vetted, or you can become a “private sector” member (PDF) by paying a few thousand dollars minimum depending on which legislative domains are of the most interest to you.You can’t find out which Wisconsin Republican politicians are members of ALEC unless you’re a member because ALEC won’t provide it. You could ask Wisconsin representatives, but you won’t get an honest answer. Loopholes in Wisconsin’s strict open meetings laws (PDF) were created by Democrats and Republicans alike to allow them to push their own party’s agendas. Because of these loopholes, Wisconsin Republicans are able to hold secret meetings with ALEC to plan their lopsided legislative strategies whenever they want with no public knowledge or intervention.

    ALEC’s partners play an important role in Wisconsin and other states in pushing their dreamt up legislation aimed at enriching them while destroying everyone else. The State Policy Network (SPN) is important to ALEC because they coordinate the activities of a wide variety of conservative “think tanks” at the state level throughout the U.S. Many publications from these “think tanks” can be accessed and downloaded from the SPN website.

    For Wisconsinites, two important SPN members to note include the MacIver Institute for Public Policy, and the Wisconsin Policy R

    Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/305144#ixzz1ZfX2Veb6

    OUR U.S. Receipts, by Source, (2010) PIE CHART AGAIN:   42% from taxpayers, 40% from contributions to Social Retirement, insurance, and 9% from corporations, who are writing the laws we live by, funding universities, and influencing politicians.

    Income security— Income security benefits are paid to the aged, the disabled, the unemployed and low-income families. Included within this classification are programs such as general retirement and disability, public assistance [TANF, right?] and unemployment compensation. Outlays for these benefits were $624 billion in fiscal 2010—an increase of 16.9 percent or $90.1 billion over the fiscal 2009 level.

    United States Central Summary General Accounts Ledger
    I would like to post this link just as an overview (for the non-accountants among us) of just how many different places assets can be held, and in how many different forms.   Scroll (down) to where it shows “Miscellaneous accounts” 1012, 1016, 1053, 1054 — which are

    Miscellaneous Asset Accounts:

    1012 U.S. Treasury Miscellaneous Assets  $20,685,324.88  twenty-point-six million

    1016 Federal Reserve Banks, Deferred Items  $1,375,803.06  (I dont know meaning of the term “Deferred Items.”)

    1053 U.S. Treasury – Owned Gold  $11,041,058,821.09  eleven-point-oh-four-one million

    1054 Gold Certificate Fund, Board Of Governors Of The Federal Reserve System2  $-11,036,836,601.1 negative eleven-point-oh-three-six million

    1423 U.S. Currency With The International Monetary Fund  $143,609,533.65

    (and etc.. such as …..)  1670 Receivable For Forged, Or Incorrect Payment Of All U.S. Government Checks 1840 Deposits In Transit To The Treasury Account 1869 Deposit In Suspense, Electronic Funds Transfer 1870 E-Commerce Collections 1875 Undistributed Disbursing Transactions

    (Agencies Reporting On Statement Of Transactions, FMS-224 – Revised)

    Total Miscellaneous Asset Accounts  $-483,509,607.91  (ie, in the hole just under $500 million)

    Total Asset Accounts  (including other than “Misc.”) – $1,135,885,827,712.54

    Footnotes 1, 2:   “1/ Major sources of information used to determine Treasury’s operating cash include Federal Reserve Banks, the Treasury Regional Finance Centers, The Internal Revenue Service Centers, the Bureau of Public Debt and various electronic systems. Deposits are reflected as received andWithdrawals are reflected as processed.

    2/ The difference between Gold and Gold Certificates represents 100,000 fine troy ounces of unmonetized gold held by the U.S. Mint as assurance that Gold Certificates are fully backed by Reserve Gold.

    Thank you, another Republican President for ending the gold standard and making the U.S. dollar a total “fiat currency”;  (Wikipedia) ”

    Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning “let it be done”, as such money is established by government decree. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used.

    Fiat money originated in 11th century China,[1] and its use became widespread during the Yuan and Ming dynasties.[2] The Nixon Shock of 1971 ended the direct convertibility of the United States dollarto gold. Since then all reserve currencies have been fiat currencies, including the dollar and the euro.[3]

    (from the same general site, I am looking at the HHS ANnual report 2010 balance sheet):

    Administration For Children And Families General Fund Accounts

    . .Family Support Payments To States, Administration For Children And Families, Health And Human Services

    Fund Resources: Undisbursed Funds  (Dept. 75, Account 1501) Beginning of Year Balance:    $887,346,371.55

    Appropriations, and other Obligational Authority:    $4,665,683,723.63  (THIS IS THE “$ 4 BILLION” figure we keep squawking about)

    Outlays (what actually got paid out)       .. . . . . . . . . .  $4,422,869,054.30  (somewhere around $243 million still waiting, earning interest?)

    End of year balance, undisbursed funds under this category — $1,130,161,040.88

    PART TWO, or is it FIVE?

    If the average citizen did what some court-affiliated corporations and political appointees regularly do, they’d be in jail.

    Here’s a link to some that are, courtesy the IRS:

    The IRS Reports some Recent Trophies

    Examples of General Fraud Investigations — Fiscal Year 2011

    For those of us whose minds don’t naturally run towards, how can I get away with it, the fine distinctions between:  tax evasion, money laundering, embezzlement, a Ponzi scheme, and obstruction of IRS investigation of income tax evasions, mail fraud, straightfoward stealing through forging signatures (being in position such as bookkeeper or accountant, and able to do so), or simply flat-out “stealing state funds” this roster of recent IRS deadbeats is sort of a primer.

    Many of these closely resemble some behaviors that appear (got to clear myself on this one!) to characterize the initial start-up behavior of the main court organization Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, in Los Angeles.

    I’m putting this “primer” up because the approach “but they just don’t understand my case” has not been working for most parents.  Put yourself in the judge’s shoes, a little more, by understanding court operations.  It is the parents’ turn to start understanding how the courts actually work, meaning, who’s running them, and how they are financed. And get over the idea that one can be guaranteed whoever is wearing the black robes and manning a gavel, is per se of noble character, though I’m sure many ARE.   Respect the position, but make sure those in it — and the administrative agencies surrounding them — are held accountable!

    “Class is in session — pay attention!”

    In this example, a Minnesota State Auditor abused her position to enrich herself, some relatives, and a check-cashing company that helped with the conspiracy.  This auditor got audited, and has to pay it back:

    Former Minnesota Department of Revenue Employee Sentenced For Stealing $1.9 Million in State Funds

    On September 7, 2011, in Minneapolis, Minn., Pamela Marie Dellis, of Lindstrom, was sentenced to 60 months in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering. Dellis was charged along with two co-defendants on January 7, 2011, and pleaded guilty on March 7, 2011. On August 9, 2011, Dellis’s niece, Laurie R. Sondrall, of Minneapolis, was sentenced to 27 months on one count of conspiracy. Dellis’s sister, Nancy T. Sondrall, of Brooklyn Center, awaits sentencing. All three defendants will be required to pay back more than $1.9 million in restitution.

    In their plea agreements, the defendants admitted that from January 12, 2005, through September 17, 2010, they conspired to defraud the State of Minnesota by embezzling funds by creating false tax refund checks. According to court documents, as an auditor with the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Dellis’s job, in part, was to process tax overpayments. In numerous instances, however, she falsified records to create the impression that a taxpayer was owed a refund due to an overpayment when, in fact, that was not the case. Then, she drafted a refund check or a “transfer of funds,” made payable to her sister or niece, for the false refund amount. Dellis admitted using variations of her co-conspirators’ names on the checks and transfers to make it more difficult to detect that the refunds were not legitimate.*** To cash the checks, Dellis and her co-conspirators sometimes sought the services of a check-cashing business and then divided the check proceeds. On other occasions, the checks were deposited into an account, in an effort to conceal the source of the funds, and then withdrawn and shared by the co-conspirators. In all, Dellis was responsible for more than 200 fraudulent tax refund payments, totaling approximately $1.9 million.

    *** parallel from the family court system in Los Angeles, as investigated by Kelly O’Meara.  I admire this woman’s work, whose credits include:

    For her work, The National Foundation for Women Legislators named O’Meara Investigative Reporter of the Year in 2001 and the following year, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights gave her their International Human Rights Award.

    Other major investigative reports that O’Meara filed while at Insight include a 12-part series entitled How the Money Works, that probed Federal agency financial reporting. Her examinations of annual updates of department and agency audits focusing on missing money showed that trillions go unaccounted for at agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

    In another series, U.S. Money Laundering, O’Meara looked at Enron, the Bank of New York and an estimated $500 billion of annual money laundering in the U.S. financial system. She also explored the relationship between Washington and capital markets.

    In her series, Local Government Corruption, O’Meara investigated corruption in county governments and the judiciary, specifically the County of Los Angeles court system. She was the first reporter to break the story of the Los Angeles judges’ slush fund account and trigger an independent audit of that account, which has since been transferred to the county. **She received the 1999 Friend of the Child Award from the California Protective Parents Association for her articles on the Los Angeles family courts.

    (**where it is STILL unaccounted for….)   Another investigative story might be WHY so many so-called children’s advocates chose to ignore this information in building their reform movements.  Don’t get me started….  The same groups also by and large ignored Mr. Fine while he was sitting improperly jailed for reporting it!

    Here’s another one:

    California Man Sentenced on Tax Charges

    On July 29, 2011, in Sacramento, Calif., Owen Charles, of Pleasant Hill, was sentenced to 51 months in prison. Charles was convicted on January 14, 2011, of tax evasion, fraudulent use of a social security number and false statements to a federal agency. According to testimony presented at trial, Charles claimed to believe that the law only required him to pay income tax on his federal retirement.  An IRS audit determined that between 2001 and 2003, he had failed to pay more than $1.2 million in taxes, interest, and penalties on income from, among other things, real estate sales and rental properties. 

    A person who can sell real estate and function as a landlord is smart enough to understand that income is taxable….  If $1.2 million was the taxes, interest, and penalties, what was the actual income?

    Upon learning that he was being audited, Charles took measures to frustrate IRS collection efforts.  He did three “cash out” refinances of his million-dollar Benicia home; he moved money into nominee accounts; and he disguised his control of those accounts by using a false social security number, shell corporate names, and another person’s name.  In 2001, Charles wired more than $900,000 to a bank account in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Charles also claimed to have been living under a vow of poverty while driving luxury vehicles and controlling more than $1 million in assets.       

    Unbelievable.   The fraudulent use of a social security number has been cited in child support cases as well; see “How To Destroy a Nuclear Physicist” and Maximus recycling an old child support case (after his kids were emancipated) and going after him, again:

    In 1998, two years after Tony’s youngest child was emancipated, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement created a case in which Mary Ann was alleged to have had a male child two (2) months before that she claimed was Tony’s. At this point Tony had had no contact with Mary Ann for 20 years.

    Notice of this action by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement appeared to be a “recycling” of the original 1991 case without providing justification for the action. Tony requested a DNA paternity test but that was immediately denied by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee on the basis that the “mother” would not allow a paternity test to be done.

    Eventually, Tony was able to avoid this obligation by proving to the Missouri Court that he could not have been anywhere near Mary Ann at the time of the conception and the case was dismissed. In addition, in 2004 he learned that the alleged child never existed. The last child that Mary Ann had was in 1991, after which she had her Fallopian tubes ligated. This information surfaced in conversations between Mary Ann, Tony, and Amanda in 2004.

    As is common in cases such as Tony’s, child support enforcement never gives up. According to Maximus/Child Support Enforcement, a “Final Administrative Order” was filed in the St. Louis County Circuit Court in July 1999 claiming an “arrearage” of $11,000. A Tennessee case number was assigned in violation of federal law (one state cannot amend another state’s original court order for child support and make a new case out of it) and this practice is illegal per decree of the U. S.. Supreme Court.

    Here are a few involving attorneys — such as, a former district attorney:

    Former District Attorney Sentenced for Tax Evasion

    On June 1, 2011, in Lafayette, La., Joseph Floyd Johnson was sentenced to 18 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $179,661 in restitution. Johnson was employed as an assistant district attorney with the Lafayette Parish District Attorney’s Office from 1995 until at least July 2010 and he was also engaged in the private practice of law beginning around 1989 until at least July 2010.  Based on the taxable income Johnson earned, he owed federal income tax.

    According to his plea agreement, in November 2010, Johnson admitted that he willfully attempted to evade federal income tax by failing to prepare and submit a tax return for the tax year 2003 on or before April 15, 2004, as required by law. He also admitted to committing other acts such as concealing the nature, extent and location of his assets to the IRS, making false statements to IRS agents, placing funds and property in the names of nominees to attempt to hide the true ownership of the assets, making checks payable to others to conceal assets from the IRS, paying creditors instead of the government and depositing checks into a client trust account to conceal the nature of the funds and give the appearance that the funds were neither income nor assets.  According to the bill of information, as of July 2010, Johnson failed to file federal income tax returns for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 despite the fact that he was required to do so by law.

    The guys’ a public employee, an attorney and just figured he didn’t have to file income tax? ???

    Minnesota Attorney Sentenced For Tax Evasion

    On May 26, 2011, in Minneapolis, Minn., Samuel Alfred McCloud was sentenced to 18 months in prison and two years of supervised release on one count of tax evasion. McCloud was also ordered to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service and the Minneapolis Department of Revenue in the assessment and collection of taxes, interest, and penalties owed by him.

    McCloud pleaded guilty on December 9, 2010. In his plea agreement, he admitted concealing $595,000 from both the IRS and the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Between 2004 and 2006, McCloud worked at two law firms, but he instructed clients to write checks to him directly rather than making them payable to the law firms. McCloud admitted depositing or instructing others to deposit those checks in bank accounts held in the name of another person as well as in the name of several sham corporations. In addition to failing to report the income, McCloud failed to pay state or federal taxes on it.    

      

    Cute.     Seems like no one wants to pay taxes.   Some form nonprofits, and others work and just attempt to flat-out hide their income.  Others think “large” in schemes to defraud the innocent . . . . . 

    Do Not try to evade Income Taxes or any other kind of taxes illegally  For PEte’s sake don’t copy the AFCC folk and start forming all kinds of corporations to give an appearance of actually being more than (basically) one association with an agenda — getting as many mental health practitioners as possible a great retirement plan, and tax-deductible air fare and hotel accommodations in fun places to think up the next set of schemes to be forced on the parents and their children.

    But there is nothing wrong with taking a hard look at who is paying the taxes, and asking WHY the conversation all over the TVs, and the Child Support Enforcement Agencies, and the Think Tanks is about “creating” and/or finding jobs, jobs, jobs — [which would produce income tax, income tax, income tax for the 42% of government receipts for its operations, which we can safely say are mostly run by corporations, corporations, corporations influencing legislators….] when the fact is, the wealthiest people don’t even work that many jobs — instead, they create family and other foundations (including in other countries), tax shelters, they start, develop, go public with and sometimes buy & sell corporations; they invest in stocks, trade commodities or currencies markets, and in the resulting spare time because their income is NOT tied to a 9 to 5 (or 7 to 7pm) jobs, can meet with each other to figure out what legislation will best suit their business interests — not yours, THEIRS.  And/or they have adequate technology to market their businesses and conduct videoconferences, etc.

    They possess and work in an entirely different field of ideas, attitudes and expectations, one of which is to manage people and run business, or at times, countries…..

    The U.S. Public Education system exists, in part, to make sure that not too many youngsters learn these skills, and to groom them for their appointed future as employEES — not business owners or day traders, or investors.  Heck, literacy and math, history and economics are hardly taught.  There iS, however, a values war being run through the schools, and the metal detectors, lack of privacy and civil rights, and herd-mentality-treatment and such communicate to the average student what his or her future just might be if that student does not color within the lines.    Scant mention is made of how much is paid to politicians campaigns to keep this system going.

    I’ll bet THIS article is a good one (podcast, though).  Note:  “CCHR” appears to be a Scientology outfit, but neither Blumentield nor O’Meara are, that I’m aware of.

    CCHR Int
    Jun 19, 2:42 AM
    Watchdog Radio with guest Samuel Blumenfeld

    Read more…

    Where, Oh Where, has Los Angeles County’s Money gone?

    This is good reading (and a decade old) in O’Meara’s / Insight’s follow-up on whether, say, is anyone at Los Angeles going to, er, pay some of those 30 years of back taxes?  And trying to get a few more answers about WHO knows how much cash is being collected.  Remember, this is “OLD” news, yet who even bothers to talk about it any more , and what (if anything) was resolved?

    Found on a Yahoo Groups discussion: posted July 21, 2001:

           and at
    http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200107304.shtml (but “insightmag.com” appears to be a defunct domain….)

    A Financial Fiasco Is in the Making

    By Kelly Patricia O’Meara  (July 30, 2001)

    komeara@…

    An alleged slush fund for the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association may be the tip of an iceberg of misappropriation of government money in Los Angeles County.

    “Put your concerns in writing and mail them to me.” Click; the line goes dead. The voice on the phone was that of Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge James Basqueas Insight pressed him to explain whether the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association (LASCJA), of which he is the chairman, has made any attempt to pay 30 years of back taxes to county, state and federal authorities.  

    (CHART inserts, mine, from the CA OAG site): Notice, it has no EIN#!

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EX550137 Charity Exempt – Active LOS ANGELES CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

    Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
    You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.
    Registrant Information

    Full Name: LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION FEIN:
    Type: Mutual Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2062529
    Registration Number: EX550137
    Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
    Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/1991
    Registration Status: Exempt – Active Date This Status:
    Date of Last Renewal:

    Address Information

    Address Line 1: 111 N HILL ST RM 204 Phone:
    Address Line 2:
    Address Line 3:
    Address Line 4: LOS ANGELES CA 90012

    Annual Renewal InformationRelated Documents

    No Related Documents

    Prerequisite Information

    No Prerequisite Information

    IRS Return Data

    And the Secretary of Site record for the corporation shows 1997.  OK . . . . .

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C2062529 12/10/1997 ACTIVE LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION FREDERICK R BENNETT

    (and a different room….)

    Entity Name: LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION
    Entity Number: C2062529
    Date Filed: 12/10/1997
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 111 N. HILL ST RM 546
    Entity City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012
    Agent for Service of Process: FREDERICK R BENNETT
    Agent Address: 111 N HILL ST RM 546
    Agent City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012

    Which is most definitely the courthouse itself:

    Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Courthouse
    Central District
    Stanley Mosk Courthouse on Hill St.
    111 North Hill St.
    Los Angeles, CA 90012

     It has been more than two years since Insight broke the story of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges earning money off the books by providing minimum continuing legal education (MCLE) classes to attorneys in the courtrooms. The fees collected were deposited into a private bank account that has come to be known as the $100,000 “coffee and flowers” fund (see “Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?,” May 3, 1999). 
           The problem with this arrangement is that, apparently to cover for the fact that the judges weren’t paying taxes on this income, whether earned or extorted, the LASCJA illegally used the employer-identification number (EIN) of the County of Los Angeles. In time the county politely asked the learned jurists to stop using that number. But no criminal charges were filed against the judges and no one raised the issue of making good on back taxes. So when Basque abruptly ended that telephone conversation, Insight decided to take another look at the status of that private bank account and to revisit the Los Angeles County Superior Court Finance Office. 


    Insight put its “concerns” about those back taxes in writing, as requested by the presiding judge, and hand-delivered the formal request to his chambers. Basque neither responded to the questions nor agreed to a meeting, instead deferring to the county’s counsel, Frederick Bennett.** 

    (notice, also the registered agent of this corporation / alleged nonprofit with no EIN#) (yet!)


    Although Bennett says that he “has some background information concerning the [judges] association,” not once in his three-page response did he discuss whether the judges have made any attempt to pay what could amount to 30 years of back taxes and penalties. Instead, he obfuscates, rambling on that he is “informed and believes the association has used its own taxpayer’s identification number since approximately 1997, when the county auditor [J. Tyler McCauley] indicated that would be the better practice.” 

    Which number is …. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?  


    For the LASCJA to use its own identification number, as required by law, is a “better practice?” What about it being illegal for the judges to have enjoyed their private income for so many years under the county’s EIN? Not a word. But Bennett continues to defend the judges by explaining that “the association does not pay taxes,” as he is “informed and believes that it is an organization exempt from taxes.”  


    Bennett provided a copy of the LASCJA’s year 2000 federal IRS 990 Form indicating the organization’s tax-exempt status but advised that the information he was providing should be verified with the LASCJA’s attorney, John J. Collins of the Pasadena law firm of Collins, Muir and Traver.   


    Collins had less information than Bennett. It appears that Collins can only speak about the LASCJA back to the winter of 1997, when he first began representing the association. Asked if he is aware of any efforts by the judges to pay taxes on these large sums of money earned during the 30-year period, Collins tells Insight: “I can’t speak about that because I don’t know they made any money.”   

    (NOTE:  appears to be when it registered as a separate corporation, possibly because of prompting from some of these investigators….)


    That assuredly is a lawyerly response, given that Collins admitted to having read Insight’s earlier article about the LASCJA which contained details about checks being deposited into the judges’ private Bank of America account. It at that time contained a little more than $100,000.
           Neither Collins nor the judges have addressed the issue that, based on the bank records, large sums of money may be owed in back taxes. Furthermore, based on correspondence from Collins, it is clear that the association’s counsel is much more informed about the status of the account than he lets on. 
    Since Insight began looking into the “slush fund” of the Superior Court judges and their finance office, requests for information have been submitted by private citizens, including Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, Calif. He became involved in the Superior Court’s financial matters because of problems his daughter was having in a child-custody case. In February 1998, Bryer made a statutory request through Collins to inspect the LASCJA’s records. Collins refused, saying LASCJA “is not a public entity nor an exempt organization as defined under this statute.” He stated that “the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a private organization and its documents, including financial records and tax information, are confidential and not subject to disclosure.” 


    While Collins says the LASCJA is a “private” organization, according to California Secretary of State Bill Jones, the association filed for tax-exempt status in December 1997 — well within the time frame of Bryer’s request for inspection of the records. When Insight reminded Collins about this correspondence, the lawyer once more stonewalled, saying: “I’m not giving you any opinion on that. That’s not part of my function. I’m not telling you what their legal status is. Everything that’s out there is a matter of public record. You’ve got the filings, the informational returns and that’s enough for you to come to your conclusions.” 


    Meanwhile, the LASCJA continues to use the county courthouse for its private business. According to documents filed with the California secretary of state, the LASCJA lists the courthouse at 111 North Hill Street as its business address. Then there is a letter from Collins dated November 2000 stating that “the tax returns for 1998 and 1999 have been deposited in Room 119 [the Superior Court Finance Office] of the Central District Court. … you should ask for Mr. Alf Schonbach, who is the court administrator–finance and accounting.” Despite assurances from county auditor McCauley that the judges no longer were conducting their private business from the court premises, Collins continues to direct inquiries about the LASCJA to the court’s finance office.  


    Schonbach long has been a key player in the oversight of the LASCJA account. And it is Schonbach who was in command of the Superior Court Finance Office when one of his underlings, Gregory Pentoney, and an attorney friend, Robert Fenton, cooked up a scheme to collect $5 million in unclaimed sums deposited — and long forgotten — in the county’s Condemnation and Interpleader [C&I] trust fund. Pentoney and Fenton pleaded guilty to one felony count of taking a bribe and receiving a bribe. Pentoney was sentenced to two years in state prison; Fenton received 16 months.

    USlegal definition”  “Condemnation”

    Condemnation suit is a judicial proceeding for the purpose of taking property by eminent domain for public use upon the payment of just compensation for such taking. It is also known as condemnation proceeding. Such a proceeding adjudicates all rights, including ownership and just compensation, as well as the right to take the property.

    and “Interpleader

    Interpleader is the procedure when two parties are involved in a lawsuit over the right to collect a debt from a third party, who admits the money is owed but does not know which person to pay. The debtor deposits the funds with the court (“interpleads”), asks the court to dismiss him/her/it from the lawsuit and lets the claimants settle their dispute in court.

    Interesting . . . .

    so, here is a Fenton Appeal on the case:

    1. [PDF]

      IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

      caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/B152057.PDF

      File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
      Jul 1, 2002 – against Fenton and PentoneyFenton and Pentoney subsequently pled “no contest” to violating Penal Code sections 67.5 (bribing a ministerial 


    And, moreover, here is Marv Byers (?)  Johnnypumphandle’s  commentary on the fact that the City of Glendale omitted a “Statement of Economic Interest” (for Fenton, while he was working as its City Attorney?); gets kind of like a mystery here, I understand!:

    BEGIN of PUMPHANDLE QUOTE:

    enton / Pentoney – arrested August 28, 1998

    Latest News

    January 25, 2001 – The case has been moved to Dept Q, Judge Wolf, and will now be heard on February 9 at 8:30 am. We understand that Judge Wolf has previously ruled favorably for Fenton.

    January 11, 2001 – In a related case, LC043853, which is to be heard in the Van Nuys Court, Dept. C24 on January 25, 2001, Robert Fenton had sued the City of Glendale to recover his ‘costs’ in scamming money from the County of LA which was routed to the City of Glendale. The suit was tabled until the criminal case was resolved. As we all know, Fenton went to jail for his part in the bribery scheme. When he was working for the City of Glendale as their City Attorney (so he could act for Glendale in getting LA County funds), Glendale was required by law to have a Statement of Economic Interest on file for all public officials that represent the City. Guess what? Glendale took part in the scheme by ‘overlooking’ this requirement. The City of Glendale has no Statement of Economic Interest. If it were not for the crime committed while Fenton was in office, Glendale should only be sanctioned. But now, it looks like Glendale was in on the scheme an tried to hide Fenton’s connections. This is criminal activity that needs investigation by the State Attorney General’s office.

    Older News

    August 11, 2000. Robert Fenton was sentenced today to 16 months in the State Prison System. However, Judge Waldrip specified that Fenton was to be processed through the LA County Restitution Center (???) in order to earn back the fines that were placed on him. Sentencing for Gregory Pentoney was continued to September 8th at 1:30 pm in Judge Waldrip’s court. (8th floor, 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana,CA).

    4 Cases of Restitution came before Judge Waldrip. He denied restitution for Marvin Bryer, Rose Jensen, and the City of Glendale (Glendale has a suit pending against Fenton that would also address the restitution.). The Judge met with counsel for almost an hour prior to the sentencing to work out the details – Restitution was granted to the LA Superior Court in the amount of $24,000. Although, an estimate of $61,000 (for the interest on the stolen money) was claimed by the Superior Court, the figure of $24,000 was approved by the Judge – pending acceptance by the LA Superior Court which was not present at this hearing. $16,000 to be paid by Fenton – $8000 to be paid by Pentoney. Because of this seemingly high amount, the judge reduced Fenton’s fine from $10,000 to $5,000.

    We believe that there are hundreds of cases that Fenton and Pentoney used to defraud LA County out of much more money than has been uncovered in this case. (Although there were many counts of theft in this case, all other counts but one were dismissed by Judge Waldrip.) The Crusaders will be looking into these many other cases to see if the money can be returned to the taxpayers.

    So far, we have not determined that any of the money was returned to the County since the ‘return money’ checks we found were made out to the LA Superior Court which is funded by the State of California.

    October 15, 1999 – Over a year later, Fenton and Pentoney’s bail has been reduced to $100,000 and now Pentoney (public defender Walter Katz) has filed a 170.1 to recuse all the judges in LA County. The recusal was granted by Judge Hess and the case is being moved to Orange County. All judges in LA County are unable to hear this case. (Does this mean they are all connected to the scheme? And why did it take a year to learn that all the judges must be disqualified in this case?)    . . . 

    “Since substantial sums are involved due to compounding interest, municipalities and even private citizens working for the municipalities sometimes subsequently try to locate the cases in which they believe money is owed. But success is limited, the prosecutor said, because the county refuses to provide outsiders with a blanket list of all such cases.

    Pentoney, however, is charged with providing that information to Fenton, who, between December 1995 and November 1996, submitted 99 requests for disbursements of more than $5 million from the trust accounts on behalf of various municipalities.”

    END OF PUMPHANDLE QUOTE...

    To understand this some (why not?), read the various Los Angeles articles describing the crime, and scheme — how Pentoney had to sell Fenton insider information about accounts that still had compounded interest due the municipalities in emininent domain cases.  In other words, a city (municipality) wants to grab some land.  They have to deposit money into an account (“condemnation”) until the case is finished, that money gets compounding interest.  I’m sure it adds up.  Sometimes the cities forget to collect the interest too — and then “bounty hunters” can go try and get it back.  Problem:  The county didn’t want to ” ‘fess up” where such funds were so cities could go get them back, even though those funds belonged to the cities….

    Amazing what one finds looking for simple information.  I found this on a Yahoo groups “Family court reform” message — Marv Byer was looking for Gregory Pentoney’s ex-wife, who it appears he also cheated in a property matter, failed to disclose to a judge during the divorce, and guess what — it looks like Pentoney got custody of the children (because his ex-wife is paying him child support!)   As Pentoney went to jail, that meant the former Mrs. Pentoney ended up paying child support to the jailed Pentoney’s girlfriend.  Marv Byer wants to help her, and I can imagine is at the time rather peeved at having disc overed the scam affecting his own daughter’s custody case, no doubt….

    Marv Bryer wants to know where to find Irene Pentoney, formerly married to
    Gregory Pentoney of Los Angeles
    .

    “You should have money coming to you. Your ex husband cheated you out of
    community property. He is going to State prison for bribery.

    While you were married, your husband failed to disclose that he had money in
    escrow in a housing complex he was buying. It is located at 7336 Unit #66 in
    Downey. He didn’t list it as community property, although he signed for it
    while he was married to you.

    He did not disclose the escrow account to the judge, and after the divorce he
    lied on public record. He held up the final property closure until after the
    divorce was final. Then he went to a notary and did a quit claim on the
    property. He swore that he had made an error in his grant deed and he swore
    he was NOT married when he signed. This is a lie. His statement is perjury.
    In addition Pentoney quit claimed the property as a “gift” to himself as an
    unmarried man and to his father and mother.

    Then on March 8, 1995 Gregory Pentoney allowed Melissa Wall to start a
    criminal enterprise from that property using a dba Morris and Associates
    Bookkeeping Service. On Nov 1, 1996. the police raided the house and found
    checks from Robert Fenton to Morris. The checks were confiscated by the DA
    and are the subject matter of a bribery scheme and conviction. The case is
    People vs Pentoney BA173392 in Orange County.

    In case you’re a little mixed up:  Pentoney was the finance employee, Fenton was the outside attorney.  For Pentoney a.k.a. connected to “Morris and Associates” out of Pentoney-owned property( that he possibly cheated his ex-wife out of during a prior divorce) are paying FENTON, then was Morris and Associates a money laundering situation?

    As I (again) read the “Beware AFCC” post of “stopcourtorderedchildabuse.” (FYI — itself a nonprofit claiming to be a nonprofit that I haven’t yet located…  and run by another AFCC member (at least at one point) family lawyer also running ANOTHER training operation, Child Abuse Solutions, claiming to be a nonprofit whose registration may be a PO box in Berkeley, but which nonprofit registration I haven’t found yet — and is in this same business, training court professionals….    ……     ) ..   The timeframe is very closely connecting this information with the origins of the AFCC, and connecting the origins of the AFCC (Los Angeles COunty Superior Court Judges Slush Fund) with the habit of tax evasion and other not so legal activity . . . . . ..  and then we learn that the bank account in question was Bank of America (formerly Security Pacific) which the man Charles Rossotti (See this post), also formerly IRS and with stock in the accounting used (then) in L.A. — it gets very interesting indeed.

    HERE:  And I paste the relevant paragraphs into the link title (hover cursor to read)

    While he was pleading not guilty, he and his parents sold the property in
    violation of criminal forfeiture laws. There is criminal victim restitution
    laws that appear to allow you, the former Mrs. Pentoney, to have a claim on
    the sale of this property.

    Even knowing that this is true, the DA nevertheless allowed Gregory Pentoney
    to increase your child support that you will be paying to him while he is in
    State prison, The money will go to his girl friend who is now his wife, and
    who is caring for your child while Gregory Pentony is in prison. This is
    wrong. Please contact us. “

    AND HERE, (MOREOVER) IS MARV BRYER PUBLICIZING HOW THE PEOPLE V. PENTONEY TRIAL WAS SHIFTED, QUASHED, AND DISAPPEARED, ETC.  VERY INTERESTING READING. HE BELIEVED THAT THE PENTONEY CASE WAS KEY TO THE L.A. AREA “RICO,” AND PENTONEY’S.  HIS BAIL WENT SOMEHOW FROM $1.5 MILLION TO $100K.  BYER BELIEVES THEY LET HIM OFF SO HE WOULDN’T RAT THEM OUT.  


    As a result of a series of Insight articles about theft from the C&I trust account, Schonbach was directed to produce a listing of the unclaimed funds and make it publicly available. This currently reflects a balance of a little more than $54 million but does not include the “zero-balance” cases, where principle [“principal”] has been paid but interest still is accruing. Insight’s articles also prompted the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in September 2000 to request a special audit of the C&I account — at a cost to taxpayers of $18,000 — which eventually was made public last February. (2001)


    The accounting firm of Vasquez Farukhi & Co. conducted the special audit of the C&I trust account and stated it did not find “any material misstatements in the Condemnation and Interpleader Fund.” In other words, the C&I account is in good shape. But is it?   


    For the purposes of defining the fund Vasquez Farukhi explained that the “SK4 [Condemnation and Interpleader Fund] was established by the County of Los Angeles for the Superior Court of the county to account for four types of deposits consisting of eminent domain [condemnation] deposits, interpleader [deposits for credit relief], nonbondsmen bail deposits and deposits made in compliance with judicial order.” Having been advised by Los Angeles County Treasurer Joe Spillane that the county takes in between $400 million and $600 million a year, financial analysts tell Insight it seems odd that the C&I fund audit would reflect a mere $54 million.   


    Even more odd is that no one in the county government could provide Insight with a bottom-line figure of how much cash was collected through the C&I fund for fiscal 2000 alone. Spillane explained that he had little or no knowledge of the court’s finances. He receives a bottom-line figure from the auditor but has no clue about the deposit specifics. “We’re not looking,” explains Spillane, “for each of the individual deposits for each of the funds. That would be impossible.  

    Impossible?  WHY?  

    Any individual being audited would have to give a reconciliation, some backup documentation!  THis is part of good business practice.  I have seen other county records (in FL) where the transfers by clerks of the court are shown.  THey deal with huge amounts, but it’s their responsibility.       

      My function is to account for funds that are in the treasury, balance those to our bank accounts and our investments and have cash available for disbursement.” Spillane insists, “The auditor has the detail. I don’t know what is in the condemnation fund because it’s a fund that we don’t maintain.” Claiming to have exhausted his knowledge of how the money moves in Los Angeles, Spillane recommended that Insight speak with McCauley, the county auditor — a task easier said than done. 


    Several weeks passed before McCauley allowed a brief telephone interview and, while the agreed-upon focus of the conversation was to provide a bottom-line figure on the amount of cash being collected at the Superior Court, the auditor said he could provide few specifics. For those, he said, Insight would have to go to Schonbach in the Superior Court Finance Office. And, of course, Schonbach refused to discuss the court’s cash collections

    SCHONBACH appears on the other timeline as well (to which I’m sure Bryer’s and some NAFCJ reporting went in as well):

    Begin quote from:

    History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

    COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

    1995:

    • Also in May, Deputy Executive Officer to Auditor Judy Call (who is on the signature card for the LASCA and person who signed the checks to cash and to judges) sent a letter to Tyler McCauley, LA County Auditor- Controller (who is doing the audit). The letter stated that Judy wanted all the money transferred from the (Subject: transmission of administrative responsibility for the LA Superior Court Judges Account ) to transfer LASCA account to the judges. • LASCJA is still not registered at IRS or FTB or city. The only identity belonging to the account is the Auditor-Controller because the tax number is for LA County. None of the money has been reported to IRS. (just like if I used Marv’s SSN and opened an account…and then got a job using Marv’s SSN. He would be reported to IRS if he didn’t report taxes after cutting the W- 2. If I don’t pay taxes, they will come after the ID and Marv) a Federal crime

    • Also in May, a letter saying Confidential from Tyler McCauley to John Clark, admitting that there was an attempt to charge Marv $2000 which Marv called extortion. Admitted that the checks that Pentenoy gave Marv should have gone into the Court revenue, not into the private fund for judges. • Marv’s daughter subpeoned the Auditor’s investigation file. The Auditor admits they are doing an investigation but refused to give the file to her.

    1996

    August 6, Marv sued Pentenoy and Patricia Higgins for fraud and lying about court money.

    DA raided the court with a search warrant and shut down work in Finance Dept.

    • November 1, DA raided Pentenoy’s office, car, home (which is the same as Morris and Associates) and Judy Call’s office, locked up the computers and home [of?] Robert Fenton in Encino (who was bribing Pentenoy) and hid evidence.

    Reminder.  The L.A. County D.A.’s office around this time must’ve been Gil Garcetti’s, which was also sitting on undistributed child support, a.k.a., topic of Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit (Richard Fine). …  So while they are racing around to prosecute crime, remember who it is ….

    (Marv was busily suing and now could not get to the evidence.) • November 7, DA made another raid on Finance Dept and took a package marked “Marvin Bryer”, Pentenoy had notes on Marv.(Unconstitutional because no new search warrant…still don’t know what first search warrant said)

    {{how Marv knew this??}}

    • Dec 10, the Daily Journal reported the raid. (Since 1900, LA has been stealing money from the public. Pentenoy had lists of all the money that was stolen in Eminent Domain (when take people’s money) and Interpleader Accounts. He and Al Schonbach take it to the dumpster, but Pentenoy went to the dumpster later and retrieved it.)

    1997

    Marv Bryer subpoenaed all bank statements.

    The LA Superior Court Judges Association bank statements state they have been a customer since 1962.

    This LASCJA has to be the beginnings of the AFCC.  It is doing the same thing and has the same behavioral problems, like ETHICS!

    1998

    LA Superior Court Judges Association corporation incorporated Jan 1, 1998  {{see  above, 12/10/1997, close enough}}….

    Registered with IRS and Secty of State/FTB with a new EIN # after Marv subpoenaed the bank statements.

    2000

    Hypothesis: CCC became the AFCC which became the JMEF which became the LASCJA.

    NOW I am back to the Kelly O’Meara article, above:  The same journalist then goes on to describe how a faulty computer system may have let about $59 billion go missing from HUD around 2000:

    Perhaps taxpayers in Los Angeles will have time to find out what happened to all those millions.
    Meanwhile, Insight pressed on trying to obtain a bottom-line figure for cash taken in by the court. McCauley’s office finally provided a 37-page computer printout that allegedly reflects the court’s cash deposits for fiscal 2000. Although the printout provides a monthly ending balance for credits and debits, the report provides no details about the source and amounts of the debits and credits represent, providing only the unauditable lump-sum transfers. 
           As one accountant put it, “This is archaic. It’s ridiculous to think that a county as large as Los Angeles can’t program an accounting system that reconciles the books on a daily basis and [that] also can easily produce specific information about various accounts and provide yearly fund balances. It’s just absurd.” 

    Faulty Number Crunching

    How could the books for the County of Los Angeles be in such a mess if the authorities there weren’t trying to hide something, critics ask. At least some of the problem appears to lay with the computing system. The Countywide Accounting and Purchasing System (CAPS) is a product of American Management Systems (AMS) and has been used in Los Angeles since 1987. IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti is the founder and former chairman of AMS and remains a major stockholder in the company that provides computing services not only to Los Angeles County but to key federal agencies, including the IRS. 

    Charles Rossotti is Georgetown, Harvard, very smart, characterized with 5 others who founded AMS as “whiz kids.”

    As Insight recently reported, due to severe problems with its AMS accounting system, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was unable to balance its books under the recently departed secretary Andrew Cuomo (see “Cuomo Leaves HUD in Shambles,” March 5) and, in 1999, was unable to account for $59 billion (see Why Is $59 Billion Missing from HUD?” Nov. 6, 2000). ** Not surprisingly, under pressure from Insight, HUD since has decided to scrap the HUDCAPS computer program. But others have had similar problems with AMS finance systems, including the states of Mississippi and Kansas. Then again, as any auditor will be glad to confirm, there is nothing like institutionalized confusion to cover for and invite corruption.

    (SMILE….)

    ** I started to read this $59 Billion article, and feel it should be on the post.  Look below…..

    Results of search for “AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS” returned entity records.  (likely no relation, but interesting enough….)

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C0602191 07/03/1970 SUSPENDED AMERICAN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
    C0941617 10/01/1979 DISSOLVED AMERICAN DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
    C1170493 03/07/1983 SUSPENDED AMERICAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. LLOYD C OWNBEY JR
    C1167394 01/21/1983 SUSPENDED AMERICAN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. ANTHONY J THOMAS JR
    C1132885 01/21/1983 DISSOLVED AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DAVID L ANDERSON
    C1327378 12/28/1984 DISSOLVED AMERICAN RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. JOHN L TUCKER
    C1096092 11/09/1981 SURRENDER AMERICAN STORES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS COMPANY C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
    C0842796 04/05/1978 SUSPENDED PAN AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. ** RESIGNED ON 03/18/1991
    C1093417 10/21/1981 FORFEITED SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AMERICAN CORPORATION ** RESIGNED ON 10/31/1994


    Modify Search New Search 

    Charles Rossotti’s background sounds almost frighteningly competent.  HEre it is, in “The Carlyle Group.”  I have no idea what happened to AMS functioning in California, but imagine an archaic management system run by an IRS commissioner?  WHen the issue is getting the figures out so someone pays taxes on them?

    http://www.carlyle.com/team/item5829.html  (Global ALTERNATIVE Asset Management….)

    Charles O. Rossotti
    Senior Advisor
    Washington , DC
    Segment :  Corporate Private Equity
    Fund :  U.S. Buyout ,  U.S. Growth Capital
    Industry  :  Technology & Business Services

    Charles O. Rossotti is a Senior Advisor focusing primarily on investments in the fields of information technology and business services. He is based in Washington, DC.

    Prior to joining Carlyle, Mr. Rossotti served from 1997 to 2002 as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, the federal agency that serves 175 million taxpayers and employs 100,000 people. As a result of his leadership, the public’s rating of the IRS increased greatly and relationships of trust with Congress, tax professionals and business groups were restored, and the agency’s effectiveness turned around.

    In 1970, Mr. Rossotti co-founded American Management Systems, Inc. and until 1997 served at various times as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman. AMS grew through his tenure, becoming a major international business systems consulting and systems integration firm with revenues of more than $1 billion. AMS clients include Fortune 500 companies and federal, state and local government agencies in North America and Europe. In 1979, AMS was one of the first technology services firms to go public.

    Mr. Rossotti earned his A.B. in economics, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University and his M.B.A., with high distinction, from Harvard Business School. In 1970, he received the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from the Department of Defense. In 2002, he received the Alexander Hamilton Medal from the Department of Treasury. In 2003, he received an Alumni Achievement Award from Harvard Business School.

    Mr. Rossotti is on the Board of Directors of Carlyle portfolio companies Apollo Global, Booz Allen Hamilton, Compusearch Software and Wall Street Institute. In addition, he currently serves on the Board of Directors of Bank of America Corporation and AES Corporation, a publicly-owned global electric power company.

    Bank of America is distributing California Child Support (the Statewide Distribution Unit).

    In addition to his business activities, Mr. Rossotti serves on the Boards of Capital Partners for Education and the Comptroller General’s Advisory Committee of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In 2005, he served as a member of President Bush’s advisory panel on reform of the income tax.

    Not exactly too comforting that AMS (and this IRS commissioner) had a DOD background: Wikipedia:

    But only after a year, Rossotti went to work for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. From 1965 to 1969, Rossotti worked for Robert McNamara, becoming Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis at age 29.

    In 1970, Rossotti and several DOD colleagues co-founded American Management Systems, a technology and management consulting firm. Rossotti served as Chief Executive Officer from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.

    IRS Years

    In 1997, Rossotti was named Commissioner of Internal Revenue by then President Bill Clinton where he served for 5 years.

    He was considered a reformer, upgrading the agency’s technology, as well as turning the IRS into a more customer service oriented agency. Rossotti received a waiver from the Clinton administration that allowed him to retain his AMS stock in a blind trust.

    More on “AMS” same source:

    The company grew throughout the 1980s and 1990s, implementing key systems such as the accounting system for New York City and The Standard Procurement System for the United States Department of Defense. The company was acquired by CGI Group in 2004, with AMS’s federal defense business being acquired by CACI.

    AMS was founded in 1970 by five former Defense Department “Whiz Kids”: Charles RossottiIvan Selin, Frank Nicolai, Patrick W. Gross, and Jan Lodal.

    If they were such whiz kids, then how come no one can find that money or the accounting for it, for Los Angeles that Insight was looking for?

    The company’s initial headquarters were in the Washington, D.C. suburb of Arlington, Virginia. From its inception, much of AMS’s revenue was derived from contracts with federal agencies. The company grew quickly during the 1970s. During its first decade of operation, AMS focused its business on consulting and selling customized software to large government and corporate organizations. [1]

    The company grew to over nine thousand employees, with many offices in both the United States and other countries. At one point in the 1990s, one quarter of the company’s revenue, albeit none of the profit, came from Europe.

    I hope you find some of this detail interesting (I do….)

    Lawsuits, divestiture, and sale

    In 1999, the state government of Mississippi terminated an $11.2 million contract with AMS to modernize the state’s tax system and sued the company for $985 million in damages.[3] A jury awarded the state $474.5 million in actual and punitive damages in August 2000, causing a drop in stock price from 44 3/8 to 14. The company subsequently settled the suit for $185 million.[4]

    Another customer, the Federal Thrift Investment Board, cancelled a contract in 2000 for a system to make Thrift Savings Plan data available online. The subsequent lawsuit was settled for $5 million in June 2003.[5] A subsequent United States Senate investigation authored by senatorsSusan Collins and Joe Lieberman identified various reasons for four years of delays and cost overruns, including lack of formal agreement on a detailed design and problems with the structure of the contract.[6]

    In December 2002, AMS sold its Global Energy Group to Bangalore, India-based Wipro Technologies.

    New CEO Alfred T. Mockett was hired by AMS in 2001 to grow the company’s sales from $1.1 billion to $3 billion a year, with a goal of becoming a top tier system integrator through growth and acquisitions, with an eventual goal of a “big bang merger of equals.” When this strategy proved unsuccessful, Mockett negotiated a sale of the firm. CGI, a Canadian company, was the primary purchaser, paying $858 million for the commercial business and all government business not related to national defense. The defense portion of AMS could not be sold to a foreign-based company so CACI purchased the defense and intelligence practice for $415 million.[7] The AMS brand was retained by CGI for a time and the AMS website directed users to the CGI site. CGI’s United States headquarters are in Fairfax, Virginia.

    Bloomberg profile of Mr. Rossotti and all the boards he’s on at age 7,

    Or this one:

    CCHR Int
    Jun 19, 2:37 AM
    Watchdog Radio with guest Kelly O’Meara

    Read more…

    GOOD work, Kelly O’Meara!  All these months I’ve been reading your name on just one or two articles, but I see that’s the high standard of ferretting out the facts is typical!

    Here we go:

    Why Is $59 Billion Missing From HUD?

    Posted Nov. 6, 2000
    By Kelly Patricia O Meara
    Insight Magazine

    The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has earned a failing grade from the House Government Reform subcommittee on Government Management for the way the agency manages taxpayers’ money. Subcommittee chairman Stephen Horn, R-Calif., is said to be furious that HUD’s most recent financial report shows the agency is unable to balance its checkbook and cannot account for $59 billion.

    For most Americans, it is incomprehensible that $59 billion could be missing from the ledger of a single agency. But despite years of earning failing grades — as well as years of being unable to account for tens of billions of dollars — the Clinton/Gore management team at HUD has continued to shell out hundreds of millions of dollars to the same contractors hired to ensure financial systems are in place and working. It doesn’t take a certified public accountant to see that HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo’s financial house is not in order, and Susan Gaffney, the inspector general (IG) of HUD, tells Insight, “It’s more serious than you know.”

    This dire yet brutally honest evaluation by the IG came in response to questions about her testimony concerning HUD’s 1999 audit, delivered before Horn’s subcommittee in May. And HUD’s 1999 audit still has not been completed even as the agency is nearing the starting date for the 2000 audit. Instead, Gaffney submitted a 14-page “summary” for 1999, providing a laundry list of systemic reasons for HUD’s financial woes. Indeed, it took Insight a day and a half just to make sense of the IG’s simplified testimony concerning these financial shenanigans.

    Beyond the fact that $59 billion is unaccounted for and that auditors have had to make manual adjustments to the checkbook system retroactively, it is glaringly apparent in the IG’s report that taxpayers should consider themselves lucky that the amount isn’t much higher. What also is more than evident is that the IG devoted most of her testimony to explaining failed processes at HUD rather than focusing on any specific examples of theft, conversion, embezzlement and other larceny.   . . . 

    . . .

    What the IG is saying is that HUD’s finances are in a shambles because, during 1999, the agency was converting to a new computer system, the field offices didn’t balance their checkbooks on a monthly basis and manual postings were made to the financial statements so late that the IG had no time to review whether the postings were correct. Gaffney does report in one section of her testimony that “242 adjustments, totaling about $59.6 billion, were made to adjust fiscal year 1999 activity.”

    The IG, however, does not explain where the “adjustments” were made, for what services or from which region or field office. But she tells Insight that HUD’s financial problems stem from glitches within the agency’s computer systems.

    THis next segment of quotations is long, but the same principle — seems to me — applies to the computer conversion of CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT to statewide, at just about this same time (late 1990s, and for California, it was not done by 1999, as I recall).  They say :  You keep the old system running alongside the new one until the kinks are worked out.  And you balance the books at least monthly.  Well, here’s how HUD — and the Housing Inspector chose to do it, instead:

    According to one source familiar with HUD’s finances who spoke on condition that he not be identified, blaming computer glitches is what is done when they want to hide fraud. “The history of effort and expenditures that has been poured into correcting deficiencies at HUD does not support a theory of incompetence. If you don’t have decent accounting systems it’s because someone wants to make sure you don’t. It’s standard operating procedure that if one system is being replaced you keep the old one up and running while you work out the kinks in the new one — they’re run parallel. In this case, they took down a system that was running, replaced it with a system that wasn’t and then cried, ‘Oh, we can’t balance the books!’ They can’t say the resources don’t exist to correct the problem. If Cuomo can find hundreds of community builders to run around neighborhoods, he can find enough people to balance the checkbooks.”

    And the source adds, “Furthermore, if I wanted to rip off HUD, this is exactly how I would do it. Don’t run parallel systems, don’t bother to balance the books and then radically reengineer the system all at the same time that you double the volume of work. It’s a system ripe for financial fraud.

    Like the family law system also… and the OCSE.

    The point is that you have to know what checks were authorized in a specific place and how they sort out, and if you balance the books monthly it becomes very easy to zero in on where the fraud is taking place. What the IG has missed is that it’s not about knowing a problem exists, it’s about fixing the problem — you want to know where and why you’re missing $59 billion. A huge computer system isn’t needed for HUD to balance the books; monthly statement reconciliation is all that is necessary.”

    The source continues: “Everything that has transpired at HUD is not an accident, and it sure isn’t a computer glitch. When you take the different material violations of the most basic financial-management rules and compare them to the time and effort put in to have first-rate systems, it is impossible to explain it as anything other than significant financial fraud. The losses could be far greater than $59 billion, but they don’t know for sure because the audit isn’t completed. Secretary Cuomo is a very smart control freak, so it’s ludicrous to think that he doesn’t know what is going on.

    Any more than the Charles Rossotti who co-founded AMS system that was in use in Los Angeles, and completely turned around the IRS; who is running the Carlyle Group now, on a whole lot of Boards (including Merrill Lynch) and who at age 29 after Georgetown and Harvard, was working for the Department of Defense on Systems  _____ (see this post).   Doesn’t know what’s going on?  I don’t think so!

    There are several ways to correct these problems. Most are basic, but if you want to use the big sledgehammer, the Office of Management and Budget [OMB] and Congress have the ability to make HUD balance the books or [they] shut down the money supply. They are the guardians at the gate. But that is the most telling thing about this problem — OMB and the appropriators have been silent. This is exactly what happened right before the savings-and-loan scandal.”

    I found out today that the OMB got moved to become the responsibility of the President (of the US) in 1970.  I put up the link to the U.S. Code requiring the Commissioner of the Treasury to report to the American public, where the money is…..

    So is it possible that a problem within the agency’s computer systems is the cause of tens of billions of dollars being unaccounted for or missing? Not if you ask whistle-blower Jack Ballinger.

    Change of focus to NYC Housing Authority, NYCHA — which is evidently under HUD:

    In 1994 Ballinger began working for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) as a contract inspector. He worked his way up through the system and was made manager of a new section, the Computer Operations and Reports Section. He was there only a few weeks when he became aware of major problems in payments to contractors. What he found was the main financial-management computer system, known as Financial Management Services (FMS), contained files verifying payments of more than $50 million on nearly 150 contracts that did not show up on the computer system used by the bookkeepers and investigators to track the services provided. Called CAD, this system should have been keeping track of the inspections, the inspector, dates of inspection and inspection results.

    One system (FMS) tracks payments to vendors, the other (CAD) tracks the actual work.  FMS seems to be generating its own payments that don’t correspond to work done.  Now go back to the IRS General Fraud Investigations page, and notice that this is how fraud is sometimes done.

    Realizing the gravity of the problem, Ballinger reported the missing files. Shortly thereafter the new section was disbanded, his staff was sent back to their previous positions and he was transferred to Coney Island as a boiler inspector. Nonetheless, he was joined in calling for an investigation by a dozen other “clean” inspectors. Ballinger first requested an investigation by the New York City Department of Investigations. When nothing happened, he contacted Bill DiBlasio, then the IG for HUD in New York (and now Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign manager); HUD IG Gaffney in Washington; Rep. Rick Lazio, R-N.Y.; and HUD Secretary Cuomo, whose agency provides more than 90 percent of the funding that NYCHA receives.

    Despite overwhelming evidence of corruption — including audio- and videotapes of bribes being offered and accepted, as well as one inspector telling his story of an organized group of inspectors receiving bribes — there was no serious investigation of the misappropriation of funds within the NYCHA. “The IG,” says Ballinger, “said it was a paperwork mistake and cleared up. But not one person who looked at this could see it as a paperwork problem, and this has been going on for almost two years.

    COnclusion:

    Gaffney is saying that just about anyone can get into HUD’s financial system, including many who don’t have any business or authorization to be in it . Once in, intruders can change numbers, take money and engage in financial fraud without anyone catching or stopping them.

    While Gaffney cannot force changes within HUD, as IG she can bring the problems to light. Unfortunately, the testimony she provided to Congress did little more than alert members to the already-known fact that there are serious financial-management problems under Cuomo at HUD. The IG’s report provides no specific data to help lawmakers, who have oversight of this agency, recommend appropriate and necessary changes. In fact, it is possible members of Congress had the same difficulty deciphering the IG’s testimony as everyone else with whom Insight has spoken. Despite the fact that the entire report by the IG to Congress deals with financial mismanagement at HUD, not once in all of her 14 pages of testimony did Gaffney so much as use the word “money.

    How much HUD’s missing $59 billion is of concern to lawmakers is anyone’s guess. Chairman Horn, as well as Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson of Tennessee and Senate Appropriations subcommittee on VA-HUD Chairman Kit Bond of Missouri, did not return Insight’s calls about these matters.

    [again, Posted Nov. 6, 2000
    By Kelly Patricia O Meara
    Insight Magazine]

    This has been a very long day, and post.  Please go to the Petition site and at least read it, understand that this is Business as Usual in the U.S. and sign to cut — at least specific to our interest here — pork from the TANF diversionary and incentive to prolong custody conflict monies.  THis is a measly $ 4 billion, but it’s affecting all of us to take these families out of the market, forcing some of them to become unwilling social burdens, as they fight for sanity and safety of their kids, while the groups running the place got started RIGHT HERE as I have (again) described — somewhere between a los angeles county judges association that didn’t feel like incorporating til caught, and the desire of would-be mental-health coaches to the world’s intention to exploit a captive audience situation through Conciliation Law.  To me, that’s what I spell RACKET, i.e., R.I.C.O. with this exception:

    Kind of like ALEC (and aided by some of the same corporations that FUND ALEC), the AFCC/CRC/OCSE combination is basically setting up a parallel system of justice, altering the basic forms of government; they are taking the money (not paying taxes properly) and running with it.  Sometimes they take children too — do you realize how many children are actually lost in the foster care system?

    The Lost Children

    It took the death of Florida’s Rilya Wilson in the Spring of 2002 for the issue of children “missing” from foster care to garner national attention. It first came to light that the state of Florida had managed to lose track of nothing less than 500 of its foster care children. Some time thereafter, the body of 17-year-old Marissa Karp was found in Collier County Florida. She had run away from her state-designated foster family in April. The Collier County Sheriff’s Office explained to the St. Petersburg Times that she had been murdered.

    Since August of 2002, officials in the states of California, Tennessee, and Michigan have disclosed that hundreds of children are similarly “missing” from their foster care systems.

    The Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services reported in August that 740 foster children were missing from its system.

    Shortly thereafter, Michigan foster care officials announced that 300 foster children were missing from their foster care system. Governor John Engler declared that finding these children would be a “top priority.” As of November, 2002, the Family Independence Agency (as Michigan’s child protection agency is known) had managed to locate only 48 of these missing children.

    “Anytime a child is missing, that’s a big concern for us and we make all the efforts we can to try and locate them as quickly as possible,” explained Carla Aaron, a spokesperson for the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services. Aaron reported in November of 2002 that nothing short of one out of every 20 foster children were missing from Tennessee’s foster care system. Tennessee officials reported that 98 percent of these 496 “lost children” were adolescent runaways.

    Here is the article “The Lost Children,” much as it appeared on Lifting the Veil in 1997, with some minor subsequent edits having been made in 1998.

    Read The Lost Children


    Last updated December 07, 2002

     

    But that’s a topic for another day.  CHECK THIS OUT!

    http://www.change.org/petitions/cut-tanf-title-iv-d-programs-which-represent-4billion-of-waste

    Written by Let's Get Honest

    October 2, 2011 at 8:21 pm

    Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017]

    with one comment

    Post title with short-link (and to explain the 2011/2017 references in the title):

    Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017] (with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ending “-Qp.”)


    This long (18.7K words) post featuring among others examples in HOW TO and features from various places to check in the process of doing the lookups, the two nonprofits Kids’ Turn San Diego and Kids’ Turn (in San Francisco), both of which after being hit repeatedly in 2011 with simply talking about it, posting boards of directors (plenty of whom were judges), at some point one of them later submerged itself under another nonprofit running training classes to prevent child abuse, in a networked, proprietary-program sort of way across the country.  As I recall, and referring (as I recall at the close of 2017 — which is many years ago!) but will double-check, the surviving entity it merged into — thereby “disappearing” its California OAG charitable details record, some of which I posted herein, is SFCAPC (San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center or “Council”). For more details look this up at (now it’s called) BusinessSearch.SOS.Ca.Gov or “Verification” page at California OAG/RCT. ( Go to those sites for more details).  California OAG search results have added an EIN# field, but are not otherwise changed in a major way; however the California Secretary of State Business Search website (formerly “kepler.sos.ca.gov”) has been radically revised in both initial level search results, and possibly in reporting requirements.

    I do not claim personal — I’ll call it — “credit” for having driven one of two California-based “Kids’ Turn” 501©3s underground, but at least one of them did go underground. It may be just coincidence, BUT the possibility that maybe I did (in addition to the general public-interest purpose of calling attention to how family-court-connected, and business-referrals-taking nonprofits organize and reproduce themselves over time) provides some minor compensation in terms of a sense of making an impact in the behavior of the court cultures nationwide,but in no way compensates for the damages the process inflicted upon my family line, and the legacy for my own children which this process re-directed away from them, and towards the professionals who make their livelihoods speaking on behalf of abused women (who apparently can’t speak), noncustodial fathers (for whom “fatherhood.gov” is still not enough help to “even out” the unfair advantage women supposedly have as mothers in divorce, or the public at large in (allegedly) reducing public debt through Post-PRWORA (1996) Welfare Reform policies scapegoating single motherhood itself and pretending to take into account that one cause of “single motherhood” is abusive fathers. No, encouraging and promoting RESPONSIBLE fatherhood will handle the danger situation, with appropriate and ever-more interventions and court-order therapies/treatments for the abused and the non-abused. etc.

    One of the commissioners I stood in front of post-child-stealing event, in order to negotiate how to retroactively reduce my ex-batterers child support arrears (which I’d just been told in person in the child support offices right before, could not happen), I years later learned had been on a Kids’ Turn Board of Directors.  As with AFCC, it seems that the nonprofit gave everyone a shot at being listed on the board, which helps those who choose to do so, cite proudly to that community service. That ruling was no favor to our children, who pre-abduction at least had one stable, and consistently working parent (with whom they lived, namely me) although that work life was increasingly under attack once the restraining order had been stripped off and an apparently underemployed (and later admitted in court, wasn’t actively looking for work because he was “depressed” about not having a wife and supportive partner — an excuse I hardly was making at any point).


    I worked on a re-formatted version of this post (under separate “cover” — title) earlier this season and am thinking it might be my charitable contribution (of a sort) for 2017.  This post is entertaining, and gets into layered foundations and venture capitalists directing their grants to groups like these which don’t even bother to stay current at their state level filings.


    I see in hindsight from the part of the post dealing with San Diego Foundation (Gross assets in August 2011 shown as $666M) which in 2007 formed the Carlsbad Community Foundation (which then donated several thousand dollars to Kids’ Turn San Diego), and with the various dbas under which various Kids’ Turn (either SD or SF in this case) donors operated (referring to Taproot Foundation, a dba of “TapFound, Inc.”), with its (Taproot, Inc.s) third-generation venture capitalist startup funding, that the topics covered are still relevant even though many links no longer are intact.  Any more commentary from this perspective will be found on the updated, reformatted post.//LGH 12/29/2017…

    For some of the flavor — after many of the lookups — a screenprint from the post below.  It’s in my voice, not a quote from some other website; “me” = yours truly…

    Image from my 8/31/2011 post, complete with some typos and more sarcasm.

    …Just describing what I was seeing…
    Below this line is August 31, 2011, writing. If you want a better-looking version of the same information (with some, though not 100%, updates on the organizations mentioned below), wait for the 2017 update. //


    And moreover, what about all these grantor/grantee relationships with corporations that don’t seem (note disclaimer) to be even operating legally in California?  While the promise is that 25 SF courthouses must be shut because of budget cuts….

    And I don’t just mean Kids’ Turn /  San Diego, which at least were incorporated here legally, but is now (per the databases) on suspended status, charity registrations delinquent.

    Kids’ Turn

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C1657442 12/29/1989 SUSPENDED KID’S TURN CLAIRE BARNES
    C1970774 06/05/1996 ACTIVE KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO JAMES REYNOLDS DAVIS

    Incorporation status suspended for the SF branch (top row), but not the San Diego (which was a spinoff nonprofit).

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    KID’S TURN 075606 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
    KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 102902 Charity Delinquent SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

    Minor note:  The organization’s name is KIDS -apostrophe, so one must move the apostrophe (making it Kid, singular, apostrophe, S) to find on either database.

    Also, California, unlike some other states doesn’t tell the on-line viewer WHEN the license was suspended, i.e., before or after outreach such as this:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE APRIL 20, 2011:

    Dateline:  San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.

    Yes I do believe swallowing some of this would indeed call for release from “Attachment to the facts” such as that this organization has some really strange financial liaisons.

    Or, I wonder if Linda Brandes was able to claim her $10,000 donation to Kids’ Turn San Diego, as their charitable status is delinquent, still, also in 2011:

    Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes gives Kids’ Turn San Diego a $10,000 grant

    (Posted May 25, 2011 in the Rancho Santa Fe Review)

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

    Linda Brandes

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

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

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

    For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

    March 2, 2011 letter from the California Department of Justice (in file, on-line):

    [From:] State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I STREET P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO CA 94203-4470

    Telephone: (916)445-2021×5 Facsimile: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail: RRF1@doj.ca.gov

    [TO:] KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 16935 W BERNARDO DR NO. 234 SAN DIEGO CA 92127

    March 9, 2011

    CT FILE NUMBER: 102902

    RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

    The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

    1. The $50 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

    In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

    Sincerely,

    Tony Salazar Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts

    for:  KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General

    Now that they have another donation, they can afford the $50 check. I see no “our check is in the mail” response, perhaps one was sent.  And another letter:

    Another letter a week later, same file# (CT 102902) reminds Kids’ Turn San Diego, California needs KT to fill out (not just send partial details) their list of donors, i.e., a “Schedule B,” just like you have to file with the IRS (“oops!”).    Too busy with international expansions of the programs, or is list of donors too hot to touch?

    RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

    We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

    While you and I don’t get this private information (barring anything on the web), it’s nice to know someone is keeping track.

    The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

    Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

    Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.

    I learned this from “Don Kramer’s Nonprofit Issues” (i.e., I looked up the IRS form # footnoted on the KT San Diego letter) and learned:

    Is a nonprofit required to report anonymous donors to the IRS?  Several colleagues have said that it is illegal for a nonprofit to not disclose an anonymous donor to the IRS.  Schedule B of the Form 990 provides a listing of major contributors but I have seen 990s that list the amounts without disclosing names.

    You are both right.  Nonprofits of all types, not just 501(c)(3) charities, that file a Form 990, 990-PF or 990-EZ tax information return are required to identify substantial donors (generally donors of $5000 or more) to the IRS on Schedule B, and must include the names and addresses of the donors.  But organizations other than private foundations and Section 527 political organizations may eliminate the names and addresses of donors when they make the Schedule available for public inspection. Therefore, you are undoubtedly correct that you have seen Schedule Bs without names of donors, and your colleagues are correct that the names must have been disclosed to the IRS.

    this suggests (but of course doesn’t prove) that the charity in question here (helping kids and parents deal with divorce, right) may have failed to disclose donors of over $5,000 — possibly the figures didn’t add up to the grants received, I don’t know.

    The fact that 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and 501 (c)(6) trade associations are not obligated to publicly disclose the names of their donors has made them a very attractive vehicle for people who want to engage in political campaign advertising anonymously.  In theCitizens Unitedcase, the U.S. Supreme Court said corporations could engage in campaign advertising. Since (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s are permitted to support or oppose candidates in election campaigns—unlike 501(c)(3) charities that can lose their exemption for electioneering—many have opted to use anonymous donations for this new activity.

    6/14/2011

    Someone should maybe also contact the “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” who awarded KTSan Diego $20,000 to do at least four workshops for about 100-120 families in Carlsbad “experiencing” divorce and child-custody “disputes.”

    Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awards nonprofit grants
    13 months ago | 449 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
    From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo
    From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo
    CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awarded more than $44,000 to Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services for their efforts in promoting a more civil society in Carlsbad. The awards were presented at CCF’s third annual Grants Award ceremony at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Discovery Center in Carlsbad on June 29. 

    Kids’ Turn San Diego will receive $20,000 to provide no less than four workshops, each lasting four weeks, for approximately 100 to 120 families in Carlsbad experiencing divorce or child-custody disputes. The workshops address the emotional impact that these issues have on children and provide guidance on more effective communication techniques for all members of the family, such as anger management.
    And what’s more, they reduce parental alienation, right?
    Interfaith Community Services will receive $24,545 to assess resources, existing programs and specific opportunities for social outreach at each Carlsbad faith center. ICS will conduct one-on-one meetings to identify discussion points for Carlsbad’s faith-based community and spearhead at least two community-wide town hall meetings to further galvanize all faith communities/congregations around specific issues.

    CCF Grants Chairman Tom Applegate noted that collective resources of Carlsbad’s 40-plus faith communities will be more effectively utilized to help persons in need. . . .

    with all those faith communities and enough finances to go around, one might think that there’d be fewer divorces and out-of-wedlock births to start with.  (:

    CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Finocchiaro said that grants were made possible through the contributions of the members of The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation. “We’re extremely honored to support Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services commitment to our community,” she said. “The intent of these donations is to support activities and programs that unify and inspire Carlsbad residents to make a positive difference in the future of our city.”

    Kids’ Turn SD has great reasons to be committed to Carlsbad’s Community — see median household income.

    Carlsbad’s median income (per its site, whatever date), $92, 249, and there are 2.55 people per household.  I can see how that would be stressful, custody of that extra burdensome 0.55 child, occasioning many divorce “disputes.”   The Top 10 employers of this 65,000 population city & average employee salary of $49K, with 40 faith communities, 1% African-American residents, and almost every other adult having a bachelor’s degree, plus 12% master’s or higher,  being:

    Top 10 employers (2007)

    1,429 Callaway Golf
    1,172 Life Technologies Corporation (Invitrogen Corporation)
    1,169 Carlsbad Unified School District
    1,014 La Costa Resort and Spa
    874 Park Hyatt Aviara Resort
    862 LEGOLAND California
    854 ViaSat, Inc.
    797 Gemological Institute of America
    714 City of Carlsbad
    694 TaylorMade (Adidas Golf)

    The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation is an affiliate of the San Diego Foundation, apparently (nothing is listed directly under that name, as my searches below show):

    703 Palomar Airport Rd , Carlsbad , CA 92011 | 760-269-3882

    www.​carlsbadcharitablefoundation.​org

    The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation’s mission is to “advance philanthropy in Carlsbad in order to build community excellence, stimulate innovation and enhance the capacity of nonprofits.” Every year the foundation splits the total amount of donations in half. One half goes to grants for the year; the other goes specifically to the Carlsbad endowment, which is for the advancement of the community. CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation.

    Or, in their own words:

    Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation in 2007. This community-specific effort helps meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.

    1. What is the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
    Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation (CCF) in 2007. This community-specific effort would help meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.


    4. What is The San Diego Foundation?
    Founded in 1975, The San Diego Foundation was created by and for the people of the San Diego region. Its purpose is to promote and increase effective and responsible charitable giving. The Foundation manages nearly $500 million in assets, almost half of which reside in permanent endowment funds. Since its inception, The Foundation has granted more than $600 million to nonprofits serving the community.
    5. What does it mean that CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation?
    As an affiliate, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation benefits from the experience and management of The San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Foundation provides such back-office support as investment management, staffing, marketing and expertise. In return, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation shares with The San Diego Foundation its local knowledge of the emerging needs and causes important to the Carlsbad community.
    DOES IT HAVE TO REGISTER AND FILE TAXES SEPARATELY, WITH THE HELP OF The San Diego FOUNDATION EXPERIENCE AND MANAGEMENT, OR NOT?
    6. Who may participate in the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
    The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation encourages everyone who lives, works, and plays in Carlsbad to participate in the Foundation.

    7. What is an endowment?


    (on the SAN DIEGO SITE):

    For Nonprofits

    The San Diego Foundation is honored to be able to claim $60 million in grants to community causes last year, but we cannot take all the credit. Over ninety percent of our annual grants are driven directly by our donors. These are individuals, families, and corporations recommending grants from Donor Advised Funds to the organizations and causes that are important to them.
    In addition to Donor Advised Funds, The San Diego Foundation’s program grants fund nonprofits through a competitive application process. Program grants cover subject areas such as arts and culture, civil society, the environment, health & human services, and science & technology.

    . . .

    Donor Advised Funds

    Donor Advised FundsDonor advised funds allow you to be actively involved in the granting process. Through an agreement with The San Diego Foundation, a donor’s contribution establishes a fund named by the donor. The Fund is managed and administered by The San Diego Foundation, but the donor may be the fund advisor and advise The Foundation about preferences regarding grant recipients and gift amounts. Distributions are made in the fund’s name and the donor receives regular financial statements. As the fund is considered part of The San Diego Foundation’s holdings, it receives the maximum tax benefits and the donor is not responsible for the tax filings.

    Designated Funds  (note the photo chosen — things “kids” are great fundraiser causes).

    Designated FundsDesignated funds are gifts that provides a source of support to a nonprofit organization selected by the donor. Often this gift is made in the form of an endowment fund. In an endowment, the principal is invested and only a portion of the income is paid out. The remaining income is returned to principal to protect the value of the endowment over time. This option provides support for your fund now and forever.
    With a designated fund, at the outset, the donor designates one or more charities who will receive the earnings on the fund in perpetuity. Grant checks are mailed automatically once or twice a year, with the donor choosing the best time or according to The Foundation’s schedule of March and/or September. Donors may also opt to reinvest the earnings until the fund grows to an amount desired by the donor. Fees associated with the designated fund are particularly inexpensive, at 0.5%.
    To establish a designated fund, or to learn more information, contact our charitable giving team at GivingTeam@sdfoundation.org or 619-235-2300.

    The San Diego Foundation holds raffles, and registered for one in 2009 which raised “$42,564.66.”

    It’s filings (under the OAG site) show this for 2002 (earliest year shown):

    Annual Renewal Information
    Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-02
    Fiscal End: 30-JUN-03
    Total Assets: $361,600,036.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $717,938,952.00
    RRF Received: 19-NOV-03
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted

    and this for 2009 (latest year shown): (notice difference in revenue, but increased assets):

    Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-09
    Fiscal End: 30-JUN-10
    Total Assets: $466,087,961.00
    Gross Annual Revenue: $63,742,314.00
    RRF Received: 15-NOV-10
    Returned Date:
    990 Attached: Y
    Status: Accepted


    Organization Details
    EIN: 952942582
    Name: The San Diego Foundation — Google
    Location:  2508 Historic Decatur Rd Ste 200
    San Diego, CA 92106
     Report Address Change
    County: San Diego County
    Ruling Date: 1975   (Approximate year when founded)
    IRS Type: 501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations…
    Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD): 15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general public
    NTEE:  T31 – Community Foundations
    Most recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER) 06/2010
    Total Revenue $63,742,314
    Total Assets: $466,087,961
    Organization Mission Statement and Purpose
    The San Diego Foundation improves the quality of life within the San Diego community by promoting and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy.

    In 2003, it Amended its bylaws on two points:

    2. Article VIII is added to the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation and shall read as follows:

    The Corporation is specifically authorized to obtain licensure as a grants and annuities society pursuant to California Insurance Code Sections 11520 through 11524 and to conduct a grants and annuities business once licensed.

    I. of The San Diego Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit

    3. been duly approved by the Board of Governors.

    The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has

    4. The Corporation has no members.

    Grants and Annuities means one can receive transfers of property, provided the business agrees to pay out to the Transferror — or the Tranferror’s Nominee — an Annuity.  Not just anyone can do it, an organization has to have been in operation for 10 years or more and qualifies according to this code:

    INSURANCE CODE 
    SECTION 11520-11524 

    11520.  The following organizations and persons may receive
    transfers of property, conditioned upon their agreement to pay an
    annuity to the transferor or the transferor's nominee, after
    obtaining from the commissioner a certificate of authority so to do:
       (a) Any charitable, religious, benevolent or educational
    organization, pecuniary profit not being its object or purpose, after
    being in active operation for at least 10 years; provided,
    nevertheless, that 10 years of active operation shall not be required
    in case of:
       (1) A nonprofit corporation organized and controlled by a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health Services as a general acute care hospital pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section
    1250) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; and
       (2) An incorporated educational institution offering courses of instruction beyond high school, organized pursuant to Section 94757
    of the Education Code, and which is, and for at least one year has
    been, qualified pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 94700)
    of Part 59 of the Education Code to issue diplomas or degrees as
    defined in Sections 94724 and 94726 of that code;
       (b) Every organization or person maintaining homes for the aged for pecuniary profit. . . .

    This can be problematic, I imagine, if when elders are receiving public guardianship or being placed under a conservator’s care against their will or improperly, for the sake of access to their property.

    What is an Annuity?  Investopedia explains:

    What Does Annuity Mean?
    A financial product sold by financial institutions that is designed to accept and grow funds from an individual and then, upon annuitization, pay out a stream of payments to the individual at a later point in time. Annuities are primarily used as a means of securing a steady cash flow for an individual during their retirement years.

    The root word represents “yearly,” as in “ANNUAL.”

    Women’e Enews puts in a few words about Annuities, their types and their purpose:

    Annuity Funding Explained

    When it comes to annuity funding and annuities in general many people are confused. The problem is often because there are so many different kinds. There’s single or flexible-payment, fixed or variable, and deferred or immediate.

    Regardless the type of annuity funding you’re ultimately interested in, all annuities are financial contracts which have been created to provide you with a good source of income in your retirement years    & …..

    You can choose from a number of annuity options which include a lifetime income, a guaranteed period income where your beneficiaries would receive any remaining payments, a joint and survivor option for couples as well as many other options that a financial advisor or insurance representative can tell you about

    In many cases, options can be mixed and matched to provide you with the best kind of annuity funding possible.

    The money contributed to any annuity funding may be in post-tax dollars. The advantage to this is that you can contribute as much money as you would like. However before you put any after-tax savings into any kind of annuity funding, it’s often advisable for you to put the maximum pre-tax amount into a retirement plan.

    When an annuity is used to fund a retirement plan, contribution limits usually apply. Federal tax laws also generally require that you begin taking minimum distributions by April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which you reach age 70.

    Annuity funding earnings are taxed as ordinary income.

    A few more comments on annuities, endowments, and related financial/investment terminology;

    I’m a novice in this and I’ll BET that Title IV-A people and others impoverished through violence (or the court battles) or just life, are not educated about these things.  That we aren’t is a factor of our school systems and family systems, most likely.

    How interesting, because what the child support / fatherhood systems emphasize is getting everyone into a low-income job, garnishing the wages for child support (or don’t) and then, as I like to point out, lose track of it at the state or county level, while splitting the difference with the Feds 66%/34% for a well-behaved State SDU (Statewide Distribution Unit), or failing to report interest income — which can be considerable — if they are not.

    How the HHS/OIG/OAS responds to the un-accounted for collected child support  is a concerted attempt to get their 66% but a hands-washing response to, they’re only overseeing, not controlling operations, when the situation is pretty much in epidemic proportions country-wide.   Where the child support programs WORK is when groups like Maximus, Inc. & MDRC, CPR and PSI etc. get their contracts in, their CEO’s get paid (a LOT) and stock values for shareholders manages to stay above water, even if it loses some value.  Meanwhile, what the children are getting, if they’re lucky is a child support allotment that makes it through, is not too substantially compromised, and may represent wages at (judging from what they program materials say they are aiming to help with) perhaps $8.00 to $12.00/hour, not including taxes withheld.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    While there are all kinds of plans for certain types or classes of people (including financially savvy and/or endowed, or sucessful businesspeople or investors) to figure out how to have monthly income — enough to live on, plus some — til they breathe their last breath, even at 80 or 90  years old — and typically its WOMEN living much longer — the philosophy for the vast masses being coached and think-tanked/policy-driven by people that live like this, is that the real cause of widespread poverty includes only one income earner in a household, i.e., fatherlessness and single-motherhood.

    I do believe that even my children in elementary school (at least MY kids at that age) could figure out that if one wishes to end up with the number “5” one might add 2+ 3 or 4 +1.  Or one might even go, if x=4,    3x-7 and come up with 5, meaning what one needs to live on.  The factors can be adjusted.

    But somehow we are not to calculate the possibility of variety in income when it comes to marital dissolution and fatherhood movements, or child support program evolution, and the need of judges and attorneys to run nonprofits teaching parents anger management, and (once we learn the background of this) giving them plenty of opportunity to practice, although not regarding the other partner so much as who is forcing this on couples already under financial stressor called divorce? and dealing with the family court’s elimination of the concept that a crime is a crime, even if it was committed by someone you previously had a sexual relationship with.

    No mention of where that income comes from; the presumption is always jobs only,  or possibly jobs and child support.  Not, for example, ANY form of passive income such as may come from a trust, a foundation, investments, annuities, assignment of rents, royalties on books, or virtually anything that would NOT involve being easier to find and control (and/or threaten) by the IRS.  Not on any form of initiative taking by the single parent(s), or for that matter low-income married parents.

    In other words, “wealth” knows how to consolidate, aggregate, distribute according to wealth’s understanding of how not to pay taxes, after which it can tell significant others (like employees in some of their corporations) how to work jobs in which taxes ARE paid.  Last I heard, such things are NOT taught in the public schools K-12; they are still working on reading, period, and basic math, plus how to stand in line without bullying someone else.

     

    So, in 2003, The San Diego Foundation (still solvent, on the books) gets into the grants and annuities business around 2003.  They have every right to.  I’m just pointing it out they did….

    The New York Times Reports:

    Promising security, U.S. annuities business takes on a new life

    By Paul Sullivan
    Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007
    • BOSTON — Wall Street swings between fear and greed. With U.S. stock markets hitting record highs this month, greed seems to be back in the saddle.

    Still, the current wave of retirees, the first of the baby boomers, is as fearful as any group leaving the work force has ever been, many still shell-shocked from the bursting of the technology bubble five years ago, which wiped out huge paper gains.

    This group is now looking at a future without gainful employment and only their often diminished portfolios to fall back on.

    They do not like what they see.

    “People are more fearful and realistic,” said John Diehl, head of the retirement solutions group for the Hartford, an insurance company. “There was no fear in the late 1990s. Being respectful of the markets is a good thing. People have started to think the market doesn’t always return 20 percent.”

    Enter the annuities salesmen. The once-stodgy insurance product is having a resurgence. New York Life, one of the largest providers of annuities, has had an annual growth rate of 75 percent from 2003 to 2007, according to Mike Gallo, senior vice president in the guaranteed lifetime income department.

    The growth in annuities has tapped into this fear. In the old days, people were wary of annuities because they locked up assets and distributed a payment only as long as the policyholder lived. But the industry has become more sophisticated. New products have guarantees for life, adjust for inflation and, at their most sophisticated, allow people access to some or, in extreme cases, all of the principle.

    [Meaning “principal,” I think, right?]

    ALL YOU NEED FOR $5,000/month in retirement is to put down $100,000, sure!

    (not including what a $$ will buy at that time…..)

    The difference, he said, is that the most popular annuities now offer a living benefit drawn from an income stream, which can rise with any increase in the value of the underlying principle, while carrying a guarantee that the payout will never fall below the initial amount.

    The guarantee is financed by building derivative-style collars into the structure of the underlying portfolio to cap potential losses.

    Yeah, like we all  know what is a derivative-style collar.  Some people in alternative lifestyle, about dog collars, from dog-walking & pet-sitting….

    With such a variable annuity plan, “people aren’t as worried about inflation as they are with a traditional payout annuity,” he said. While the payout may remain constant in percentage terms, the cash amount will rise if inflation – or skillful investment – swells the amount of the underlying fund.

    And this is what today’s retirees – without the pension plans their parents had, and uncertain of the continued existence of Social Security – want.

    The top concern of the baby boomers nearing retirement is, ‘Do I have enough money to last for the rest of my life,’ ” said Doug Wolff, vice president for business development at Security Benefit, a provider of annuities in Topeka, Kansas. “We’ve seen a major shift from ‘Who can develop the best death benefits?’ to ‘Who can develop the best product to guarantee some minimum investment amount?’ “

    Quite different from some people, with more than 0.55 child per household, whose concern is staying alive & housed/fed til next week.

    Providers of annuities today encourage people to buy enough coverage for basic expenses, from food to taxes, plus a little bit more. The average portion of a portfolio placed in annuity is 25 percent to 33 percent and most insurers limit a 65-year-old to 75 percent, to ensure the retention of sufficient liquid assets. Coverage of basic expenses can be achieved with either a traditional immediate annuity – the buyer puts $100,000 in and receives a fixed percentage of the initial value, typically 5 percent, every month – or with a variable annuity that guarantees a minimum withdrawal benefit.

    . . .   Can get a little complicated . . . . .

    Something similar can be accomplished with a joint-survivor annuity – essentially paying out for two lives. A further refinement can be added in the form of a cash-refund feature that pays to the heirs whatever principle is left at death.

    The next wave of innovation is expected to produce annuities that look to address the large health care bills that many retirees will face as they age, Wolff said.

    Pricing all of these permutations of annuities can be complicated. There is one constant, however: The more guaranteed features that are attached – from joint-survivor to inflation adjustment – the higher the cost and the lower the percentage payout.

    Jack Lemery, a former chief investment officer for Paul Revere Life Insurance, which sold annuities, maintained that this should dissuade people from putting any money at all into an annuity. Lemery is now a portfolio manager at Emerson Investment Management in Boston, where he has sworn off annuities.

    Well, in 2006 “The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was founded (same EIN# as San Diego) and began raising some money, part of which they obviously gave to Kids’ Turn to run classes in THEIR neighborhoods, too.  Sounds from the description at around around  $200 per four-week session per family ($20,000 for four-weeks for 100 – 120 couples).

    http://www.sdfoundation.org/CommunityFoundations/RecentNews.aspx

     


    THE CARLSBAD CHARITABLE
    FOUNDATION

    Since its inception in 2006, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation has granted $142,731 and has grown to 147 members, with an endowment of $311,000. This year CCF will focus their grantmaking on the environment in Carlsbad.

    Grantees 2007-2008
    Carlsbad Unified School District $20,000
    Biztown $23,780

     

    Grantees 2008-2009
    San Diego Hospice $28,406
    North County Community Services $12,500
    Interfaith Community Services $12,500

    Grantees 2009-2010
    Kids’ Turn San Diego $20,000
    Interfaith Community Services $24,545

    For more information visitwww.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org.

     

    BEFORE I FOUND OUT tHAT THE “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation, I went looking for it, unsuccessfully, in the usual places and found a few more interesting groups.

    I cannot locate any business, or charity, called “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” on either site where they are to be registered.  There are 20 results to “Carlsbad Foundation” search.

    Apparently this contribution was made, or at least announced, “13 months ago.” In the interim, Carlsbad Foundation’s charitable status seems to have held:

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    CARLSBAD FOUNDATION 124543 Charity Current CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

    Actually, that’s fairly strange as there is only ONE annual RRF (charitable registration) form on file, and for the first 6 years, no IRS filings, then after that approximately just about zero (or close to, relatively speaking) assets OR gross (not net) revenue.    For example, Apr 2009-March 2010, they reported a whopping $220.00 (so how did the $20,000.00 get to Kids’ Turn?  I am such a novice in this field, I don’t see it..)  From April 2010 to March 2011, they had zero revenue.

    Carlsbad Foundation’s President (at least in 2010), Jim Comstock, (and the foundation’s address is his office, Comstock & Associates,) is a tax, financial and estate planning professional, so I assume he knows better than I how to pull that off legally:

    logo

    There are also  least 75 Marriage and Family Therapists (probably some overlap with the 40 Faith Communities) in Carlsbad, including two in the suite right next to Mr. Comstock and, including them, 15 on the same street, perhaps within two blocks (judging by street #s only).  There are fully 20 foundations incorporated in Carlsbad (Search “Carlsbad Foundation) only 4 (and not this one) with “suspended” status:

    Entity Name: CARLSBAD FOUNDATION
    Entity Number: C2530851
    Date Filed: 04/24/2003
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
    Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
    Agent for Service of Process: JIM COMSTOCK
    Agent Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
    Agent City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008

    Though it incorporated 2003, the ruling date shows (NCCSDataweb) as only 2007.   In 2004, however, they filed with the IRS — only tax return showing here:

    There are a lot of blanks and “x”s up, including (NOT checked)< “Check here if your receipts are normally under $25,000.”   There are 3 officers, Jim & Linda Comstock, plus Glen Blavet, who appears on Corporation Wiki (for what that’s worth) associated with 2 other corporations.

    I looked under “CCF,” but don’t feel like laboring through the entire list.  However, under “Carlsbad Foundation” again, this entry is interesting:

    Entity Name: CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
    Entity Number: C2980846
    Date Filed: 02/13/2007
    Status: SUSPENDED
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
    Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
    Agent for Service of Process: ** RESIGNED ON 12/02/2010
    Agent Address: *
    Agent City, State, Zip: *

    (see address).

    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION Charity Not Registered CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

     

    There are, like, 3 people involved in this one, apparently.  I’m not going to track them down, now that I know the Kids’ Turn grantor was under some other umbrella.

    It does make me wonder whether a Donor couldn’t just set up funding and then somehow direct it towards certain charities and not get very well monitored, so long as they keep the amount low enough not to call attention to itself (read on):

     

     

    SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION:

    The San Diego Foundation, having been started original (it says) with 11 people, is still active corporate status: (There are 269 results for “The San Diego Foundation”), which shows you what good management can do.

     

    Entity Name: THE SAN DIEGO FOUNDATION
    Entity Number: C0735981
    Date Filed: 05/09/1975
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
    Entity City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106
    Agent for Service of Process: MICHAEL PATTISON
    Agent Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
    Agent City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106

     

    And, yes, their 2010 IRS 990 does indeed acknowledge a grant of $22,500 to Kids’ Turn San Diego for “Human Services” (the form is 99 pages long, search the name!)      the grantees (for under $100,000) are asked, in return, to inform the foundation of their “Successes and Challenges” in meeting the conditions for the grant.  As KT is all about communication to start with, and the nonprofit clearly is very good with PR, I’m figuring they did this (although it doesn’t seem the registered as a california charity correctly).  FOr Donor Advisedgrants over $100,000, IF the Donor advisee requests, the foundation can do some more monitoring.  I don’t see that the IRS shows which funds were donor advised or not.  There are several to churches & religious schools, $8,500 to Focus on the Family and (interesting)

    $10,000 to the “Los Angeles Family Law Help Center” 205 S. Broadway Suite 500, EIN# 26-1252578, filed under “Civil Society.”   and

    $7,750 to the “National Conflict Resolution Center,” 625 Broadway, Suite 1221, San Diego, EIN# 33-0433314
    ($15,000 to Oral Roberts University in Tulsa) and many more groups, obviously.  The directors (mostly, but not all, unpaid) would not fit on one page, but those who were paid, salaries (not including retirement or benefits plans) was over $1,000,000; understandable for administering so much.

    2006 (formation of Carlsbad Charitable…) was not a good year in San Diego,

    at least in government circles:

    Report calls San Diego’s finances reckless, ‘Enron by the Sea

    [08-09-2006, found under USAToday]
    SAN DIEGO (AP) — The city recklessly and deliberately mismanaged its finances for years, exhibiting disregard for the law and becoming “Enron-by-the-Sea,” according to consultants who investigated how it created a $1.4 billion pension fund shortfall.

    San Diego “fell prey to the same type of corruption” that ruined companies including Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. and prompted Orange County to file for bankruptcy protection in 1994, said a report by the risk management company Kroll Inc.

    The evidence demonstrates not mere negligence but deliberate disregard for the law, disregard for fiduciary responsibility and disregard for the financial welfare of the city’s residents,” the report concludes.

    Good thing there are foundations to pick up the slack….

    The $20 million report, presented at a City Council meeting Tuesday, offers one of the most detailed accounts of how San Diego created its $1.4 billion pension shortfall that has crippled its ability to borrow money.

    The shortfall — the gap between the value of its pension assets and its obligation to retirees — soared after the City Council in 1996 and again in 2002 skipped payments to the pension fund and, at the same time, enhanced retirement benefits.

    The fiscal meltdown that resulted sparked investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and the SEC in early 2004. Five former city and pension fund officials were charged with federal fraud and conspiracy in January.

    The report outlines a series of recommendations, including creation of an independent audit committee and more authority for the city’s chief financial officer.

    “You got a second chance here, folks,” said one of the authors, former chief SEC accountant Lynn Turner. “I think it’s a marvelous city, but you need to change it from being Enron-by-the-Sea to Emerald-by-the Sea.”

    The report found that several former city officials likely violated federal securities law and others were negligent.

    It says former Mayor Dick Murphy and members of the City Council failed to disclose the extent of the city’s problems to bond investors and for “knowingly and improperly” causing the city to violate state and federal law in its collection of sewage fees.

    Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was involved in Kroll’s investigation and said the city overcharged homeowners for sewage to subsidize large businesses.

    Wow.  Reminds me of the Los Angeles issues with the Department of Water and Power, but that’s another subject.

    ANYHOW, Kids’ Turn SAN FRANCISCO, states on its 2010 Annual report (December? 2010) that half its attendees are court-ordered, that it applied for a grant from the FY 2011 AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) and is pushing a new curriculum, as well as teaching charities in the UK how to operate like itself, presumably:

    The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:

    • 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered

    That’s efficacy, or that’s a court-connection?  ! !  Who’s on the Board of Kids’ Turn, generally speaking?

    However, the first thing readers are told on this report is:

    Program 1. Kids’ Turn sustained its very specialized services in five Bay Area Counties serving 700 participants over twelve months. Kids’ Turn enrollment is down slightly, likely attributable to the economy. It is our impression families are struggling to pay our fees and we are making every effort to negotiate reasonable tuition costs based on the particular needs of each situation. We still do not charge children to attend Kids’ Turn, and parents pay on a sliding fee basis depending on their income. Workshop records verify 60% of the families attending Kids’ Turn are in the low- to moderate-income range.1

    (the footnote explains that this is because more wealthy people have less tendency to divorce, because there’s more money to support their families…In fact, let me quote it here:   “As per the Huffington Post’s new DIVORCE page (www.huffingtonpost.com), families with higher incomes have a lower divorce rate, likely attributable to the supporting resources available to them to sustain their marriages (therapists, counselors, mediators).**”

    Which just goes to show that **It takes a a Village — of AFCC operatives —  for couples to stay married…..  Or so, those operatives believe!   Those who can’t afford it, might end up needing subsidy to attend Kids’ Turn classes by out-of-compliance nonprofits during their breakup.  I would just love to take classes on a sliding fee with people who attribute marital breakup among the not-so-wealthy to inability to pay for a therapist, quoting the Huffington Post…

    Seriously now, how does the world manage to keep turning without the advice of these professions?   

    Other factoids (again, this is the SF, not the San Diego, group):

    Development

    Kids’ Turn Development activities have been shaped and modified in order to accommodate the recent recession while simultaneously continuing projects that will help improve and develop our trade mark.

    1. Kids’ Turn launched its new logo in January, 2010. Development of the logo was the result of a grant from the Taproot Foundation and we are very satisfied with the universal image which emphasizes the protective role of parents for the children in their families.

    Although it’s quite likely that many people come to Kids’ Turn after violence- or abuse-related separation, followed by family court involvement, court orders for child support, access/visitation grant diversion for fatherhood promotion, and voila — a parent education project….

    2. Kids’ Turn launched its new website in December, 2010. This project was also the result of a partnership with the Taproot Foundation. The new website is cleaner and consistent with the unstated emphasis offered by the logo.

     

     

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Tapfound Inc. Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $436,604 990A 13 91-2162645
    Tapfound Industry Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2004 $350,319 990 15 91-2162645
    Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $187,547 990 13 91-2162645
    Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990EZ 7 91-2162645
    Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990ER 6 91-2162645
    Taproot Foundation, Inc. CA 2009 $2,156,525 990 24 91-2162645

     

     

    (Wow.  The earliest 2002 is missing page 1; the other, parts are handwritten (on forms), parts typewritten (on blank sheets, for example, the listing of Board Members).

    The last board member listed is Jenny Shilling, who works for The Draper Richards Foundation, which apparently started Tapfound, Inc. (The Taproot foundation) with $50,000.  The group started with $79,000 assets, not including -$32,000 of “undeposited assets,” for a net assets of $48K.  Its “Liabilities & Equity” just about cancelled each other out, and program service accomplishments for this year were “Service Grant Program awarded 18 nonprofits (not shown) with volunteer teams” — $23K.

    An “updated July 6, 2003” board of directors is attached.

    The 2003 filing (at least the one above I clicked on) shows the act is rather more together, and service program accomplishments reads:

    Service Grants were awarded to 63 nonprofit organizations with a total estimated value of $2.5 million (I’ll tell the IRS my return was “close enough for jazz also….”) 582 volunteers were recruited to deliver these services.  (at a cost of $148,872 Program Service Expense).

    STATUS WITH CALIFORNIA (AS OF TODAY)?

     


    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    TAPROOT Charity Not Registered SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
    1

     

    and (I searched the EIN)

     


    Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
    TAPFOUND, INC. 120759 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
    1


    I guess the OAG’s office maybe is behind in their database entry, because for a “current” charity, including tax returns showing revenue over $4 million in 2007, the only year the group’s RRF shows up is for 2008; they only reminded of an unpaid registration fee of $150 in 2010.   There is revenue of over $100K on IRS forms from 2003 through 2009, though.     OAG’s (then Edmund G Brown’s) office respectfully requests they send in their $150 fee in September 2010:

    September 8, 2010

    TAPFOUND, INC. CT FILE NUMBER: 120759 466 GEARY ST STE 200 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102

    RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

    The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

    1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

    In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

    We’re coming up on a year from the date of this letter, so presumably they did, or they didn’t and OAG hasn’t noticed yet, or doesn’t care.  Secretary of State has corporate status active, too:

     

    Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
    C2374009 01/18/2002 ACTIVE TAPFOUND, INC. AARON HURST

     

     

    Entity Name: TAPFOUND, INC.
    Entity Number: C2374009
    Date Filed: 01/18/2002
    Status: ACTIVE
    Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
    Entity Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
    Entity City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
    Agent for Service of Process: AARON HURST
    Agent Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
    Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102

     

    An independent audit states that for 2010:

    In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tapfound, Inc. dba: Taproot Foundation as of September 30, 2010, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

    The Taproot concept, from which Kids’ Turn benefitted, sounds great:

    MAKE IT MATTER

    Most organizations tackling social problems don’t have access to the marketing, design, technology, management or strategic planning resources they need to succeed. Without this talent, few are able to have their intended impact on critical issues like the environment, health and education.

    Taproot is a nonprofit organization that makes business talent available to organizations working to improve society.

    (is it also registering anually as a charity within California, or not?)

    We engage the nation’s millions of business professionals in pro bono services both through our award-winning programs and by partnering with companies to develop their pro bono programs. One day, we envision all organizations with promising solutions will be equipped to successfully take on urgent social challenges.

    DOWNLOAD OUR 2011-13 STRATEGIC PLAN

    OUR MISSION

    Our mission is to lead, mobilize and engage professionals in pro bono service that drives social change.

    LEAD NATIONALLY BY ACTING LOCALLY

    While working to expand the impact of pro bono services nationally by leading the pro bono movement, we concentrate our efforts for social impact within five metro areas where we have offices: ChicagoLos AngelesNew York CitySan Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C.

    Today, we offer three core programs to increase nonprofits’ access to pro bono services. Through these programs we provide millions of dollars in services annually aimed at best enabling organizations to address local social issues.

    Service Grant Program

    Our signature Service Grant program operates in five cities and, since its inception in 2001, has engaged professionals in over 780,000 hours of pro bono service on over 1,300 projects.
    GET A SERVICE GRANT

    DONATE YOUR SKILLS 

    Advisory Services

    With our Advisory Services and leadership resources, we support companies and organizations in designing and developing their own customized, high-impact pro bono programs. We apply expertise garnered through our Service Grant Program to design pro bono programs best meeting our corporate clients business needs while ensuring their employees’ service makes a meaningful impact in their communities.
    LEARN MORE

    Advocacy

    We partner with leading foundations, universities, companies, coalitions and associations to host convenings and run campaigns where we collaborate to design innovative solutions bringing pro bono service to bear for progress on issues facing our cities and society

    (July 2010 letter from founder Aaron Hurst….)

     

    There are certain core values that I have made a point of formally celebrating at Taproot.  We close the office on Election Day to stress the importance of civic engagement and democracy.  We honor civil rights, and in addition to MLK Jr. Day we close the office for Matt O’Grady Day, commemorating the marriage of long-term Root Matt O’Grady to his partner in 2008.  The anniversary of every Root is also marked by giving them the day off showing our appreciation for their involvement in our shared success.

     

    We also value the diversity of backgrounds and interests of our Roots and give the team three days a year to create their own holidays. For some people, they use these days for traditional holidays like President’s Day and others use them for their birthday or culturally meaningful days like Chinese New Year, Rosh Hashanah or Cinco de Mayo.

     

    Draper Richards — which provided the first $50,000 for TapRoot (Tapfound, Inc.) is a venture capitalist company, also interesting — in high tech.

    Draper Richards L.P. is a venture capital firm investing in early-stage technology companies. We fund entrepreneurs with the energy, vision, experience, and desire to build great companies.

    I’m not so sure about making themselves the TapRoot being a great idea, although it’s great market positioning for nonprofits.  Are they as focused on screening who taps into them as they are on making the connections?  And I’ll just point out, this does spread tax benefits around nicely between foundation and nonprofits.

    WHY TAPROOT?

    A “taproot” is the core root of a plant. It gathers nutrients from lateral roots and delivers them to a plant to enable it to flourish.

    We see ourselves as a taproot for the nonprofit sector, drawing nutrients from the community and delivering them to nonprofits to enable them to thrive.

    A bit more on the background of Draper Richards, that helped start Taproot, that helped revamp the logo of 1989 court-connected, court-official run (basically), CCSF nonprofit vendor and access/visitation grants beneficiary “Kids’ Turn” (“Kid’s Turn” on the state search sites…) update its logo.  NOtice all the companies involved.

    History

    Three Generations of Venture Capital

    The Draper name is well known in the venture capital industry. Bill Draper’s father,General William H. Draper, Jr., became the first professional west-coast venture capitalist when he founded Draper, Gaither & Anderson in 1958. Formerly Undersecretary of the Army, General Draper was responsible for economic reconstruction of Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan.

    Bill Draper began his venture capital career in 1962 with Pitch Johnson, when he started Draper & Johnson Investment Company. In 1965, together with Paul Wythes, he founded Sutter Hill Ventures which was managed with great success until 1981, when he was appointed Chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 1985, he was selected to be Administrator and CEO of the United Nations Development Program. While in the venture capital business, Bill Draper was a founding investor in Apollo Computer (acquired by Hewlett Packard), Dionex, Integrated Genetics (Genzyme), Quantum, Qume (I.T.T.), Activision (Mediagenic), Xidex (Eastman Kodak), Measurex, Hybritech (Eli Lilly), and LSI Logic. In 1995, he returned to venture capital by founding Draper International which focused on venture investments in India. In 1996, he turned his attention to technology companies in the U.S. and co-founded a new domestic fund,Draper Richards L.P., with his partner, Robin Richards Donohoe.

    Bill Draper’s son, Tim Draper, left Alex. Brown & Sons in 1985 to become the third generation of venture capitalists in his family with the formation of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Tim restructured a family-owned Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) that had been set up by his father in 1979 and then created a highly successful early-stage venture capital fund. Draper Fisher Jurvetson has become synonymous with early-stage venture capital. Among other successes, Tim Draper was a founding investor in Parametric Technology, Digidesign, Parenting Magazine, Upside Publishing, PLX Technology, Four-1-1, Hotmail, and Skype.

    > > > > > > And Mr. Draper’s Partner, Robin Richards Donahue’s background:

    Robin Richards Donohoe

    Robin Richards Donohoe

    General Partner

    Robin Richards Donohoe has over fourteen years of experience in international venture capital. She has served on the boards of many portfolio companies including Kana Communications, Selectica and Digital Impact. Prior to managing the Draper funds, she served for four years as Managing Director of Seaboard Management Corporation, a venture capital firm based in Atlanta, Georgia investing in media and technology companies. Ms. Donohoe has also worked in Prague, Czech Republic for a venture capital fund and in Paris for an investment bank. Ms. Donohoe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina and has a Master of Business degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She currently serves on the boards of the Stanford Business School Trust, University of North Carolina College of Arts and Sciences, Advisory Council of the Gladstone Institute at UCSF, Bay Area Discovery Museum, and Gateway High School. She is the Secretary for her Stanford Business School Class and an Advisor to Room to Read.

    It seems obvious to me — if we really want to end “welfare as we know it” and eradicate poverty, we should encourage kids to get on the venture capitalist in high tech media track, starting with a college degree that will help them get on board, and perhaps take people out of inner city classrooms and let them see how the other half puts together a deal and structures a nonprofit corporation, possibly one doing business in grants and annuities, or catering to the grants-based marketplace.

    This might cut down on “enrons by the sea” as we all begin to realize that the social services segment of the public-employee sector cannot be trusted (which, in truth) it can’t! to those setting policy and deciding who is naughty and who is nice in distributing contracts, business, and other grants.    Of course i could be entirely wrong, but I also would suggest that the white collar sector who have their noses to the grindstone for (venture capitalists and the risk-takers with more money to play with) start taking some personal holidays to figure out where their taxes are actually being spent, and do it with a KID old enough to understand watching…

    But the two parallel sets of infrastructures — the tax-supported and the tax-exempt — both working together, and seeking clientele among the tax-paying low and moderate income, will help drive their incomes lower, and someone else’s wealth higher, leaving credibility in the dust.  Of course, with appropriate assets to spin off payments into old age, this may not matter, and if the US goes bankrupt, a b/millionaire can afford to live somewhere else, whereas a person living on social security alone, most likely can’t.

    This of course would be a little messy at times, actually teaching ALL children (not just the offspring of venture capitalists and others where business knowledge including about the function of taxes and corporate identities, is absorbed from an early age) how to deal with the invisible, or at least underlying, intangible principles and  skillsets, that are the  scaffolding sustaining significant, life-supporting wealth (barring extravagances that lead to early death, such as pharmaceutical or other addictions).

    OH WELL, more Kids’ Turn turnabouts:

    3. Kids’ Turn took dramatic steps to downsize and reduce event expenses. We downsized the May, 2010 event to a cocktail party (not a sit-down dinner); all invitations were sent electronically (eliminating the need for an expensive invitation mailing). We exceeded our event net goal and will build on this success for 2011.

    Yep, that would probably be good.  I’m looking at the 2006 return, and for fundraising activities (“Golf Tournament, “SF Event” (whatever that is), and “Other”) the ration of revenue raised to expenses is rather interesting:

    (GOLF — someone contributed $25K, expenses were $24,423, leaving net income of $12,802 out of $62K receipts.  I’m sure golfing was fun.    The “SF Event” (great descriptor) gross receipts of $44,475, expenses $10,752, is it fair to say about 25%? or 11/44ths;       “Other fundraising events” (plural), raised $1,140, COST $13,618, resulting in a net loss of $12,478.  Essentially whatever those other fundraisers were wiped out the golf tournament’s profit completely, except for $530.    And there’s a CPA on the Board of Directors, too.)

    Perhaps next time they should simply start raffles — of course this would require REGISTERING those raffles and providing signed receipts from the recipient that the funds were indeed distributed.  But they could also run raffles for themselves and the overhead is pretty low, right, on that….)

    4. Kids’ Turn is developing its presence on electronic social networking. We have an active Facebook Fan page (currently 335 Fans); a Board member ‘tweets’ regularly and posts on our behalf on linkdn. Just recently, we began actively posting comments on the Huffington Posts’ DIVORCE page. Interestingly enough, our Facebook fan count has increased exponentially since raising our profile visibility on social networking sites.

    5. We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. (??) This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.

    The “AOC” like “KT” contains AFCC members — and actually represents the “Administrative Office of the COurts” which is charged with administering FEDERAL grants to the states from which KT is likely to benefit.  As such, it’s not money from the AOC, it’s money via the IRS from taxpayers.

    The Rally Project” – found in a 2006 obituary of architect Allan Levy 

    I am posting in August 2011, and this is a FY2010 Annual report, so I’ll just hazard a guess that they mean 2011.  I hope there’s more accuracy when it comes to decimal points.

    the “rally project” is actually a Family Visitation center, apparently at UCSF.  I remember trying to find this before.  There are still few references to “the Rally Project’ because that’s not what it’s name is.  And this nonprofit is teaching communication skills, too!

    Allan M. Levy Died on Thursday, February 16, 2006 after a five-month battle with throat cancer. He was 60 years old. He died at home and in peace, in the company of family and friends. Allan was born and raised in Memphis, TN, and embodied all of the lovely qualities we Northerners associate with Southerners: he was kind and gracious, inclusive, an attentive host (no one ever left Pam and Allan’s house underfed or thirsty), and an avid storyteller. Allan was a creator of community. He had a small army of friends of all ages, sizes, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds from every conceivable corner of the globeHe had definite opinions. About everything. He gave quietly and generously of his time and energy to non-profit organizations like Kids Turn and the Rally Project. …Allan is survived by his wife, Pam; mother, Mrs. Emily Davis; sister, Diane and brother-in-law, Arnold Eger; brother, Donald and sister-in-law, Shelley Levy; brother, Steven and sister-in-law, Betsy Olim; sister-in-law, Kate DiGiacomo; six nieces and nephews, a whole bunch of cousins, the above-mentioned army of friends, and last, but not least, his dog Maggie. A Memorial Service is being planned for Thurs, April 6, 2006, 3pm, at the Officer’s Club at the SF Presidio. In lieu of flowers, it is suggested that donations be made to Kids’ Turn, Rally Family Visitation Services, UCSF Palliative Care Group, and The Women’s Community Clinic.

    I should note here, as it came up, Rally Family Visitation Services is listed twice when it comes to “SVN” (Supervised Visitation Network) which I imagine is (yet another!) nonprofit — and people from “Rally Visitation Services” are mentioned on BOTH SVN Standards and Guideline Committee Chairs  & on the SVN Board of Directors, right next to the AOC.  I’m sure having a Kids Turn Friend & Rally Visitation Center friend who is networked with the people distributing the access visitation grants and setting standards for who gets them (ideally) — would probably help in obtaining this grant, even if someone can’t figure out which year they applied for it in and proofread their (taproot-foundation-assisted) new website to get it up there right.

    Supervised Visitation Network Worldwide

    SVN, Supervised Visitation Network, is an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families.

    SVN was Founded in 1991 to provide opportunities for networking, sharing of information, and training for agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free access to parents with whom they do not reside.

    Providing resources for members and families in need of supervised visitation services

    That 1991 date is kind of interesting;  NCCSDATAWEB says the ruling date was 1997.  So far I see it in Tennessee (for about 5 years) and then off to Florida (as of 2007ff) so presumably it started somewhere else, or AS someone else from 1991 to 1996.  Assuming it actually began in 1991…

     

    Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
    2010  521831498 Supervised Visitation Network FL 1997 03 218,620 31,703 990

     


     

     

    As of 2009, it self-describes (on the 990) as PURPOSE:

    PROVIDE COMMUNITIES WITH EDUCATION AND SUPPORT THAT PROMOTE OPPORTUNITIES FOR CHILDREN TO HAVE SAFE, CONFLICT FREE ACCESS TO BOTH PARENTS THROUGH A CONTINUUM OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES IN ADDITION, THE ORGANIZATION IS DEVELOPING AND DISSEMINATING STANDARDS FOR PRACTICE OF CHILD ACCESS SERVICES, MAINTAINING A DIRECTORY OF SUPERVISED CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS, AND PROVIDING PROFESSIONAL CONFERENCES AND FORUMS FOR NETWORKING AND SHARING OF INFORMATION PRINCIPALLY, MEMBERSHIP DUES AND ADMISSION FEES TO THEIR ANNUAL CONFERENCE ARE THE MAIN SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR ORGANIZATION
     
    And like many nonprofits, simply repeats that paragraph when asked to describe its accomplishments, and then adds a figure — how much it cost:  in 2009 filing, specificallly $218,590 — funds raised from “Contributions” 67,409, “Program fees including govt contracts” $82,875, and “Dues” 62,307.”   This ALMOST adds up to what they spent, however, there’s that $92K of salaries and $5K of fees for contracting independent professionals, plus printing, occupancy ($10K) and did I mention “$143K” of “OTHER” expenses, a section I always enjoy looking at…… meaning they operated this year at a $37K loss despite all the help.  (The $143, unfortunately, displays sideways if I select & paste, but is predictably mostly on travel ($27.3) Conferences ($65.1), Committee meetings ($14.87) and a regional training ($14.68), plus a few other items.  Which makes me think that one great way to travel is to start a new professional, start a nonprofit (dues-based) in which we could meet to figure out how to promote our profession in pleasant locations across the globe, while doing business with the US government (if not a few others), soliciting from the public and/or grants, and write it all (plus some) OFF.

    SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee Co-chairs:
    Shelly La Botte, J.D., California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, and Nadine Blaschak-Brown, former Program Manager, Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

    SVN Board of Directors (Fiscal Years 2004-2006):
    Jody Bittrich, Rainbow Bridge Safe Exchange/Visitation Center, Moorhead, MN, Barbara Flory (see above), Nancy Fallows (see above), Jane Grafton, (see above), Ona Foster, Faith and Liberty’s Place, Dallas, TX, David Levy, Children’s Rights Council, Hyattsville, MD, Teri Walker McLaughlin (President), Della Morton, Merrymount Children’s Center, London, Ontario Canada, Joe Nullet, Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, Vayla Roberts (Vice-President), Sharon Rogers, Judge Ben Gordon, Jr., Family Visitation Center, Shalimar, FL, Virginia Rueda, Family Visitation Center, El Paso, TX, Rob Straus, (see above), Georgia Thompson, LA Wings of Faith, Los Angeles, CA., and Beth Zetlin, Forest Hills, NY.

    I think it’s time to get another crack in about the field of “Supervised Visitation” and the “SVN” network.

    First, it is a nonprofit incorporated in Tennessee.   These altruistic people (including David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council, which helped push the term “access /visitation” to start with, and which nonprofit includes several such centers, not to mention some close connections in philosophy with AFCC founder, it would seem, Jessica Pearson (see my recent posts trying to track down AFCC incorporations over the year, including one time it showed up in Colorado at the same address as Center for Policy Research (I believe) at the time:  Emerson Street, Denver).

    This is a 2003 IRS form 990-EZ for “Supervised Visitation Network,” a TN nonprofit of moderate means and large influence:

    90~IZ~~ Part III:

    Primary Exempt purpose: Public education and awareness;professional development

    28.SVNwebsite-provides information for both the general public and for professionals, averaging over 150 hits per week on the pages for parents and over 400 on the pages with information for professionals.- Expenses : $15,000

    This blog — which is free, except for my time — gets close to that on a good day, and has been steadily for a few years — including from some sources I know are professionals (like the ones I report on) and others.    Note:  as with the field of “Parent Education” (court-supported) the interest is higher among the providers than the clientele….i

    29.Conference-Trainingfor150professionalprovidersofsupervisedvisitationservices Expenses-Netgainof$14,410

    30. Publications -Distributed 500 Handbook for Parents, 160 Handbooks for Professionals; 80 Sexual Abuse Curriculums;850 informational brochures;2 Newsletters, primarily forprofessional training, to 600 individuals;.

    Expenses -$7.700

    Its revenue is about $40,000 Program Service Revenue including government fees & contracts, and about $37,000 membership fees.  Their highest expense is “Products and Promotions.”

    Most interesting is the variety of states (plus Canada) the board of directors are drawn from:  If you can’t see the graphic, the pdf is on-line for viewing:


    (Karen Oehme also directs a family violence studies institute at Florida State; many of these names are well known) in family law circles, obviously.

    At least one of these address shows up as the Office of the Attorney General (445 Golden Gate, SF) — no office given, though.

    Shelly Glapion (at that address), 6th floor, at least in 2004, (as we speak?)   was Senior Program Analyst for

    1. California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program


      File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
      Shelly Glapion, J.D.. Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator. Senior Court 

    As far back as 2004, there were concerns about financial embezzlement/fraud, shifting financial requirements for supervised visitation, at least in California.  This is part of a (available on-line) group email (I’ll post complaint and one reply) about the behavior of a supervised visitation monitor, from a mother, criticized for wearing flip-flops (in California…..) and giving her daughter a birthday cake.  it appears that the mother was under supervised visitation, although the typical auspices of this is increased noncustodial (FATHER) parent access, which was how Ron Haskins helped sell it to Congress to start with, as I understand:

    Supervised Monitoring   Message List
    Reply Message #17218 of 22083 < Prev | Next >
    Hi,
    I’m in CA. I have had this supervised monitor that stated I’m a danger to my daughter because one time during the summer I was wearing flip flops and gave my daugther a birthday cake for her birthday.
    Well, my question is this…now she is constatnly changing the financial agreement we signed several months ago. And she’s now back charging me for phone calls, emails to arrange visits and she doesn’t even respond to most of them. She is now threatening to take me to court if I don’t keep paying her for things I have never agreed to. Additionally, she charges me for cancelled visits and yet doesn’t even notify me that they are cancelled. Isn’t there any law of how she constatnly changes her fees and agreement? Originally it stated that the cancelle of visits is 100% resposnbile for the fees, well last weekend I was 100% resposnbile and she is refusing to credit her account that everyday she comes up with new fees or changes the agreement that was orginally signed. I’m hoping that when she does take me to court that I will not hav to pay for things that I never agreed to and for visits that is clearly stated that I am not financially resposnbile for. She also charges me $5 per min. to discuss any of this on the phone or email. And then she charges me a flat fee ontop of her min incurred fees. Please help me stop this insanity. I also believe that because my ex won in court because of past bribery that he must have also done this upon the monitor. The monitor did state once that the father told her to charge me more and make it exteremly difficult to see my daughter. And the monitor stated that if I wanted this information that I need to pay her for this.
    I’ve given up all hope that I’ll be allowed to see my daughter – this justice system provides no justice…because the courts don’t care that they purjed under oath (saying I have a criminal record and a bunch of lies like that..that I can easily prove false), let alone CPS closed the case because it was unfouned..and now that the courts have allowed him to do this to me of taking 50% of all my wages. At least now I’m hoping that I can get this monitor to stop asking me for money that isn’t due and to stop fabricating these charges of $5 per min. to read an email and then her $25 fee to just have it in her inbox (even if she doesn’t read them).
    Any suggestions????
    THE REPLY is to contact Shelly Glapion (of SVN board of directors, which this person probably didn’t know, and program administrator, via CFCC)
    Re: Supervised Monitoring

    In a message dated 11/27/04 10:06:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXX@… writes:

    Is she private or with a supervised visitation center?


    Especially if she is connected to a supervised visitation center, you should make a public records request for all payoffs she is receiving, and also ask for her tax returns for the duration of time since she has been providing you “service”.

    Then, go very public with the fact that what she is doing constitutes fraud, illegal and criminal misconduct, so that she will dump you as a client in order to try to conceal what she is doing wrong.

    After she dumps you, go to the press with evidence of financial and other fraud operative through your case, saying that this is another example of the type of Access to Visitation Enforcement program fraud that is rampant as the means to promote a pro-abuser agenda in the guise of fatherhood and custody programs. Use this article from NY– re: Viola Stroud of CRC being under investigation for embezzlement — to bolster your case:  Click here: Guardian under scrutiny

    Next, send a summary (brief and objective re: criminal misconduct and financial fraud) to Shelly Glapion, the CA adminstrator of the SAVP: shelly.glapion@…, asking her, as the person overseeing the AV program in CA, who has been monitoring your supervisor to ensure the integrity of the “service” she is providing. Be sure to tell Ms. Glapion that you hold her personally responsible and legally liable for the kickbacks and illegal payoffs you are sure were being used to cause intential and malicious harm to you and your child on behalf of your ex, using government program funding.

    Be sure to send me a copy (use XXXXX not the FCR board) of your complaint, along with the name of the supervisor, the county you are in, your case number, the judges, lawyers and other appointees involved (especially any mediators or custody evaluators) and I will incorporate it into the complaints that we are putting together that are addressing AV program fraud and corruption at the federal level.

    Cindy Ross
    CA Director
    National Alliance for Family Court Justice

    To this woman, who says she does not have a criminal record, and apparently CPS was told she was some sort of perp, but closed the case — she is being treated like one, which she reports as basically being cursed (spoken evil of) by the supervised visitation monitor.  The other point of view — particularly from someone on this nonprofit SVN group and probably also running a program that provides these services, it’s not a curse, it’s a blessing!  Barbara Flory, in THIS message exchange (file under “PR”)   The URL is a Florida State University address:    http://familyvio.csw.fsu.edu/messageboard/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BB_winter_04.pdf

    The supervised visitation and exchange programs have truly been a blessingfor so many families.

    First of all, monitored visitation provides yet another level of protection for the victim and the children. This

    protection is essential to victims!

    (not mentioned — often, the victims ARE children…. this happens when there’s molestation also):

    Second, it allows contact between the perpetrator and the children, which would not have

    occurred without said programs.

    {{now that’s food for thought……  “contact between perp and children = good.”  (?)}}

    This is especially important for those perpetrators who are truly trying to improve their lives and those of their children.

    And the way to tell if a perp is REALLY sincere and wants to improve his(her) life is …..   ask a supervised visitation professional?

    Or a judge on the board of a nonprofit benefitting from access visitation (or other) grantsmanship?

    It is also extremely important for the children who sometimes do not understand why they cannot see one of their parents, but want to see that parent.

    And one tells which children DO and which children do NOT want to see their perp parent?  (See Jack Straton; I get tired of reminding us….)

    In many cases it is also the hope of being with the children and helping their children that motivates a perpetrator to understand the cycle of domestic violence.

    It’s HOPED that HOPING to see one’s kids will produce character change for a perp.  I’m not even sure we can find definite validation that batterers intervention programs do that…..

    These programs provide a safe environment for all involved and they further provide hope!

    Yes, hope of virtually guaranteed (court-ordered) income for supervised visitation providers who pay into the system!

    Other than that —

    No they don’t.  That’s false!   They can become and have obviously become nightmares; moreover, some people have been killed at or around supervised visitation, or while the family was utilizing supervised visitation!   See this chart from 2001 (i.e., in recent memory of the above message), particularly 3rd from bottom row:  The chart is from “MNCAVA” something reasonably accessible to the people involved above:

    http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/commissioned/strategies/strategies.html

    Staff of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation collected examples of behaviors commonly displayed by alleged batterers who were referred to supervised visitation programs in Florida in 2001. As the examples in the following table indicate, the same behaviors of batterers described in the literature, are observed in supervised visitation programs.

     

    Table 1. Common Behaviors of Batterers Seen at Supervised Visitation Programs

    Behavior Manifestation at Supervised Visitation Program
    Denial of Abuse/ Minimizations Children may ask parent, “why did you hit mommy?” Visiting parent may deny hitting child’s mother, say it was accident or minimize his action. Or he may say it’s the fault of mother he has to see child at visitation program. One program reports a 12 year old asked his father why he chased his mother with a knife. Father denied doing it saying the mother told him to say that. This occurred despite witnesses to the knife incident.
    Blaming partner Frequently supervised visitation staff report that a batterer will tell staff “this is all my wife’s fault,” “she’s the one who brought this on.”
    Control/ Manipulation Often batterers will question, or challenge program rules or suggest exceptions to rules should be made of them. This is seen in examples of refusing to arrive or depart per requirements, bringing unauthorized individuals to visits, bringing gifts or food to visits which may be disallowed, attempting to take videos or photographs. Tearing up rules or throwing intake forms across room.
    Attacking Parenting Skills Involving staff in apparent false allegations of child abuse against parent who has been abused, trying to use staff to call Abuse Registry. Makes disparaging remarks about mother, “you need to clean up better than mommy.”
    Making Covert/ Overt Threats Program staff report incidents of batterers showing a weapons permit when asked for identification, driving around visitation site at time of scheduled visits but not coming into program as well as verbally threatening to harm staff, volunteers, judge, partner, etc. during visits. Law enforcement officers referred to programs have come for scheduled visits in full uniform wearing their weapons despite instructions to the contrary.
    Involving Children During scheduled visitations, batterers may attempt to question children about their current living arrangements (particularly if they are staying at shelter or another undisclosed location); inquire about what their plans are, where they are attending school; or, may try and find out who the child’s mother is seeing. Additionally batterers may utilize visitation times as a vehicle to get children to convey messages back to other parent.
    Stalking Following a parent who is leaving a program, recording information about parents car. One program reports two examples of cases when the perpetrator had custody. In one case he left with the child prior to his wife (non-custodial) but waited for her in a nearby parking lot. In another, a non-custodial mother picked up her child for a monitored exchange and was followed to a neighboring city by her abuser. Perpetrators may reveal stalking incidents during conviction with their children during visit Questions such as Where were you all last night? or Why weren’t you in school yesterday?
    Financial Abuse/ Manipulation Refusing to pay for scheduled visits, not going to pay to see my kids. Paying in pennies or other small coins. Saying they will not bring food for visits because they’re paying child support to mother and she should make sure food is available for father’s visit.
    Animal Abuse Batterers may inform child during visit that a beloved pet has died or had to be given away since the child was not longer in the home. One program reported a father bringing the child’s pet rabbit to the program knowing the child would not be able to take it back to the shelter where he was staying.
    Physical Violence At least three murders of [WORD missing — Freudian slip?] have occurred on-site or in parking lots of supervised visitation programs in recent years. Other programs report murders or physical assaults by non-custodial parents off site but while family was utilizing services.
    Suicide Visiting parent telling child and/or staff how depressed he is and how he might just end it all.

     

     

    Not to mention, see Joyce Welch / Brian Tippe case, where the supervised visitation monitor was in a bestiality relationship (criminal!) with DOGS and a slave/master relationship (as the slave, i.e., fairly “deviant” behavior for someone involved with children, and around the field of domestic violence, which is itself characterized by inappropriate slave/master behaviors, only without the designated slave deriving (?) sexual enjoyment from the degraded status).  The mother was ordered supervised by a commissioner who was at the time on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too….

    Guess under what banner I found that:

    Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation Services in Domestic Violence Cases

    M. Sharon MaxwellLCSW, Ph.D.
    Karen OehmeJ.D.

    authors commissioned by
    Violence Against Women Online Resources [logo]

    Barbara Flory, MSW, LFMT (or whatever) and 2003 at least SVN board member, wrote the above glowing recommendation of supervised visitation; Karen Oehme, here, chairs the FLorida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation.  They are talking about strategies to have less abuse and murder occurring around supervised visitation (no mention made of financial fraud, etc., although it’s been found repeatedly) — and not whether it’s a good or bad idea, based on the fact that murders and further abuse HAS occurred around it!

    ACTUALLY, Familylawcourts.com has a page on the “AOC” and says it better than I do; it’s funny, but right:

    2.  The Elkins Task Force, which was headed by the AOC supposedly to promote accountability and listening to children, was an expensive and expansive white wash.

    How else to explain why the AOC commissioned a 50k research project to ask family court litigants questions for the entire state; and the results featured only 53 litigants and 83 AOC staff personnel?

    3.  One lasting, inept brainchild of the Judicial Council, again working in conjunction with the AOC, was to decriminalize crime via a “Supervised Visitation,” form in which kidnapping becomes the more civilized “parental abduction.”

    Thus, 12 years after the Judicial Council working in conjunction with the AOC, created the non-professional field, there remains no oversight. Which con artists have discovered.  Which explains how suspected pedophiles are now serving on the boards of some Supervised visitation agencies; and why Supervised visitation monitors are awarding custody to the suspected pedophiles.

    As such, if the AOC wasn’t so damaging to the point of lethal, it would be listed as a sub-category to Comic Gold.

    Is there anything where AOC excels?

    Yes.  The AOC excels at wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer funds for slick, expensive conferences, most of which are designed to continue prohibiting access to any real justice in the courts, such as the one below.

    http://www.familylawcourts.com/aoc.html

    (note:  I don’t agree with author in GPS issue, though).

    She sarcastically notes:

    Practice Hint:  Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department.  Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest.  The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.

    Actually, I experienced so-called “parental abduction” (call it what you will) AT a law enforcement station, after having asked (in vain) previously for supervised visitation or something to prevent this (as I recall the LONG case history).  Apparently the problem is I wasn’t willing to cut some deal with CPS and let my children go into foster care needlessly to get revenge on my ex.   So, they did nothing, knowing it would be off their plate and safely in family court anyhow.   This custody-switch kept the case going, which also (FYI) meant a significant delay in child support matters, probably resulting in a little interest accumulation (at least from program funds) on the side, too.  The possible profitable (except to the children) permutations are endless in this system.

    I figured I’d just hop on over to Tennessee to look up this nice nonprofit I learned was incorporated there:  Surprise:

     

    Search:       1-1 of 1
    Search Name:  Starts With Contains
    Control #:
    Control # Entity Type Name Name Type Name Status Entity Filing Date Entity Status
    000454811 NCORP SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC. Entity Inactive 09/29/2003 Inactive – Terminated

     

     

    000454811: Corporation Non-Profit – Domestic
    Name: SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.
    Old Name:
    Business Type:
    Status: Inactive – Terminated Initial Filing: 09/29/2003
    Formed in: Putnam County Delayed Effective Date:
    Fiscal Year Close: June AR Due Date: 10/01/2007
    Term of Duration: Perpetual Inactive Date: 01/11/2008
    Principal Office: 2804 PARAN POINTE DR
    COOKEVILLE, TN 38506 USA
    Annual Report
    Mailing Address:
    1223 KING STREET
    JACKSONVILLE, FL 322040000 USA
    AR Exempt: No
    Public Benefit Corporation: Yes
    Skip Navigation Links

    Name Status Expires
      No Assumed Names Found…

     

    WELL, they apparently kept it going about 5 years — with the exception of AFCC, that’s pretty average for nonprofits catering to therapeutic-jurisprudence professions in the courts, which is probably why new ones (such as COllaborative law practice) must constantly be created. ….  Maybe the moved to Florida… or just went extra-USA terrestrial…..

    TypeDateImage #DetailTermination01/11/20086178-2677Articles of Dissolution01/11/20086178-2675Administrative Amendment12/05/20076164-2457Detail Notice of Determination12/03/2007ROLL 61612006 Annual Report Due 10/01/200612/19/20065902-1491Notice of Determination12/01/2006ROLL 58932005 Annual Report Due 10/01/200510/07/20055578-01582004 Annual Report Due 10/01/200409/14/20045233-08802003 Annual Report Due 04/01/200402/10/20045032-2914Detail Initial Filing09/29/20034922-0943

    Registered as a Charity in Tennessee?

    Financial Reports for Registered Charities

    (I didn’t find out whether or not).

    I THINk the first address listed as  c/o Nancy Fallows, who shows up as someone probably good at getting grants, and on the board of a substance-abuse-prevention group, “Putnam (County) Power of One

    Nancy Fallows Secretary,
    (Grant-Writing Sub-Committee Chair)
    Tennessee Community Services Agency,
    Upper Cumberland Director
    1000 England Drive, Suite F,
    Cookeville, TN 38501(work) 931-646-4087; (fax) 931-520-0080
    Nancy.Fallows@tncsa.com

     

    Joe Nullet (also on Board, and the registered agent? in Florida for the TN corporation also) is Harvard, JFK School of Government, father of 3 boys, and:

     

    and obviously someone who knows how to obtain funding for a program.  This one is selling educational curriculums, isn’t everyone these days?

    Joe Nullet

    Joe Nullet, a graduate of Harvard University, is the Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network, an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families. Joe was also formerly the Executive Director of the Family Nurturing Center of Florida, *** an organization committed to creating a community of nurturing care for our children.

     

    As recognized Trainer/Consultant for the Nurturing Parenting programs, Joe’s area of strength is in the administration, support, and successful implementation of the Nurturing Parenting programs. Since 2001, Joe has successfully obtained financial support from the Jaguars Foundation, the Community Foundation of Jacksonville, the Reinhold Foundation, the Rice Family Foundation, UPS, Publix, the Martin Foundation, and others for the implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs.

    As a father of three beautiful boys, Joe is passionate about nurturing his family and the world in which they live. Joe is available to train your agency staff to facilitate the Nurturing Parenting programs or as a consultant to develop innovative strategies to foster community collaboration, solicit financial support, and manage the effective implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs within your organization and/or community.

    Joe Nullet, Executive Director
    Supervised Visitation Network

    *** per ‘SUNBIZ.org” -a site I really appreciate where you can look up florida organizations — actually, this was incorporated in 1993 as “Family Visitation Center, Inc.” and in 2000 they did a name change (adding the “nurturing”) as we can see in 2001, Mr. Nullet helped them expand the concept, or at least get funding for doing so.     The group’s current address, 2759 Bartley Circle (same city) is apparently owned by the City of Jacksonville  (a community center) and listed with the courts, or taking business from them:

    Family Nurturing Center of Florida
    Supervised Visitation, Dependency and Family Law


    2759 Bartley Circle
    Jacksonville, FL 32207
    ServicePhone:
    Fax:
    (904) 389-4244
    (904) 389-4225
    Provides a multifaceted supervised visitation center for children to visit with their non-custodial parents when there have been allegations and/or confirmation of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.
    Services: Information and referral; Other
    Victims Served: Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims
    Counties Served: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns
    Circuits Served: 4, 8, 7
    Fee: Yessliding scale for Family Law clients.
    Hours of Service: Please see website for hours of operation.
    Web Site: http://www.fncflorida.org

     

    That site shows them in the 2 primary businesses supported by A/V grants:  Parent Education and Supervised Visitation and yes, they are a nonprofit; their “For Parents” link hopefully points to the SVN, and has a hastily (or at least crookedly) scanned “handbook” coaching parents on how to pick the right type of visitation center, i.e., one of ours, listing the SVN at 1223 King Drive (although it’s not been there for a while…..)

     

    FNC is proud to partner with a number of local service providers to offer comprehensive services to clients. We have relationships with each of the certified domestic violence centers within the Fourth Circuit, and we also partner with Family Foundations, Youth Crisis Center, and many others. If you have a question about additional resources which may benefit your clients, please contact us or you can conduct your own search using the 2-1-1 system.

    Like Kids’ Turn (etc.) it is described as the 1993 brainchild of a judge — only this one, responding to complaints from parents with children in foster-care:

    We opened in 1993 as the Family Visitation Center, the first of its kind in Florida. It was the brainchild of the Honorable Judge Dorothy Pate, who was moved to act after hearing frequent complaints from parents who were not being allowed to see their children who had been placed in foster care.

    SEE ALSO HERE:

    Representatives from the Department of Children, the Children’s Home Society and the Junior League of Jacksonville met with Judge Pate to discuss a new concept called “supervised visitation.” Since that meeting, we have expanded our agency to include three programs at four locations and changed our name to reflect this growing commitment to improving the lives of families throughout Northeast Florida.

    (NoTE — that predates the 1996 welfare reform, the 1994 national fatherhood initiative and violence against women act).

     

    GONE SOUTH — literally, to FLORIDA — or at least here’s another corporation by the same name, in the same city (Jacksonville) that decided to get started up around the time the Tennessee incorporation shut down (or was shut down):

    Florida Non Profit Corporation
    SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.
    Filing Information
    Document Number N07000010935
    FEI/EIN Number 521831498
    Date Filed 11/09/2007
    State FL
    Status ACTIVE
    Effective Date 11/15/2007
    Principal Address
    3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
    JACKSONVILLE FL 32205
    Changed 01/06/2010
    Mailing Address
    3955 RIVERSIDE AVENUE
    JACKSONVILLE FL 32205

    By the former address, yes, this is the same corporation (see files):

    EIN# 521831498

    IT’s purpose (see sunbiz.org if this doesn’t show, click on bottom link below Annual Reports) is fairly clear — business promotion and collaboration on how to obtain access visitation funding, basically:

    Article III ” The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized” — “Provide a forum for networking and sharing of information

    between CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS and OTHER PROFESSIONALS.  Advocate for adequate public and private funding for Child access and visitation programs.”

     

    Others at the first Jacksonville Address (1223 King STreet)  address include a window-washing service.  Now, 3995 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL appears to be a particular real estate group, “Bo Bridgeport Brokers“) which I only figured because google-mapping zooming in on the address contained that label.

    Bo Bridgeport Brokers is the premier Commerical and Residential Real Estate Firm in Jacksonville Florida. We specialize in residential and commercial real 
    3955 Riverside Avenue
    Jacksonville, FL 32205-3312
    (904) 358-3955

     

     

    It’s also listed in “Family and Child Services” in a VERMONT (how’s that for the other end of the east coast?) Child Support / Commission on Women office.  Cute:

    1. Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women

      women.vermont.gov/…/family-court-and-office-of-child-support – Cached

      1223 King Street JacksonvilleFL 32204 904-389-7800 http://www.svnetwork.net/ . SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a 

    1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204

    http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223KingStJacks – Cached
    1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204. Companies at this address: Vision Window Washing, Inc. Alzheimer’s Care, Inc. Supervised Visitation Network, Inc. 
    As explained nicely on the VERMONT government site, after one reads about the child support contacts:

    Family Division and Office of Child Support

    Vermont Office of Child Support

    800-786-3214
    http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/Provides free assistance to those paying and receiving child support. The office keeps track of child support payments, can help with getting a child support order, collects overdue payments, locates absent parents, helps change child support amounts, can help determine paternity, and offers help to child support payers

     

    Vermont Parent Representation Center, Inc.
    77 Charlotte Street
    Burlington, Vermont 05401
    802-540-0200
    http://www.vtprc.org

    An interdisciplinary team of an attorney, a social worker, and a peer navigator (a parent who has direct experience with child protective and foster care systems) represents parents at risk of experiencing the removal of their children into state custody and foster care or kin-care. A Community Action Team (CAT) works with the custodial parent to address issues that threaten the children’s safety to prevent a petition from being filed in court  (Family and Probate).

     

    VPRC is a {{YET ANOTHER…..}} not-for-profit public interest law and policy organization. VPRC’s goals include:

    To reduce the number of children removed from their families into state and other out-of-home custody; to shorten the length of stay in state and other out-of-home custody for children who have been removed, and to reduce the number of children re-entering state and other out-of-home custody after being reunified with their families.

    This says nothing about “custody-dispute” Parental alienation situations, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t handle such things and get some grants or contracts to do so.

     

    This is clearly more directed at CPS & Foster Care uses, but notice how SVN can springboard that into “custody dispute” or “estranged from the other parent” situations . . …

     

    National

     

    Supervised Visitation Network
    1223 King Street
    Jacksonville, FL 32204
    904-389-7800
    http://www.svnetwork.net/

     

    SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a network of agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free {{AFCC code language;  not ‘High-conflict”}} access to parents with whom they do not reside. Some of the children who need these services live in foster homes or with relatives. Some live with one parent who is estranged from the other.

    Wonder what the percentages are.  Notice, it doesn’t even pretend to be a grass-roots organization, or even parent-originated.    “The “is-estranged” could be either, has a restraining order on because of criminal conduct, or is judged to be guilty by allegation — from a PAS-saturated official — of the “crime” of parental alienation.  See in New Hampshire, parent coordination association (and my posts on it) for HOW to allege parental alienation and cut the children off from their mothers, after obtaining parent coordinator status.

    6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.

    I presume they are probably meaning the year 2011; someone has a little data input trouble here…..    If the SF Courts ever pay off what it is SFTC has a lien for (see my other Kids’ Turns posts) perhaps they can hire a proofreader for their new website, and get their license back.  Oh, this may be a little difficult though, because so many SF Courtrooms are being closed, soon, for lack of funding, budget cutbacks, etc. . . . .   You know how it goes….

    I think that MOST businesses and charities understand (as well as shouldn’t most attorneys who are going to be sometimes doing business with them, or incorporated themselves as an LLP) that one has to register as a nonprofit with the state, and also file annual reports with the secretary of state whether for-profit or not, if doing business in that state.  But here it is stated explicitly:

     

    Florida Charity Nearly Ruined

    Sun Coast Law Enforcement Charities (Sun Coast) is a police charity benefiting police officers and their families in several Florida counties. Recently, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) served the charity’s president with a lawsuit.

    Why? Because the charity failed to renew its registration with the Department, even though it had sent letters and made phone calls reminding the charity to do so. In Florida, any charity that asks for donations in the state mustregister with the department each year. It costs between $10 and $400, depending on how much money the charity raises. Sun Coast’s registration fee was $75.

    The Department’s lawsuit wanted to impose a $10,000 fine against Sun Coast. Paying that fine would have ruined the charity. According to its IRS filings, the charity’s 2008 total revenue was only $11,000. Luckily it avoided the problem.

    It explained to the Department that a former bookkeeper had ignored calls and letters from the Department. The Department took into consideration that Sun Coast had been registered since 2000 and kept up its renewals until the 2009 incident. In the end, Sun Coast paid a $1,000 fine and remains in operation.

    Registration Laws

    Many states are like Florida and require registration of charities. ArizonaConnecticutColorado, and Pennsylvania are good examples. The rules usually are different in each state, though. For example, in some states, a charity must register:

    • And pay a fee each year if it “does business” in the state
    • And pay a fee only the first year it “does business” in the state, but must submit financial and other records each year
    • Before it accepts donations, before it asks for or “solicits” donations, or both
    • By completing forms provided by the state, by submitting a copy of the charity’s IRS form, or both

    (Courtesy “Charities.lawyers.com“)

    Apparently being able to look it up on-line is new? http://www.800helpfla.com/socbus.html

    Back to the Division of Consumer Services' Homepage

    Solicitation of Contributions
    Information for Businesses

    The Solicitation of Contributions Act requires anyone who solicits donations from people in the State of Florida to register with the Department and renew annually. This applies to charitable organizations, sponsors, professional solicitors, as well as professional fundraising consultants. The Department collects registration fees and has authority to impose penalties for non-compliance. The Department provides financial disclosure regarding organizations on the online Gift Givers’ Guide or you can obtain information about a specific charity by calling our Consumer Assistance Call Center at 1-800-HELP-FLA (435-7352), or out of state 850-410-3800.

    Gift Givers Guide

     

    Looking at the SVN site, describing the backgrounds of its current Board of Directors, here’s a nice connection to “responsible fatherhood” if you don’t get it yet:

     

    Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD

    Cambridge, MA

    A psychologist and lawyer was Senior Psychologist of the Family Service Clinic from 1982 to 1988, conducting custody and visitation evaluations for the Middlesex County Family Court. From 1988, he served frequently as Guardian ad Litem in high-conflict custody and access disputes.

    In 1991, Dr. Straus started Meeting Place: Supervised Child Access Service, a program of The Guidance Center, Inc. in Cambridge, MA, providing a safe setting in which children in high-risk situations can visit parents with whom they are not living.

     

    Entity Name Identification Number Old Identification Number Principal Office
    Address, City, State, Zip, Country
    GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE 042199861  000013371  5 SACRAMENTO ST., CAMBRIDGE, MA  02138  USA 

    Some details about the organization, including its name change:

    The exact name of the Nonprofit Corporation: GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE


    The name was changed from:  CAMBRIDGE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCI on 9/17/1997


    Mergered into :  RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. on 8/21/2009

    Entity Type:  Nonprofit Corporation
    Identification Number: 042199861

    Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000013371

     

    He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.

     

    So maybe if I want to find what state it first incorporated in, I should go to Massachusetts?

     

    From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.

    Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.

     

     

    Dr. Straus (psychologist/psychotherapist) published in 1994 (as cited in AFCC publication) on traumatized children in supervised visitation.  Maybe if the kids are so badly traumatized, they shouldn’t be there to start with?  Anyhow, this abstract for the cite:

     

    Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
    Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

    ARTICLE: Traumatized Children in Supervised Visitation: What Do They Need?

    Authors’ Note:

    This article was presented as a plenary paper at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, France, November 4-7, 1998.

    April, 1999

    37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 135

    Author

    Janet R. Johnston and Robert B. Straus

    Excerpt

    The purpose of supervised access, also known as supervised visitation and exchange services, is to provide a protected setting for parent-child contact when such contact presents risk following parental separation, child abuse, or neglect, or after an extended interruption of contact. There has been a remarkable growth in such services over the past two decades, in the United States and Canada, 1 as well as internationally. 2 Although there is a growing literature on the functioning of child access services (see, for example, Pearson & Thoennes, 1997; Straus & Alda, 1994)**, to date there has been little concentrated attention in the field on how better to respond to the vulnerable children who are the primary clients of visitation services. It seems likely that several factors have contributed to the relative invisibility of children’s individual and developmental needs in designing access programs. These factors include the urgency with which the needs of these distressed parents and their advocates call for the attention of decision makers and service providers, the fact that visitation orders (usually made in family courts where children lack their own voice) take precedence in defining how children are served, and, most important, the lacunae in clinical and research findings about the special needs of this population of children.

    Whereas supervised access is used to provide supportive services and reunite parents with their children when there has not been trauma, the majority of the child clients of supervised visitation services have not been so fortunate. This article …

    ** of course there was even then a growing literature from certain sources on access services, particularly with the CRCKIDS.org organization on, and the nonprofit board-member multiple inter-relationships in place from the start.  Abstract is from “Lexis-Nexis

    LexisNexis®

     

    Dr. Straus in Cambridge, “RSJ Corporation” filing (OLD ein# 043061365) corresponds with these dates, somewhat.

     

    RSJ CORP. Summary Screen 
    Help with this form

    The exact name of the Domestic Profit Corporation: RSJ CORP.
    Entity Type:  Domestic Profit Corporation
    Identification Number: 043061365

    Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000312860

    Date of Organization in Massachusetts:  09/11/1989 Date of Revival:  05/29/2007
    Date of Dissolution:  08/31/1998
    Current Fiscal Month / Day: 12 / 31 Previous Fiscal Month / Day: 00 / 00  
    The location of its principal office:

    No. and Street:  22 BERKELEY STREET
    City or Town: CAMBRIDGE State: MA   Zip: 02138 Country: USA

     

    Supervised Visitation Access is not suitable for long-term, has been acknowledged (?) since 1999.  Therefore, I can see how if business is to keep coming there would need to be new customers.  THEORETICALLY a good bit of supervised visitation access will heal all relationships, reform perps of course (Except parentally alienating ones?) and lead to a reunified family.  (Alternately, see Warshak….).  OR, it could provide a nice excuse to terminate relationship with the offending parent, possibly the one most offended at (and/or paying for) the supervised visitation to start with.  Another Lexis-Nexis abstract, delivered in Paris again — here:

    Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
    Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

    ARTICLE: Supervised Access: A Long-Term Solution?

    Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, November 5, 1998.

    October, 1999

    37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 478

    Author

    Martha Bailey

    Excerpt

    SOME COURTS AND COMMENTATORS HAVE SUGGESTED THAT LONG-TERM SUPERVISED ACCESS IS INAPPROPRIATE

    Supervised access is ordered to develop, reestablish, or maintain a relationship between a child and a parent, or other relative, generally with the expectation that unsupervised access will at some point become possible. Some courts and commentators have said that supervised access is not appropriate as a long-term measure. Ontario Provincial Court Judge Norris Weisman wrote that supervised access is “a temporary and time-limited measure designed to resolve a parental impasse over access,” not “a long-term remedy.” 1 Lawyer Karen Oehme, cochair of the Family Visitation Program of Tallahassee, Florida, said, “Attorneys should realize that institutional supervised visitation is not a long-term solution in most family court cases, and that the programs should not be thought of as a substitute for addressing the underlying problems that resulted in the need for supervised visitation in the first place.” 2

    In a 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal also emphasized that supervised access should not be “a permanent feature of a child’s life” and decided to terminate access, rather than ordering supervised access, where it was not foreseeable that unsupervised access would ever be possible3 A year later, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in a case called Bieganski v. Bieganski, said: “Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.” 4 In 1996, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia clarified that the Bieganski decision did not mean that …

     

     

    WELL, if one looks at the history and membership of the Children’s Rights Council (which does have a chapter in paris, and the link I clicked seemed to indicate, since about 1999 — not that my French is very good.) and remember who active David Levy (also on board of supervised visitation network is) none of this is too surprising except that it’s not about time to make up some new terminology about now, because Collaborative Law is pretty well established, as is Parenting Coordination.    It’s recommended to do this before the U.S. goes bankrupt and the $$ is inflated into worthlessness and no longer the world’s reserve currency, which I can see why considering what we DO with it!

    http://www.crckids.org/about-us/who-we-are/board-of-trustees/

    David Levy

    David L. Levy, Esq. is a CRC co-founder and former CRC President. He has directed 16 CRC conferences, was editor of the 1993 book entitled “The Best Parents is Both Parents®”, and has recently published an eco-novel entitled “Revolt of the Animals.”

     

     

    Michael Oddenino, member of the CRC's Board of Trustees

     

     

    Michael L. Oddenino has been the CRC’s General Counsel since its inception in 1985.  He practices family law full time in Arcadia, CA, just outside Los Angeles.   He has written numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs and journal articles on family law.  His CRC brief in the 1989 Michael H case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court agreed with the CRC that never-married fathers were entitled to a hearing to determine visitation rights to their children, even if the child was born within a marriage of the mother to another man.

     

     

     

    Margaret Wuwert, CRC's Chief Operating Officer

     

    Margaret A. Wuwert, Chief Operating Officer, is a retired social worker and serves as Director of CRC of Northwest Ohio. Her agency is one of CRC’s largest chapters with eight Access Centers in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.  In 2002, Ms. Wuwert was recognized by the Lucas County Domestic Relations Court for her untiring dedication and supportive access services to the children and families in the Toledo area.

     

     

    Mark S,. Inzetta, member of CRC's Board of Trustees

     

    Mark S. Inzetta, J.D. is the Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Wendy’s International, Inc., based in Dublin, Ohio. Before the CRC, Mark served on the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Commission, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Task Force on Family Law and Children, ***and Board of Directors of the Franklin County, Ohio Chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates.

    *** Lots of AFCC influence on that one, I think I blogged it.  To get input, they simply flew the task force out to Arizona (home to an AFCC organization) to sit on AFCC presentations; I may have even blogged that.  Given Ms. Wuwert, and others, I can see possibly why CRC shows up on the Indiana Child Support site.

     

     

    Just to show how “totally” unrelated AFCC is from this SVN (that’s bouncing its corporation status from state to state?) here’s what’s scheduled for the October 2011 SVN conference, I guess tax-deductible for the SVN because it’s a regional training, and probably for attendees under education, and probably who knows what else.

     

    “2011 REGIONAL TRAINING for “SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK”:  INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

    “Working with High Conflict and Violent Families, Implications for Supervised Visitation”

    Hyatt Regency Hotel Indianapolis, Indiana

    October 26,2011

    This One Day Institute will focus on the issues presented in Supervised Visitation when Domestic Violence is present. This Institute will provide information to help professionals who work with SV providers, and those who provide direct services, to understand how domestic violence may require changes to their services to respond to the complex dynamic involved.

     

    Scheduled one day before the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Regional Conference:

    “Working with High Conflict and Violent Families: A Race with No Winners” at the Hyatt Regency.

    For more information about the AFCC Conference, go HERE

    (and you can see the great race-car graphics, too….)

     

    I don’t know about that “no winners” part.  It seems like great retirement planning if you’re in the business, particularly if you have published something that could be marketed as “parent education” or how to work with flawed parents, or such .  . . . .

    Cost: $125 for SVN Members, $150 for Non Members (Includes Breakfast and Lunch):

    Register HERE

    A rate of $135/night at the Hyatt Regency is available through the AFCC Conference: HERE

     

     

    I think we should look at the current list of AFCC Board Membership, starting with Linda Fieldstone (of Florida), now President:  Is your judge on it?

    AFCC Board of Directors

    President

    Linda B. Fieldstone, MEd, Miami, FL

    President Elect

    Arnold T. Shienvold, PhD, Harrisburg, PA

    Vice President

    Nancy Ver Steegh, JD, MSW, St. Paul, MN

    Secretary

    Richard L. Altman, JD, Napoleon, OH

    Treasurer

    Annette T. Burns, JD, Phoenix, AZ

    Past President

    Robert M. Smith, JD, MDiv, Windsor, CO

    Hon. Peter Boshier, Wellington, New Zealand Hon. Diana Bryant, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Andrea Clark, MSW, St. Louis, MO patti cross, JD, Toronto, ON

    Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, Boston, MA Hon. Dianna Gould-Saltman, Los Angeles, CA Hon. R. John Harper, Toronto, ON Grace M. Hawkins, MSW, Tucson, AZ Mindy F. Mitnick, EdM, MA, Edina, MN Hon. Graham R. Mullane, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Marsha Kline Pruett, PhD, MSL, Northampton, MA Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD, Palo Alto, CA Larry V. Swall, JD, Liberty, MO

    AFCC Staff

    Executive Director

    Peter Salem, MA

    Which reminds me, some time, to do a post or two on the Hofstra University (NY) connection to AFCC.

    Associate Director

    Leslye Hunter, MA, LMFT

    Program Director

    Candace Walker, CMP, CMM

    Business and Administrative Director

    Chris Shanahan, BA, CPA

    Office Manager & Registrar

    Dawn Holmes

    Program Coordinator

    Nola Risse-Connolly, BA

    Program Coordinator

    Erin Sommerfeld, BA

    Administrative Assistant

    Jessica Murdy, BS

    AND IF YOU LIVE IN INDIANA, be comforted to know they have the violence/danger thing all under control:

    Co-sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial Center

     

    I notice that the Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs (aka “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.)-related “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has fully enmeshed itself now with AFCC (and continuing to receive preventing violence discretionary grants, no doubt) and as such will be just about useless when it comes to objective critiques of the AFCC and its impact on our culture and the culture of divorce in re:  murder/suicides around exchange of children or the filing of protective orders (so to speak) (I’m referring to Loretta Frederick:  Go to TAGGS.hhs.gov and see if you can find the  name, or search my blog on the organizations it’ll make more sense):

     

    4. Judicial Officers institute— interparental conflict and domestic Violence: structuring Parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse

    The basic implication of “abuse” is danger to the abused, or if access to hurt the abused is cut off, attempts to hurt HER children instead.   The most common sense solution would be separation.  But that concept has an “irreconciliable difference” with the fathers’ rights and perpetual new professions contingents, so we need to create more tax exempt entities to confer and rehearse how to make these situations work, even if the idea is ridiculous.

    You beat a person — you shouldn’t be around children.  GOT IT?  Why should everyone else pay an adult to be supervised in the presence of children rather than get that adult AWAY from children and let them deal with their life in an adult manner somewhere else.  This is called deterrence.

    COMMON SENSE though, wouldn’t support the word “institute” which there seems to be always another one of …….

    Research has documented that interparental conflict and violence have multiple negative effects on many aspects of parenting and family functioning and on children’s psychological functioning and dysregulation. It is also associated with multiple adjustment problems in children, including internalizing and externalizing problems, PTSD, sleep problems, and school adjustment problems and performance.

     

    IT  meaning “interparental conflict and violence.”  Is conflict the same as violence?    VIOLENCE is directional, and just might have self-defense counter-moves.  Two can have conflict, but generally one starts the violence.  ACEStudy.org (Kaiser/CDC study, an old one, but a large and 10-years-long one) talked about adverse childhood events having these impacts, two of which such events included physical violence and sexual abuse.


    Presenters in this institute will tie the latest research on [how to rename/reframe partner and child abuse] the impact of interparental conflict and domestic violence on children to the practical task of structuring parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse. As a result of this institute, participants will be better able to structure and evaluate parenting arrangements that account for the unique nature of the violence and conflict in the family and link the abuse to the parenting capacities of the parties.

    Loretta M. Frederick, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN

    Hon. Denise McColley, Henry County Family Court, Napoleon, OH

    E. Mark Cummings, PhD, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN

    Pamela A. Hayman-Weaner, JD, Defiance, OH Gabrielle Davis, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project,

    Minneapolis, MN

     

    And be sure not to miss this pre-conference institute cliff-hanger:

    7. domesticabuse,co-Parentingand Parenting time

    The rubric of utilizing multiple hypotheses is essential to ensure appropriate interventions, services and parenting plans while addressing any shifts in parent-child estrangement vs. alienation. This workshop will help participants grapple with the complex and sometimes changing dynamics of families in conflict, particularly where domestic abuse is alleged or identified. Various typologies of abusers, victims, and relationships will be examined. Presenters will explore how to conduct initial assessments while elucidating the importance of ongoing assessment and monitoring of any progress.

    Amy Van Gunst, MA, Fountain Hill Center, Grand Rapids, MI

    Randy Flood, MA, Men’s Resource Center at Fountain Hill, Grand Rapids, MI

     

    Make sure to read aloud the portion in red 3 times fast.  Then cogitate on the concept of putting “abuse” and “parenting” in the same place at all.  Then think about whether you’d like to have people who speak like that to decide where your child lives, or influence others who do.

    SUPERVISED VISITATION very linked in with the AFCC and with, at least the California Courts

     

     

    1. [PDF]

      SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK (SVN) STANDARDS FOR 

      http://www.afccnet.org/…/Supervised_Visitation_Nework-Standards%20Final%2…

      File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
      of the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) Standards Task Force (the “Task …. 1 TheSupervised Visitation Network acknowledges that the concept of both 

    2. California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Custody 

      Jul 28, 2011 – Why can supervised visitation help in cases where there is or has been  and education requirements of the Supervised Visitation Network

     

     

    WELL, that’s enough fun for one post….  Perhaps it will illustrate a few points for my next one, about the SF Courthouses closing down, but still there are ongoing grants to SFTC from a very interesting few sources….