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 ‘Loretta Frederick BWJP-AFCC alliance

Why Supervised Visitation (per se) Sucks. Federal Millions, that is (DOJ Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046)

with 12 comments

[[This post is temporarily, “sticky” as this field — Supervised Visitation — is a BFD]].
DOJ Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046:
(and a few others).

There are people who make a living in evaluating federally -funded grants programs, such as Safe Exchange and Supervised Visitation. I have made a survey of the field, and a quick check of one of the major international nonprofit associations of providers, Supervised Visitation Network, and based on my sampling, plus field experiences, and supported by two DOJ/OIG audits of a certain grant promoting supervised visitation to both providers (regarding the fathers) and to Mothers, to indoctinate them into accepting the situation, I have come to the essential evaluation (which no DOJ grant was used in producing):

Supervised Visitation, per se, Sucks

My Field Exhibits includes two DOJ audits of Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046 (and related), and how grantees responded to being caught defrauding customers, i.e., US taxpayers.

They regrouped and did it again elsewhere. You can sometimes spot these on the fly: Looks like another one:

Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women

Working with Attorneys . .To provide Justice and Safety . . . for Domestic Violence Survivors . . in Interstate Custody Cases. “This project was supported by grant number 2004-WT-AX-K079 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice. Points of view expressed in this document are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice.. This is another T&TA site: sign up for trainings (aka webinars), and “resources” include the list of State Coalitions, some ABA commissions, and one of the groups I’m profiling below, which got nailed for mis-use of federal grants (the same kind!) by the US DOJ/OIG, which is to say, the auditor’s office. They apparently incorporated in Maryland on 6/27/2003, changed the address once, and say they are a nonprofit. (I just looked grantee up under USASpending.gov and found a grant helping supervised visitation centers with interstate custody cases. Over $2 million in grants so far. 6 awards;, not bad for a small organization.

Read the rest of this entry »

BMCC Day 3: Hierarchy Behavior @ Mothers’ Conference Derails Problem-Solving.

with 4 comments

Treat this as “news-alert” and not expository blogging today. I think it’s timely and relevant, though.

My post from last year speaks to this:

HAPPY NEW YEAR: What Rhetoric are You: Father, Mother, or Mediator?

There’s a live-stream programming from this year’s Battered Mother’s Custody Conference in Albany, New York, where many people actually acknowledging there IS a problem with custody courts giving custody to “batterers and abusers” exists.

“Houston, We Have a Problem” with DV & Child Abuse in the Family Courts

Here is the Speaker Schedule (on-line, dated 12/2011)

This awareness is NOT revealed by the composition of the recent Task Force of the “Defending Childhood” Initiative, which task force is called “Children Exposed To Violence” and has not ONE representative of, or authority speaking on, the matters of the US Custody courts, although even at the International level (“IACHR”) the USA has been recognized as a consistent violator of women’s human rights specifically in the family courts.

Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence

The Defending Childhood Task Force is composed of 13 leading experts including practitioners, child and family advocates, academic experts, and licensed clinicians. Joe Torre, Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations, founder of the Joe Torre Safe at Home® Foundation, and a witness to domestic violence as a child himself, and Robert Listenbee, Jr., Chief of the Juvenile Unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, will serve as the Co-Chairs of the Task Force.

Seriously: Here’s a list of links from the “DEFENDING CHILDHOOD” D.O.J. site. Take a look at the one called “Engaging Men and Fathers.” Look at its recommendation — this is classic federal protection policy for kids being raped by men. Make sure that Daddy stays involved and has a connection with the children. THis shows up also at “child welfare.gov” sites as I’ve shown before (or, you can simply go look): For active links, go to the DOJ site: “Take Action to Protect Children.”

If you’re a victim of violence in your home, and want HELP right away, call or visit:

National Domestic Violence Hotline 800/799-SAFE 800/787-3224 (TTY)

National Child Abuse Hotline 800/4-A-CHILD 800/2-A-CHILD (TTY)

Tips for Agencies and Staff Working with Youth (PDF)

Tips for Agencies Working With Immigrant Families (PDF)

Tips for Child Welfare Staff (PDF)

Tips for Domestic Violence and Homeless Shelters (PDF)

Tips for Early Childhood Providers (PDF)

Tips for Engaging Men and Fathers (PDF)**

**scroll to bottom, and see “Additional Resources”: several from FVPF (now “Futures without Violence”) and “national family preservation network.”***

“For more information and resources, please contact the Safe Start Center, a National Resource Center for Children’s Exposure to Violence:

http://www.safestartcenter.org 1-800-865-0965 info@safestartcenter.org”

Safe Start Center, Children's exposure to violence, it's everyone's business

Tips for Parents and Other Caregivers (PDF)

Tips for Teachers (PDF)

Safe Start Center Online Toolkits and Guides

Greenbook Initiative’s tools and resources to assist communities with the overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment.

Child Development-Community Policing Program

*** “National Family Preservation Network” looks like yet another nonprofit (started ca. 1994?) I hadn’t of aught its influence yet. When I spoke yesterday about a (grand)mother who said that the basic function of CPS, AFTER child molestation has been confirmed, and under the “Welfare and Institutions Code,” was not to help the child, but to reunify the family? . . .. This seems to verify. Look at the money put behind this:

See book of Job: Commentary on losing everything: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” Substitute “CPS” for the first LORD, “NFPN” for the second “LORD” and for the third, I suppose the public is not only supposed to “bless” but also FUND whatever DOJ, HHS, HUD, or DOE task force or initiative promises to moderate the taking and giving away, which brings us to the two certainties in life:  Death, and taxes.  And while there are taxes, there is going to be war, competition for the fruits of taxes and fights over which is closest crony to the government programs distributing them THIS year . . . . .     That creates a “high-conflict” struggle among the (plebians, non-experts, etc.) which then justifies more control systems.

Really now:  there’s an organization to take children away because parents are abusing them, and an organization to give them back; also a service to enforce child support, and a service ($4billion/year, ongoing) to compromise arrears are abated (or it’s eliminated) {{see  fatherhood, access/visitation, etc. }}  There are also incentives to move children into foster care and adoption, and incentives to Preserve Families.

In fact, at every level, “we” . . .  and future grandchilren . . . . are being made to pay for “Society’s” screwups, many of which can be directly graced back to a specific government institution — not “society,” — or several of them, already funded by the public. How Paternalistic! Meanwhile, the state of “society” (including portions previously engineered by various corporate/government/religious collaborations) is used as a justification of more corporate/overnment/religious collaborations and breaking down EVERY due process, civil liberty, and individual bill of rights protection engineered originally into the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

ANYHOW:

The mission of the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) is to serve as the primary national voice for the preservation of families. Our mission is achieved through initiatives in the areas of family preservation, reunification, and fatherhood. NFPN offers research-based tools, training resources, and technical assistance to public and private child- and family-serving agencies.

Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

In 1993 the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) was instrumental in the passage of the Family Preservation and Support Act, the only federal legislation specifically designating funding for family preservation. This source of funding was incorporated into the Promoting Safe and Stable Family Program (PSSF) in 1997. The legislation is approved for a maximum of 5 years and Congress has just reauthorized funding.

Here’s a summary of what the legislation contains:

$345 million in mandatory funding and $200 million in discretionary funds

States are required to develop a five-year plan as to how they will spend the funds, report annually on progress, and provide a final report on funding

Funds must be spent primarily in four categories of services with at least 20% going to each category: family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support. About 25% of the funds are currently spent on family preservation.

PSSF also includes designated funding for tribes, court improvement, monthly caseworker visits, and substance abuse treatment.

Read more: Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

Name change in 2005 (click on the IRS form) but apparently it’s still doing great business with the Federal Government? These are from “foundation finder” website:

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR TOTAL ASSETS FORM PAGES

EIN:

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2005 $0 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2004 $155,649 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2003 $110,028 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2002 $134,970 990 14 13-3715995

A quick search doesn’t show this name registered in Idaho, although website “Contact us” address is in Idaho (which is why I looked there); Also does it look like the IRS forms are complete or up to date, either? Check Idaho Corp. Search, here;

http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/search.html

I found the listing under different name in Idaho (through simple google search)
133715995 Intensive Family Preservation Services National Network Inc National Family Pres 145,761 72,218 2009
(that’s a link to its 2010 tax return). Given the influence of this organization, I plan to find out whether it’s legitimately filed in Idaho, or some other state.)

~ ~ ~

Really — even the Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, Second Mile expose so far hasn’t brought up much — at all — on the lowly topic of family courts enabling the same thing. This situation also exposed a charity (The Second Mile) aimed at needy children (See “The Haiti Fund” of CT) which participated — and yet, are women, at this Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference, being encouraged to look at nonprofits for signs of impropriety, or tax evasion which may coincide with mistreatment of children (nb: Both are illegal activities, in fact, when Larry King of a MAJOR child-trafficking (male and female victims supplied through foster parents and/or Boys Town Nebraska) coverup broke, Mr. King did time on financial charges, not on abuse charges, kidnapping, torture or terrorism, etc. despite testimony and the extent of this operation.). Money-laundering or other tax-evasion when it comes to a charity dealing with children should be investigated — quickly!

Similarly, the Luzerne County (also, PA) “Kids for Cash” scandal,* which hasn’t finished spinning itself out yet, and which uncovered kickback activity involving juvenile institutions and a nonprofit with the word “Child Care” in it, and yet still dots are not being connected, mental perception hasn’t set in that this also is likely and has applied before in the family law arena? ???

*Ciavarella Found Guilty on 12 of 39 Counts

February 19th, 2011
By The Times Leader

SCRANTON – A federal jury on Friday convicted former Judge Mark Ciavarella of illegally accepting money relating to the construction of the PA Child Care center, but entirely rejected allegations he extorted Robert Powell or accepted money relating a second juvenile center.

The verdict, which was reached after about 13 hours of deliberations over two days, left both prosecutors and the defense declaring victory in the corruption case that has captivated the public for more than two years.

The jury found Ciavarella guilty of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, money laundering and money laundering conspiracy relating to the $997,600 finder’s fee he received from Robert Mericle, the builder of the center. It also found him guilty of honest services mail fraud for filing fraudulent statements of financial interest with a state agency and five tax counts for filing false tax returns.

…The government could clearly show through bank records the flow of the initial payment of nearly $1 million from Mericle to Ciavarella, Zubrod said, but other payments allegedly funneled through Pinnacle Group of Jupiter, a Florida corporation the ex-judges set up, came out as cash and thus could not be traced with the same precision.

(Notice:  the government looked at cash flow, and saw what they believed a front group set up — in a different state — but were stymied where the payments turned to cash.  Note:  In Lackawanna County Court, PA, I believe one of the complaints about visitation supervisors, and another (DNR if parenting coordinator, or what) parents complained that they were forced to pay in cash (or not see their kids).  It was the economic matters which were prosecuted, and which took the case down.

RE:  Luzerne County situation — it was so embarrassing, so scandalous that in 2009 the state voted an Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which issued a report, “Lessons from Luzerne County

State records show that between 2003 and 2008, approximately 50 percent of juveniles appeared in Luzerne County Juvenile Court without benefit of counsel – nearly ten times the state average. Virtually all of these unrepresented juveniles were adjudicated delinquent, many for acts so minor and trivial that in most counties these charges would never have even made it to juvenile court. Of those youth without counsel who were adjudicated delinquent, nearly 60 percent were sent to out-of-home placements. The state data show that former judge Mark Ciavarella presided over more than 6,500 cases, leaving thousands of children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized. Luzerne County was a toxic combination of for-profit facilities, corrupt judges, and professional indifference.

In October 2009, in an unprecedented opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Ciavarella’s adjudications of delinquency made between 2003 and May 2008. Just three months later, Special Master Arthur Grim ordered that all cases heard by former Judge Ciavarella were to be dismissed. In providing relief, the Supreme Court restored integrity to Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system and gave hope to youth who suffered enormous harm at the hands of corrupt judges

Although it has been overtly shown, and acknowledged even within government, that there are indeed things called “corrupt judges” and that their interest is in financial gain  and this case, in particular, demonstrated spectacularly that ordering unnecessary services by judges to nonprofits or corporations they had a financial interest in, for some reason the BMCC conference in approximately 8 years does not seem to have had a workshop or presenter talking about the similar phenomenon in family courts.  I witnessed a woman from the floor ask, after all this advice on how to approach the bench, “what do you do if you get a corrupt judge?,” to which the speaker’s answer was, we don’t deal with specific cases.  I also heard in breakout sessions, a woman ask “what do you do when you can’t afford an expert witness” (the workshop being led by one), and some vague comment about, aren’t there pro bono services available?

Regarding Penn State situation

When it’s a stranger molesting, and others not reporting, somehow it’s more noteworthy than when parents do, which is so often just another relationship problem, and “who knows”? what REALLY happened in the case to provoke, well, murders, etc.

So, as there are so few conferences (that I’m aware of) that have been ongoing and specifically address CUSTODY and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE _- to which women themselves are actually invited, how much more important is it when women come from across the continent: the south, the west, the north, and the east coasts (presumably) to seek help and confer with each other about WHAT TO DO and get feedback on what has happened last year — this one has a moral and ethical responsibility to “GET IT RIGHT.” Anyone getting up in front of women who have experienced what these have, and what their children have — should be concerned about telling the Most relevant Truth, The WHOLE relevant Truth, and nothing which strays from the truth, clouds it, obscures it, or distracts from it.

In this matter from what I can tell, BMCC has failed abysmally this year as in prior years.

One thing that appears to guarantee “presenter status” and special attention is anyone whose advocacy and leadership has previously failed — sometimes, dramatically. Of course, presenters can apply I suppose — and do — but why is it that year after year the groups who show the least progress (when: Father, Mother, or Mediator Rhetoric is compared) regularly get up on the podium to commiserate and to exaggerate progress made — i.e., another task force appointed — and strengthen the sense of Family through this event?

As such, Linda Marie Sacks (see 2nd “About This Blog” post, I give links to the brief) is now a presenter, as are some of the groups specifically mentioned on her brief that was turned down (not heard) at the Supreme Court of the USA level. Eileen King (Justice for Children) was one of those, and is also a presenter at the conference. In all the years of these conferences, has there been one mother who was battered, or had child molestation situation (with evidence, i.e., CPS or police, etc.) — who SUCCEEDED in defeating a custody challenge? Or, any professional whose leadership (or group’s leadership) successfully changed the climate of the local custody courts to the point that this situation does NOT happen?

That should be a lesson for attendees (but probably isn’t).

Loretta Frederick, of BWJP (Battered Women’s Justice Project), who worked on a project alongside AFCC (see my blog, we know who this nonprofit for great profits lobbying trade group of family law judges, mediators, and attorneys (etc.) is now, right?)takes the podium to tell mothers something. I missed that live stream; it may still be up, but as I said in last post — this is more appropriate for to be put on the hotseat and have mothers fire questions at her — WHY is her group collaborating with the exact same people that market PAS theory which they so protest? (Of course, the same crowd is not informed HOW PAS theory gets marketed, which is primarily via AFCC and some related organizations).

The description in the conference schedulefor this ssegment:

2:00 – 2:30 Gabby Davis and Loretta Frederick:  Developing and Implementing a Conceptual Framework for Identifying, Understanding and Accounting for the Implications of Intimate Partner Abuse in Contested Child Custody Cases.
Ample research, local practice, and lived experience collectively inform us that the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children are not adequately accounted for in contested child custody cases where domestic violence is alleged.  Very little systematic attention is paid to whether there is a history of abuse, whether the abuse is ongoing, who is abusing whom, what the abuse looks like, and how the abuse impacts the children, the abused parent, and the parenting capacities of both the abusive and the abused parent.  Consequently, from an institutional standpoint, the family court system is often poorly organized to accurately identify and describe what is actually happening in people’s everyday lives so that it can respond in ways that are helpful, or at least not harmful, to the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children.  This presentation describes a collaborative effort by the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Praxis International, and a local jurisdiction in NW Ohio to develop and implement a concrete framework to help family court professionals better identify, understand and account for the context and implications of domestic violence in contested child custody cases.

Like other segments, apparently, to bring up that the family court system is intentionally and systematically organized (and by whom) so as NOT to use a “conceptual framework” that pays attention to reality, or police reports… . .. The passive writing and constructions here are specifically NOT to finger or point to any real agents. It’s just an unfortunate “situation” that exists, which this grant series can address.

I addressed this specifically in July, 2011:

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: (= title of that post, and a link to it).

Reviewing BWJP website on this project shows that, no matter what changes, one thing won’t — so long as grants exist, advocates will be publishing their thoughts and observations, and then getting some nice conference engagements with travel expenses deductible, while NOT reporting on who set up the family courts to operate as they do.

http://www.bwjp.org/advocating_for_battered_mothers.aspx

Anyone checking out the BWJP site describing this project can see that it’s a joint project with AFCC and from funding by OVW, meaning, while we are so excited about the OVW actually NOTICING this issue (finally), the fact is, that they are paying AFCC to talk about what to do with the topic! And (see link above), I clicked on a few of the references; these women also know about Women’s Justice Project (which I cited yesterday), they know plenty — but they are not reporting the MOST relevant things to us: HOW COME year after year, our accounts continue to fall on deaf ears?

Nor do they talk about their own funding, or the apparent serious failure of this “collaborative Community Response” Model, which appears to have been pushed/originated most out of Duluth, MN.

A few TAGGS.hhs.gov grantees whose titles have the words “Battered Women” (Ms. Frederick’s group is not on this set): (I may clean up this paste tomorrow):

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN  LITTLE ROCK AR 72203 PULASKI $ 15,780
CENTER FOR BATTERED WOMEN  AUSTIN TX TRAVIS $ 204,581
COUNCIL ON BATTERED WOMEN  ATLANTA GA 30308 FULTON $ 3,000
GEORGIA ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN  ATLANTA GA 30312 FULTON $ 1,440,579
MINNESOTA COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN  SAINT PAUL MN 55103-1844 RAMSEY 076896112 $ 3,157,167
NEW JERSEY COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN  TRENTON NJ 08690 MERCER 883332645 $ 3,504,339

Showing: 1 – 6

100% of the MN grants (here) if you look are the “SVDC” grants — statewide DV coalition, even though it says “Battered Women” on the title.  The Georgia group hasn’t got anything in this millennium, and what it did get relates to Mental Health protection and advocacy, plus $47K for “SVDC 1996.”   The NJ group is getting the statewide (SVDC) grants for several years — around $250K — but in the year 2010, gets some more for “Youth” as well.  Helping Battered Women is “old School.”  Helping Children and Youth is much more fashionable, although seems to me one way to help children and youth is to stop people from knocking their mothers around while they are growing up!

2010 90EV0404  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES/EXPANDING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 883332645 $ 150,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:

As we can see, it’s few groups and little funding under “battered women.”  This was ALL years combined.

However, change the term to “Domestic Violence” and you get the advocates that are centralized and under better federal control, for example, I just checked recently — Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence ALONE got $26 million in one year alone of grants, which it distributes in part to local “women’s resource centers” which (I checked some) already show direct links to fatherhood groups, particularly one on Scranton. a.k.a., PCADV is sharing funding with groups promoting fatherhood under the title “Women’s Resource” or what a battered women, entering in or calling for help, might be very much misled to believe is actually about helping HER — and not promoting family reunification or other fatherhood agendas.

This has some more details, and we see that to start out with (1996 — oddly, same year as welfare reform) the groups all got $47,140 each to get started, and no one even bothered to name the grant.  This is just a slice of them, all coming from the “ACF” (Administration for Children and Families”.

ACF ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AZ 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CA 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CT 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DC 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DE 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HI 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ID 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC IN 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IA 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KS 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170

(etc.)  No CFDA# was assigned, yet and no “principal investigators” are even named.

Fast forward to 2005 (the year I’m searching on below for 990s), and I’m showing again ALA through KS (plus it picked up a RI at the top).  The amounts are nearly 5 times larger ($237K/$250K), and someone has bothered to key in a Grant Title, but few Principal Investigators even named:

Program Office Grantee Name State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ASH/ODPHP RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RI Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization SAFE AND BRIGHT FUTURES: A STATEWIDE PLANNING PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO WITNESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 09/28/2005 93990 SHEILA FRENCH $ 75,000
FYSB ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AZ Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CT Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DC Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DE Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations Community Action Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization COLLABORATING TO IMPACT TEEN DATING VIOLENCE IN THE LIVES OF RUNAWAY & HOMELESS YOUTH 09/20/2005 93592 TIFFANY A CARR $ 75,000
FYSB HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HI Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ID Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC IN Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KS Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038

This year we should also show the NYS Coalition (I remember discovering Patti Jo Newell as a BMCC presenter, and as a NYS DV person, a few years back, it seems).  Odd grant labeling, don’t you think?

FYSB NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC NY Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC NY Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 09/22/2005 93592 PATTI JO NEWELL $ 130,000

I think that “Executive Director” is an interesting award title, don’t you?  (Compare, below).  I also note that the CFDA has moved from 93671 to 93592

For PCADV (Pennsylvania) this was also a good year, it got SIX funding streams to start new projects.  two of these were from a different program office (see below); the “DELTA” awards coordinated through two women, Karen Lang and Pam Cox, whoever they are:

FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  2005 SDVC  05/06/2005  93671  $ 237,038 
FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  DEMO PROJECT FOR ENHANCING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN EXPOSED TO DV  09/22/2005  93592  CONNIE THOMAS  $ 130,000 
FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  08/29/2005  93592 SUSAN KELLY-DREISS $ 1,561,230 
FYSB PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  09/28/2005  93592 SUSAN KELLY-DREISS $ 700,000
NCIPC PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DATABASE EARMARK GRANT 06/03/2005 93136 KAREN LANG $ 297,600
NCIPC PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization NATIONAL ON-LINE RESOURCE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN  07/27/2005 93136 KAREN LANG $ 388,398

I looked at a tax return (recommended).  It shows approximately where the money is going, and relationships also with MPDI, Battered Women’s Justice Project, PA Crime Comissions, and USVAW (as program expenses which resulted in profitable income (i.e., expenses were less than revenue from the activity).  More  to the point, it also shows which programs money is being distributed to, including names and EIN#s (i.e., are these subgrantees also filing properly…) and officers.  While only the Exec Dir. is earning over $100 from PCADV (and a reasonable salary for a very large nonprofit), there are also quite a few others earning around $75K plus a parallel column of income from “related organizations” averaging from $18-25 or so, meaning it’s got a LOT of officers who are pulling in $100K a year, plus a few pages of unpaid “directors” which I assume? (right or wrong, could be checked) represent the directors of the various shelters.

Program purpose is stated (sorry about lack of spaces:  Link here:)

1.TO ELIMINATE DOMESTIC ABUSE OF WOMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA. 2.TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS SHALL INCLUDE CRISIS TELEPHONE COUNSELING, TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR THE VICTIM AND HER DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND/OR PEER AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING, ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING COMMUNITY RESOURCES, HELP IN ACQUIRING EMPLOYMENT SKILLS, AND/OR WORK REFERRAL.

{{Please note that apart from temporary shelter, it says nothing about legal advocacy in the case; once she’s out of the shelter, and in the family law system, the protection order usually comes off, and then — depending on the ex and circumstances — these women are forced to interact long-term with their exes in a system which has a federal grant-incentive, and a child support enforcement agency incentive, and affiliated programs incentives — in addition to whatever incentives the ex had then, and may have now if child support order is in place — to keep the case stretched out and going as long as possible.  Sometimes women then are killed, and/or their children, and/or their exes (i.e., murder/suicides), to the extent that websites have been set up unofficially to track this!  (dastardly Dads, etc.) .   I fail to see how a huge movement of this sort which fails to take seriously the situation of women AFTER they leave the shelter is doing to STOP violence against women.

I also note it says “abuse” and not “violence” in the program description.}}

3.TO EXPOSE THE ROOTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZEDSUBSERVIENCEOFWOMEN INTHISCULTURE.4.TOPROVIDEQUALITYSERVICES STATEWIDE AND TO EXPAND SERVICES SUCH THAT EVERY VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE COMMONWEALTH MAY OBTAIN IMMEDIATE, COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE LOCALLY. 5.TO DO ANY AND ALL LAWFUL ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY, USEFUL, OR DESIRABLE FOR THE FUTHERANCE, ACCOMPLISHMENT, FOSTERING OR ATTAINMENT OF THE FOREGOING PURPOSES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND EITHER ALONE OR IN CONDUCTION WITH OTHERS.

Response:

RE:  Purpose 3.  The roots of DV in institutionalized subservience of women in this culture includes religion AND government AND the workforce.  PCADV is funded by government, and not likely to take on government itself; it doesn’t deal extensively with religion, although so much backlash against feminism (which is mentally associated with pro-LGBT where much of conservative religion is against LGBT, and the Bible is clear on the matter too — it does not endorse homosexuality.  Then again, it doesn’t endorse robbery, usury, or adultery, either.) comes from religious roots.  

Family Law/Domestic Relations Courts  is an institution which could be easily a focus of PCADV (if goal#3 was a major one), as it’s the venue which fathers’ rights groups have targeted as unfair to them, and in which the pendulum swinging the other way has a lot of money behind it.  Yet this major, federally-supported organization, is not focusing on the custody issues, and does not report on even the AFCC, CRC, CPR, AccessVisitation Grants etc. (at least they don’t lead with this information; I haven’t seen it).   They do not report on the various Fatherhood Commissions now being established at the state levels (feel free to correct if you can find anything dating to around the time they were being created).

We are beyond the point of no return in pretending that the domestic violence organizations do not KNOW about the extent of their supposed counterparts, the fatherhood-funded organizations entrenched throughout the executive branch of government (and by executive memo from a Democrat President in 1995, Pres. Clinton’s memo), written into public law in welfare reform, and in both houses of congress fatherhood resolutions were passed, 1998 & 1999.   The NFI has now grandchildren, i.e., nonprofits (also with federal support) training the trainers.  HHS is courting a Coalition of Fathers and Families — and yet organizations like this, and following this lead — simply don’t see fit to MENTION this to women they serve, with the result that these women are losing their children to men they fled, sometimes fled recently!  What kind of “Future without violence” is that/

This information — that the group puts out — is tremendous when it comes to validation for women who have been suffering from this, and useless when it comes to advocacy when they are in a custody battle!  That some of the key scandals came this year FROM Pennsylvania is perhaps an indicator of a bit of tunnel vision?  

I don’t feel “comfortable” criticizing the work of anyone who’s obtained this much public presence, federal help, and cultural change in spreading the concept of “domestic violence” as a serious problem — and the founder of this nonprofit also grew up witnessing violence in the home, her bio says, and was recently inducted into a Women’s Hall of Fame.  HOWEVER, we have to be honest — when institutions get large and established, they also tend to become calcified as to taking feedback constructive, or simply truthful; there is a “territory” to defend.

I also wish to mention that of the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” (funded — not in a major way, most of them except this one, but in a minor way) are usually members of the over-arching nonprofit “NATIONAL Coalition Against Domestic Violence.”  If one looks at its website, I believe membership has multiple breakdowns, but one of them (for nonprofit groups) as i recall includes either this minimum or “a % of the budget.”  Therefore if member CADVs are getting federal funding, NCADV, which is not, takes its “tithe” (so to speak) and this is public money.

Susan Kelly-Dreiss was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame (for her PCADV work, etc. — see link) in 2009.  She got laws passed, shelters started, and was a recognized leader.  I do not see that anything much was done about the problem with the family law system which started in earnest in mid-1990s. Isn’t that something of an oversight, considered in what context women are fleeing their homes with children, and then having unsafe visitation exchanges by court order afterwards, which results sometimes in death?  Wouldn’t a situation which is getting people killed require a little attention, like prominence?  But despite all this funding, success, and honors, it seems Pennsylvania is having serious problem living down its recent scandals.  It continues to put out DV literature (“Telling Amy” out of PSU just being one of them).   FBI has been called to handle corruption in a family courthouse.  Now go through that site and see if it mentions the problem!

Also, I’d like to get an answer why the hotshot resource center, which has been receiving funding since 1993/1995, didn’t bother to register with the state til 2011!   In this, its behavior is beginning to resemble the marriage/fatherhood grantees.  Note:  in 2005, it’s called a grant, not an institution — but in their literature, it’s spoken of as an “entity.”

HHS describes some of these resource centers HERE:  BWJP is one of them….  The “on-line resource center” (“VAWnet”) describes its philosophy:

National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women

About VAWnet

VAWnet is a comprehensive and easily accessible online collection of full-text, searchable materials and resources on domestic violence, sexual violence and related issues.

The goal of VAWnet, The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women is to use electronic communication technology to enhance efforts to prevent violence against women and intervene more effectively when it occurs.

– – – – – –

in 2011 (top two rows only are PCADV), over $1,000,000

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 156527558 $ 981,771
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 166527558 $ 315,000
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE  ENOLA PA 17025-2500 CUMBERLAND 929907426 $ 1,500,000

Overall:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 156527558 $ 39,965,461
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 166527558 $ 945,000
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE  ENOLA PA 17025-2500 CUMBERLAND 929907426 $ 14,559,328

Showing: 1 – 3 of 3 Recipients

 

Checking USASpending.gov (the top DUNS# only, which relates $39,965,461 in total grants), it shows only:

  • Total Dollars:$10,040,520
  • Transactions:1 – 20 of 20

This is in part probably because TAGGS goes back further in time (to 1995), but should be looked into for discrepancies.  That’s a large one, and the bulk of funding was after the time period USASpending database covers, not before it.   The discrepancy is, as we can see, over $29 million.  I call that a lot!

In addition from the DOJ (this is per the above site, USASpending.gov) PCADV — under that top DUNS# only — got this many grants:

  • Total Dollars:$2,443,223
  • Transactions:1 – 11 of 11

The second DUNS# relates to “VAWnet” creation.  Technology (i.e., disseminate information, PR, research, websites, etc.) to stop violence against women.  OK . . . . started in 2009…

2009 U1VCE001742  VAMNET IN ITS GOAL TO HARNESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT EFFO 1 000 CDC 08-21-2009 166527558 $ 315,000 

~ ~ ~ ~The variety of program funding it draws from in both the DOJ and HHS side shows that this is a favored group.   In their home state — and home town — there has been to date, a scandalous cover-up of child abuse (Sandusky), cheating and racketeering re: sending children off to a juvenile institution (Luzerne) and FBI investigating financial fraud at a county courthouse (Lackawanna) among other things.  The next president elect of AFCC also works out of Harrisburg and is an expert witness (Pay, $150 hour, $75 for travel for the firm, last I looked) and I see nothing at all in PCADV of this helpful information.

~ ~ That most of this money comes from HHS and not DOJ tells us one thing — that DV is considered NOT a criminal matter, but a health and children/family matter.  I believe it’s time to call it what it is — crime — and stop writing theses (see below) trying to get family court professionals to apply domestic violence law, and for that matter, I wish to see what results training and technical assistance are providing, except to ensure that no one is under this training going to “out” the systematic fraud and program overbilling (etc.) going on in the other court sectors.

(I’ll come back to this topic another post.   When I looked at the “income from related organizations” column on their 990, I saw amounts — on each row — on which I could’ve adequately sustained (fed AND housed) my family in one of the most pricey areas to live in the country, though not the safest (SF extended Bay Area), and a salary level I couldn’t possibly obtain once the case hit the custody courts, which continually interrupted work!    In other areas — and I have looked at some housing prices in Pennsylvania while helping look at the Scranton area disgraces — these amounts would probably sustain a family of four, comfortably.  But instead, they are “supplemental” income from related groups by people on the Board of PCADV who already are making in the realm of $70+ per year.  I don’t have a problem with people making that much income, but when the program exists because of federal funding, then it has to be accountable to taxpayers for what it’s doing.  If it is functioning as a leader among state-funded coalitions and allowing people to go through programs it subsidizes, and not warning women about upcoming custody issues WHILE it serves them, it doesn’t deserve to continue leading.  This is exactly what is happening throughout the country — and probably because of the centralization & “professionalization” of this movement!

 

From “foundation finder” — and only for a single year, 2005, here are how many state (and county, etc.) groups are “Against Domestic Violence.” Who wouldn’t be “against domestic violence” and actually admit it? The list is long: Again, these are from groups who have apparently filed tax returns with the IRS (if not their local states) in 2005.

62 documents matched. 62 documents displayed. (Search on “Against Domestic Violence“)

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Agape Foundation Against Domestic Violence Inc. CA 2005 $3,401 990EZ 14 95-4697016
Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. AL 2005 $586,764 990 22 63-0907890
Alliance Against Domestic Violence WA 2005 $-4,005 990EZ 15 91-1920654
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence VA 2005 $6,394 990EZ 12 54-1679023
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence VA 2005 $29,691 990EZ 11 54-1679023
Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. AZ 2005 $584,318 990 15 86-0593601
Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence Inc. MA 2005 $1,349,359 990 20 04-3103354
Botteneau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. ND 2005 $-1,660 990 12 36-3653713
Branch County Coalition Against Domestic Violence MI 2005 $747,905 990 21 38-2463183
Bridges Against Domestic Violence SD 2005 $45,935 990 13 46-0425839
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence CA 2005 $422,627 990 17 77-0347420
Center for The Elimination of Violence Family Inc. (D/B/A Center Against Domestic Violence)*** NY 2005 $8,313,868 990 28 11-2415837
Citizens Against Domestic Violence NC 2005 $27,649 990 15 56-2023076
Citizens Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $9,025 990EZ 19 31-1703077
Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence CO 2005 $305,976 990 25 84-0742604
Committee Against Domestic Violence NV 2005 $991,442 990 27 88-0187930
Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. CT 2005 $1,141,502 990 22 06-0985675
DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence DC 2005 $177,997 990 22 52-1515600
Employers Against Domestic Violence MA 2005 $62,063 990EZ 11 04-3389211
Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. FL 2005 $5,065,959 990 19 59-2055476
Fremont County Alliance Against Domestic Violence WY 2005 $262,417 990 13 83-0254163
Georgia Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. GA 2005 $218,210 990 17 58-1854962
Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence HI 2005 $34,704 990 20 99-0235218
IA Coal Against Domestic Violence IA 2005 $344,360 990 18 42-1285094
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence IL 2005 $683,281 990 20 37-1056288
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence Foundation IL 2005 $39,132 990 14 37-1381646
Indian Country Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault OR 2005 $8,491 990 14 04-3601074
Indiana Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. IN 2005 $227,338 990 13 31-1009769
Kankakee County Coalition Against Domestic Violence IL 2005 $584,737 990 15 36-3100202
Knox County Task Force Against Domestic Violence Dba Harbor House IN 2005 $331,796 990 15 35-1662335
Lincoln County Coalition Against Domestic Violence NC 2005 $185,074 990 18 56-1822730
Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence LA 2005 $426,982 990 25 72-1015427
Marshall County Coal Against Domestic Violence AL 2005 $38,628 990 17 30-0178911
Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence MD 2005 $188,574 990 17 52-1233434
Maury Co Center Against Domestic Violence TN 2005 $412,158 990 16 62-1375056
Merrimack County Task Force Against Domestic Violence NH 2005 $291,019 990 26 02-0342221
Mississippi State Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. MS 2005 $407,812 990 28 64-0656865
Nashville Coalition Against Domestic Violence TN 2005 $0 990PF 13 58-2165997
Nassau County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $1,710,858 990 20 11-2442377
National Coal Against Domestic Violence CO 2005 $217,684 990 24 91-1081344
Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence NV 2005 $277,241 990 19 94-2910861
New York State Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $449,377 990 18 22-2337608
NM Coalition Against Domestic Violence NM 2005 $1,116,716 990 16 93-0792163
North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., The NC 2005 $449,411 990 21 61-1077481
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault I OK 2005 $247,396 990 25 73-1131211
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Inc. OK 2005 $261,112 990 30 73-1131211
Partnership Against Domestic Violence Inc. GA 2005 $1,067,804 990 20 58-1314556
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence PA 2005 $3,700,229 990 29 23-2052886
People Against Domestic Violence MO 2005 $36,174 990 14 43-1577117
Pike County Partnership Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $46,070 990 17 31-1438441
R I Coalition Against Domestic Violence RI 2005 $882,830 990 17 05-0384580
Richland County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. MT 2005 $27,674 990EZ 10 36-3452392
Ross County Coalition Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $146,155 990 22 31-1044779
SC Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault SC 2005 $310,313 990 21 57-0760811
South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence SD 2005 $29,146 990 13 46-0357192
Stand! Against Domestic Violence CA 2005 $4,439,016 990 22 94-2476576
Suffolk County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $924,328 990 17 11-2470902
Unidos Against Domestic Violence Inc. WI 2005 $61,765 990 24 39-1967912
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence WA 2005 $821,765 990 19 91-1507028
WI Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. WI 2005 $228,954 990 23 39-1380437
WV Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. WV 2005 $486,285 990 17 31-1011750
Wyoming Coal Against Domestic Violence WY 2005 $664,354 990 25 74-2466406

In short, Everyone (if you ask them — or fund them) is against domestic violence.  Imagine a group being honest enough to say, “I’m FOR Domestic Violence!”  — it’s one of the easiest topics to say you are against.  So we have:  Coalitions, Centers, Task Forces, Networks, Partnerships, but the primary ones taking money from HHS come under the centralized “Coalitions.”  Some are by state, others are by county, others have some particular emphasis (“Unidos” or “Asian” or “Agape” etc.) (I put anything over $1 million in red font).

*** This one (new to me) says its program purpose is SHELTERING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, and has leased some property in NY for it.  Its officers have one Executive Director at $125K (very reasonable for the field), and “Compensation of the Five Highest Paid Employees Other Than Officers,Directors,and Trustees” shows from mid-sixties to $81K, including two shelter directors.  This one looks like it is actually getting help to people, and not spending its money on training, building fancy websites, and “technical assistance” while selling curriculum to everything that moves and breathes.   LEt’s see if this comes from HHS by an “EIN#” search:  Recipient EIN = 112415837 No matching awards found.

The Center began at a “speak out” in Brooklyn in 1976 where more than a hundred women told how their lives had been turned upside down by domestic violence. One thing became clear: There was no place where mothers could flee to safety with their children. In fact, it was against regulations to bring a child to the “unfit” environment of a shelter. A group of trailblazing women—domestic violence victims, survivors and advocates—set out to change all that and the Center was born.

The Center’s Women’s Survival Space, a place where abused women and their children could find safety, was the first of its kind in the State and is now the longest operating domestic violence emergency shelter in New York. Today the Center houses up to 1,000 women and children each year in three emergency shelters.

By contrast, the Florida CADV (which got $5 million+ in 2005) shows this amount in TAGGS:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  TALLAHASSEE FL 32301-2756 LEON 053274101 $ 7,878,370

$2.2 million of this (above) was from “DELTA” alliances….

Award Number: CCU422481
Award Title: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ENHANCEMENT & LEADERSHIP THROUGH ALLIANCES
OPDIV: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Organization: NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL (NCIPC)
Award Class: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

The other thing these grants go to is sometimes to set up “resource centers” aka nice websites which republishes the same type of information, and I wonder who’s monitoring the results and the tax returns of these nonprofits-within-nonprofits. Anyone?

Do a basic “recipient search” (by NAME) on TAGGS, for “Domestic Violence” and notice how much larger the results list is, and how much larger the grants are. PCADV shows over $40 million alone. California Alliance Against Domestic Violence has three different DUNS# it is taking grants under. New York Coalition Against DV — two. There are consortiums and interventions and councils when it comes to “domestic violence” — 74 recipients in all.

Many of these grants are being shared with shelters, and I really wonder if some of the money actually gets TO the shelters, as there is so much emphasis on “Technical Assistance.” There’s one called a National Resource Center on DV (which I looked up) in Harrisburg, PA — which received $1.5 million — and yet I am wondering how separate it really is from the PCADV?

(Filed for incorporation in PA in 2011 only):






National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Inc. 4023857 Non-Profit (Non Stock) Active 4/11/2011

(I don’t understand why — but the Secr. of State  PA Corporations page shows one filing only for PCADV — in 1977.  No annual report filings show up.).  Again, the “NCRDV” is an HHS project, and per its own website, existed by name since 1993, 1995 — but only as a corporation this past year?

ABOUT NRCDV…

It is the mission of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence to improve societal and community responses to domestic violence and, ultimately, prevent its occurrence.

Since 1993, the Pennsylvania Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) has received core funding to operate the NRCDV from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with supplemental funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support VAWnet, our national online resource center, and other private and public grants. The NRCDV employs a multidisciplinary staff and supports a wide range of projects to address the complex challenges domestic violence poses to families, institutions, communities, and governments.

Similarly, an Ohio Coalition Against Domestic Violence — in Franklin County, OH — has gotten over $7 million (from HHS, not including any from the DOJ) — and yet Ohio also has a major parallel network to counter any feminism, entrenched and well organized — which I looked at when a little girl got molested and raped INSIDE a government-funded facility, and it was photographed on cell phone, during one of those “Family Reunification” Supervised (?) visits that everyone is paying for. This little girl’s sister had previously died in foster care after being removed AT BIRTH from the mother.

See below, I also address that these groups are NOT necessarily mothers’ friends:

BWJP associates with the Duluth group (DAIP) and “MPDI” which I have blogged on, obviously. I forgot to mention – the live stream of the conference indicated that now the women are to honor “Ellen Pence.” That’s fine — how about a moment of silence for all the dead women, children, and let’s throw in the bystanders, that Ms. Pence’s Collaborative Community Response theory (CCR) is NOT saving, as we speak, and for a round of applause for completely silence on the fatherhood funding, when addressing women and mothers. I also think she should be commended for fronting and schmoozing with another fraudulent group called the National Family Justic Center Alliance (Casey Gwinn Gael Strack, etc., brainchild) out of San Diego, the “Enron by the Sea.”

Here’s MPDI funding, so far:
Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC
DULUTH  MN  55802-2152  ST. LOUIS  193187069  $ 19,901,530

~ ~ ~
When people stand up and speak to (you) — one of the first questions to answer, particularly in this field, is, who is funding them, and who are their friends. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I have just spent almost 20 years in the geographic area of one of the largest “family violence prevention funds” around — and I cannot see what lives it is saving, and it has completely avoided dealing with the family law crisis. That’s simply unacceptable, at this level, and while other social services (like to the disabled) are taken into consideration.

Taken from the “DAIP” (Duluth Abuse Intervention Program) site — where solicitations for donations, and products being marketed are prominent figures, we learn that BWJP is one of its projects:

The mission of Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs is to end violence against women. We give voice to diverse women who are battered by translating their experiences into innovative programs and institutional changes that centralize victim safety. We partner with communities worldwide to inspire the social and political will to eliminate violence against women and their families.

Our programs include the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the Duluth Family Visitation Center, the National Training Project, and the Battered Women’s Justice Project.

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program that collaborates with community agencies such as law enforcement, criminal and civil courts, and human service agencies to provide an institutional advocacy response to battering.

Our Visitation Center offers support for victims of domestic violence and their children as well as supervised visitation, monitored visitation, and monitored exchange services to families affected by domestic violence.

Supervised Visitation was one of those compromises with radical men’s groups; and it is an adaptation from the field of child welfare, i.e., “reunification theory.” Thanks to the concept that intervention, supervised visitation, and judicial trainings are the solution, we have had nightmare circumstances where non-offending mothers are being put into supervised visitation monitoring and further traumatized, monitored and reported on. Jack Straton testified in early 1990s!! AGAINST doing this to children, and why — and that testimony actually is printed under DAIP type letter head (and probably on my blogroll to right). His advice was ignored, and now the situation is far worse — because while he said this in 1992, 1993 — in 1996 welfare reform opened up a grants stream (diversion from TANF) to encourage the development of such supervised visitation centers.

These centers are now making negative press headlines, have been since 1999 reported as sources of potential and identified double-billing (in fact one of the women’s cases who was at the head of the room at BMCC is on-line documenting this. For some reason, her voice in this matter has been silenced, and she sits by mutely while her colleague Connie Valentine recites how great it is to have this task force about “Children Exposed to Violence.” .. . .. I have a question (speaking of Sandusky) — if one of the most heavily funded coalitions against DV is in PA — and what’s more, I think isn’t it even AT Penn State? — then how come they didn’t put two and two together about the Second Mile, Sandusky, and the scandal in the Lackawanna County family courts? Which the FBI is now investigating (and which overlaps with the field of supervised visitation).

etc.. . . . .

BWJP is one of “Four Resource Centers” according to a 2007 Federal Register description.

During FY 2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made 241 grants to States and Tribes or Tribal organizations. HHS also made 53 family violence prevention grant awards to non-profit State domestic violence coalitions.Show citation box
In addition, HHS supports the Domestic Violence Resource Center Network (DVRN). DVRN consists of the National Resource Center for Domestic Violence (NRC) and four Special Issue Resource Centers (SIRCs). The four SIRCs are: The Battered Women’s Justice Project, the Resource Center on Child Custody and Protection, the Resource Center for the Elimination of Domestic Violence Against Native Women (Sacred Circle), and the Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence. The purpose of NRC and the SIRCs is to provide resource information, training, and technical assistance to Federal, State, and Indian Tribal agencies; local domestic violence prevention programs; and other professionals who provide services to victims of domestic violence.

(NB: Plenty of collaborations between DV & Fatherhood groups are held behind mothers in custody battles’ backs, and without soliciting their input, see any federally supported, state-level (or state-wide) DV provider these days, or fatherhood provider, and it’ll become clear how cozy a relationship these two types of groups have with each other. Eventually (in time marked by statistics and headlines of people shot or otherwise killed surrounding divorce & custody issues) some of these two groups — and very proud of themselves they seem — even talk (with each other) about oh, yes, and women ARE losing their children to abusers.

Here’s a segment from “TimesUP” (a blog, with lengthy article by Barry Goldstein, telling how the first (BMCC) custody conference had a great idea — which was to reach out to the domestic violence groups (“After all, are they not the experts?” must’ve been the reasoning)and get them involved. I’m sure the expenses can be written off at the nonprofit level. It’s called “History of the Battered Mothers’ Conference” and appears to be dated (or at least posted) Dec. 2010, and ends inviting people to attend the January, 2011 conference.)

QUOTE:

The battered women’s movement is a natural ally of the protective mothers movement.*

“After our first conference Mo and I spoke about the importance of working with domestic violence organizations and we reached out to the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters. Domestic violence advocates are now well represented at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. Mo and I were invited to lead a workshop and then a separate discussion group at the 2008 NCADV national conference. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the NCADV and other staff have become regular participants at the Battered Mothers conferences and have given us everything we ever asked for. The NCADV invited Mo and I together with Garland Waller and Judge Mike Brigner to present about our book at a plenary session during the 2010 NCADV national conference in Anaheim. This has been a wonderful collaboration that will continue to benefit protective mothers and all of the battered women’s movement.

END QUOTE:

MY RESPONSE(s):

[[*FALSE! The Protective Mothers’ Movement (as such) was only necessary because of work the Battered Women’s Movement left undone, conveniently for the family court system, or couldn’t break through and accomplish, instead compromising away rights of future battered women — without their knowledge — by compromise, and failing to advertise heavily to what degree they had compromised. This evidently is Mr. Goldstein’s perception still, which may explain why he’s still nonplussed (or at least silent on) what really is “up” in the custody courts, and (more to the point), WHY!]]

RE, Above:

“the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters”

Why shouldn’t they? BMCC is not about to “out” the various alliances these organizations have, and when women in attendance have tried to (from the floor), it’s not exactly a warm reception. On the live stream, so far, I heard approximately three women bring this up from the floor. One of these did so during a break, while people were going in and out and talking a lot in the background, i.e., she didn’t have official “floor.” (ALSO NOTE: Unprofessional — the schedule was behind by this point, over an hour behind. Mr. Goldstein was to start his session at 10 a.m. Instead, did not have the floor until after 11:30am, PST.).

This person also commented on the “TimesUpBlog” in Dec. 2010, and basically reiterated it today, around a din of people coming and going for their long-overdue rest break, I guess:

ricky fowler said…

nys coalition against DV and NYS domestic prevention are not advocates of battered mothers, they do not fight DV the do not fight the courts. the DV shelters are fathers rights. and when the mothers complained at the first conference that the shelters are useless, this is still the truth, it haven’t changed. they are the enemy, the YWCA all over the nation is partaking in abuse of mothers and children.

we have no experts in DV, we have people that make money . we need a non custodial mother movement. battered mothers that are not protective mothers are being rubberstamped and lose their children. the admi of family and children promote abuse, the MH proffessionals promote abuse. we are making no progress. and the NCADV is not addressing the real problem. the dog need to be called in its name. it is not just custody scandal. is human trafficking, and one of our worst enemies are the carrer driven women. they are selling the mothers. the public will only care when when they will see the blood, the bones the death. so far the bublic does not want to know and does not want to care. to many of them are getting rich this way.

Today (see live stream, perhaps earlier you tubes are saved to the site), after this, a woman got up and said, she comes from a DV program (provider) and feels under attack every time she comes to the conferences, “not all programs are the same.” (I believe this is true, however, some similar things have happened to where they get their funding from, which is no doubt affecting what they can do.)

When this second woman from a DV program (I don’t know which kind, whether shelter or another source) another grabbed the mike more authoritatively and said, “listen up people, this is important.” Then shared that, while she could see both sides of the question — AND, the battered women’s shelter hadn’t helped her custody case either — we should honor everyone’s work, we honor “all you do” — (and then proceeded to list, basically, the presenters again…)

Another woman (in earlier session) named some NY state agency that was getting quite a bit of money. The presenter (I couldn’t see which one) said, they didn’t want that dialogue now, get it together with others separately. The woman mentioned “OHEL,” which I began to look up.

Well, at least now I know why the BMCC hasn’t published the most important materials mothers need to know in their custody case, or fathers, in their child support or custody cases, for that matter! Or taxpayers — which is who is paying the other side? If this were reported, then the natural tendency of women would be to run across who is funding groups like FVPF, NCADV, PCADV, etc. And to my knowledge, the NFI (incorporated ca. 1994!) Ron Haskins, Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, Brookings Institutions, STATE-LEVEL Fatherhood Commissions, etc. — are not going to be brought up, either.

I want to also quote another section of the same article on the same blog to illustrate what mean by the Hierarchy Mindset, when a movement is NOT a true grassroots movement because the paid professionals ARE involved:

For the fourth annual conference, Mo had the idea of creating a Truth Commission made up of a multi-disciplinary group of leading experts in domestic violence and custody

    who would listen to the testimony of sixteen protective mothers and use this information together with their knowledge of domestic violence custody cases to make a report

about the problems in the custody courts and potential solutions that could prevent the all too common tragedies discussed in the testimony and research.

Notes: It was Mo’s idea — not a participating mother’s idea. Mo Hannah, Ph.D. straddles two worlds — she is a mother who has experience in this system (how recent, I don’t know) and also a college professor, major, psychology — which is significant in this field, dealing with criminal matters, or what WE like to believe are criminal matters, even if the family courts decriminalize them because they were committed by personal relationship, and not a stranger.

And in her conception, the women could tell their stories, and the experts would write it up, adding their inside knowledge on cases (what makes these parties think that women have not themselves networked, read other casework, sat in on hearings, seen firsthand enough to testify on?)

We listened to the mothers’ testimony in front of the conference and then met privately to discuss the issues and prepare the report. While there were a few minor disagreements most of the conclusions and recommendations were unanimous and the atmosphere for the discussions was collegial. The Truth Commission presented its report and discussed it at the conference in front of all the participants. The reaction was supportive and appreciative. We later exchanged drafts by email as we prepared the final written report that can be found on the Internet and in our book.

The Truth Commission Report created a lot of excitement when we released it because it not only exposed the extent of the problem but also provided realistic solutions.

{{PI’VE READ ONE OR ANOTHER VERSIONS OF THIS ON THE INTERNET, AND HAVE READ CAREFULLY THE CONTENTS AND PREFACE MATTER OF THE RESULTING BOOK (OVER 100pp of it). ITS SOLUTIONS COMPLETELY FAIL TO REPORT ON THE PWORWA AND EXPLAIN FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO THE COURTS TO PROLONG CUSTODY CASES, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE. THE BASIC SOLUTION HAULED OUT AT EVERY CONFERENCE USUALLY BOILS DOWN TO — THE JUDGES NEED MORE EXPERT TRAINING. OURS…}}

One of the people who was impressed by the report was a publisher at Civic Research Institute which produces quality research and other material by and for professionals. She asked Mo Hannah to prepare a book based on the Truth Commission Report and Mo invited me to co-edit the book with her. This became DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY which was published in April of 2010. Many of the experts who present at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference became contributors to the book. We are excited that the book will be available at the upcoming 8th annual conference January 7-9. We will be discussing how to use the research in the book to help win better results in court.

While this is presented as “we’re all in is together” a “Truth Commission” on the presenters — and on this book — would include that the groups mentioned above, particularly NCADV, in its Anaheim CA Conference (2010?) mercilessly promoted each other, this book and through mailing lists provided by, it seems, “California Protective Parents Association,” Connie Valentine, et. al. A special “Custody track” was added to the NCADV conference, and people who played nicely by the rules could also present there, which Ms. Valentine and others did. More products were introduced to sell to women whose kids and lives were presently being injured and whose lives were under threat, while receiving horrible treatments and further abuse in the courts.

I protested loudly when a friend of mine, who put up an excellent blog, and who was known to be homeless, had been so slapping up press-releases for NCADV/CJE (Kathleen Russell Consulting -related nonprofit), and so forth, while these women were having their wages garnished and THIS one was homeless and working FT to pay her ex-batterer, having zero visitation with her son! There seems no end to what can be drained out of mothers, while concealing relevant information that at least makes some sense!

I do believe that at some level, women leaving abuse are prone to simply finding another controller/handler to replace them, and are particularly vulnerable when this includes both women and men.

The overall standard within this crowd is that anyone who disturbs the peace — i.e., has some “high-conflict” relationship with the overall strategy, process, or themes — can just either learn to get along, or go somewhere else. In this manner, the tendency of women to congregate and work together, and also use peer pressure and group pressure to control dissidents or troublemakers (or, those who won’t go along with the gang when IT is the troublemaker) — is being, to my mind, exploited by those running the conference.

There is also the issue of “blurred boundaries” and thinking that the “is what WE are doing working” actually represents a true “we.” it doesn’t. The women gave their testimony, but the experts wrote the book. Even if they make zero money from it, it’s still on their resume, and can be sited for further speaking engagements.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Anyone who runs a conference, puts it on (which is a major deal) and has had to plan, advertise, administrate, staff, design PR and brochures for, handle finances of presenters and exhibitors, etc. — has a right to control the conference and who gets up front and who does not.

i also believe that this type of podium/floor conferences are NOT the best places for experts to interact with non-experts. It’s not enough to overcome the self-perceived professionalism of the presenters, and the very professional and sometimes expert observation mothers bring to the floor, but without their Ph.D.’s etc.

By innocently? bringing in the “DV Experts” and developing an ongoing momentum of some sort, Mo and Barry, together with west coast helpers Connie Valentine & Karen Anderson (group, CPPA), and non-mother, non-family court survivor Kathleen Russell & CJE (Center for Judicial Excellence), etc. – have all but assured that the TRUTH is not going to come out honestly in this forum. I know from pretty reliable hearsay that Mo also has known about some of the materials I report, and others have reported (California NOW 2002, Marv Byer, NAFCJ.net, in particular) and has chosen not to lead with this information. We all need to make a living, right?

I have personally by email more than once, and also in commentary on material (blogs) these have written, brought up the influence of the nonprofit groups, the actual data regarding the access/visitation funding (to enable increased noncustodial time) and other very obvious (once you look at the stuff) influences on custody decisions, over a period of more than two years, and speaking as a family court survivor who had seen that the information coming out of this source now DOES NOT HELP CUSTODY CASES CONSISTENTLY.

They are still talking about “batterers manipulating the courts” and seem very foggy on the matter that the courts have also influenced the batterers.

conic Analysis is not only more objective than psychological and hearsay reports from the experts — it’s something a person could do at home without an advanced degree, but with some persistence. Doing this type of look-ups also is enlightening and convicting to individuals; the information CANNOT be ignored forever.

I also saw segments from a 2011 protest at HHS building (Washington, D.C.) and saw the signs /banner put up. They were blunt and confronting — but did not give readers or passers by a single website to go to, almost (except “Save Elsa Newman” type one) or mention any terms which could provoke a neutral person to go look things up at home later.

It mentioned the words “$500 million fatherhood funding.” Like the “58,000 children a year put in the custody of (molesters/abusers) which comes from The Leadership Council” — I don’t know where they got this from. If the goal is consciousness-raising, then how about a cite when the data is put out, so a person would see it him/herself.

I personally think the information is far larger. One newsletter I have leads me to believe that possibly someone got it from a Washington Post article!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference comprises a warm, but extended family that’s spread out all year long, but comes together for a ceremonial occasions to share stories and exchange gifts (well, in this case, SELL THINGS), then I would like to propose another paradigm of this family which may speak to mothers involved:

Before you reported, did YOUR family of origin, or extended family, try to “keep secrets” and severely ostracize or punish people who spoke up about what was happening behind closed doors, or collectively by tacit assent — when a child or spouse (or both) was being abused?

I have to at this point say, that’s what you have in the BMCC. Mothers have allowed professional DV organizations to drive the agenda, and to help you sell product. However noble or sincere their intentions may be (and I do believe many of them are), it is NEGLIGENT to omit the statistics on who is running the court system, year after year (8 years in a row), enabling the more informed organizations to “play the field” and dig organizational and financial network of trenches to further compromise the safety of women leaving abusive situations.

You do NOT send troops into battle with chinks in their armor. this IS a battle for the safety of children and particularly “battered mothers” — and they are not even being provided with an adequate boot camp, or even weapons, not unless they know who their opposing side is and what the modus operandi is. Less coaching, more observation would help.

It seems clear that either Mr. Goldstein has not done his homework on TAGGS, USASPending.gov, or on the readily available on-line material about AFCC, and about Welfare Reform, etc., — or he has, and hasn’t digested it.

For example, getting the state (government funding) involved is likely to frame the question in a certain manner so as not to compromise other funded issues — such as fatherhood promotion, which is quite well, thank you, in NYS.

Moreover, as I mentioned above, NOW has many priorities, and reforming family law is NOT a top one. It’s on the back burner.

I hope by being VERY overt and blatant about this position, it may help wake up, or resonate with someone who’s on the fence about, what’s really going on here? We need to know who is and who is not a “friend” when it comes to the most important issues in any parent’s life: Staying alive, and protecting (her, in this case) young. The same principles apply to when assessing who is and who is not going to live in one’s household any longer. Assessment needs to happen.

My blog will NOT continue to be added to after January 2012, (the end of this much) pretty much. This work is volunteer, and no one has to volunteer years on end, after so many years of devastation in the “custody courts” following a pretty devastating marital relationship.

Life consists of time, which is precious — so do good analysis, check it from time to time, adjust as needed, and make good decisions — but make them at least your own decisions!

Consider this a “Shout!” and hopefully it will echo in someone else’s ears.

When mothers who have been battered, or had extreme trauma through either CPS, or removal of children without due process in the courts, will take some time to look up (not rocket science!) on-line some of the people who preaching and teaching them how to manage their own court cases, and what the dynamics are like — I believe they will be more empowered; and will take their RIGHTFUL place in leading — not following — any reform movement within the family law system.

Many of such women may not feel comfortable standing up and saying STOP! No! Ludicrous! or stepping apart from (this) crowd. Others may — but until you take the position of, I am going to VALIDATE information I’ve been receiving, and moreover, I’m going to show a little initiative, or “ADHD” and look at some things these teachers are NOT mentioning to see if they fit in the puzzle — the less need they will have to cross the continent to listen to the “same old” and hopefully get a few seconds of mike in-between presentations.

Really, we need to analyze what good have the experts done here, be thankful for the progress, and probably, take the reins away. “Thank you, foremothers and forefathers, now this is what’s been happening in the last 15 years that your driving down this road failed to see. No harm meant, but it’s time to reconsider the license to lead.”

(Of course, there is no license needed to put on a conference — just organization and some funding. So the matter is of, where to spend one’s time.)

There’s a lot more being communicated than just content at any conference (this one included). As a former teacher, I know this. There are standards, values, processes, and so forth. Right now, I feel from this far away — and by who’s presenting — (today’s post is a sampler, and I didn’t mention the ever forefront promotion of the Holly Collins case and Garland Waller’s film) that it’s time for something different.

Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011]

with one comment

This Image from Oct. 2011 AFCC Regional Training Conference (“Pdf” of full conference brochure from AFCCnet.org website~~>)Working with Violent and High-Conflict Families: A Race with No Winners” in Indianapolis added during May 2018 post update. The phrase “high conflict” (no hyphen, only) used 18 times in the brochure. For a change, the word “alienation” was used only twice…

Yet another AFCC-style wet dream… Someone needs to mop up around here. [‘Conflict Happens'[like in the Seal Beach massacre?]/High-Conflict Institute’, Publ. Nov. 16, 2011] (Case-sensitive shortlink here ends “-UD”)

(Some format & minor amount of content updates (such as the image to the right and some others and post title extension starting at the ‘[” added May 14, 2018: I had occasion to reference this post on Twitter). Almost 24,000 words, but still important basic reading though originally written barely two years into this blog:

HAVE YOU HEARD THE LATEST LANGUAGE BLIP FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & CONCILIATION COURTS CULT?

From the “High Conflict Institute”

CONFLICT HAPPENS

 

No longer are DIVORCEs or FAMILIES “high-conflict” but “People” are.  In fact, the issues are not the issues either.

When someone comes up to you with an issue — he or she (<=the usual application) doesn’t really mean what s/he says and is not to be taken at face value (ask the forensic psychologists).  The REAL problem with family courts isn’t the family courts, and it isn’t even high-conflict families, or high conflict all by its rocky-mountain-high* self.  The REAL problem is high-conflict people.  Buy this book [“Splitting”] to know if you’re dealing with one:

AFCC 47th Annual (2010, Denver), Traversing the Trail of Alienation

<=**AFCC 47th Conference, Denver, CO, June 2010 (“Traversing the Trail of Alienation,” a trail with “Mile-High Conflict and Mountains of Emotions”)

[BELOW: Image link from 2011 broken, update provided 2018 from New Harbinger Publications 5/14/2018, of Mr. Eddy who I notice is also law professor at Pepperdine University (Conservative Christian, has a Pat Boone Center for the Family promoting marriage & relationship classes (the kind run through nonprofits that get HHS grants), etc….]. I also added image of the other author, “Walking on Eggshells” Randy Krieger.  Notice (it’s small print, but visible) “Splitting” as a book says it offers “the legal and psychological information you need.”  Coincidentally, AFCC composed (essentially, if judges are included under “legal”) of lawyers and psychologists/behavioral health practitioners, etc.). ]]

Promo for “Splitting” from New Harbinger Publications

Bill Eddy image from publications page, Click image to enlarge. Note his affiliations.

Randi Krieger, from publications page (for “Splitting” book out 2011)

 

 

 

Splitting
Protecting Yourself While Divorcing Someone with Borderline or Narcissistic Personality Disorder

This book is advertised with others on alienation at the NCRC (more, below), as they are in the same professional circles.  In fact, it appears he’s on the payroll here (2018 comments: link was to Canadian Bar Association.  Search of “high-conflict” brought up just 3 articles, but not accessible without sign-up, which I didn’t at this point).  (or is “Senior Family Mediator”) as well as his own split-off “High conflict institute” (see last sentence at the link I just provided).

Books by William Eddy, LCSW, Esq.

Bill Eddy provides Divorce and Family Law Mediation at NCRC as well as training for family law attorneys and other professionals at the High Conflict Institute. Please visit HCI atwww.highconflictinstitute.com for more information on Mr. Eddy’s trainings. He has written numerous books on the subjects of families and high conflict personalities, listed below.
  • High Conflict People in Legal Disputes
  • Splitting: Protecting Yourself While Divorcing a Borderline or Narcissist
  • Understanding & Managing High Conflict Personalities (DVD Set)
  • Don’t Alienate The Kids! Raising Resilient Children While Avoiding High Conflict Divorce
  1. It’s All Your Fault!

Bill sure was ahead of his AFCC time.  While others were simply developing and lobbying for more parenting coordinator rights in Florida, Texas, and wherever — he was writing this book explaining that the Issue is not the Issue, and all the conflict in the family law venue really comes from disordered personalities in the court system.

Protect Yourself from Manipulation, False Accusations, and Abuse

Divorce is difficult under the best of circumstances. When your spouse has borderline personality disorder (BPD), narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), or is manipulative, divorcing can be especially complicated. While people with these tendencies may initially appear convincing and even charming to lawyers and judges, you know better—many of these “persuasive blamers” leverage false accusations, attempt to manipulate others, launch verbal and physical attacks, and do everything they can to get their way.

Splitting is your legal and psychological guide to safely navigating a high-conflict divorce from an unpredictable spouse. Written by Bill Eddy, a family lawyer, therapist, and divorce mediator, and Randi Kreger, coauthor of the BPD classic Stop Walking on Eggshells, this book includes all of the critical information you need to work through the process of divorce in an emotionally balanced, productive way.

I find it odd that he’s working with the author of “Stop walking on Eggshells” which someone gave me about halfway through the divorce fiasco, post-restraining order.  They meant well, but like Lundy Bancroft’s “Why Does He DO That” — and regardless of some truths it may have held, neither one (conveniently) mentions the custody racket, financial incentive, fatherhood funding, welfare reform or in short anything which would give me a concise narrative of why the courts don’t take death threats followed by family suicide, or a stalking combined with previous death threats and violence, seriously — and insisted on psychologizing all terms.  

People who have lived with this (and I acknowledge it exists) don’t need guides — they need out of the relationship.

Which is precisely what people working with the organization Mr. Eddy helps market through, are not going to let happen.  Nope.  If we wish to detach from a borderline personality, abuser, or simply an ex (and birth happened in there somewhere), we WILL be forced, most likely, to deal with an AFCC-devotee somewhere along the way — or most of the way along the way.

 

I have the book “Stop Walking on Eggshells” and it didn’t take to long to recognize it was an updated rebuttal of a 1970s feminist classic, (shown in 2005 version) Women and Madness (by Phyllis Chesler, PhD)

(Link expired: but see 12/31/1972 Review by Adrienne Rich.  Reading it again now (2018) with my perspective, both experientially in the American family courts (post-battering interventions, 21st century) and having read so much anti-woman, anti-mother, values-driven (garbage) from the same sources she critiqued originally in this book, I have to basically agree. (I also FYI had this book as a young woman).

It asks:

Why are so many women in therapy, on psychiatric medication, or in mental hospitals? Who decides these women are mad? Why do therapists have the power to deem a woman mentally ill when she asserts herself sexually, economically, or intellectually? Why are women pathologized, but not treated, when they exhibit a normal human response to abuse and stress – including the lifelong stress of second-class citizenship?

Phyllis Chesler confronts questions like these and persuasively argues that double standards of mental health and illness exist and that women are often punitively labeled as a function of gender, race, class, or sexual preference. Based on in-depth interviews with patients and an analysis of women’s roles in myths and history, Women and Madness is an incomparable work.

Originally published in 1972, this classic has sold over two-and-a-half million copies. Passionate and informative, with a new introduction that examines the trauma of psychiatric labeling and envisions a psychology of liberation for the ages, this special twenty-fifth anniversary edition of Women and Madness remains frighteningly up-to-date.

By now there should also be one called “Children and Madness,” for the labeling children get when they report abuse, when they are active and assertive, and when they need to be controlled after any of the above.   That’s been documented elsewhere, and comes under

Psychotropic Drug Abuse in Foster Care Costs Government Billions  :

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

November 16, 2011 at 10:48 am

I turn, You turn, We all (must) turn to “Kids’ Turn” (and spinoffs)…per AFCC.. [Orig. Publ. May 23, 2011, #2 of 2, same-day].

leave a comment »

Post Title:  I turn, You turn, We all (must) turn to “Kids’ Turn” (and spinoffs)…per AFCC.. [Orig. Publ. May 23, 2011, #2 of 2, same-day]. (short-link ends “-GO” (last character is “O” as in “Ohio”, about 6,500 words)


[Title, short-link, background-color, borders and some tags added Sept. 30, 2019 because I’m linking to this older post..//LGH]


Yumm…..  More goodies in the search to solve this problem, including why does the SFTC (That’s SF Trial Courts) have a LIEN on Kids’ Turn, which is constantly seeking more donors so poor kids can consume its services?  (Richer ones, there’s a probably no-cap? sliding scale……)

How many mental health professionals is it possible to squeeze into one court case? And how is it done?

Ideally, as many as possible — one after another, after another.  There is sure to be a need for them, given that the entire concept of mental health in the family law system is an oxymoron (see the word “law”).

Of course the family law system got its jumpstart with mental health professionals in alliance with legal professionals, somewhere shortly after women go the vote (but before all states had ratified it).  The longer the system exists (generation after generation) the more mental health problems there are guaranteed to occur, given the source of them is the practitioner’s cognitive dissonance with state law (for example, against child abuse, child stealing, or valiant statements that there is a rebuttable presumption against custody going to batterers.  Or, for that matter, child abusers.  It’s a few steps away from fingerpainting — with the paint jars being the jargon used by various fields, which end up generally speaking in one big sticky mess.

Of course, you’re not supposed to see them at play behind closed doors, but since the advent of the Internet (which helps the conferences occur, obviously — and the curricula get disseminated — I’ll show how in a bit here) it’s also fun to track ’em down and catch’em in the act.  Like my last post did with AB 2263, an attempt to legislate Kids’ Turn (ONLY) for a Judicial Council sponsored (public payments, I’m sure) analysis of how effective Kids’ Turn — excuse me, “programs that provide services to children undergoing divorce” (or whatever they called it to cover up that the original meaning intended was simply a nonprofit group brainstormed by — you guessed it — family law judges, etc.– this one in particular).

Well Gray Davis vetoed even the sanitized version of let’s build a LEGISLATIVE pipeline from this group to the entire divorcing population (Parental) of California — and the world, but we can start it here — and stick someone else, like taxpayers — with the bill.      That was back in 2002.

Did that stop the idea?  Heck no!  I found the 48th Annual AFCC conference (Kids’ Turn is self-identified as an AFCC member.  I guess a nonprofit can be a member of an association of court professionals (judges, commissioners and so forth) with mental health professionals with attorneys, etc.)

So, how IS it done? (other than out of the ready earshot of a court litigant, namely, parent in a custody battle). 

(1)

FIRST OF ALL:  FORM RAPID DEPLOYMENT UNITS — OF ONE JD, ONE Ph.D. (mental health, what else?) and one MSW or LCSW, or LMFT.  Each has a specific purpose.  Right now, we find this combo in pre-game a coaching session complete with powerpoint slides and diagrams:

….Understanding the Roles of Mental Health Professionals in Collaborative Practice

Conference : 48th Annual Conference

  • A major strength of collaborative practice is the work done by the family with mental health professionals. Collaborative professionals frequently work in interdisciplinary teams to facilitate peaceful resolution. The collaborative process may include one “neutral” mental health professional, or two “aligned” mental health professionals. Both of these approaches may include a child specialist to help understand and facilitate focusing on the needs of the children. In some areas, mental health professionals work as neutral facilitators and as case managers. The program will provide an overview of each role and the strengths and advantages of each.
Ms. Doyle strikes me as quite smart (Purdue) but I note the primary emphasis is Counseling Psychology and an M.Ed.D.; even her JD has this emphasis.  She is definitely on a mission, and is herself married, looks like a good match, MORE THAN well-employed, and no kids are mentioned.
Who better to coach others on divorce and co-parenting (and flying around, like to Florida,  to do so is just part of the trials and tribulations of the work….) ? (or is this a 2nd marriage and her theory is born from experience?)
Ms. Doyle is dedicated to the concept of assisting families to civilly resolve issues involved in custody, divorce and related disputes and training dedicated professionals to join the Collaborative community. Toward that result, she and Mary McNeish Stengel, LCSW, established Collaborative Training Solutions, Inc., (CTS) a company completely separate from her law and mediation practice ….
 Ms. Doyle sees spreading the Collaborative word as a mission. There are many professionals and communities that have not been educated in the Collaborative model of dispute resolution. Some don’t have training available within a reasonable distance because of population and geographical challenges. In addition to reaching larger populations, Ms. Doyle enjoys traveling to communities to provide trainings where local professionals are excited and want to be trained, yet may otherwise have to travel great distances for training because their community is too small to attract a large trainee group”

Session Handouts for AFCC’s 48th Conference

….NOTE — this is an UPCOMING Conference (June, 2011) called ‘What’s Gender Got To Do With It?”  See my posts of January, 2011 — when I talk about are you speaking mother, father, or mediator?  Pick a conference — there’s something for everyone (but the house wins when the coins are finally tossed.. that’s “mediator” rhetoric)…

The powerpoint slides (available on-line at above link) show few photos, but there’s one — of a father with a kid on his shoulders — next to “Maintain Focus on What is In the Best Interests of the Child,” which is under “Elements of Coaching” slide.  But let’s go to the diagram, the playbook:

The slide “WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE?” shows two clients in the center, surrounded by larger circles, each one inhabited by a professor.  This reminds me of a child’s game, such as “Ring Around the Rosy” or “Duck-Duck-Goose”.  Either way the clients (litigants, most likely, parents….) are indeed surrounded by spheres of influence with lines between them; it does remind me of a corral:

“The Suggested Playahs”:

Two per client:  Coach & Lawyer

At top and bottom:  “Child Specialist“** (at the top — this category reigns supreme, obviously) and bottom, “Financial Specialist” which of course has to undergird the program, or who would fund he other specialists?  How can you have a family law case without ferreting who’s got the assets that are going to be soaked in this process?  So, FInancial Specialists are very, very important, especially for moneyed divorcing (or separating) parents.

Alternately, if one parent is Title IV-D (welfare), then the “Financial Specialists” are the program managers, and child support administrators, etc.  After all, with $4 billion enforcement fees (per year, nationally speaking) surely some of these employees can figure out who’s got the money in each case.  It’s in the public’s best interest for the courts to know….

**Child Specialist:  (slide) is a NEUTRAL third party who focuses exclusively on the children’s concerns and/or their interests, advocates for the children and consults to the parents and their team.  (Why GALs wont work is ….)

MOST professionals like to get paid for their work.  Given that this includes child specialists, I say that it’s a rare person holding demi-god (i.e., neutral and not in the least subject to temptation to skew the scale) status.  (“Mea culpa, mea culpa” for bringing this up)

When any judge takes payments from any County (in addition to state salary, whether this is in the form of benefits, or anything else) that’s a conflict of interest — the County has a vested interest in certain types of cases, and LOTS of these cases involve children, and child support, sometimes foster care and adoptions as well.

One attorney (non-aligned) noticed this and wrote about it in January, 2009.  (I don’t think he was an AFCC member….):

LA County Payments to LA Superior Court Judges Cost Taxpayers Almost 1 Billion Dollars and Denied Constitutional Rights to the People of LA CountyJanuary 07, 2009

By Richard I. Fine (View author info) 

Los Angeles, California –
The commencement of the of unconstitutional payments by LA County to LA Superior Court judges was “unnoticeable” to the people of LA County in the late 1980s. Yet, its effect began to permeate the Los Angeles political and judicial systems to the extent that fundamental constitutional rights were compromised.
Twenty years after the commencement of the payments, the political and judicial systems of LA County are rife with conflicts of interest, lack of disclosure and the failure to enforce constitutional rights and laws.A well traveled “money trail” exists from LA County who makes payments to LA Superior Court judges [present and past] who decide cases in favor of LA County.

Seems to me it took only a few months for a Superior Court Judge to throw in in Jail and the California Bar to disbar him.    After all, his emphasis was constitutional issues (California State), and individual legal rights to fair and unbiased judicial hearings — not exactly your basic mental health, custody-coaching, professional-referral-basis expanding scheme.

So, he got tossed (well, led from the courtroom in handcuffs, and it seems the arrest record also fudged somewhat) into solitary coervcie confinement, as we now know, in an attempt to break his spirit (Note:  it failed.  18 months later, he was finally released, and is still at it).  This is an interim report from some groups / individuals that took up this banner — about no danged conflicts of interests in our courts, dammit!  You will note, Mr. Fine’s comments were from his jail cell (and he has also been disbarred).

Los Angeles, CA Full Disclosure Network® presents a 3 min video report on the November 23, 2009 remarks made by Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich at a meeting of the Los Angeles County Lincoln Club in North Hollywood. The Supervisor provided an update regarding the controversy over long-time practice of the County making payments to Los Angeles Superior Court Judges. Civic leader David R. Hernandez provides his account of the presentation in the video.

Fourth District CA Court of Appeals decision in November of 2008 ruled the county’s payments were illegal in theSturgeon v. County of Los Angeles lawsuit that revealed Judges, who are all elected officials, were not disclosing the extra payments they received from the County to litigants in the courtroom in cases involving the county nor on the Form 700 Economic Interest statements as required by the California Fair Political Practices Act.

Antonovich responded to a question about the continuing public concern that county payments created a “conflict” for judges and if this conflict was going to be resolved?
Here are some of the points made by Supervisor Antonovich:

  • Recent [FEB 11, 2009] legislation, Senate Bill SBX2 11 has now made the payments legal.
  • All new judges (appointed or elected) will not be receiving payments from the county.
  • Most other California counties have been paying (illegal) benefits to the judges
  • This was not just a Los Angeles County practice
  • L A Judges have not always ruled in favor of the County (payments started in 1988)
  • Several court rulings have been in against the County and in favor of illegal aliens

Featured in the video: are two prominent critics of the illegal payments made to Judges by the County and below are comments from Richard I Fine from his L.A. County Jail cell.

Richard Fine Fires back, in an L.A. Op Ed, as to Ron George. I’m enclosing here, for contrast with the profession-mongering family law field, via AFCC, to see a contrasting view of “in the best interests” of — one based on stop wasting our tax dollars, and concealing how this is done, not to mention, undermining the US Bill of Rights, labeled:

The Deception of California Supreme Court Justice Ron George”

 

REBUTTAL TO L A TIMES OP-ED
By Richard I. Fine
 

In his September 14, 2009 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed article California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George stated that the Judicial Council of California decided to close the California Courts one day a month until June 2010. He acknowledged the hardship on Californian’s and praised the Superior Court Judges who volunteered to take a one day pay cut.

FAILED TO DISCLOSE AUTHORSHIP

However, he did not disclose that the same Judicial Council of California of which he admitted he is the Chairman, also wrote Senate Bill SBX2 11. This bill was introduced by Senate President Pro-Tem Daryl Steinberg on February 11, 2009 passed by the State Senate on February on 14th , 2009 and passed by the State Assembly on February 15, 2009 signed by the Governor on February 20, 2009 and became effective on May 21, 2009.EXTRA JUDICIAL BENEFITS & CRIMINAL IMMUNITY
Such bill reinstated “supplemental county benefits” to Superior Court Judges in addition to their State Salary and compensation. Such supplemental County benefits have been held to be “unconstitutional” in the case ofSturgeon vs County of Los Angeles 167 Cal Ap 4th 630 (2008) review denied 12/23/08. Such bill also gave retroactive immunity to the Judges and others from criminal prosecution, civil liability and disciplinary action.$30 MILLION MORE DURING FISCAL CRISIS?
By omitting to disclose Senate Bill SBX2 11 and it’s retroactive immunity,Chief Justice George did not inform the people that the loss to the taxpayers in L.A.County alone of these supplement payments to the Superior Court Judges in fiscal year 2009-2010 is estimated at $30 million dollars this loss is greater than the contributions of all of the Judges of one day’s pay per month over a year. In effect, under Senate Bill SBX2 11 the judges are making more money during this financial crisis while the citizens of California suffer.DUE PROCESS DENIED
Worse yet, because of the retroactive immunity the decisions of the judges receiving county payments before 05-21-09 violated the due process clauses of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution and the California Constitution.

(end of commercial break from AFCC/Family Court Fantasia. back to our regularly scheduled post subject matter, here….)

OK Gray Davis in 2002 scotched (Vetoed) the concept of legislating Kids’ Turn, the whole Kids’ Turn and basically nothing BUT Kids’ Turn** (or — OK, maybe a look-alike or spinoff, such as Kids First, or Kids in the Middle, or Children in the Middle, or . .. or . . . . . anything that would require lots of people, some of who would recommend that parents be ordered to consume social-service product of, for example, a single AFCC acolyte (or, fully fledged priest) from Tarrant County, Texas . . . . .  ).

Since the Governor (not the terminator) said NO! although the legislature (with its sanitized version) clearly said “YES” and wanted him to sign it  . . . .  did these zealots take “No!” for a final answer?  Heck, No — they are salespeople first of foremost, and educators at heart.

[[**more commonly known as:

The Whole Truth and Nothing But the Truth! So Help Me God!and you gotta visit the website, there….  unlike these AFCC people, the author has a sense of humor in presenting reality…..]]

All true educators need to get continual access to people who need training after all, ambulance chasers chase ambulances, right?  But what’s a psychologist and M.Ed.D. to do without some governmental subsidies? (“incentives”) — compete in the free market base don the quality of the product?    NO! — back to the gameboard.

All that was just (long) introduction and setting the stage.  This is the juicy center of the dialogue, and why I started this post  — after the last two Kids’ Turn Posts.  They’re just UNbelievable….  Anyone wnat to go to Florida and take notes at this upcoming conference?  Lookee here:

Here’s some “Kids in the Middle” presenters.  I’ll be back tomorrow — not done yet here…


Session : AFCC1111
5. Working with High Conflict Parents: How Conflict, Personality Disorders and Gender Influence Outcomes for Children
Conference : 48th Annual Conference
Speaker(s) :
  • High conflict parents are the most difficult to work with in divorce proceedings. They utilize an inordinate amount of time and patience for professionals working with them. In addition, enduring conflict between parents, both pre- and post-divorce, has the greatest negative impact on children of divorce. Attorneys, mediators and guardians are in a position to recognize and minimize parental conflict when they possess knowledge about how gender and personality disorders play a role. This workshop focuses on recognizing the key elements at play and providing strategies for ensuring positive outcomes for the entire family system.
  • CLICK THE pdf ICON FOR SESSION HANDOUTS DOWNLOAD PDF File

Kids in the Middle profits from the Court-referrals and Schools-referral clientele, and says so on its 2009 Annual Report:

Workshops at the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, Family Court ␣ 330 parents attended mandated parent education workshops.

 

Yes it is a Nonprofit, and in 2009, despite over $2,000 in interest income (how many people would this house for a month?), and over $1 mil in income, it operated $55K in the hole, which seems to be a standard in some of these groups.  Probably because there are simply so many young and old, and middle-aged people that need this help, a little overeager promotional spending?

Ms. Berkowitz’s KIDS IN THE MIDDLE.org site has a book list.  I always find these informative, for example, a few choice ones:

THE MAN’s DEAD (a vicious death involving knives.  Some say suicide, some disagree….), BUT HIS SELF-PUBLISHED IDEAS LIVE ON AMONG CONVERTS…..

JUDGE INA GYEMANT STARTED KIDS’ TURN in SF in 1987.  THE LEAST SOMEONE IN A SPINOFF CONCEPT (which “kids in the middle(r)” obviously is…) COULD DO IS HELP PROMOTE THIS JUDGE’S LITERATURE, RIGHT?  Will Judge Ina return the favors, in her professional or avocational capacities?

PHILIP STAHL ~ highly under-reported by women’s groups protesting PAS theory — they simply don’t pay attention to the distribution systems like I started to  ~ ~ CARRIES THE GARDNER TORCH, AND HE’S GOOD AT IT.  HE’S PART OF THE JUICY CENTER OF MY POST HERE TODAY — ABOUT HOW HIS BOOKS (AND OTHERS) ARE PROMOTED..  THROUGH COURT-MANDATED PARENTING PROGRAMS DIRECTING EVERYONE TO CONSUME JUDGE-ORIGINATED LITERATURE PUSHED THROUGH JUDGE-ORIGINATED (OR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL-ORIGINATED) NON-PROFIT, AND SOMEONE HAS TO SAY THIS — FRONT GROUPS.  OR STRAIGHT OUT FOR-PROFIT COLLABORATIONS AMONG THE VARIOUS PROFESSIONALS ALL OBSESSED WITH “helping” OPK (other people’s kids) with the problems THEY perceive, from THEIR perspective (only) and with OUR (public) money, like as not…

While the parents they are coaching, already under huge financial stress often enough, are (if taxpayers and wage-earners) picking up, collectively, the slack which nonprofits — because of their wonderful public benefits to all of us, and the universe — get out of paying, i.e., funds for themselves and services like libraries, police, schools, public transportation infrastructure, and far less urgent public priorities than indoctrinating kids and parents in the right way to think about their own children, and their own situations, and of course how not to use criminal terminology in one’s thought processes, even if convictions show that it’s occurred.  After all, let’s just “focus on the family” and forget about those other unpleasant matters — eech!

Let’s take a look at a slide, so we know what to expect from this “What’s GENDER Got to Do With It?” AFCC upcoming conference among mental health professionals, attorneys and judges in the family law system:

Workshop Objectives

 Know how to recognize a client who may have a personality disorder.

 Understand how the traits of a client with a personality disorder can lead to chronic conflict and therefore poor outcomes for their children.

 Understand how gender issues can combine with some personality disorders, resulting in extreme dysfunction and poor outcomes for children.

 Understand why personality disorder traits make it difficult for parents to meet their children’s needs.

 Understand the increased risk for alienation when a parent has a personality disorder.

 Learn strategies to manage and support the client with a personality disorder.

I don’t suppose any “personality disorders” might result from abuse, virtual POW situations in the home, or years of trying to avoid provoking a violent incident — or seeking outside protection (and not getting it) from someone molesting one’s own kids on unsupervised weekend visitations….    Or having suddenly lost one’s kids’ after trying to do something about that and having been unprepared for the impact of federal incentives to switch custody and eliminate child support arrears through access visitation funding….

But, as it’s said, Cobblers see shoes, and Mental Health professionals see Personality Disorders and not what might have CAUSED them….  To People selling hammers, the problem is a nail… To people obsessed with unmonitored contact with distressed minor children — and these often show up in M.Ed.D. forms, i.e., as educators — the problem with divorce is the parents…. both of them — and the solution is to separate the kids and coach them on how to think about their parents and themselves….This also pertains if the source of conflict may entail, say, poverty — it’s still more critical that the problemsolving money goes to nonprofits coaching Kids and Parents…..

Here’s another slide.  Given the scope of the problem (neurotic divorcing parents), Kids in the Middle, Inc. and it’s 23 paid staff (some of who are, obviously getting some frequent flyer miles in, too) stand ready to stand in the gap against the bad parents, and provide services to fix their viewpoints:

About Kids In The Middle ®

Our Services: Consultation Assessments Group Therapy for Children Individual Therapy for Children Family Therapies Treatment Reviews Individual Therapy for Parents Co-Parenting Counseling Parent Groups

Diagnostic Supervised Visitation Mandated Co-Parenting Education Classes

(at least 3 of these categories come under the federal access visitation (incentive) grants to increase noncustodial parenting time.  We know in practice, this rarely occurs with a mother, even though more and more mothers are being completely eliminated from contact with their children through these and similar programs.  Moreover, to keep the professional straights, AFCC  around the country & state chapters are  also heavily promoting (supposedly to meet the grassroots demand from the general public) “Parent Coordination” as a new field.  Wait til you see my post on THAT one….)

Here’s another.  Notice that being “wounded” disqualifies one’s ability to co-parent (which might result in recommendation of sole custody to the other parent, logically speaking….).  There is no mention of who is inflicting which wounds.  THe total oblivion to the blood on the streets of women and children (and sometimes men, by suicide after killing the women, or just the children) around divorce.  Those aren’t their concern, I guess.  After all, dead people don’t consume mental health services….at least court-mandated; I imagine it could seriously screw up surviving relatives and witnesses….

Assessing Parental Ability to Co-Parent

What we look for:

 Level of cooperation as parents in the marriage  Is conflict pervasive or focused on a few issues? Level of trust  Level of “woundedness” of one or both parents Level of acceptance of the separation

Ability or inability to let go of issues from the marriage Level of animosity Ability to recognize and express the other parent’s

strengths Mental Health Issues

DastardlyDads.blogspot.com reports some of these (I’m glad someone else does, I couldn’t do this consistently — too close to home!)  Here’s one from May, 2011 — this month.

Dad charged with 1st-degree murder; 17-year-old daughter found in dumpster (Washington, DC)

After much public display of grief and gnashing of teeth, dad RODNEY JAMES MCINTYRE has been arrested in the stabbing murder of his 17-year-old daughter. Her body was found in a dumpster. Seems that Daddy was sexually abusing her. Not one word here about this girl’s mother….INVISIBLE MOTHER ALERT. http://dcist.com/2011/05/father_of_ebony_franklin_charged_wi.phpFather of Ebony Franklin Charged with First Degree MurderNearly 6 months ago, MPD made the gruesome discovery of the body of 17-year-old Ebony Franklin in a dumpster in the ally of the 1000 block of Fairmont Street NW. Now, they have arrested Rodney James McIntyre, Ebony Franklin’s father, for her murder. Ebony was stabbed 17 times.Sources say McIntyre was linked both by DNA and cell phone records to Franklin’s death.

Police Chief Cathy Lanier indicated in her press conference announcing McIntyre’s arrest that there was also evidence of a sexual relationship between Ebony Franklin and her father.

McIntyre had been quoted in the press saying that “The way my baby was found in the trash, it’s unacceptable. What I want to know as her father, what really took place with my child?”

Now why must parents who may have gone through some serious, criminal hell spots be exposed, unilaterally, to consume classes by professionals who blame both parents for failure to get along with each other in situations where there is a clear perpetrator?  . . . . . . . .   I’ll let you figure out your own answer, I have also….  The entire forced shared-parenting/ joint-parenting field ignores situations like this, and that if separation HAD been allowed by the family law system, how many children would be alive now, that aren’t?  And their mothers?  and their fathers?  What kind of sick obsession is it to change the language of criminal law into the language of, “my mental illness — and she alienated my children — made me do it”?  This IS the language of AFCC; their main site acknowledges this, and it has now become the norm….

 

The real motivation is greed and fear of no professional niche for people raised on education theories and psychology. .. back to this particular group:

I’m so re-assured that these mandated classes will keep us on the right track.  However, if they don’t, these same ladies are also training Advanced GAL classes (from a 2010 Missouri Bar agenda):

Child-Focused Divorce Therapy & How Attorneys Can Keep Kids Out of the Middle of Divorce Disputes

Speakers: Judy Berkowitz and Carol Love, Kids In The Middle, Inc., Kirkwood [MO]*

[GEE:  I wonder if the punch-line is to recommend classes/services from groups like, say, “Kids in the Middle”…]

(*Kirkwood is an affluent suburb of St. Louis)

NOW LET’S SEE ANOTHER SET OF AFCC WORKSHOPS/ MP3s on HOW TO THINK RIGHT (a.k.a., marketing seminars for court professionals)….

  • A little more “Parenting Coordination” promo, a little more “Alienation Theory” promo never hurts:

ession : AFCC1101
2. Advanced Challenges in Parenting Coordination
Conference : Pre-Conference Sessions from the 48th Annual Conference
Speaker(s) :
  • Successful parenting coordination is dependent on a research-based understanding about what works and what doesn’t. This institute will help participants optimize outcomes with difficult parenting coordination cases by constructing a framework for success. Presenters will address parenting coordination from the mental health {{1st things first — Mental Health First, Legal  — 2nd}} and legal {{legal rights?  legal ethics?  or how to expand the legal profession(and further undermine civil rights) by engaging mental health professionals?}} perspectives offering a multidimensional understanding of the process. Participants will be better prepared to address complex parent coordination cases.  {{PARENTING COORDINATION EXISTS to handle the Complexity Groups like AFCC have already introduced.  Apparently, this has gotten out of hand, and not parenting coordination itself has (already) gotten “complex” and needs coaches to tell coordinators how to keep it together…}}
  • Debra K. Carter, Ph.D., National Cooperative Parenting Center, Bradenton, FL Hon. Hugh Starnes (ret.), Ft. Myers, FL Denise L. Baier, M.A., Ft. Myers, FL B. Kerry Brown, M.S.W., Temple Terrace, FL


Session : AFCC1102
3. Differential Responses to Alienation: Risk Factors, Indicators and AssessmentConference : Pre-Conference Sessions from the 48th Annual Conference
Speaker(s) :
  • Alienation has serious consequences for children and families. Based on a differential response model, the presenters advocate for early identification of parent-child contact problems and risk factors for the occurrence of alienation, and the implementation of appropriate, targeted responses. **  This institute (“INSTITUTE”???) provides a framework (indoctrination model) for assessing and intervening with families to resolve parent child contact problems before behaviors become entrenched; and help judges, lawyers and mental health workers to effectively respond to cases of alienation.** The analytical framework presented is based on a review of literature and case law, interviews with practitioners and scholars, and clinical experiences.
  • Nicholas Bala, LL.B., LL.M., Queen’s University, Kingston, ON, Canada Barbara Jo Fidler, Ph.D., Toronto, ON, Canada Michael Saini, Ph.D., M.S.W., University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

***”Alienation” is like the headless horseman.  It’s been proved scientifically unsound and rejected by the American Prosecutors (etc., etc.) — but it rides on, in places like this.

A group taking Violence Against Women funds is now in bed with the “let’s not talk about it!” AFCC, lending a false legitimacy to the discussion.  I have tracked funding from this one (BWJP) and am presently p*ssed off at the alliance — although hardly surprised by it.  FOr the record, attempts were made to contact Ms. Frederick about AFCC regarding mis-use of the federal program funds to pay off custody switching to batterers/molesters (as I recall Liz Richards relating this — I was the person who alerted her to BWJP hooking up with AFCC).   For a number of years, HHS grants of $1.78 Million went to this organization.  The mutual blindness is probably not accidental — it’s a symbiotic relationship to keep the grants coming and support the published professionals — while parents, I must say, perish, or just about….

Session : AFCC1122
16. Examining the Family Court Response to Cases Involving Domestic Violence: Findings of the Henry County Ohio Safety Audit
Conference : 48th Annual Conference
Speaker(s) :
  • This workshop describes the methodology and outcomes of a recent study of the legal and social service systems used to resolve child custody matters involving allegations of domestic violence. The Safety Audit, an institutional ethnography process, generated practical recommendations for strengthening the responses of various family court practitioners to custody cases involving domestic violence. Local and national audit team members will share the findings and recommendations of this audit and discuss the challenges of the process.
  • Loretta Frederick, J.D., Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN Hon. Denise McColley, Henry County Family Court, Napoleon, OH Richard L. Altman, J.D., Magistrate, Napoleon, OH PamWeaner, J.D., Legal Aid of Western Ohio, Defiance, OH
  • CLICK THE pdf ICON FOR SESSION HANDOUTS DOWNLOAD PDF File

These people truly do not know what time of day it is.  What they do know, however, is where their next plane ticket is coming from.  The difference in perspective comes from a consciousness and quasi-religious (in some cases, less than quasi-) belief that the world is fair, and that certain types of professionals are essential to keep it balanced — if only those danged parents would be more docile when ordered to sit still and be taught at!

Here, Ms. Frederick is on a Domestic Violence Task Force (“Wingspread Conference”) with a bunch of AFCC-ers, giving their concerns about the matter a veneer of respectability.

http://www.afccnet.org/pdfs/AFCC%20Five-Year%20Report%20Web.pdf

(hover/click to see summary text on link.  Looks like AFCC, bored with the US, is providing social science libraries to developing nations, to make sure they develop right — Philistines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Mongolia.  I don’t suppose any of these materials might take into account cultural differences or, for example, address family problems caused by — shari’a law, and   honor        killings?   ???  Are we still into co-parenting issues there, too?  Or is it just the ol’ bread and butter parental alienation, plus bring on the court-referred mental health professionals?  Do we think that these countries are going to need fatherhood commissions to balance out the destructive feminists in developing nations who — for example — attempt to marry out of their faith, or are guilty of having been gang-raped without 4 male witnesses to testify it wasn’t consensual adultery — punishable by death, to the woman at least..?)

I really have to question AFCC’s motives in all this — what “world” do they live in? Where are their heads at?

And we are letting this PRIVATE, JUDGE~MENTAL HEALTHPROFESSIONAL-ORIGINATED, NONPROFIT(and originally, tax-dodging) PRIVATE organization basically run the family law system, which receives PUBLIC funds, from the top (California Judicial Council, Texas Supreme Court, at least, and plenty of superior court judges are members) to bottom and even let them train paraprofessionals who don’t even belong there to start with  ?   ???  And we then fund domestic violence organizations who don’t fess up to they’re going along with the program, pretty much, by failing to report the grants angle (i.e., how it plays into custody decisions….)

???

So, YEAH, I’m disturbed by this.  Why shouldn’t I be?  Did Ms. Frederick or BWJP report on, say, in 1999, how Ohio Legislature voted a Fatherhood Commission in to law, and did they warn single mothers, including single battered mothers, how this might impact their custody cases?  See “5101.34 Ohio Commission on Fatherhood

or how its membership was specifically targeted to single females? ….  Or how this then, a mere 2 years later (2001) apparently, led to supreme-court appointed a TASK FORCE ON FATHERHOOD (you always need a task force, right?)  I hope blog readers scan through THIS document, and search for “Philip Stahl” (an expert who testified, what else), learn how people were flown out to Maricopa County, Arizona home of Dawn Axsom – oh, I forgot — she was murdered, along with her mother, on a court-ordered visitation after pleading with a family law judges to leave, as there had been death threats — to hear AFCC presentations.

Ohio Task Force on Family Law and Children

Family Law Reform: Minimizing Conflict, Maximizing Families*

*if that sounds like your basic AFCC presentation, it is….   Experts giving testimony:

Experts and Stakeholders

Individuals who testified before the Task Force

Nancy Neylon Executive Director Ohio Domestic Violence Network

The Hon. Judith Nicely President Ohio Domestic Relations Judges Association

Kevin O’Brien President of the Board Parents And Children for Equality

Eileen Pruett, J.D. Director of the Office of Dispute Resolution Supreme Court of the State of Ohio

Nancy Rodgers, J.D. Vice Provost, Academic Administration The Ohio State University

Jeff Sherrill, Ph.D. Meers, Inc. Ohio Psychological Association

Michael Smalz, J.D. Statewide Attorney Ohio State Legal Services Association

The Hon. Leslie H. Spillane Judge, Butler County Court of Common Pleas Domestic Relations Division

Philip Stahl, Ph.D. Psychologist Author “Conducting Child Custody Evaluations: A Comprehensive Guide” and “Complex Issues in Child Custody Evaluations”

Tracy Ulstad, J.D. Ohio State Legal Services-NAPIL Equal Justice Fellow

Sanford Braver, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology Arizona State University Author “Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths”

Gerard Clouse, J.D. Attorney, Sowald, Sowald and Clouse

Christine Coates, M.Ed., J.D. Mediator and Parent Coordinator Past President, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Robert Emery, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology, Director of Clinical Training Director of the Center for Children Families and the Law University of Virginia Author: “ Marriage, Divorce and Children’s Adjustment”

Judy Greenberger School Psychologist, Shaker Heights City Schools Ohio School Psychologists

Don Hubin, Ph.D. Professor of Philosophy The Ohio State University

Magistrate Eva Kessler, J.D. Chair, Domestic Relations Practice Area Ohio Association of Magistrates

Deborah Kline Association for Child Support Enforcement

Michael Lamb, Ph.D. Head of Section on Social and Emotional Development National Institute Of Child Health and Human Development

The Hon. Charles Loman III Judge, Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division Kids Turn Program

(Did someone say there is a Kids Turn Program right on a court website?  Well that simplifies matters…CN find record of this one easily, or much on the judge….)

(This link is FYI amusement — although the mother in the case is not amused.  She did get the expense reports, however, and out one of Judge Loman’s associates for billing taxpayers on Thanksgiving Day, after having hand-delivered a final decision.  This is a PAS/Sexual abuse allegations, custody went to Daddy case, might be interesting reading….)

{2011, it looks like a ‘Parent Education Department:

“The court is led by Administrative Judge Denise L. Cross and Judge Timothy D. Wood.  The Judges are assisted in performing the duties of the court by nine Magistrates, the Legal Services Department, the Court Operations Department, Bailiffs, Court Reporters, the Legal Secretary Department, the Assignment Office, the Compliance Office, the Family Relations Department, the Mediation Services Department, the Management of Information Systems Department, the Finance Department, and the Parent Education Department.”

The required seminar (3 hrs) is “Helping Children Succeed After Divorce” as a link to this 5-yr divorce case shows, interesting docket, too.

OHIO 2001 Task Force Experts — Anyone want to bet how many of the above are members of AFCC, besides those who actually admitted it?

Here (remember — back in 2001) is the preface to the final report of this task force, showing what they did:

However, given the scope and importance of the project, the General Assembly extended this deadline, to allow this research effort to be advanced more fully.

More than two dozen experts from around the state and across the country presented testimony to the Task Force over a six-month period. Representatives from a variety of parents’ organizations,** as well as a panel of teens who had experienced their parents’ divorces, brought their unique concerns to the Task Force. Staff members obtained research articles and statutes from around the nation and the globe to find the latest policies and practices. Members of the Task Force traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, to meet with staff at the Maricopa County Court system, a nationally recognized leader in court services and pro se programs, and to conferences sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an internationally acclaimed organization which provides research and programs for professionals dealing with families in conflict.**

{**and has an official policy to change the “old” language of criminal law to the “new” language of (psychology, essentially…..) –}

{**anyone see a feminist flavor within range of the task force?  Or someone willing to talk about domestic violence?    . .. Note — contents highlight the access visitation conferences.  I attended the BMCC (Battered mothers Custody Conferenc) in NY state this past January (2011) — and practically no one had HEARD of “access visitation” nor — naturally — was it even discussed.  One reason, among others, I left there in disgust.  They are no better than the fatherhood groups that don’t help fathers — it’s just about the dole, the $dollar….}

At the end of the information gathering process, the Task Force examined all of the information obtained with one goal in mind, enhancing the well being of Ohio’s children and families in a fiscally efficient and responsible way. Ideas were discussed and debated, and suggested statutory language created. The Task Force focused on the idea that Ohio’s legal and social service institutions should minimize conflict between parents and protect children from the effects of their parents’ conflicts, while providing opportunities and support to parents as they continue to be parents to their children, regardless of family structure. The following report and recommendations are the result of this extensive research effort and debate and have been unanimously approved, without any abstentions or dissents, by official action of the 17 members of the Task Force present at the final meeting on June 1, 2001.

So, given all this lead-in, I really ought to show you the Philip Stahl Promotion in the 48th annual conference (guess AFCC was only in its 30s way back then…..):

TO BE CONTINUED ON MY NEXT, HYPER-LINKED POST …

 
%d bloggers like this: