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 ‘Maximus Inc.

My response to Wayne County, MI issues: Behind many issues is often an AFCC judge…. (and what “AFCC” entails)

with 4 comments

 

Review Time – who/what is the “AFCC”?:

“AFCC JUDGE” — Briefly, by this, it means all that AFCC believes, entails and habitually DOES.

  • What is AFCC?

AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.

This is not necessarily what the US Court systems are in place for, nor civil codes of procedure, nor the bill of rights, nor the criminal law.  AFCC views “conflict” as bad — seemingly worse than criminal behaviors by individuals in families towards others in the families.   I can’t think of any field of human endeavor or growth that doesn’t have some built-in conflict, which can be resolved either by reference to an agreed-upon-standard, or by separation.  However, in AFCC language, whoever has conflict (including with these dedicated professionals) is the bad guy, and court-ordered punishment can be meted out.

In this system, parents are required / forced to work it out being treated and viewed as a “family” whether or not they are one any more.  Even if one has threatened to kill the other, to kidnap the kids, has caused serious injury to the other partner and/or their children, or has interfered with court-ordered visitation, the problem is viewed of conflict PER SE as being wrong, rather than there being an identifiable position of truth (and from it, some justice) on various matters.

Naturally it also sees its membership as an association of dedicated professionals who are going to resolve family problems.

  • Who are AFCC members? – WHICH dedicated professionals, in what fields?

AFCC Members are:

Judges Lawyers
Mediators Psychologists
Researchers Academics
Counselors Court Commissioners
Custody Evaluators Parenting Coordinators
Court Administrators Social Workers
Parent Educators Financial Planners

It seems to me this list of professions keeps expanding, which is another thing AFCC as an association does.  We note that while there are some people as direct public employees/ servants who work in the justice system (judges, mediators, court administrators, court commissioners, and some categories of attorneys — i.e., child support attorneys, county-paid GALs, etc.) — some are not.  The category “researchers” & “Academics” is definitely broad.  Although many of these people certainly have been through divorce or custody issues, or are themselves parents please notice that “parents” is not a category.

In this worldview, then, the “PARENT” (regardless of what profession(s) any parent is in, including sometimes even some of the above categories) is the plebian, the novice, the uninstructed, the person that the professionals must handle.  One thing many parents are definitely “uninstructed” in is that this organization exists and runs conferences to strategize how to handle THEM and their flawed selves.

AFCC personnel, when judges, are often highly placed (including state supreme courts) and activist.  A look at the membership in this 2007 conference brochure shows an opening PLENARY session hearing;

The Presumption for Equal Shared Parenting: Pros and Cons There seems to be increasing support throughout the United States for a rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting. Proponents say that such a presumption brings the best interest standard into comportment with parents’ protected and privileged status under the Constitution and will apply only to those situa- tions in which 1) parents cannot reach agreement; 2) both parents can present realistic parenting plans for the responsibility they seek; and 3) neither parent can present convincing evidence that the other parent is unfit. They say that this presumption will change litigants’ and practitioners’ expectation that gains are produced by proceeding to adversarial judicial hearings, will decrease post divorce conflict, and will uphold each parent’s fundamental liberty interest in the care and custody of his/her children. Opponents, while often sympathetic to shared parenting, argue that the presumption would seriously impede the Court’s ability to tailor custody determinations to the needs of each particular child.** Presenters: Michael McCormick; Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.; Honorable Robert Schnider

 

[The 2003 link points to an article from a Journal of CFCC (Center for Families & Children in the Courts, put out by Ca. Judicial Council:    

Effective Intervention With High-Conflict Families / How Judges Can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court “The emotional and psychological risks to children resulting from conflicted custody disputes and the varied needs of separated families have led to the increased involvement of mental health professionals in child custody cases. …But though treatment services can be expensive, high-quality treatment may be a more cost-effective intervention than continued litigation. …   Courts can also maximize resources by appointing a forensically sophisticated therapist to fill a child- centered role (e.g., to provide the child’s treatment or child-centered conjoint or family therapy) and by allowing the therapist to confer with other therapists about the case. “

Sorry, but actually AFCC was founded to bring on the mental health professionals.  It’s typical to talk in passive terms of needs that arose and demanded their services, however, this is a very aggressive organization that lobbies for constant expansion of the involvement of its professionals, as does this particular article.  Some of the topics of conflict include economic depletion by constant involvement of custody evaluators and therapists to start with …

The Hon. Robert Schnider apparently one of the originals in Los Angeles area, born into a family law practitioner family — or at least working in his father’s practice.  Purely for entertainment purposes, here’s a 2004 article in which this judge was going to possibly unseal (unsavory) parts of a divorce record affecting an Illinois Republican Senatorial race — Jack Ryan against . . ..  Barack Obama.   The author questions why any judge would be allowed to do this for high-celebrity cases, and notes that “To Unseal or Not to Unseal” (My terms) would either affect a political race, and might be called “child endangerment.”  Jack Ryan was being compared to Bill Clinton as to his sexual habits at the time….]

((**including totally eliminating contact with the mother, in “interventions” when she has alienated the children — which would mean sole legal & physical custody to the father, i.e., “Tailored custody determinations” The fact that no opponents UNsympathetic to shared parenting (presumptions) are mentioned tells us how unlikely that either feminists or people advocating for domestic violence victims’ viewpoints were considered).

Many of the conflicts within marriages and sometimes causes of separation actually can come from violence by one partner towards another; it can be a dealbreaker in any relationship (and can and does sometimes turn lethal).  AFCC positions itself at the crossroads and in this little paragraph above, has borrowed? the phrase “rebuttable presumption for equal shared parenting” from the rebuttable presumption AGAINST custody going to a batter” legislative language in many states.

 

“Rebuttable Presumption” talk:

For example, a quick search comes up with Delaware Code.  Even this Delaware Code, as strong as it is, has several loopholes to allow joint or sole custody of a child to go to a perpetrator of domestic violence — but even so, AFCC and others wish to change this to presumption for equal shared parenting (see above):

DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Search DEL CODE § 705A : Delaware Code – Section 705A: REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY OR RESIDENCE OF MINOR CHILD TO PERPETRATOR OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

(a) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no perpetrator of domestic violence shall be awarded sole or joint custody of any child.

(b) Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that no child shall primarily reside with a perpetrator of domestic violence.

(c) The above presumptions shall be overcome if there have been no further acts of domestic violence and the perpetrator of domestic violence has: (1) successfully completed a program of evaluation and counselling designed specifically for perpetrators of family violence {{aka “Batterers Intervention Program” — a thing marketed by the Duluthmodel.org philosophy}} and conducted by a public or private agency or a certified mental health professional; and (2) successfully completed a program of alcohol or drug abuse counselling if the Court determines that such counselling is appropriate; and (3) demonstrated that giving custodial or residential responsibilities to the perpetrator of domestic violence is in the best interests of the child. The presumption may otherwise be overcome only if a judicial officer finds extraordinary circumstances that warrant the rejection of the presumption, such as evidence demonstrating that there exists no significant risk of future violence against any adult or minor child living in the home or any other family member, including any ex-spouse.

(i.e., RISK ASSESSMENT PROPHETIC UTTERANCES.  How can anyone demonstrate no significant risk fo future violence when people have walked out of batterers intervention programs, with flying colors, and gone on to murder the same person that got them in there?)

Along with “best interests” is of course if the other parent might “alienate” the child, allegedly.

An AFCC judge is going to oppose anything “high-conflict” and be favorably inclined towards shared parenting.  Note presenter Mike McCormick, whose bio is:

Michael McCormick. Mr. McCormick is Executive Director of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children and has written exten- sively and spoken throughout the United States on family law reform.

No presentations by NOW members or feminists in this association, that I’ve seen.  Mr. McCormick is MORE than active in fatherhood issues, and complained that even Obama’s and Evan Bayh (Indiana) fatherhood and healthy marriage promotion just didn’t go far enough.  It was too little carrot and too big a stick.  He hangs out with Glenn Sacks and friends.  I note that the acronym “ACFC” (below) is “AFCC” re-arranged.  Coincidence?

 I (Glenn Sacks) co-authored the column, which appears below, with Mike McCormick, Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Bill–Not Enough Carrot, Too Much Stick
By Mike McCormick and Glenn Sacks
Wisconsin State JournalBuffalo News, 6/30/07

U.S. Senators Barack Obama (D-IL) and Evan Bayh (D-IN) recently introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2007, which they say will address our “national epidemic of absentee fathers.” Obama and Bayh are correct that fatherless children are dramatically more likely to commit crimes, drop out of school, use drugs, or get pregnant than children who have fathers in their homes. The Responsible Fatherhood Act is explicitly a carrot and stick approach. The problem is that the carrot is too small and the stick is already too big.

Readers Every Year
Are you looking for an affordable way to reach over 6 million readers a year with your business or organization? My blog and my websites GlennSacks.com andHisSide.com receive over 10,000 unique visits a day. My weekly E-Newsletter has over 50,000 subscribers, and is by far the world’s largest regularly distributed E-newsletter devoted to family law reform, fatherhood and fathers’ issues. Contactus for more information.
(Note he’s not complaining about fathers being treated like animals & mules, which is where the “carrot & stick” reference comes from.  He wants the bribe, the incentive, and less regulation.  Personally, being a mother, I’d be offended — and have been — when anyone came to me implying or saying that I needed federal intervention to attempt to maintain work to support my kids.  This article was written 5 months after his presentation at AFCC, same year, or published then.

So one factor to remember about AFCC — they have no problem with conference presentations run by activities fathers’ rights leaders.  They are definitely a father-friendly organization, at least certain kinds of fathers.   They are also typically influential within the courts they preside over, when judges:

Another factor is that they are quite interested if not obsessed with redefining (and narrowing the definition) of domestic violence; they are going to discredit domestic violence as having primarily male perpetrators upon females, even though homicide data consistently shows this is who kills the most.  This is consistent with Mr. McCormick (above)’s membership on a group called ‘RADAR’ who pushes this theory.  Read on, same conference:

PLENARY

Rethinking Domestic Violence

This presentation will review research studies on the relationship between domestic violence and custody assessments. The domestic violence paradigm presented in many studies consistently suggests one model of domestic violence, that of male perpetrator and female victim; the argument is then made that this male-abuser model will extend to child abuse.

In other words, let’s consider a different paradigm, the “theory” (“argument”) that male abusers often extend to child abuse is just theory ……just an argument…

The data on gender differences in both intimate personal violence and threats to children indicate, however, that the male-perpetrator model is only one of several models of domestic violence, and that risk to children occurs equally from mothers and fathers. The ethics of presenting a gender biased perspective for custody assessors are discussed.

Presenter: Donald G. Dutton, Ph.D.

I have posted on the Dueling Duttons (just for fun — there is a Donald Dutton, of this premise, and a Mary Ann Dutton also Ph.D., who deals more with the resultant trauma from abuse).

FINALLY as to “AFCC JUDGES” , AFCC is a very activist organization seeking to reform family law and lobbying for changes in laws, practices etc.  They also have foundation sponsorship for conferences on “Domestic Violence and the Courts” as below:

Task Forces and Initiatives

Child Custody Consultant Task Force

Child Custody Evaluation Standards Task Force

Family Law Education Reform Project

Parenting Coordination Standards Task Force

Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project

Child Welfare Collaborative Decision Making Network

Brief Focused Assessment Task Force

Court-Involved Therapist Task Force

And, of course, I believe I have made the case that many AFCC members are actively promoting their own products, curricula, and nonprofits are not at all above utilizing their positions as judges to direct traffic (through court-ORDERED participation into the programs, for example, see posts on Kids’ Turn. Questionable financial practice appears to be part of the territory..  See Johnnypumphandle on some of the Nonprofit Organizations:

Many non-governmental organizations exist to reap profit from the Family Law system. Most are identified as Non-Profit and are exempt from taxation. You may have contacted some of these organizations for help, only to discover that help is not available – particularly if you are seeking justice.

Many organizations have been established by professionals in the Family Law system for conspiracy and protection of these professionals. Thus we have many Bar Associations, whose members are lawyers and judges; Psychological Associations for classifying family members syndromes, so that none will be overlooked; and other associations established merely to act as a conduit for family member’s money collected in the process.

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

He is talking about private and/or nonprofit associations with judges as members using public buildings and premises to run their own businesses.

It appears that this “Los Angeles Superior Court judges Association” is quite likely the predecessor of the AFCC. See this:

Update 4/11/99Published in Washington, D.C.. . . . Vol. 15, No. 16 — May 3, 1999 . . . .
http://www.insightmag.com

Insight Magazine

Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara

An alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association {“LASCJA”} is at the heart of a scandal involving possible income-tax evasion and gifts that may affect judges’ rulings.

Dozens of checks, obtained by Insight, deposited in the LASCJA account were made out to several other institutions, including the Judges Miscellaneous Expense Fund, the Judges Trust Fund, the Family Court Services Special Fund and the Family Court Services.These organizations are not registered with the IRS or the California State Franchise Tax Board, and if the Bank of America has accounts for any of them, the checks were not deposited in those accounts.

So, what was up with that?
. . . . Not only were attorneys who argue cases before the family court making payments to the judges’ fund, but so were the court monitors — appointed by the judges and paid a professional fee of as much as $240 a day as observers during child visitations.
 Bringing in the topic of supervised visitation, and what’s up with tracking usage of those funds.
These monitors qualify for their jobs by paying to take a training and certification course from the judges, with the check going to the fund, whereupon they are placed on the exclusive list the judges use when assigning monitors.
Sounds like kickbacks to me.  That’s definite conflict of interest.  The supervised visitation monitors paying the judges’ account  and those judges funneling them business from the courtroom, from the bench….

“. . . . The Los Angeles County Bar Association’s contributions to the fund were payments to the judges run through a joint partnership with the court on MCLE classes. They split the proceeds from legal and professional seminars. . . . . So, in addition to the ethical issues involved in how the bank account has been maintained, its funding also raises numerous legal issues, according to attorney Richard I. Fine, a taxpayers’ advocate. “If a private group [the LASCJA] is using a public building and everything associated with that private group is being paid for with taxpayers’ dollars, then it is clearly fraudulent,” Fine contends. He adds that “unless the public entity has passed an ordinance specifically allowing the private group to exist and specifically stating that the public will bear the costs — separate phones, leasing office space, furniture, computers, etc. — then it should be paid for by the private organization.”. . . . According to Fine, “If the judges have provided false information on official financial statements submitted to government agencies or financial institutions [the Bank of America account], then they have defrauded the Internal Revenue Service and the county and the people of Los Angeles by receiving tax-free status under fraudulent means. … This would be the same as if a person lied on their tax return. It is incredulous to me that something like this could have happened and the IRS, state attorney general, county district attorney and auditor have not acted over all these years.”

Unless they, too, were in on it somehow.

OK, now I think we’re ready to consider why, when a judge that Wayne County, MI child support workers want OUT goes to privatize child support contracting — although I realize this issue is larger, and different (child support collections is multi-million$$ business within most states) the behavior of doing this is common to AFCC personnel from the outset.  “BEWARE AFCC” “Court Cancer Metastasizes” summarizes it in this timeline (to review):

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”)

A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

1939 Judges, lawyers and mental health professionals got State law passed (SB 737).

The 53rd Session of Legislature. The court became a lobby group. Each and every county {the public} would pay for marital counseling to help unclog the court system from divorce cases. The Family Law code • Section 1740 et seq formed The Children’s Courts of Conciliation, which was later repealed. • Section 1760 Article III Whenever any controversy exists, disruption of household with a minor child, the Court of Conciliation takes jurisdiction: to create a reconciliation. Evidence: Senate Bill and Family Law Code Lukewarm reception

1955 A Los Angeles judge formed the first Conciliation Court as per this law in Los Angeles.

1958 The Los Angeles County courthouse at 111 Hill Street was dedicated.

1962

The Conference of Conciliation Courts (CCC) established a bank account at Security First National Bank (which later became Security Pacific Bank)

Evidence: CCC 1968 Financial Statement. A balance from 5th Annual Conference is described. This indicates the account probably began 6 years before in 1962.

1963

Conference of Conciliation Courts, a private organization, was formed. The address of record was 111 N Hill Street, Room 241, which is the LA County public courthouse. 

No incorporation documents on file, and no registration with Secretary of State, Franchise Tax Board or IRS. Evidence: Statement from IRS that there is no such entity and corporation papers in 1969. The founders of CCC were Los Angeles judge Roger Pfaff and Meyer Elkin.

(Meyer Elkin awards and memorabilia are all over AFCC entitities and spinoff organizations).

(NOTE:  Visit “AFCCnet.org” History page and you’ll see it claims to have begun in 1963.)

I continue to be amazed how little reported this powerful lobbying group is even spoken about. It’s like talking about the air — taken for granted, you inhale and exhale it, with little consciousness of the content.

OK, NOW — My RESPONSE TO THE MICHIGAN POST:


My last post:   Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket.  Judge was AFCC

Showed county workers picketing against the privatization and outsourcing of Child Support Enforcement, particularly as the companies bidding on the contract already had a history of fraud and other legal issues.  Particularly as it would reduce workers’ salaries to $8 to $9 per hour, and more.  People in Wayne County MI picketed to remove the judge (Marybeth Kelly) that did this.

This response shows how simple it can be to look up some basic data on a court situation.   I’m simply pasting what amounts to a fast-track search of some information on the judge in question.  I did not handle the issue of grants systems possibly going to county workers to bring marriage, fatherhood, or other program funding to them rather than the custodial parents, which may have been involved in part.  This is an “off-the-cuff” response, minor phrasing perhaps re-arranged for this different format.

I wrote:

I’m not a Michigan native, and came to this posting because I am investigating some of the privateering in the child support industry, particularly Maximus, but in the course of this, Lockheed-Martin and Tier Technologies do come up.

RE:

 As Michigan Supreme Court Chief Justice Clifford Taylor noted in a statement thanking Kelly for her service, “What about the children whom the Wayne County Friend of the Court is supposed to serve? What about the families for whom a timely child support check makes the difference between survival and not being able to buy groceries?” ***
Excellent questions. 
{{** this reply doesn’t address what the picketing and rally did– that at least one of the firms bidding for the contract had a known history of corruption, including fraud and conflicts of interest. }}
Actually nice appeal, but wrong questions.  The child support system probably needs to be shut down at this point, because it is so corrupt whether done through public agencies OR farmed out.  I have been blogging at http://familycourtmatters/wordpress.com, and if you search OCSE (or read 06/29/11 posts), it’s clear that Federal Funding (HHS — and OCSE is under it) has been co-opted by special interest groups, and is a $4 billion-a-year industry.  
In California, where I live, a respected attorney (Richard Fine, Esq. at the time) with a record of confronting fraud and taxpayer waste, took on “Silva v. Garcetti” where the L.A. District Attorney was sitting on $14 million undistributed, collected child support.   In return for exposing this, and other financial corruption, Mr. Fine was tossed into coercive solitary confinement (age, 69) and of course disbarred, and his settlement monies compromised, his family had to foreclose on the home, etc.   
Whether it’s done through the Friend of the Court, Administrative Office of the Courts, or otherwise, these grants carry incentives to the states, which impacts custody outcomes, and also provides a wide range of action for various money-laundering and other corrupt practices.  
Tier Technologies is (I think) run out of a Northern California area where the local child support agency  literally advertises and recruits commuters  (targeting at the noncustodial parent) to open a child support case.  Title IV-D child support cases are handled differently than others, and the entire system is I believe more of a public burden than a public waste.  It has undermined the family law process entirely, and introduced outside agents into play, which only ONE party is informed of.   
PRIMETIME AFCC BEHAVIOR IS TO PRIVATIZE AND DIRECT BUSINESS TO CRONIES:
I note that Judge Kelly (Whether she be good, or not so good, I hold no opinion — don’t know her.  I know systems) — reduced the budget by $30 million and added family law judges.  Just check which of these judges are AFCC members.  If so, this is going to expand, not contract, services needed ,and introduce more players into individual court cases.
Maximus sounds horrific, and I REALLY thing anyone else who lands on this page should check out my blog in it.  I am a DV survivor and custody wars survivor.  I am sure there are hardworking, honest, decent office and administrative people throughout the child support system — but when it injected promoting marriage and fatherhood into divorce court, or social science demonstration projects, etc. — it has created a system parallel to the IRS (and working alongside it), and it’s polarizing our society.  I KNOW that without the influence of this group, my court case could’ve closed much sooner, and I could’ve as a single mother handled life without child support and allowing the father regular contact.
Because of these incentives our case, and many other moms cases (I now advocate and report) went south; the children were switched to the non-caretaking parent, many times an identified abuser or molester — and thereafter there is no “Shared parent” or anything close to it.  Child Support gets immediately eliminated if the switch was after a considerable arrears ran up (in my case it was about $10K).  Everyone BUT the children literally gets a piece of the action, and some of the grant moneys.  Double-billing exists.  Like the national debt, one cannot forever support a nationwide infrastructure this large — who will be left to pay the IRS to pay them?  Or are the poor just going to be starved out, or left to kill each other over money from the pressure. 
My judges are on this courthouse forum too, but I’m not commenting on them.  I comment for example, HERE:  
https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/lets-talk-child-support-hhs-series-90fd-grants-to-states-research-and-demonstrate/
Plenty of links and data on the blogroll to others who follow this.
Judge Marybeth Kelly I see (at least 2002) was on the child support leadership council appointed by a governor, and is AFCC — meaning, she has an agenda.  Mothers (=/= 2nd wives stepmothers) should be alert to this.   There are fathers’ activities on that council too it seems.    
Even a brief look, 2010 article about her run for Supreme Court, shows AFCC tendencies (read article, pls):
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2010/10/judge_mary_beth_kelly_family_l.html

Judge Mary Beth Kelly: Family law bench stint aids high court bid

Published: Sunday, October 03, 2010, 3:13 AM 
As she is Republican & Right-To-Life, she is probably not too sympathetic to women leaving violence, few religious groups are.  While she’s boasting about dealing with runaways, including from kids in foster care, a lot of those children I bet were inappropriately placed there (bet MI gets incentives like others states, see Georgia, Nancy Schaefer).  Notice:

She came under fire for acting too independently and trying to privatize the Friend of the Court.

That privatization effort was among the issues that prompted a labor-led coalition in 2007 to call for her resignation. Lawyers representing children under the supervision of the county’s juvenile court sued her the same year.

The lawsuit alleged Kelly violated the children’s right to counsel and effective representation when she removed hundreds of individual attorneys and replaced them with hand-picked “attorney groups.” **The lawsuit argued she created a “fixed-fee” system that resulted in far fewer attorneys for a growing number of children.

(**hand-picked, aka sounds like cronies to me. Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) is a PRIVATE trade association of judges, mediators, evaluators and the type of personnel who mean courthouseforum sites have plenty of horror stories to post.  They get positioned in high places, including state supreme courts, or Friends of the Court associations, and then influence policy, try to and do get laws passed to direct more business to themselves, meaning it’s harder for people to conclude their own court cases.     PRIVATIZING — the complaint is that the courts are jammed, overwhelmed, but the logic behind that fails to say why.  Privatizing removes protections including oaths that Judges are under as to not having conflict of interest, and their required statements to disclosure that have to be filed. )

The suit was filed in April 2007, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case three months later.  (Who is on the Supreme Court?)

Julie Hurwitz, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said changing the system was politically motivated and leaves her concerned if Kelly is elected to the Supreme Court.

“I don’t think that political ambition has any place on the bench,” she says. “One has to look at the history.”

Kelly says she wanted to reduce deficits and improve services and wasn’t motivated by politics. And even as a conservative endorsed by Right to Life, she says she aims to keep partisanship off the bench.

{{ANYTHING BELOW HERE NOT IN “{{…..}}’s” is quoted material:}}
Article from Aug 2010, from RIGHTMICHIGAN (note: this isn’t a left/right political issue when it comes to this venue):

Judge Mary Beth Kelly a Rule of Law Judge? Obviously not.

By Maryland Farmer, Section News
Posted on Sun Aug 22, 2010 at 09:28:35 PM EST
Tags: Judge Mary Beth KellySupreme Court (all tags)

~ Brought out front, as it is good debate. ~

I believe that the rule of law requires judges to be impartial and not decide cases based on their own personal, social or political views. Judges must take the law as it is written: we should neither add to it nor subtract from it, and apply it equally to everyone alike.

When the State of Michigan seeks to terminate parental rights, it is more than a mere temporary disruption of relationships: it is the forced, irretrievable, destruction of family life. It is an awesome power. “When the State moves to destroy weakened familial bonds, it must provide the parents with fundamentally fair procedures.” The Constitutional guarantees of due process and equal protection apply with full force to parental termination cases. See Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-759, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 1397, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982)

The Role of A Judge in A Parental Termination Hearing

A parental termination case is essentially no different from any other kind of case. Both the parent and the State are entitled to a “rule of law” judge who faithfully applies the Constitution and the plain language of the statute, one who is unbiased, impartial, fair minded, and principled. The judge must give each party a fair opportunity to present his evidence. The judge should consider the evidence with an open mind. The judge must render a decision that is just, according to the evidence viewed against the plain language of the law.

In the Matter of Felicia Alicia Clemons, Minor – a Chilling Story of Abuse of Judicial Power

When Tamara Alicia Clemons appeared before Juvenile Court Judge Mary Beth Kelly in August of 2007, Judge Kelly was no rookie; she had been on the bench for eight years.

The Court of Appeals opinion details a chilling abuse of power, an abuse that conservative Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan later labeled, “disturbing.” See In re Hudson, 483 Mich. 928, 938, 763 N.W.2d 618, 627 (2009) (Corrigan, concurring)

A Petitioner had requested that the Court terminate Tamara Clemons’s parental rights to her daughter, Felicia. The Petitioner, that is, the person who filed the complaint against Ms Clemons, did not appear for the hearing. Neither did an attorney for the State of Michigan. Although Tamara appeared, she did so without a lawyer to represent her. Astonishingly, Judge Kelly did not dismiss, or even adjourn the case. Instead, she decided to abandon her role as an unbiased judge and take on the role of accuser.

Judge Kelly called witnesses to the stand. Instead of being fair minded, her questions displayed, according to the Court of Appeals, “an accusatory or prosecutorial bent.” Judge Kelly only elicited information that could be used to support termination. She assiduously avoided obtaining information that might help Tamara’s case.

After compiling the one-sided evidence, Judge Kelly refused to allow Tamara to introduce any evidence of her own. Judge Kelly used her power as a judge to deny Tamara the right to even defend herself!

At the conclusion of this inquisition, Judge Kelly wrongfully terminated Tamara’s parental rights to her daughter.

The Court of Appeals naturally reversed the decision. But the Court went one step further: the Court of Appeals, appalled by Judge Kelly’s lawless conduct, actually removed her from the case:

Given the egregious violations of respondent’s constitutional rights that occurred in this case, this case shall be assigned to a different judge on remand to preserve the appearance of justice.

This action by the Court of Appeals, removing a trial judge from a case, is extraordinary. It is reserved for conspicuously bad conduct on the bench.

These are not the actions of a Rule of Law judge. 
Here is the case:http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=bcehb&searchTerm=eUiQ.GeLa.UYGU.IbTY&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652,*

In the Matter of FELICIA ALICIA CLEMONS, Minor. CATHOLIC SOCIAL SERVICES OF OAKLAND COUNTY, Petitioner-Appellee, and LATRECHA ADELL FOX, Guardian, Appellee, v TAMARA ALICIA CLEMONS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 281004

COURT OF APPEALS OF MICHIGAN

2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1652

August 19, 2008, Decided

– – – – – 

[ENDQUOTE / start LGH comments]:

Again, the thing is the systems; get a grasp of that, and how individual judges act will be clearer.  California, alas, is responsible for spawning that AFCC organization decades ago, and a lot of the trauma now going, plus excessive removal of kids from one parent or both parent is going to include 2nd and 3rd generations of people affected by policies run through the child support & welfare system, and pushed by AFCC judges in their conferences.  This is privatizing not just the Friends of the Court, but in effect, the entire family court system (and associated ones), court proceedings are seen as problem-solving rather than being subject to justice, and new generations of law students are being coached and trained into this line of thinking, but highly placed AFCC judges, as in UBaltimore School of Law’s “Center for Children & Families in the Court.” (“CFCC”).   Just check out their conference agenda and materials, under-reported situation.

I’d have to side with the county workers in the Wayne County issue because, their being public employees, I can do FOIAs and get payroll information, have a shot at any money trail in individual cases (if I were living in Michigan).  Besides, no low-paid FT employee should lack benefits – if they didn’t have benefits, what’s the motivation for FT employment?  It’d be better to work somewhere else…..

No charge for this PSA.  If you read it, please pass it on, I doubt this is a high-traffic post!

I attach 2008? Annual report (from IN) of a private nonprofit group entrenched in the court system:  Fathers & Families.  Scrutinize who is on corporate donors (Indiana Dept. of Child Support services).  Look at how many court officials and public employees are on the board of this group — which is focused on ONE out of TWO sides of the parents in most custody issues.  Conflicts of interest, much?

Other states (Ohio, PA) have noted copying practices from Indiana.  I even found Ontario, Canada, copying some US practices — the link was AFCC membership (international).

The courthouse forum where I found this had a “reply” button, but my reply has not shown up yet (that I can see), so here it is:

Let’s Eliminate OCSE — the Office of Child Support Enforcement — and why.

with 6 comments

No, that’s not a joke.  I’m serious.

Or, we could just continue to watch this institution gradually eliminate the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution, in fact the entire concept of individual rights whatsoever, in favor of social(ism) science run amok.

This post also ran amok (as you can see) but the links are valuable.

The OCSE has to go.  It’s out of control, and is hurting men, women, and children — generation after generation– while loudly proclaiming it is, instead, helping society, families and kids.

WHAT DO YOU WANT — A SOCIAL SCIENCE SOCIETY, OR LIBERTY?

Obviously, it’s either/or, not Compromise/And.  Even the experts know this:

Do government sponsored marriage promotion policies place undue pressure on individual rights?

Karen Struening

Abstract

The dominance of social science research in the debate over the Bush Administration’s Healthy Marriage Initiative may explain why questions regarding the proper role of government in regulating adult intimacy (!!!) have received little attention. Social science research focuses on outcomes such as well-being and health. In contrast, rights-based legal theory considers whether state action undermines the rights of individuals. In this article, I intend to shift the debate over marriage promotion policy from questions of child well-being to questions of individual rights. I will ask the following questions: Do individuals have a liberty interest in making their own choices about intimate relationships, such as marriage? Do federally-financed (and frequently state-run) marriage programs compromise this liberty interest? Are there any constitutional grounds for objecting to marriage promotion policy?

Either we recover the OCSE from its fatherhood-dispensing-propaganda (and fundings) — repeal (or defund) the Access/Visitation grants system entirely.   There is no question, whatever its grandiose proclamations, the system is rife with corruption, has failed, and hasn’t even reduced TANF, allegedly the purpose for its existence.

Let alone the dubious ROI for this agency — Can you spell Four Billion?

Yes, +/- Four Billion (federal incentives), courtesy the IRS, to fix families, support children by adding “fatherhood.” which as I point out elsewhere, is one of several “hoodlums” used to justify stealing time and money from honest people and transferring them to dishonest.

$4,000,000,000

I’ve uploaded (hopefully) and linke two PDFs to this post to illustrate the cost and the personnel investing themselves into the system.  One is primarily charts the other, primarily rhetoric.   Please browse the Dept of HHS/Administration for Children and Families (“ACF”)

(Federal) 

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, including for FY 2012, and historic back to 2002.   Its charts speak loudly as well as this paragraph justifying some of the expense:

Promoting Access and Visitation. The budget provides $570 million over ten years to support increased access and visitation services and integrates these services into the core child support program. The first step in facilitating a relationship between non-custodial parents and their children is updating the statutory purposes of the CSE program to recognize the program’s evolving mission and activities that help parents cooperate and support their children. The proposal also requires states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. The proposal also would encourage states to undertake activities that support access and visitation. Implementing domestic violence safeguards is a critical component of this new state responsibility. These services not only will improve parent-child relationships and outcomes for children, but they also will {{??}} result in improved collections. Research shows that when fathers are engaged in the lives of their children, they are more likely to {{or is it “will”??  the program has been going on over 15 years.  Don’t we know which it is yet — “more likely to,” or “will”?}}meet their financial obligations. This creates a “double win” for children – an engaged parent and more financial security.

and paragraphs like this:

Budget Request – The FY 2012 request for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support programs of $3.8 billion reflects current law of $3.5 billion adjusted by +$305 million assuming Congressional action on several legislative proposals, including those supporting a newly proposed Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative. The Budget promotes strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their children, improving distribution policies so that more of the support fathers pay reaches their children, and continuing a commitment to vigorous enforcement. The Budget increases support for states to pass through child support payments to families, rather than retaining those payments and requires states to establish access and visitation arrangements as a means of promoting father engagement in their children’s lives.*** The Budget also provides a temporary increase in incentive payments to states based on performance, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency and will foster enforcement efforts.

**(This program has been known to promote mother ABSENCE from lives of the children after custody-switching enabled through mis-use of program funds in conflicts-of-interest with custody hearings…Despite more and more mothers becoming noncustodial, this program still remains father-centric. )

Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative

The CSE program plays an important role in facilitating family self-sufficiency and promoting responsible fatherhood. Building on this role, the FY 2012 budget includes a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative to encourage non-custodial parents to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives.

After I sent this document to Liz Richards, of NAFCJ.net, I got the following response:

OCSE cannot override federal and state law; it cannot initiate legal disputes without the approval of both the assumed litigants.  It cannot override standing court orders.
But this IS what the OCSE agency and been doing for years – and they believe they can get away with this fraud, because nobody is scrutinizing them.

You should not believe anything they claim about their policies and procedures which sounds good.  They have been hiding their corruption with “sounds good” analysis for  as long as I’ve been following them. They say one thing – and do the opposite.

Of the hundreds of women who contacted me each year, some are custodial mothers, and nearly none of them actually collect the support owed to them.
The local state agencies stonewall them for months and even years.

Once woman with a N. CA child support case got told by the San Fransico c.s. agency they couldn’t send her the support check because they hadn’t [earned] enough interest on it yet.  After she made strong complaints about this dishonest practice – they sent a check a few days later.

The OCSE even admits they have a policy of “retaining” undistributed but collected support to earn interest on it and to declare it “abandoned” and split this collected money 60/40 between the federal and state c.s. agencies.  (eg illegal confiscation of other people’s money).***  Even the HHS General Counsel, David Cade, admit to me this was the official policy.

I believe the whole agency should be shut down and the few vital services they have be transferred to Dept of Treasury.

Liz Richards

(**great example discovered by Richard Fine, resulting in the infamous Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit.  This extremely disturbing case over county abuse of privilege in MILLION$$ IN L.A. County CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS ALREADY COLLECTED shows how corruption responds to corruption uncovered —  Mr. Fine in jail, an attempt to intimidate him and a warning to others who might think to follow in his footsteps.  As far as I can tell, this case was eventually dropped, although eventual Mr. Fine was released from solitary coercive confinement, at age 70!)

(This BUDGET document is found at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CSE.pdf)

AGAIN — what ROI, what overall good really comes out of this department, as reported by anyone who is not in on some of its many scams?   She writes:  “I believe the whole agency should be shut down and the few vital services they have be transferred to Dept of Treasury.”

I’m so glad she’s come around to my way of thinking, after I read enough rhetoric to gag on justifying the elimination of child support for most kids, and the inability of actual, legitimate abused children and/or spouses (primarily mothers) to EVER get free from abuse, resulting sometimes in their deaths at the hands of a father over a court-ordered visitation and after death threats and molestation had already been identified.  Alternately, they can just be impoverished needlessly, and society can be robbed of working parents while these parents instead go to court and suffer more legal abuse and trauma, often for years.

I ALSO UPLOADED a “Reviving Marriage in America:  Strategies for Donors” philanthropy roundtable talking about the foundations backing to these movements.  File it under “what your social worker and child support advocate,  your local domestic violence agency, or local legal aid office, didn’t and won’t tell you — but should have — about who’s really behind the fatherhood movement.“)

Looking at both these documents, I have to ask:  how much priming the pump is needed to produce a few good fathers, or get child support enforced? Are these indeed producing good fathers, and if not, who gives a damn?  The jet-setting, conference-presenting, politically connected fatherhood program administrators?  The family law judges, attorneys, evaluators (basically, all AFCC membership categories) whose nonprofits profit from this arrangement?   The funeral homes, who get extra business when some Dad goes haywire after separation?  The press, who reports the casualties?

An article from the “Institute for Democracy Studies” (Sept. 2001, VOl. 2, issue 1), lead article by a “Lewis C. Daly” focused on the “Charitable Choice:  The Architecture of a Social Policy Revolution” cites the Bradley Foundation’s influence, and provides a flowchart with National Fatherhood Initiative and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives central underneath.  They point out the “Heritage Foundation” connection (which I’ve noticed) and that a certain Kay James (directing the US Office of Personnel Management at the time — and as such placing “vast numbers of individuals throughout the White House national security apparatus, government agencies (etc.) ) endorsed the resolution of the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention (regarding wifely submission to husbands) — an endorsement that caused former President Carter to resign from this group in protest of its treatment of women.

O Say Can You See?” what’s happened to the “land of the free” (or even the concept of the land of the free….)

“OCSE”:  CLEAN IT UP OR SHUT IT DOWN:

The more I read about this, the more outraged I get at tax dollars being used for social science rhetoric — most of it a combination of belief, myth, and confusion of results with causes.

  • While promising delivery on child support — the fact is, it extorts both mothers and fathers in the courts to consume services and classes they don’t need, such as parenting education classes produced by judges-and-attorney-run nonprofits with unholy alliances with the family courts (kids turn, etc.).  (Kids Turn & look-alikes)
  • It s a guaranteed formula for reducing and eliminating child support, sold under the guise of doing the opposite.
  • The Access Visitation grants system, per se, while not huge — is the doorway to ever-expanding initiatives (fatherhood, marriage-promotion, etc.) — that undermine due process and individual rights.
  • Its own regulations indicate that the purpose of this grants system enables ONE Person in ONE Executive Branch Office to run demonstration social science projects on the populace, through the states, as I have pointed out before in reviewing 45 CFR 303.109:   As such, it’s anti-democratic, and contrary to the purpose of having three separate branches of government, which was to counter potential tyranny.  Section (a) basically says, there’s a need to monitor these grants.  Here’s (b):
(b) Evaluation. The State: (1) May evaluate all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs; (2) Must assist in the evaluation of significant or promising projects as determined by the Secretary; (of HHS).

These significant or promising projects are going to be fatherhood promotion or marriage promotion projects.  They are poorly monitored, especially after going to subgrantees once they hit the sole state agency in each state that dispenses them.
For a quick sample, tell me why the Texas Office of Attorney General (generally associated with matters of law, right?) even HAS a “Deputy for Family Initiatives,” let alone why are they using this post to expand opportunities to turn this office into more therapeutic, right-wing, family intervention schlock?    (See RandiJames.com’s 2009 post, “Michael Hayes wants to Build Family-Centered Child Support” and how:
Before his current post, he helped create and was director of the Texas Fragile Families Initiative, a statewide project involving community-based, faith-based, and public agencies to support fragile families.”
See also my comment on that post, showing Mr. Hayes flying up to Minnesota to present at a Fatherhood Summit.    And about his plans for the “evolution of child support.”)
Now, when you have an Office of the Attorney General coming straight from a “Fragile Families Initiative” this tells me there is at least one foundation behind the scenes.  While Michael Hayes may have got this going in Texas, “FFI” has been going strong, courtesy of at least the Ford Foundation, in NY and elsewhere, and typically links a researcher, a reputable university (or several of them) such as Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, etc.  — and someone with a personal agenda getting paid to produce social science studies on how to fix America.  For example, Ronald D. Mincy, Ph.D., of Columbia’s
Black people will never reach economic parity if Black children have to depend on one income and White children depend on two,” says Mincy, the architect of the foundation’s “Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative.
{{i.e., while Mr. Hayes may have got it started in Texas, Dr. Mincy got it going, period.  This is the “foundation connection.”  As with President Obama’s stuttering on the word “mother” regarding his own mother, despite his obvious success in life (US President = success, right?), Dr. Mincy’s pedigree includes Harvard, and a Ph.D. in economics from MIT, teaching at Swarthmore, and heads up a
The multi-million dollar initiative focuses on increasing research about these poor fathers and their families, and working with policy-makers to create policies that encourage unwed parents to work together for the benefit of their children.

Since 1994, the Ford Foundation has spent a total of roughly $14.5 million on this issue. It is one of too few major foundations, according to Mincy, engaged in this work.

These days Mincy crisscrosses the nation giving speeches and meeting with child support officials and advocates for fathers as he tries to take advantage of the convergence of circumstances that has made fatherhood the issue de jour.

But there is a compelling personal reason why Mincy is so interested in this issue — he also grew up without his father. …

…So did many children, whose fathers served in the various wars our country has been involved in– Civil War, World War I, II, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc.   Wars definitely contribute to  fatherlessness.   So did slavery, which routinely broke up families.   Of all people who should know this, I’d think an economics expert would.  Of all people who also should (and I bet does) know that “jobs” =/= “wealth” or financial independence stemming from assets which spin off enough income to live on.   No, the experts are focused obsessively on “jobs” while themselves functioning, often as not, from their connections to foundations & government or university research institutes.
However, the “fatherhood” field developed in the LATE 1900s, not the EARLY 1900s or before.  Why?  When it was the air people breathed, there was no need to push the ideology.  But now, there is some competition — and it has to be pushed.  The most natural place to push fear of women, fear of feminism, is through institutions already controlled by men — faith-based ones, Congress, etc.
The “fatherhood” promoters did so in response to  at some level, I believe, gut-level primal fear of women and feminism, a feminism in possible in part because women can indeed vote.  It is also in fear of the reproductive capacity of people of color; this is clear from the boardroom discussions and the Congressional record.   The conservative’s push into inner city churches and ministries helped split off some of the progressive and civil rights activities in those areas, and partly clean up their image, just as the recent nonprofit group “Women in Fatherhood, Inc.” [WIFI] is a more recent formulation to help clean up the obvious gender bias in the “fatherhood” policies to start with.

After graduating from Harvard, Mincy went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he earned his doctorate in economics in 1987. He taught economics at Swarthmore College, the University of Delaware, and Bentley College, before heading to the Urban Institute in 1987.

{{“obviously” no father in the home dooms a child to academic, professional and financial failure, case in point.}}

While at the Urban Institute, Mincy directed a policy-research project on the urban underclass. His work on poor, unwed families caught the attention of the Clinton administration and he led the Noncustodial Parents Issue Group for the Presidents Welfare Reform taskforce. The group’s mission was to figure out how welfare reform could accommodate poor men. His experiences in the Clinton administration laid the groundwork for the Fragile Families Initiative.

He’s now at Columbia, degreed, decorated, publishing and promoting.  Note the Foundation Connection throughout ….

Bio:

Dr. Ronald Mincy teaches Introduction to Social Welfare Policy; Program Evaluation; Economics for Policy Analysis; and Advanced Methods in Policy Analysis, and directs the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.

Dr. Mincy is also a co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, and a faculty member of the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC).

He came to the University, in 2001, from the Ford Foundation where he served as a senior program officer and worked on such issues as improving U.S. social welfare policies for low-income fathers, especially child support, and workforce development policies; he also served on the Clinton Administration’s Welfare Reform Task Force.

This tells me, he may have had input into the Access & Visitation factor of 1996 Welfare Reform.  And, he’s as much as stated he has a chip on his shoulder from childhood.  However directed at low-income noncustodial fathers this work has become, by targeting the child support system, this re-balancing of “welfare” has been exploited by all levels of fathers (including some multi-millionaires) and has resulted in lots of noncustodial (and some homeless) mothers after processing through this wonderful child support system plus therapy-dispensing family law system.  It has pushed social science dispensaries (whether institutes or initiatives) to the top of the administrative heap.  The discussion is no longer of individual rights, due process, bias — but of outcomes, of best “practices” and “promising projects.”   Such language keeps the research $$ flowing and sets up a subject/object relationship between the researchers and the poor slobs with the actual problems and lives affected the most.

Only through the internet have we become more able to “eavesdrop” in on some of these conversations, and hear the incredible logic behind them, pick on the tone of how policymakers view the nation, of how Federal entitities attempt to set up a trainee/dog relationship with the states (good states get more treats [incentives], bad states will have treats withdrawn….  Clearly in such an environment, the obvious line of work is dog trainer — if one is not of sufficient drive, connections, inspiration, pedigree, (etc.) or luck to be the ones paying the dog trainers.

NEXT QUESTIONS:

HOW MANY FOUNDATIONS DOES IT TAKE

TO ELIMINATE THE US CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS?

Whose idea was it, to switch society’s main institutions from the concept of individual rights (eventually — at least in theory — including minorities & females, in that order) in favor of “social science” (next step — back to eugenics….)?

Whose idea was it to centralize rule under Executive Dept. initiatives (versus the original idea — three branches of government).

Whose idea was it to eliminate the restrictions on sectarian religion on public government?

Well, in my book, this is in great part, a 4-letter word:  “B.U.S.H.” (GWB), aka Government by Executive Order.

CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), was established January 29, 2001, when President George W. Bush “issued twoexecutive orders related to faith-based and community organizations. The first executive order established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The second order established centers to implement this initiative at the Department of Justice, along with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.  (wikipedia)

NOT a good idea for women…..

Let alone this particular President’s (and other right-wing Republicans) curious connection with the Unification Church.  Don’t laugh.  See my “Shady-shaky Foundations’ post and look at that picture of Sun Myung Moon being crowned in a US Senate building.   And rethink all this “Family” and “Marriage” promotion agenda in terms of this known money-laundering, criminal-enterprise cult headed by the world’s “True Parents.”  Or read from the Steve Hassan’s “Freedom of Mind” site on Moon/Bush:  Ongoing Crime Enterprise (2007 article) :

By the early 1980s, flush with seemingly unlimited funds, Moon had moved on to promoting himself with the new Republican administration in Washington. An invited guest to the Reagan-Bush Inauguration, Moon made his organization useful to President Reagan, Vice President Bush and other leading Republicans.

Where Moon got his cash remained one of Washington’s deepest mysteries – and one that few U.S. conservatives wanted to solve. …

While the criminal enterprises may have been operating at one level, Moon’s political influence-buying was functioning at another, as he spread around billions of dollars helpful to the top echelons of Washington power.

Moon launched the Washington Times in 1982 and its staunch support for Reagan-Bush political interests quickly made it a favorite of Reagan, Bush and other influential Republicans. Moon also made sure that his steady flow of cash found its way into the pockets of key conservative operatives, especially when they were most in need. […]

Throughout these public appearances for Moon, Bush’s office refused to divulge how much Moon-affiliated organizations have paid the ex-President. But estimates of Bush’s fee for the Buenos Aires appearance alone ran between $100,000 and $500,000.

Sources close to the Unification Church told me that the total spending on Bush ran into the millions, with one source telling me that Bush stood to make as much as $10 million from Moon’s organization. . . .

The senior George Bush may have had a political motive, too. By 1996, sources close to Bush were saying the ex-President was working hard to enlist well-to-do conservatives and their money behind the presidential candidacy of his son, George W. Bush. Moon was one of the deepest pockets in right-wing circles.

The “Marriage Promotion” and “Fatherhood” fanaticism definitely has Unification overtones.  I first began comprehending this summer 2009, while protesting another round of fatherhood funding at the Senate Appropriations Committee.  This was headed up by Rep. Danny K. Davis.  Naturally, I looked him up, some, and discovered the Moonie (Unification Church) connection.  I told some friends, and now they think I’m nuts for the assumption…   When our leaders start crowning kings in Senate Buildings, and don’t apologize for it – which Rep Davis did not — we have to start wondering where their heads are at.  (Hover cursor over the “Danny K. Davis” link for the incredible/incriminating details… When our leaders start play-acting coronations and it’s somehow a joke, I think it’s time for someone else to be put on the stand and questioned.

Now that I think of this, several Judges in the SF area were found in a similar charade.   Poormagazine.com alerted us to this.  Photo is from 2002 AAML (Amer. Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers) gathering, apparently.  It was accompanied by a spoof of the tune to “Camelot,” called “Familawt.”   Compare to “coronation” photo(s)

The Round Table 
Queen Dolores Carr (San Mateo) 
Queen Charlotte Woolard  (SF)
Queen Marjorie Slabach (SF)
King James Mize (Sacramento) King Gary Ichikawa (Solano)King David Haet (Solano)
Queen Beth Freeman (San Mateo) not pictured

Compare:

I’m not against a little light-hearted fun, but given the state of the family law system (and the increasing god-like attitudes found in the Executive Branch overall, towards the rest of the country), this is more than disturbing — perhaps it represents the true regret of some elected leaders and public “servants” (such as the judges/commissioners) that there is no title of royalty available, at least per our founding documents, in this U.S.A., which got its start protesting such abuses of power from England….

There is also a unification connection to an Arizona legislator, (1998 article on “Parents Day”). Sorry I’m not an Arizona resident following their elections, but here’s a 2007 article:

(www.bizjournals.com)  “Arizona state legislator and member of Unification Church weighs bid for US Congress”

The Business Journal of Phoenix — August 29, 2007
by Mike Sunnucks, The Business Journal

State Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, is considering a challenge of freshman Democratic Congressman Harry Mitchell in next year’s elections.

Anderson, who is in his seventh term in the Arizona Legislature, has formed an exploratory committee for a possible run against Mitchell.

Anderson is a Realtor and a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church.  If elected, he would be the only member of Congress to be part of the Unification Church.

The Republican lawmaker cited Congress’ low approval ratings in considering a run.  In the Legislature, Anderson has favored tuition and school tax credits; abstinence education programs; and removing junk food and sodas from public school vending machines.

UNIFICATION CONNECTION:

Given what this particular organization represents, worldwide (criminal enterprises, money laundering, and cult activity), the simple math should tell us:   (1) The Office of Faith-based Initiative comes from Bush by Executive Order, not popular mandate (2) Bush & GOP ties close to Moon & Moon’s money.   (3) Some faith-based groups are just too danged misogynist, and turn a blind eye to wife-beating and molestation.  Some women became single to start with, because they found no way to stop this in their local communities.  Moreover, many faith-based (husband = head of the household) groups also encourage men to control the finances, thereby when they separate, actually CAUSING, rather than SOLVING, additions to the welfare role.

The co-founders of the influential National Fatherhood Initiative include the first appointee to this Office, i.e., Don Eberly.  The other co-founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative is Wade Horn.   Successor (?) Ron Haskins was instrumental in passing the Access/Visitation funding mentioned above.  Combined with the powerful influence of foundational wealth, their social-science, religious-based myths rhetoric is distributed nationwide, and also funded unwittingly

Then come back here.

The HERITAGE FOUNDATION (with Unification church ties….) has its FAMILY & RELIGION page, and objectives, including developing a rhetoric. Yep:

  1. Cultivate an environment in which the permanent institutions of family and religion can flourish and fulfill their role in maintaining ordered liberty in America.
  2. Develop the best research and accompanying rhetoric that will strengthen and unify the current pro-family constituency and win over new target audiences to preserve the institution of traditional marriage and restore the family to its central role.
  3. Unite religious and economic conservatives more effectively around the goal of restoring the family to its central role, both legally and culturally, and reviving religious liberty.
  4. Shape a healthy public discourse that appreciates the historic and continuing significance of religion and moral virtue in American civic life.  {as signified by the pedophile priest scandal, and coverups?}

THEY SAY:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good.** For example, the married family plays an important part in promoting economic opportunity: children raised by never-married mothers are seven times more likely to be poor when compared to children raised in intact married families. Meanwhile, religious institutions and individuals form the backbone of America’s thriving civil society, providing for the welfare of individuals more effectively than government programs. Yet the role of these institutions in maintaining ordered liberty is poorly understood, and policy and social developments have factored in undermining their important contributions.

**Not for young women, and middle-aged women honor-murdered for being too Western, or for divorcing.

**This must be why we have the First Amendment, to enable Congress — naw, let’s just work through other arms of government — to establish a state religion called “marriage and family/fatherhood”  etc….. and facilitated by some of the most misogynist groups around, including faith groups that don’t permit ordination of women, require celibacy for their priests, and believe that Eve is responsible for bringing sin into the world, primarily because she acted independently from Adam in talking to someone besides her husband.

Here’s a sample Abstract of a Heritage Foundation report on Marriage as the cure for poverty:

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

Published on September 16, 2010 by Robert Rector

Abstract: Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware that its principal cause is the absence of married fathers in the home. Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.

The rationale for pushing fatherhood through the child support system is that these engaged fathers will then contribute child support to the home, which would then help reduce poverty.  Seems to me that using kids as child-support bait is not a good idea.   Seems to me that anything that requires THIS MUCH POLICY PUSHING (and rhetoric-production) IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE FOR KIDS.

Has anyone considered the custody-battle factor?  When Moms go for child support, Dads go for custody and have federal help in this.  Perhaps PART of the poverty factor is that both parents are being taken out of the workforce to litigate, but only one of them is getting the federal government on HIS side in the family law venue.   Besides which child support contractors such as Maximus, Inc. (look ’em up!) have been caught in embezzlement, fraud (repeatedly, and in the millions) yet still get multi-million-dollar contracts after paying millions to settle.  I personally think that until we either make a determination to root out fraud from this system — which would have to be consistent, local, diligent, and probably done by mothers and fathers NOT in think-tanks or on the federal (county, or state) “teat,” — we can safely assume that this is where a good deal of the nation’s wealth and GDP is going.   Everyone gets a cut but the actual children….

Look at Maximus, Inc.’s range of services:

Look at one review of this group in TN, and the cases, to date, involving embezzlement & fraud:

Thursday, May 28. 2009

Maximus signs $49M Tennessee child support deal

Your private information may have just gotten more vulnerable in state of Tennessee. In a deal that is qualified as the largest state privatization deal up to this point has been awarded to “Government Health Services Provider Maximus, Inc.” to provide services that the state is paid to provide to its residents under a federally mandated social security program known as Title IV-D. (42 USC 651). The contract details, we are working on, but Maximus, Inc. will be doing the government’s job in locating absent parents, establishing paternity, carrying out support orders and medical support orders, processing interstate cases, and providing customer service. This comes as a surprise because just last month there was a Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested in Tennessee for selling confidential records.

I am in the process of obtaining the government’s documents associated with these contracts, stay tuned for more information. We have some legitimate fears of access to citizen’s private data that have not been found guilty of any crimes being placed in unregulated databases that are accessible by unsavory characters that aim to make a profit with identity theft.
Over the past several years we have noticed a climate ripe for embezzlement, identity theft, invasion of privacy, and more. Just this year the Federal government removed some protections to the taxpayer to stop the continuous growth of these agenciesThe reversal of the tax payer protection policy that was originally implemented under the Budget Deficity Reduction Act of 2005, paves the way for more disastrous consquences for taxpayers.

Just in June 2008, Delaware Child Support Program Employees were caught stealing from taxpayers and the children. Just over a year ago, we demonstrated how Theft was Running Rampid in State Child Support Programs. The widespread lack of accountability in these programs continues, without sufficiently limiting access to private data and ensuring digital fingerprints are placed on all data in the various systems nationwide, there will continue to be fraud on the taxpayers and the participants of Child Support Enforcement programs.

The Child Support Enforcement program continues to be plagued over the past several years of documented fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, bribery schemes, and more.

Here’s a report from Canada complaining that this giant company has already run into problems in 5 US states:

B.C. Contractor Maximus Mishandled Public Funds in U.S.

Liberals, as part of privatizing push, gave a $324 million contract to a firm with a history of controversy in five states. A TYEE SPECIAL REPORT

By Scott Deveau, 3 Dec 2004, TheTyee.ca

In its move to privatize PharmaCare and the Medical Service Plan, the provincial (CANADIAN) government hired a company that was found by the state of Wisconsin to have misappropriated public funds.

The same company, Virginia-based Maximus Ltd.,  has been embroiled in controversies in four other states, involving accusations of mismanagement, overspending or improperly receiving information while seeking a contract. … …

 U.S.-based giant

The company, which is one of the largest providers of outsourced business and information technology to governments, has 280 offices in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and more than 5,000 employees worldwide. It provides a range of services from welfare, educational and judicial programs, to debt collection agencies on student loans and child support.

Bill Berkowitz tracks a lot of conservative funding, and wrote a famous article nailing Bush’s payoffs to certain individuals pushing marriage promotion (Wade Horn, Maggie Gallagher, etc.).  This 2001 report Prospecting Among the Poor:   Welfare Privatization (co. May, 2001, Applied Research Center) summarizes the situation and deals with the Maximus, Inc. group, first, including its troubling practices in Wisconsin:

Discriminatory Practices

The Milwaukee Business Journal reports that, on top of the company’s financial shenanigans, “16 formal gender or racial discrimination complaints have been filed with the Milwaukee office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, against Maximus or one of its subsidiaries. In addition…as many as a dozen internal grievances were filed with the company’s human resources office related to unfair promotion practices.”34

Linda Garcia is an organizer with 9to5, a national nonprofit grassroots organization working to empower women through securing economic justice. Garcia has observed the activities of Maximus first-hand from the front lines in Milwaukee. “The public has not been served well by privatization, “ she says. “The standards of accountability and monitoring have been practically non-existent. We’re not seeing decent services provided to the community or a decrease in poverty or homelessness.” Garcia, who has been working on behalf of the women involved in the discrimination suit against Maximus, believes discriminatory practices “may be widespread” at Maximus’ MaxStaff entity, which seems to be “funneling women to low-paying jobs in order to quickly receive the bonus staff gets for placements.”35

2001 Prospecting Among the Poor- Welfare Privatization~ Berkowitz

The bonus principle cited here exists in virtually any custody battle; in court cases easily become the “kickback” principle, opportunities to overcharge or double-bill, and opportunities to “buy” a decision, especially as the family law system is known for wide discretion given to judges.

In the Access and Visitation grants (and the expanding other grant systems they attract or work alongside, through the child support agency, as in Texas), the presence of (poorly-monitored) federal incentives, multiple nonprofit sub-grantees, and program facilitators with connections to the courts, makes an atmosphere ripe for case-steering when the stakes are, children and child support.

So I recommend scanning this report and considering its implications.  I’m glad that people like Mr. Berkowitz have reported on events that took place while I, and other families, were struggling with their individual cases, and also to survive in their own households.  Excerpts:

INTRODUCTION

Even before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 was signed, sealed, and delivered to the states, the conservative Reason Foundation’s William Eggers and John O’Leary had lauded “aggressive” privatization initiatives in New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Georgia.

New York Governor George Pataki, chair of the Privatization Task Force of the Republican Governors Association, had argued at a meeting of governors that it was time for the immediate repeal of federal barriers to privatization at the state and local levels:

The privatization of welfare was a triumph for many Republican as well as some Democratic governors, and for conservative national and state legislators.

Policy analysts at right-wing think tanks and policy institutes were also elated. In a 1997 speech, Lawrence W. Reed, President of the conservative Midland, Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, touted privatization as the wave of the future:

….

Bernard Picchi, growth stocks analyst for Lehman Brothers, estimated that the potential market (for welfare privatization) could easily be more than $20 billion a year. Others placed the target figure as high as $28 billion, more than 10% of the national expenditure on welfare recipients.15

…CHARITABLE CHOICE:

In addition to unleashing predatory corporate forces, the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 contains the first enactment of a concept conservatives call “charitable choice.” Far from expanding anyone’s choices, “charitable choice” forces state and local governments to include religious organizations in their pool of bidders for service-delivery contracts.

Cathlin Siobhan Baker, Co-Director of The Employment Project, explains although religious organizations have received government funding over the years for emergency food programs, childcare, youth programs, and the like, they were expressly prohibited from religious proselytizing. Baker writes: “Gone are the prohibitions regarding government funding of pervasively sectarian organizations. Churches and other religious congregations that provide welfare services on behalf of the government can display religious symbols, use religious language, and use religious criteria in hiring and firing employees.”50

 …

On January 29, [2001] amidst great fanfare and surrounded by Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious leaders, President George W. Bush signed an executive order cre- ating a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As governor of Texas, Bush has been a strong advocate for charitable choice, supporting the notion that faith-based organizations take over a large part of the provision of a broad array of government services. One of the things the new White House Office will do is help religious groups compete for billions of dollars in government grants.

During the presidential campaign, Bush called for “armies of compassion” fielded by “faith-based organizations, charities and community groups” to help aid America’s poor and needy. In an opinion piece for USA Today, Bush laid out his plan for taking “the next bold step in welfare reform,” proposing $80 billion over 10 years so that faith-based organizations can become “our nation’s most heroic armies of compassion.” He also proposed a $200 million federal initiative to “sup-port community and faith-based groups that fortify marriage and champion the role of fathers.”51 The ceremony at the White House was only Bush’s first step toward fulfilling his campaign promises.

Right-wing ideologues find charitable choice attractive because it not only reduces government involvement in service-delivery but also injects their religious and “moral framework” into the welfare debate. Welfare is no longer a question of poverty or the economic inequities in our society; the debate is framed within such time-honored right-wing moral premises as an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births and the lack of personal responsibility – behaviors that conservatives believe contribute to the general moral breakdown of our society.

Not only has the web changed the workplace, it has most certainly also changed government.  However the policies forced on the poorer population are geared to the industrial economy, a 9 to 5 mentality, a public education mentality, a faith-based mentality.

The welfare concept eliminates and discourages single parents from supporting themselves in creative ways (including through this internet).  Its assumption that poverty has to do mostly with fatherlessness is nonsensical, and dishonest — when many times it may relate instead to a present, and abusive, father.  Failing to distinguish one case from another, and listening primarily to their own rhetoric, social scientists in key positions + political appointees force basic “solutions” on the entire society, and stick society with the bill as well.   It is basically taxation without representation.

The only people escaping this taxation without representation are those profiting from it — who run or own nonprofit businesses, have or benefit from private foundations or wealth — or in some other way have learned to maximize profits, reduce expenses, and make their expenses, including conferences on how to keep the systems going, tax deductions.

These people are not uniformly two-parent income, or even stable-marriage families.  Heck, some (including Presidents & legislators) are not even faithful to their own wives.    So how dare they preach to the rest of us, who are not quite so wealthy, or don’t have backing to get into political office, on our morals and work ethic?

In the “Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs” (links above), on page “271” there is an Appropriations History Table, from 2002 through 2009.  Its simple, (two-column) and speaks volumes.     The costs range from $2+ billion to $4+ billion, and always with an advance of $1billion or so.  ALWAYS the appropriation is higher than budget.

The Philanthropist Roundtable (Reviving Marriage in America, link above) lists these benefits to Marriage.  Are you in agreement with all of them?  If not, do you want your IRS payments to go towards pushing marriage education, (let alone abstinence education for parents), do you want families EXTORTED into high-stakes custody litigation through the child support system, do you really believe that we should have such foundations running our lives through major institutions?

If not, take some time to read the links I’ve provided here, which prompted this piecemeal protest post.   Really these are TAX issues.   Perhaps more of us should focus on establishing foundations and stop working W-2 jobs;; there has to be a better way.  Anyhow, rich conservative foundations declare:

The Benefits of Marriage 


Benefits for Adults

1. Married men and women have lower mortality rates and tend to have better overall health than their single counterparts.

2. Married couples tend to have more material resources, less stress and better social support than people who are not married.

3. Married men are less likely to abuse alcohol.***

[[potential cause of divorce — wife gets tired of living with a chronic alcoholic.  Hence, those who stay married might indeed drink less…]]

4. Both married men and women report significantly lower levels of depression and have better overall psychological well-being than

their single, divorced, widowed and cohabitating counterparts.**

[[Exceptions:  marriages with abuse, or chronic infidelity.  Which definitely is depressing and affects psychological well-being!]]

5. Married African-Americans have better life satisfaction than those who are single.

[[! ! !  How are these people checking out African-American’s “life satisfaction” quotient?   Apparently, it’s important not to have too many angry, dissatisfied African-Americans around. After all, the prisons are already overcrowded, and with US already the largest per-capita jailor on earth, what’s a ruling elite to do if the anger spills over?]]

6. Married men report higher wages than single men and have been found to be more productive and more likely to be promoted.

[[So women should marry and stay married to encourage men to work.  Single working parents, single nonparents should also contribute to the federal marriage movement, because without  marriage, men are simply not as motivated to work.  Potential cause — the wife at home is supporting the guy, or the wife at WORK is supporting the guy.  What about married mother’s wages or likelihood of promotion?  Knowing the high potential for divorce, women should (sure, yeah….) most definitely go for marriage, because it’s good overall for the nation, even if they sacrifice their financial futures post-marriage, ending up eventually on welfare, in court, and fighting for custody of their children with a federally-funded fatherhood mandate run through the child support system?]]

7. Married women tend to have substantially more economic resources than single women. The economic benefits of marriage are especially strong for women who come from disadvantaged families.

[[I really wonder where this statistic comes from…  There are obviously exceptions, some of them in abusive religious marriages, some where, at times, a woman was sought from another country to make some babies for a US resident.]]

Benefits for Children

1. Children from families with married parents are less likely to experience poverty than children from single-parent or cohabitating families.

2. Children born to cohabitating couples have a higher chance of experiencing family instability, a factor that has been linked to poor child well-being.

3. Children from married, two-parent families tend to do better in school than those who grow up in single-parent or alternative family structures.

4. Children from intact, two-parent families are less likely to experience emotional-behavioral problems.

5. The more time children live in a married, two-parent home, the less likely they are to use drugs.

6. Children who grow up in a married, two-parent family are less likely to have children out of wedlock in their future relationships.

7. Women with married parents are less likely to experience a high-conflict marriage.

8. Single mothers report more conflict with their children than married mothers.

[**depending on date of this report, one factor may be this agenda being run through the family law system to start with — as it has been since 1996 at least, which guarantees ongoing court litigation where one parent wants to struggle, and the case was flagged for program funding to help ONE side do this.]

9. The rate of infant mortality is lower among married parents.

10. Children living with their married, biological parents are less likely to experience child abuse.**

[[see note on married men drink less.  Child abuse by either parent is a deal-breaker for most marriages.  And, what about also the ongoing situations where the child experiences abuse on visitations with the noncustodial parent — such cases would fall under “not living with their married biological parents” — but who is the perpetrator?  If someone is willing to abuse a child initially, whether married or single, would life be better if such parents were together, and the abuser had daily access??  This statements imply doesn’t handle many situations.]]

  • What this entire report fails to address is that domestic violence can turn lethal within marriage, or leaving a marriage.
  • Moreover, an on-line “find” (search) in this report of the word “father” (which covers fathers, fatherhood, fathering etc.) shows 23 occurrences.  The corresponding search on “mother,” only 7.  That’s imbalanced, and typical of certain sites sponsored by conservative foundations.

A token reference to the fact that for some, marriage has problems occurs here, in context of the tail end of an inset about marriage education movement.  Notice, no mention is made that some marriages result in death by femicide.  This is virtual denial…..

“Feminist leaders at the time emphasized the dark side of marriage for women whose husbands refused to be equal partners to their working wives and women trapped in abusive relationships. {{note order:  not equal partners, and just a token, vague reference to “abusive” which is then dropped.  Completely:…}}

The mainline Christian  churches emphasized pastoral sensitivity to divorced people and single parents, which seemed inconsistent with proclaiming the unique value of life- long marriage. {{meaning, to be consistent, churches who believe in lifelong marriage should be harsh to divorced people and single parents?  which harshness of course would be inconsistent with the gospel record of their hero, Jesus’, sensitivity, including to a woman caught in adultery, a poor widow, a woman with an issue of blood, and so forth…}}

The conservative Christian churches still preached about life- long marriage but were not organizing programs for couples to help them achieve such relationships.”

OK, so the Bradley Foundation acknowledges there are churches with thoughts about divorce.   But ….

Do we or do we not have other religions in this country?  (But none mentioned here?).  How about Islam — what about Shari’a?    Does marriage promotion apply here also?  Because the Muslim and the Christian/Jewish (let alone agnostic/atheist) concepts of marriage are radically different from each other. Should the US move towards the Shari’a model because marriage is “good” for a nation?   How could any discussion of this topic among conservative foundations just “forget” other major world religions, let alone that First Amendment is intended to protect religious choice — not push one variety of it on all of us through governmental institutions.!

Nonie Darwish at Temple University (April 2011) — these are Youtubes of a presentation, and a following Q&A.  I haven’t viewed them (fresh off a Google search to you), but have read at least one of her books:

Nonie Darwish:  Shari’a Law & America at Temple University

Q&A to the above presentation

This is another reason why the US should NOT allow religious groups to be grabbing federal funds to collect child support and promote fatherhood.  What if the group favors shari’a law, which goes like this:

Shari’a, that is Muslim law, controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the Western  World (including America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shari’a Law under which wives can not obtain a divorce and men have full and complete control of their children.  It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and other parts of the Western world are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shari’a law.

By publicizing the information below, I hope to help enlightened American and other women avoid becoming slaves under Shari’a Law:
1. In the Muslim faith, a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old, consummating the marriage by 9. 
2. A dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman who becomes a slave. 
3. Even though a woman is abused she cannot obtain a divorce. 
4. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses. 
5. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry.  The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family. 
6. Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and do not have to say why the beating occurred. 
7. A husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for a limited period at his discretion. 

The goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shari’a law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two.  If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual.  Islamic law (Shari’a) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one’s children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics – one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others..

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with G-d, Shari’a advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

This woman should know — and has earned the right to speak on it.   The blurb:

“Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza  before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza.  When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society.  But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing and later abandoned Islam.” (For Christianity, incidentally).

What about a woman who has escaped a violent marriage, and may wish to partake, for once, in a better one — but because of the family law system, is doomed to struggling with custody until all kids turn 18?   Should she suffer, should the next potential partner suffer alongside, because some people believe that the problem with this country is out-of-wedlock fertility, unhappy AFrican American couples (read the list!) and of course the cause of child abuse and poverty is fatherlessness – not failure to prosecute child abusers properly, or economic policies that exploit wage-earners and outsource child support collections to corporations like Maximus, Inc., famous for fraud, gender discrimination, embezzlement, and poor performance?

We do not need cults (Unification Church), Crooks, or Misogynist Faith Institutions running the child support system as if there was a war on fatherhood by virtue of women having gained some options in the mid to late 1900s, including to vote, and an uphill fight that was.

We do not need another caste system — or royalty — created through welfare policies based on myths, which then undermine the primary documents on which our country has been founded by trying to tip the court favor towards fathers based on a job-based workforce system and inferior educational system.

As Berkowitz wrote in 2001 (above), Welfare Privatization is a cash cow, a big one, and Charitable Choice may fall hard on women overall, given how many religious groups already do.   Those in the (expanding) bureaucracy get to inhabit lofty positions writing about the poor while those poor often live lives at risk from their partners, their neighborhoods, and the myth that the legal system exists for them — and not for those running it.

OCSE – TANF – FATHERHOOD PROMOTION, MARRIAGE PROMOTION — PRIVATE CONTRACTORS CAUGHT IN EMBEZZLEMENT AND FRAUD — GOP PRESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL MONEY-LAUNDERING, CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE (the Unification Church) & CULT — and PRIVATE WEALTH (whether honestly or dishonestly gotten) RUNNING AND RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, LOWER (EARLY CHILDHOOD) EDUCATION, AND SO ON.

Let’s begin with this Eliminating this Child Support System — which garnishes wages and has the power to put a man or a woman in jail, or homeless, if they don’t pay up, farms out collections to companies known for gender, race discrimination, fraud, embezzlement, and poor performances (Maximus), selling private information and in general tearing up the lives of innocent people (but still getting multi-illion$ contracts).  While its federal fatherhood focus is indeed sexist, it is also  equipped to turn on EITHER gender, depending on the case, and get away with it.  Which, while the original concept was — child support — the “evolution” of it is becoming more and more like an episode of “Aliens” only more frightening.

Which is just too big and too entrenched.

Sounds like a good idea, on the surface:  I briefly took welfare (food stamps) and the county went for the father to pay themselves back.  They could be the “bad guy” in the situation, protecting me.  But in practice, I see, they’ve had a makeover, and are more interested in being the nice guy (and enrolling men in fatherhood programs, access visitation programs, etc.).

I thought it was a great transitional idea immediately after marriage to have someone besides myself (for a change) asking the father of my children to pull his own weight, like I was, and to do so without in-home assault & battery privileges.  We got a child support order when I got welfare help (rather than ask him for help myself).   Not having the operational structure laid out in front of me, I thought that my getting OFF the system would be the end of the story, and they could go their way, and I mine, end of acquaintance. What did I know about the federal incentives, or how the interest income — of pooled, undistributed collections — was a real low-hanging fruit for the operation, and by withdrawing

Not so, not with all these grant programs and federal incentives flying around the place; not when within my own state, the same jurisdiction that basically spawned the family law industry was caught with its pants down, sitting on millions of collected child support (and its interest) until one father and one attorney caught them at this (John Silva, Richard Fine).    

SO, LET’s ELIMINATE — OR AT LEAST BOYCOTT — THE ENTIRE AGENCY.  HELP YOUR NEIGHBORS NOT NEED CHILD SUPPORT.    KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IN ADVANCE.  WARN MOTHERS LEAVING VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS.   AND TELL YOUR LOCAL LEGISLATOR (FIND OUT IN ADVANCE IF HE OR SHE IS ON A “NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE” LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE — MANY ARE…) THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!  If a program takes over $4 BILLION just to enforce, and is still resulting in increased welfare loads, is not well-tracked, and has already been caught in repeated scandals — then it’s simply not worth the investment.

Mothers of minor children can only do so much, but one thing we can do is boycott (boycott seeking child support if you can.  Or marriage — or sex (believe me, it’s been discussed in some groups I know) — or the family law system.  You might get dragged in, but don’t go voluntarily — and publicize — put the warning labels out on blogs — they won’t reach mainstream media — and encourage them to find another way to live; there has to be one.

Decent Single Mothers AND Decent single Fathers AND decent non-parents (single or married) should figure out what we have in common, start asking hard questions about this OCSE agency and how it spends its funds.  Meanwhile, we should work TOGETHER (unilaterally) to boycott it until it gets the message we are serious.

Most will not, or cannot, because their lives are already so entwined in and dependent upon this system, whether for work, for their kids’ school, or they are simply already employed by the huge bureaucracy.  Or, their free time weekends is soaked up volunteering at the local faith-based organization…

FOUNDATIONS AND WELFARE POLICY:

Foundation after Foundation are writing the policy, through government institutions….  When one considers what foundations are, to start with, tax-exempt, one wonders about the arrangement.  The Lynde and Larry Bradley Foundation (who published the “Marriage Guidebook — strategy for donors” I linked to, above) also is sponsoring another welfare think-tank in Wisconsin, with the “same old” players included that re-wrote welfare to include more Dads.   Hmm.  Wasn’t Wisconsin having LOTS of fiscal/political problems recently?

During the conference, an eclectic group of national thinkers will address the intersection between welfare policy and issues such as:  parental involvement, especially fatherhood; {{now WHY doesn’t that surprise me?}} child well-being; marriage and divorce; family living arrangements; and non-marital sex, pregnancy, and child birth.  Attendees will gain a better understanding of what the state of Wisconsin — and the nation as a whole — can (and can’t) do to build a welfare policy that has strong, stable families at its center.
The discussions will be moderated by former White House and Congressional welfare-policy advisor Ron Haskins of theBrookings Institution in Washington, D.C.  The luncheon speaker will beWade F. Horn, a former Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee substantially supports WPRI.
This is hardly an “eclectic” group.  Where are the feminists, where are the representatives from people affected by these policies?   Where are the atheists who believe in separation of church and state?  However the phrase “group of national thinker” (what is a “national thinker”? someone who wants to run the nation???) reminds me of the National Fatherhood Initiative self-description as having been founded by a “few prominent thinkers” (egotism, much?)…..
Presenters:
  • RON HASKINS — INSTRUMENTAL IN TACKING THE “ACCESS AND VISITATION” LANGUAGE ONTO WELFARE REFORM AT THE 9TH HOUR…
  • WADE HORN — CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (PRIVATE NONPROFIT WITH HHS)
ALSO GOING TO BE PRESENTING:  DAVID BLANKENHORN:
  • “David Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan organization devoted to strengthening families and civil society in the U.S. and around the world. Blankenhorn is the author of several books, is a frequent lecturer, and has been featured on numerous national television programs.”
{{another Bush appointee, per Wikipedia:  “In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Blankenhorn to serve on the National Commission on America’s Urban Families.[4][2][5] Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonpartisan organization focused on responsible fatherhood, in 1994.“}} Blankenhorn is anti-gay, but not anti-polygamy, it seems……
%d bloggers like this: