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 ‘men’s rights

While you were sleeping: How Congress got into the Family Law business…

with 3 comments

2016 BLOGGER UPDATE on this December 5, 2009 post:

In an April 3, 2016 post, I searched for documentation on the history of the Access and Visitation grants back in the 1980s, as part of a time-line of the domestic violence industry. These grants are STILL discussed so infrequently, in general, that my own 12/5/2009 “While you were sleeping” post here (as quoted by “Fearless Fathers” 3 days later) was one of the search results.

That post title and the two short links on it posted as far back as December 2009 (within one year of when I began blogging) and found when I didn’t even have access to a normal laptop, almost “says it all.”

I briefly cleaned up formatting in this older (now over five years old) post, added borders and some background color plus lines around quotes (which I didn’t know how to do at the time), and below that will copy, in different background-color, the text on the same subject matter from 2016 post, “Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so-called) Cartel? It’s Show-and-Tell Time.” That was my 15th post of 2016 — see the Table of Contents here.


It took me longer than a few months (a few years) to put together, from the timeline of major domestic violence prevention groups, that most of them probably knew all along about the influence of the HHS-sponsored (at the time, HEW-sponsored, as HHS only came into being 1990, but some key DV groups were formed in 1980 (“Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” in Duluth, MN), 1989 (“Futures without Violence”), or earlier) strategically positioned ACCESS and VISITATION GRANTS  of first $4M (1988 dollars) then $10M (1996 dollars)/year and MARRIAGE/FATHERHOOD, about 15 times larger annual appropriations than the A/V.

These domestic violence nonprofits at the leadership level did not inform their “clients,” typically battered and abused women with or without children, about the Access and Visitation grants those clients who were MOTHERS would be up against, by virtue of their not being fathers, and by virtue, as it applied, of their having custody of the children and there even being a (male) “Noncustodial” parent. It was social public welfare policy!

This old post stands as a simple testimony that IF certain information is available, other parts of major systems start to make sense, and if it is not, they simply do not. Therefore, in my opinion, one of the larger “crimes” in responding to domestic violence, and evidence itself of an abusive approach to the target population being helped, is to withhold timely information which, if NOT withheld, might lead to a different strategic decision on the part of that individual parent. For example, SOME individual parents may decide whether or not to go up against the largest grant-making federal agency around in seeking to protect their children and do it by way of the family courts.

I found this on-line yesterday [12/4/2009], it appears to date to JUNE 2000.

Congressional Research Service

Report 97-590

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?

Carmen D. Solomon-Fears, Education and Public Welfare Division

Updated June 20, 2000


Found at this link: http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/97-590.pdf

Abstract.

From time to time, the issue arises of whether the federal Child Support Enforcement (CSE)program should be actively involved in enforcing visitation rights. Both federal and state policymakers agree that denial of visitation rights should not be considered a reason for stopping child support payments.

AVAILABLE HERE — and I’m going to add it to my bloglinks.  It’s ONLY 7 pages long, and provides a summary background of HOW the Federal Government got to be “in the family way.”  The rationale was TANF/Welfare.  That was the chink in the door.

The question arises, in my mind at least — what major institutions and practices in this nation are creating the welfare population to start with?  The 2 largest areas of expenditure in the government are two agencies:  1.  Health and Human Service, and 2.  Education.  The others, are smaller.  Go to at least usaspending.gov and look at the pie chart, and take a look.  Why are the courts and the child support agencies in the business of education, at which the educational system is already failing, clearly?

 

http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/97-590.pdf

Recommended reading for the uninitiated, for example:

Is the Federal Government Becoming Too Intrusive in Family Law Policy?

[[Ya-THINK?  Just perhaps MAYBE?  This shows the rationale…]]

 

Congress does not have general authority to pass laws dealing with family law issues, unless there is a connection or “nexus” between such legislation and one of the areas in which it is authorized to act. In the case of the CSE program, the federal nexus is the …

H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999, would provide $140 million in grants over four years to public and private entities to achieve three purposes: (1) promote marriage, (2) promote successful parenting, and (3) help noncustodial parent improve their economic status. H.R. 3073 was passed by the House on November 10, 1999, but has not been acted on by the Senate.
Read the rest of this entry »

Oconomowoc, not Oconto, Wisconsin. Quiz for my readers…

with 2 comments

OK, skim through the articles below — I did.  And here are a few questions.

(1) Was this a “family” matter?  If so, how many states (and countries) are involved, to date?

(2) The little boy involved was 4 years old (and now his Mom is dead and father in jail, on $2 million bail).  He was in a fatherless home. To correct this situation, his father (allegedly) hired someone ELSE to kill her so he could get custody (since the courts weren’t about to fork over the kid),  solving the “noncustodial parent” issue, and so forth. 

My question is, whose mug shot isn’t up here? 

Three arrested in Smith murder

Posted: Nov. 19, 2009 

Justin Patrick Welch, suspected of killing Kimberly Smith of Oconomowoc in October, was taken into custody at 2:30 p.m. Wednesday by Mexican authorities as he tried to cross the border into California. Authorities were notified because he was driving a stolen Jeep Patriot.
Also taken into custody yesterday at the Mexican border, at 1:10 p.m., was  Jack E. Johnson, 65.  He formerly resided in Waukesha and has close ties to Darren Wold, who was also arrested last night at his residence in Texas without incident. Wold is the father of Smith’s 4-year-old son Jackson.
Johnson and Welch are being held in the San Diego County Jail on $2 million bail. Johnson is being held for party to first-degree intentional homicide, Welch for first-degree intentional homicide. Wold is being held in Lubbock, Texas, also on $2 million bail on the charge of party to first-degree intentional homicide.
Police say it appears at this time that Wold conspired with his lifelong friend Johnson to have Smith murdered in an attempt to get custody of their son.
All three are awaiting extradition to Wisconsin.

(1)

3 arrested in Oconomowoc slaying; plot to gain child’s custody alleged By Mike Johnson of the Journal Sentinel Updated: Nov. 19, 2009 1:31 p.m.

Waukesha — Kimberly Smith was murdered in her Oconomowoc home Oct. 1 as part of a plot for her ex-boyfriend to get custody of their 4-year-old son, authorities said Thursday in announcing the arrests of the ex-boyfriend and two other men on homicide charges. Darren Wold, 41, the ex-boyfriend, is accused of conspiring with a longtime friend, Jack E. Johnson, 65, formerly of Waukesha, to kill Smith, and Justin Patrick Welch, 26, of French Camp, Calif., is accused of traveling to Wisconsin and stabbing her to death, Chief David Beguhn said during a news conference at the Waukesha County Sheriff’s Department. Authorities on Oct. 27 had identified Welch as a suspect in the homicide after his DNA was found on a knife and latex/vinyl-type gloves recovered in a sewer drain near Smith’s home in the 300 block of S. Maple St., according to court records. An arrest warrant was issued for Welch that charged him with first-degree intentional homicide. At the time, police said Welch might be driving a Jeep Patriot that was reported stolen in California. Investigators launched a nationwide manhunt for Welch, and through their investigation, connected him to Johnson, of Obrero Rosarito, Mexico, Beguhn said. Authorities placed an alert with U.S. Customs and Border Protection asking that they be notified if Johnson attempted to cross the border. Johnson was taken into custody about 1:10 p.m. Wednesday as he attempted to enter the United States. About 2:30 p.m. Wednesday, Welch was arrested by Mexican authorities after a brief vehicle pursuit near Rosarito, Mexico. Police were attempting to stop the Patriot because it was stolen, Beguhn said. Welch was turned over to U.S. authorities. Both Welch and Johnson are being held in the San Diego (Calif.) County Jail. Johnson is charged with party to first-degree intentional homicide. Wold was arrested Wednesday night at his Lubbock, Texas, home. He is being held in jail there on a charge of party to first-degree intentional homicide. All three men are being held on $2 million bail. Smith, 39, was found dead about 9:30 a.m. Oct. 1 in her home in the 300 block of S. Maple St. Her hands were bound and she had been stabbed a number of times, court records state. Her 4-year-old son, Jackson, was home at the time of the slaying but did not witness the killing. Smith’s current boyfriend, who lived with her and Jackson, found Smith’s body in the living room and called 911. The boyfriend said he had left for work about 6 a.m. and returned after learning that Smith didn’t show up at her job, according to Beguhn. Welch’s ties to Wisconsin are not known, and investigators do not know if Smith knew him. Smith’s relatives told investigators that they do not know Welch.

(2)

Oconomowoc investigators get break in murder of Kimberly Smith

Bob Moore FOX 6 Reporter

October 27, 2009

WITI-TV, MILWAUKEE – Oconomowoc investigators get their first and only break in in the murder of Kimberly Smith. Smith was found dead on October 1st. Tuesday morning, a Waukesha County judge issued an arrest warrant for a California man, Justin Welch.

Police collected evidence from an Oconomowoc home on the morning of October 1st. Last Friday, a DNA analysis of several items matched the DNA of 26-year-old Justin Welch.

Welch is now the focus of a nationwide manhunt. The Waukesha County arrest warrant is for first degree intentional homicide. He’s suspected of killing Kim Smith. Welch is wanted in California on a felony, no-bail warrant for a parole violation.

Police are now trying to determine the connection between Welch and Wisconsin. They suspect Welch and Smith may have connected on the internet.

If you have any information about where authorities might fight Welch, you’re urged to call the Oconomowoc Police at 262-567-4401 or the Waukesha Co. Sheriff’s Dept. at 262-446-5070.

(3)

Kim Smith remembered for big smile, thoughtfulness

Oconomowoc murder victim identified

By Katherine Michalets and Jeff Rumage Freeman Staff

Oct 3, 2009

. . .

According to a news release, Smith was found dead in the living room of her residence at 334 S. Maple St. The police department was notified by dispatch at 9:32 a.m., and officers and rescue personnel arrived on the scene within two minutes. 


    Oconomowoc Police Chief David Beguhn said the boyfriend that she lived with left for work at 6 a.m. When he called her at the Waukesha County Department of Health and Human Services where she works, he was told she had not come in, so he returned home to find her dead body, Beguhn said.
 

    Police believe the murder took place sometime between 6:30 a.m. and 9:30 a.m.

    Smith was also living with her son, who was unharmed by the event. After the murder, the young boy underwent a forensic interview at a specialty care center in Waukesha. Based on those interviews, it did not appear the young boy witnessed the event, Beguhn said. The boy is staying with his grandmother, he said.

    Online court records show Smith was involved in a yearlong custody battle with the father of the boy. Beguhn said police contacted the man Thursday, and he was in Texas, where he lives.

Police File Four Sealed Search Warrants In Oconomowoc Homicide Case

No Arrests Have Been Made

POSTED: 6:50 pm CDT October 6, 2009
UPDATED: 10:47 am CDT October 7, 2009

etc.

QUIZ:

  • These are the ages involved:

26, 4, 65, 41, 39

  • These are the geographies (state/country):

Wisconsin, California, Texas, Mexico

  • These are the last names, not including the boy:  Welch, Wold, Johnson, Smith, Beguhn

Question1:  Who’s who?

Match age to state to last name — quick now…  can you keep them straight?

Question 2: How many generations, so far, has this one event affected?

(answer — apparently, four.  youngster, 20 yr old, 40yr olds, 65 yr old.)

Question 3:

  • Did anyone (article) mention domestic violence yet?  Want to place a bet whether there was or was not such a criminal record?  (I’m thinking, probably not).  Would a restraining order have helped her somehow?  Was she aware of her danger (lethality assessments)?    (Note:  3rd party involved, bound hand and feet, she maybe didn’t have her first cup of coffee or get out the door to work yet).  Was she in an  unsafe place?  YES:  Her home, after a custody battle.

Question(s) 4: 

  • What was Dad doing in Texas?  Did having Dad in Texas make anyone safer?

Question(s) 5ff:

  • Did fast response by police, or a live-in boyfriend make her any safer?  No, she’s dead.  But his fast response helped probably catch the killer.
  • Did her expertise in Health &Human Services make her any more alert to the danger?  (Apparently not).

Finally:

Do I have time to analyze this one? 

Answer:  no.

Instinctive response  (no wrong answer):

What word comes to your mind in regards this case?  Summarize/label it…. Answer must be in 3 words or less.

You know what word comes to mine?  In light of the:  Wisconsin/California/Texas/Mexico connection, plus a 4 year old boy and willingness to KILL to get custody….  what a dedicated father. . . .

Child-trafficking.  But maybe that’s just me.

Sure, it’d have been better if they’d had a better marriage, or married, or stayed married.  But suppose there had been a mismatch, and there had been violence — should she have kept herself and her son around for more?

What about that shared parenting theme?  Wasn’t Dad interested, or wasn’t he allowed?  It’s dangerous pissing off a Dad these days, apparently….  Maybe that’s part of the formula with this fatherlessness thing.  It’s countercultural, it’s not accepted culturally, and that can get REAL sticky with cultures (or religions) that place themselves above the law.  Or individuals.

 

Here’s another excerpt from (I think) first article link, above.  Catch the drift?

Long-running dispute

Smith was entangled in a custody dispute with Wold, and the proceedings were favoring her.

Question:  Which one of my posts handles the hazards of actually winning in court? 

Court records show that Smith and Wold, who previously lived together in Germantown and in Pennsylvania, have been fighting for more than two years in Washington County Circuit Court over custody of the boy.

As these things can go, that ain’t ‘squat.’  Look at the Oconto County, WI case.  There are ways to keep it going, and going, and going. . . .

In July, Wold was ordered to spend 60 days in jail after being held in contempt of court, but the jail time was to be imposed only if he failed to follow certain conditions for a year, records show.

He had lied about where he was living and failed to make court-ordered payments.

LYING, in court especially, about where one is living is a character indicator.  Courts ought to wake up.  Guess this was a family court…

QUICK now, before you’ve thought about this, one there are others.  I can’t keep up, myself…

Give us your huddled masses, your underage daughters: Oconto Co Wisconsin locks up Lorraine, . . .

with 5 comments

Earlier, I (and colleagues — see those buttons on my blogroll!) posted  on the 30-plus individuals involved in ONE mother reporting sexual molestation (and more) of her little girl in Wisconsin,  after CPS workers in 2 counties confirmed it. 

As reported Oct. 17th (DV awareness month, much?) on another blog (calling her a “teen” daughter was inaccurate.  Though the abuse started earlier, my understanding is, she is 11).  You should click on this link also — someone’s comment (wife of a police officer) is relating another account.

Wisconsin Mom Lorraine Tipton (Oconto County) is under fire because her teen daughter refuses to go on visitation with her abuser father, who makes her sleep on the floor and drives with her drunk in the car.  The father, Craig Hensberger, managed to convince the father’s rights judge, Judge David Miron, in power there, to threaten Lorraine with jail if her daughter does not go.  Her daughter was in the emergency room this past Thursday night, sick and frantic, and is currently home with her mom, medicated and scared.  The abuser’s mommy has not picked her up as she threatened to do.  So Lorraine faces jail on Monday.  Please say a prayer for her. 

Here’s a StopFamilyViolence release on it at “RandiJames.com”  File it under “a Thanksgiving to remember…”  I guess…

Daughter Won’t Visit Father? Jail Mommy!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 19, 2009

Contact:
Irene Weiser
Stop Family Violence
iw@stopfamilyviolence.org

WHY IS THIS MOTHER IN JAIL?

(Oconto Falls, WI) Today an Oconto County family court judge sentenced a mother to jail because she was unable to force her daughter to court mandated visitation with her abusive father. The daughter will be sent to foster care if she refuses to live with her father while the mother serves her sentence.
Circuit Judge David Miron sentenced Lorraine Tipton to 30 days in county jail for contempt of court, for her failure to follow the custody order requiring her daughter to live every other week with her father, Craig Hensberger.

 

NOTE:  Anyone see this work in reverse, father jailed for refusing visitation to mother?  If so, let me know — it’s my situation.  I miss my (daughters) too!  And if I file for a contempt (further upsetting someone) knowing the courts or enforcement will do nothing, leaving an angry male on the loose.  Same deal with “certifiably insane restraining orders.”  But there’s not a single qualm about restraining protective mothers.  Fork them little girls over, we want a fresh supply of young flesh, plus that adrenaline rush that comes from dominating a woman,  for those who feel entitled, or have become addicted to this need.

These are country-wide, generational nightmares.  When’s the wakeup call?  What will it take to stop it?

 

She’s terrified of going; she has night terrors and severe anxiety” says Tipton, who admits her daughter hasn’t visited with her father since August.
“I thought the court was supposed to look out for the best interests of the child, not the best interest of the father,” Tipton continued. “I thought once I got out of the abusive relationship everything would be fine. Instead, my abuser is continuing his abuse of me and my daughter with the help of the court.”

Over the course of their on and off 8 year relationship Hensberger was arrested three times for domestic violence and once for child abuse. Since their separation in 2005, Hensberger has been arrested twice for DWI, including once while the daughter was in the car.

Although the court has ordered Hensberger into alcohol treatment and ordered “absolute sobriety” when having visitation, the daughter claims he continues to drink to excess when she is visiting. The father told the court he had stopped drinking completely. The mother recently had a private investigator follow the father, who found that the father drank heavily on a night he was scheduled to have visitation. In court today the father admitted to his continued drinking; nonetheless the judge still sentenced the mother to jail.

 

Clearly this judge marches to the beat of a different drummer, or is it $$?  One wonders…



Hensberger achieved his local 15 minutes of fame in Oconto in March of this year, when he forced his daughter to enter 3 different fishing tournaments using the same fish so that he could collect the money – a story covered widely by local news. While the local media angle related to his transportation of fish against DNR regulations, Ms. Tipton’s concerns were for the well-being of her daughter, who was being taught to lie, cheat and steal by her father. Since this incident, the daughter’s relationship with the father has deteriorated, Tipton claims.
Additionally, the father’s employment is irregular, his house is in foreclosure and he currently resides with his mother. The daughter claims she is forced to sleep on the floor in the living room or in the unfinished basement since there is no bed or private space for her in the small 2 bedroom house.

“Sadly, this case typifies the problems we are seeing in Family Courts nationwide,” says Irene Weiser, executive director of StopFamilyViolence. org. “Family court judges are failing to recognize signs of abuse, and are placing children in harms way. {{I DISAGREE.  THEY SEE IT, BUT CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.  The KEY TO THIS PROBLEM IS WHAT ARE THESE JUDGES PAYING GREATER HEED TO THAN THEIR JUDICIAL MANDATE HERE?}}  Even worse, instead of investigating the abuse allegations, they accuse the parent making the allegations of being vindictive and punish them for taking actions to protect their children. Often judges seem more concerned with maintaining the child’s relationship with the father than ensuring the child’s safety.”

 

Apparently this mother is now out of jail, and her daughter is back in a different kind of jail sentence, and we will just have to figure out how to grow up around all this.  And the reporters will continue wondering why we have so much rape, violence, and substance abuse, let alone, mental health problems in our country.  Gee, let’s take a wild, educated, guess…

Again, folks, this is not anomaly, some aberration, some weird exception in upstate (or wherever) Midwestern Dairy State (?) .  No, this is the pattern, this is the intent, and this is the practice in the family courts.  You are watching it.  Watch your headlines….

At the risk of hammering in this point of HOW it happens, and why (i.e., pointing to probable cause, not just effects), here’s an excerpt from the NAFCJ.net website as to this practice. 

Further down on this link the “Center for Policy Research” group is mentioned.  Check it out — it’s a key player, and sets a pattern for similar groups…

Meanwhile, I am saying my prayers for the Tipton family (and mine).

Child Support role is often a key factor.  Don’t know if it was this time, but t ypically it is.  A broke Mom can’t stick up so well for her rights. 

ANYTHING below this line is a quote from that NAFCJ site, though not so formatted, which ends my post today. 

One reason I understand this pattern to make sense is watching the pattern of abuse, individually, between the family of origin and my ex, and the role of finances, etc., develop over the years, and a progression to the careful vocabulary / jargon used to justify it. 

There is most definitely a system to the chaos. In fact, chaos is the desired status, from what I can see.  (See also Naomi Klein, “The Shock Doctrine,” referring to continental lockdown, etc.)  When people, or a nation, is in shock, it is vulnerable to dictatorship.  That’s why we must FIGHT LIKE HELL for Constitutional rights for all citizens:  male/female, young or old.  This is a language issue, and then practicing what the Constitution says, eliminating something else in one’s life, and forcing legislators, judges, attorneys, and lawyers to practice what they swore an oath to.  It requires checking public records and trying to stop kickbacks, racketeering, double-dipping, and so forth.  This is the price of freedom — vigilance.  And yes, it matters, if it’s not your immediate neighbor!

—————————————————————————

Read about Meyer Elkin’s  role in the AFCC is discussed  toward the bottom of their site  AFCC: History page  .  
Completely omitted from this AFCC history is the very relevant fact that Meyer Elkin also co-founded in 1985, the leading fathers rights group – Children’s Rights Council.  Study these people and their site carefully because it is the “blueprint” of how the courts are organized to rig cases for their paid-up allies.  Nobody has to slip an envelope full of cash into the pocket of a co-conspirators to rig court cases for these people.  It is all done for them by the government.  They get their bribes paid for them !

The  AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children’s Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy  in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people.  While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters,  which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them.  Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants – people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell.  CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999..  Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself.  He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC.  He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agencyThis perversion of  OCSE’s  agency’s original legislative mission continues to-date.  This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can’t collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay.   Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.

The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a “clearinghouse” for organized case rigging.  They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard GardnerTheir  scheme involves “recruiting” male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program “services” which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations

{{COMMENT: This has absolutely been my experience, and the Center for Policy Research link, and many others, tend to verify it.  I pressed for child support, my kids were STOLEN, and this was rubberstamped.  Have barely seen them for dust since….}}

Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant [“litigate”] for custody.  The judge hearing these cases proves [“provides”?] payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly “neutral” court evaluators.   None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing).. 

The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments.  {{GOT THAT??}} It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples.  This is what keeps their litigation game going and going.  They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud.  The blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).

Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases.  However, this doesn’t stop the crooked  AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child’s attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling.  Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC – fathers rights group – usually on the subject of Parental Alienation – which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.

{{NOTE:  Like other organizations (me talking, again), AFCC may have some fine members.  I know some.  However, like our educational system, this system’s history and intent of the organization stands, and I stand by the above summary of it.}}

Other people on AFCC’s Board of Directors are many people closely associated with the Children’s Rights Council.  Their  favorite researcher  —  Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. — was a recipient of a $10M federal grant.  Braver,  found, astoundingly, as a result of his study that after divorce, women do as well financially as men!   Bradford and many other purported “neutral” expert evaluators all work in concert behind the scenes to issue rubber-stamp anti-woman, pro-abusive father evaluations for the primary intent of deliberately covering up for abusive fathers (as a protection racket fueled by federal program graft).  

Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE.  Pearson/AFCC have been using their influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS.  She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government programs. 

 

The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their “latest” practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation.  Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father.  Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problem and unfit to be around her children.  Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing – is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies
 
{{GOt those 3 avenues?  Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, Child Support arrears.  She protests, on behalf of the kids, she loses contact with them.  More business for the court.  Alternately, for a supervised visitation center, another “racket” as far as I am concerned.  LetsGetHonest speaking in that regard, not everyone agrees with me on that.  Jack Straton, Ph.D. and a few others seem to have already, though…”What’s Fair for Children of Abusive Men?”}}
 
This tactic actually works well for them, because so many people are inclined to believe that women can’t take the pressure of martial break-up they “go-crazy”, imagine or even fabricate problems in their attempt to “get-back’ at him.  These tactics are effective against even professional and prominent women.  The commonly heard “bitter custody dispute”  really means: “crazy lying accusatory woman” who drives the man to violence out of shear frustration (lets call this the Alec Baldwin excuse)

{{YOU WANT TO HELP KIDS?  TRACK THEM THAR FUNDS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT….}}

###

Left from previous news release above…
StopFamilyViolence. org is a national activist organization that works to ensure safety, justice, accountability and healing for victims of family violence. Irene Weiser coordinates the Family Court Reform Coalition, a coalition of advocates, professionals and organizations formed in response to the national crisis in the custody court system, where all too often, judge’s order children to live with abusers and punish, silence, or jail the parent who tries to protect the children from harm.

Irene Weiser
Executive Director
StopFamilyViolence.org
331 W. 57th St #518
New York, NY 10019
iw@stopfamilyviolence.org 

 

OK, my commentary again.  See next post (11-17-09) for next installment in this fiasco (or, business as usual, depending on one’s perspective)….

This mother eventually DID go to jail for failing to force her underaged daughter to allow her father to force himself on her, drive drunk, and other forms of child abuse.  What a few judges with an agenda can do in a system that allows this . . . .  We were pissed off, appropriately.  I’m tired of that!  This mother was sentenced to jail, in 30-day stints, until her girl went back for more of the same (as I heard it). 

When the girl caved in, her mother was released.  This story is still unfolding. 

USA, folks, this is not Guantanamo, this is motherhood, USA.  And she wasn’t even a single parent, this time.  How’d you like to marry into that situation? 

Unjustice and abuse affects EVERYONE….

It affects the next generation, assuming they live that long. 

Over the past decade or so, researchers at McGill University in Montreal, led by Michael Meaney, have shown that affectionate mothering alters the expression of genes in animals, allowing them to dampen their physiological response to stress. These biological buffers are then passed on to the next generation: rodents and nonhuman primates biologically primed to handle stress tend to be more nurturing to their own offspring, Dr. Meaney and other researchers have found.

Now, for the first time, they have direct evidence that the same system is at work in humans. In a study of people who committed suicide published Sunday in the journal Nature Neuroscience, researchers in Montreal report that people who were abused or neglected as children showed genetic alterations that likely made them more biologically sensitive to stress.

[After Abuse, Changes in the Brain by BENEDICT CAREY

StopFamilyViolence.org, Feb. 23, 2009]

 

Analyze This: Wichita Woes — What happened after 911? (1st time, 2nd time).

with 2 comments

I rest my case on “certifiably insane protection orders”. . . . 

 

This article is a quiz (answers below).  Do this:

A.  Put events in order.  

B.  What piece of the puzzle doesn’t “fit” and which pieces are missing?

C.  Keeping this within Kansas, bring this case history  to Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau, recently found sponsoring (yet another) Fatherhood act of some sort in Kansas and ask for commentary.  Request permission to record, and share on youtube with the rest of us, why a man like this needed to be within cutting/shooting range of his 21 month old daughter.  (Because if he didn’t get this, someone was going to pay, bad?).  And how the (decade-plus) of prior fatherhood initiatives may or may not have contributed to this young man’s sense that after punching XXX officers and threatening to slit the throat of his wife, for calling for help, society still owed him something…

D.  Rewrite the headline, more appropriately reflecting the crucial issues in the case.

And then Alternately

E-1.  Pray to the tooth fairy that this isn’t you or anyone you know and/or recite after me:

E-2.  “it spiraled out of control.  We had no idea.  It spiraled out of control.  The real social crisis of our time is fatherlessness, not lawlessness.  It wasn’t his fault.  It wasn’t her fault.  It wasn’t anyone’s fault.  Nevertheless, the Feds + faith-based + local agencies will fix this situation.  We WILL eradicate violence against women and murder by men if we JUST try harder, train more professionals, and dump some dollars in that direction.  We WILL, right??”


The children are our future.  Now, Where’s that Valium?

Kansas.com


Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past

. . . (and they married WHY???)

Comments (0) 

BY TIM POTTER

The Wichita Eagle

The 27-year-old man accused this week of ambushing a Sedgwick County sheriff’s deputy had a history of violence against his ex-wife — and against officers.

{{For why the word “had” is used, see 2nd article, below}}

 

In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said.

Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

He was released on parole on March 2, 2007. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.

Lyons had arrived and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.

She reported that they argued and that after she called 911, Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.

“Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.

On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.

When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.

At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Although prosecutors also initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer, those two charges were dismissed after he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault, records show.

His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.

In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Etheridge was responding to a 911 call from the South Rock Road residence, reporting a theft — a report authorities now think was concocted.

In Lyons’ 2005 divorce case, court records say he was working for Colortime in El Dorado at the time. The court at one point required him to pay $234 a month in child support.

At another point in 2005, Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

On Tuesday, a man who said he was Lyons’ father declined to comment.

Lyons’ ex-wife could not be reached.

In September 2003, about two years before the knife incident, Lyons was convicted of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

In the years before that, he had been convicted of felony criminal threat and misdemeanor domestic battery and criminal damage to property, records show.

As a juvenile, he had misdemeanor convictions dating to 1995, when he was 12, for criminal damage to property.

Wichita school district records show that Lyons withdrew from Metro Boulevard Alternative High School in July 2002.

Contributing: Hurst Laviana of The Eagle Reach Tim Potter at 316-268-6684 or tpotter@wichitaeagle.com.

QUIZ ANSWERS (mine) BELOW:  (I interspersed A & B as dialogue)

Events, apparent order (quite different from article, which jumps around considerably)

  • 1995 Juvenile Richard Lyons, age 12, has misdemeanor convictions for criminal damage to property, ergo he was born about 1983.
  • July 2002, Lyons withdraws from alternative high school (age, about 19)
  • Between age of majority (2001?) and 2003, he has convictions for felony criminal threat AND misdemeanor domestic battery, meaning, probably against a WIFE or GIRLFRIEND.  This is called “domestic violence,” folks.  SEE 1994 VAWA Act.
  • ??? somewhere in there he gets married to Jenifer Lyons.
  • Sept. 2003, misdemeanor Battery against an officer.
  • Somewhere in 2003  Jenifer gives birth to his child.  (Note:  Physical assaults sometimes begin with pregnancy.  Mine did).
  • Somewhere between then and 2005, they get divorced.  (Given the assaults, probably understandable.  What’s not quite understandable is why they got married, unless the pregnancy PLUS her lack of other options to survive (i.e., HER family of origin support), PLUS no doubt some of this federal pushing of marriage on everyone…??  Who knows.  Maybe they wanted to.  Maybe HER household (how old was she?) was a place she needed to get out of.
  • By 2005, he has a child support order in place and is actually, it appears working.  Apparently they’ve entered the family court system somehow, I’d guess.  The man is all of 22 years old, so this is a good thing and possibly a change for him?
  • THIS IS TAKING LONGER THAN I PLANNED.
  • OBVIOUSLY they had “visitation” (unsupervised, obviously).  Note:  He assaults women AND officers, felony-style, and threatenes (someone — seee above).  He destroys property and punches policemen.  NEVERTHELESS, an infant needs her Daddy.  Daddies can be nurturers too.  If we try hard enough, perhaps all of us (through funds, and social support and of course parenting classes) can transform this young man into a real nurturer before he kills someone for telling he can’t combine nurturing infants with wife assault.

Now in March 2005, things start getting, well, interesting:

  • In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said
  • HEre’s the account, I rearranged some sentences.  Apparently by now there are 2 children (both his?  Maybe not?) 
  1. Lyons had arrived (EXCHANGE OF THE KIDS  RIGHT?  Here’s a CLASSIC CASE involving DV, and no help with the exchange.  Yes, I’d imagine this was in family law system already, totally oblivious (per se!) to the potential danger of the situation, despite lethality assessments and DV literature dating back to at least 1985 (Barbara J. HART), 1989 (Family Visitation Centers started in Duluth Minnesota), 1994 (Violence Against Women Act) and all kinds of other literature.  THis hadn’t reaached the “heartland” yet, I guess. )  and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.  ((OMISSION – was there a custody/visitation in order or not?  if so, was it clear and specific, as many states require (but don’t practice) cases involving DV be, to avoid incidents like this?  If it WAS clear and specific, was his demand in compliance with or NOT in compliance with that order?  As they say, and we see, this isn’t typically a guy that plays by the rules, not even the rules for graduating from high school, or refraining from damaing others’ propery.  We’ll, he’s about graduate from punching officers to putting a knife to his wife’s throat.  I wonder if this was the first time….)
  2. She reported that they argued {{POSSIBLY OVER WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HIS TIME TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER?}} and that after she called 911, {{POSSIBLY THE ARGUMENT CONTAINED SOME THREAT OR PHYSICAL ELEMENTS?}} Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.  {{May I speculate that perhaps Mrs. Lyons was aware that Mr. Lyons sometimes carried knives, and this may have contributed to her decision to call 911, even if the argument was only “verbal” in nature?}} 
  3. On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.  (I’m going to assume this is “evidence” and it was his, not a responding officer’s.  I will further assume that this was a criminal prosecution, because someone actually got ahold of that 911 call.  GIVEN the history, was this a creditable threat?  It appears to the reader that her report was accurate in this part.  Contrary to the “false allegations” stigma associated with women reporting violence (or threats of it), ” because they want to get custody,” this report seems to have some merit.
  1. “Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.  {AS FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS SHOW, YES HE WAS CAPABLE OF AND WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER WHEN HE FELT WRONGED OR WAS ANGRY OR ??  SO HERE, SHE DROPS THE “911” METHOD OF SELF PRESERVATION AND, if I may add, protecting her children, WITH HER KIDS OPTS FOR THE “FLEE” METHOD.   Amazingly, a charge was actually filed.  For why, possibly, read on.
  2. When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.  {{I have done this flee while he’s in the other part of the house routine, often enough}}
  3. HERE COME THE RESPONDING OFFICERS:  In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.   {{Officers KNOW domestic violence wih a weapon can be lethal.  They didn’t send one custody evaluator, one parenting educator, one mediator, and one guardian ad litem, they sent FOUR officers, and I BET they were armed…  Yet women are left to face this, sometimes weekly, without adequate protection.}}
  4. At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Not one but 2 officers.  Tell them to thank Wade Horn, George Bush (Jr.), former President Clinton, present President Obama, (well, adjust for the year), and others for those punches to the face.  Father-engagement.  Healthy Families. . .. You’re in it. . . . . . .   Were these male and female officers, I wonder, and which ones got punched.  But in an incident, it could easily be any of them.

Moving on in our sequencing:

5.  Prosecutors initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

6.  he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault.  (good move, as they saw evidence, and he was already heard on tape threatening to cut her.)

7.  The lesser charges (above) were dismissed.  Is this called a “plea-bargain?

8.  His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.   (((WHEN?? see last post on police reporting of incidents).  Now?  Or had she earlier?  Criminal, or civil?)

 

NOW — figure out this timeline if you can:

9.  Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault (See 6, above.  WHEN?  WHAT MONTH 2005?) and

10. served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

March 2007 is 24 months from March 2005 (date of assault).  Ergo “about 16 months” plus “several months” possibly does NOT add up to 24.  How many people do this kind of mental math when reading leading bleeding headlines?  

March 2005 (arguing, resulting in 911 call, threatening to slit wife’s throat in retaliation for calling 911, with 2 kids, one of them a toddler girl, in the home, Mom + 2 flee for safety, 4 police come, 2 of whom are punched) – March 2007 is most definitely 24.

The question is, what is “several” months?  Is it 8, or 9 (8 + 16 = 24, right?)   WHEN did he plea-bargain?  After punching officers and threatening to kill wife was he then RELEASED in this foul mood?  If he threatened to slit her throat and assaulted people who tried to help in March 2005, what kind of response might we expect after being sentenced, if he was released on bail?

11. He was released on parole on March 2, 2007.

12. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

 

What this section of reporting does is to reassure that his crime (of — see above) was indeed punished properly.  Or was it?

13.  In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Omittting the obvious — after arrest (i’m going to hazard a guess that the 2 punched officers or their colleagues eventually handcufffed the guy) he was free on bail or own recognizance until arraignment and incarceration

YES, you read it right, finally.  Threaten to slit her throat, punch TWO responding officers, and get out scot free, for a few months.  This is an interesting sentence (I don’t operate under press deadlines, but still . . . . .  the sentence bridges four years of time:  2005 & 2009!)  Well, not quite scot free.  He was punished with not seeing his daughter, “temporarily.”  Wonder what time frame THAT word spans.

14.  At another point in 2005, {{Can we get a hint which month?}} Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

When I filed for a DV restraining order with kickout, and we had the guns, knives and assaults thing, but not on officers — we got ALMOST 7 days with no visitation, as I recall.  Perhaps at the most 14, as he had to find a place to live.

 

Now here is about the slain officer:

  1. Sheriff: Deputy was ambushed
  2. Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past
  3. Marriage came as a surprise to Johansson
  4. Deputy was quiet, funny, passionate about his work
  5. Opinion Line (Sept. 30)
  6. Robbers strike as police look for killer
  7. Deputy’s funeral set for Friday
  8. Sedgwick County Commission remembers slain deputy
  9. Opinion Line Extra (Sept. 30)
  10. Wichita man arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty

 

Sheriff was Ambushed

A black band around the badge of Sheriff Bob Hinshaw. The badges are in honor of deputy Brian Etheridge, who was shot and killed in the line of duty on Monday.

WICHITA – Richard Lyons set the trap shortly before noon on Monday by calling 911 to report a theft at his house.

He then hid in the shadows of a tree and brush in the backyard of a house in the 3600 block of South Rock Road with a high-powered rifle, authorities said Tuesday. He waited for a law enforcement officer to show up.

That happened to be Sedgwick County sheriff’s Deputy Brian Etheridge.

“It does appear to have been an ambush situation,” Sheriff Bob Hinshaw said Tuesday of the shooting death of Etheridge, 26, the first Sedgwick County deputy to die in the line of duty in 12 years.

Lyons, 27, was shot to death a few hours later in a field not far from the house in an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement officers.

“It’s scary,” Hinshaw said. “It could have been any law enforcement officer… this was just a call to 911 to get any officer to respond.”

Investigators spent Monday night and Tuesday collecting shell casings and other evidence, Hinshaw said, piecing together a chain of events from what was left behind.

Based on that evidence, Hinshaw offered this account:

Lyons called 911 at 11:42 a.m. Etheridge was dispatched to the address just east of McConnell Air Force Base and radioed his arrival at 11:51 a.m.

When no one answered his knock on the front door, he asked dispatchers for contact information for the caller. He then walked around to the backyard of the house and saw no one.

Lyons was hiding in the shadows on the bright, sunny day, and opened fire with a .30-30 rifle — a weapon commonly used by deer hunters — when Etheridge turned his back as he was either approaching the back door or returning to the front of the house, Hinshaw said.

The bullet hit Etheridge in the back, penetrating his body armor and knocking him down. Lyons approached the fallen deputy and tried to fire his rifle again, but it malfunctioned.

He took Etheridge’s gun and shot him in the leg before disappearing.

Etheridge radioed for help, and scores of law enforcement officers from throughout the metropolitan area converged on the scene.

The wounded deputy was alert and communicating with the first officers on the scene, Hinshaw said, but their priority at that time was his medical care — not gathering information about the suspect.

Escorted by patrol cars, an ambulance raced Etheridge to Wesley Medical Center, where he underwent surgery.

Authorities established a one-mile perimeter around the house and urged residents inside that area to leave if possible.

Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams said authorities had information indicating Lyons was likely inside the house, so that address remained the focus of their attention even as law enforcement officers combed outlying areas within the perimeter.

Tear gas was deployed twice into the house in attempt to flush the suspect out, Williams said, and SWAT team members were preparing to blast open the front door at about 5:15 p.m. when authorities were notified that the suspect had been spotted hiding near a tree row in a nearby field.

Agents from the Kansas Highway Patrol and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were patrolling a field in a Humvee when one of the officers spotted Lyons’ leg as he lay on the ground.

They stopped the Humvee, and Lyons stood up and fired at the vehicle with the deputy’s handgun. He then began running, firing several more shots as the ATF agents and KHP officers ran after him.

The law enforcement officers returned fire, striking Lyons “multiple times,” Hinshaw said.

Lyons was taken to Wesley Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 6:10 p.m.

Investigators hope to talk to neighbors and relatives of Lyons, Hinshaw said, but he doesn’t expect every question raised by the shooting to be answered.

“We may never know what the motive is,” he said.

Results of the investigation, including the use of force, will be presented to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

Flags at Wichita City Hall and other city buildings have been lowered to half staff in honor of Etheridge. They will remain at half staff through Friday, the day of Etheridge’s funeral.

“We’re just really shocked and saddened by what has happened,” Mayor Carl Brewer said. “It has affected all of our law enforcement agencies.”

Brewer said the city is providing counselors for police officers who were involved in the shoot-out and others who may be shaken by the violence.

“Every time they make a stop or enter a house, they don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said. “This demonstrated just how much risk there is.”

Reach Stan Finger at 316-268-6437 or sfinger@wichitaeagle.com.

 

FIRST 911 — from a woman — consequence, she’s threatened and has to flee for her life, BUT her ex-husband IS jailed — for about 2 years, or less.


SECOND 911 — from the formerly jailed young man (27 yrs old is young) — his ambush.  SOMEONE was going to pay.  Was Etheridge (the officer killed) a responding officer in the former arrest, or just anyone in uniform would do?  Was he upset at what had happened in prison?

Was this suicide by cop?  Sounds like possibly, to me.

 

WOULD IT HAVE PLAYED OUT DIFFERENTLY IF THE COUPLE HAD STAYED TOGETHER, OR WOULD SHE BE A STATISTIC, NOT THE OFFICER?

ANYONE WANT TO DO A PSYCHOLOGICAL WORK-UP ON THIS ONE (PLACE BESIDE THE WORK-UPS ON PHILLIP GARRIDO, AND HIS WIFE?)  WAS IT UNEMPLOYMENT MADE HIM DO IT?  WAS IT THE CHILD SUPPORRT ORDER?  WAS IT ACTUALLY TAKING CONSEQUENCES FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?  WAS IT HIS LACK OF A FATHER IN THE YOUTHFUL HOME (FATHER CONTACTED DECLINED TO COMMENT).  DID HE NOT HAVE A PLACE IN SOCIETY, WAS THAT IT?  WAS HE ON MEDS?  was he FORMERLY ON MEDS AND NOW OFF MEDS?  

WOULD’IT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO, AT ABOUT $20K/PRISONER/YEAR (??) KEEP HIM IN  LONGER, OR INDEFINITELY?  

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT “COLLATERAL DAMAGES” OF DV (OR SIMILAR PHRASE) IN YESTERDAY’S POST?

 

I do have one comment, here:  Something sounds narcissistic in the mix.  This person was supposedly a hell-raiser from an early age, but didn’t get help.  Possib ly being a father was a shot at sanity, but I think that the child support order was probably NOT a good idea for such a person.  It would’ve been better for all to let her do welfare.  She’d probably get off it quicker without the threats to her life than with them.

 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES IN KANSAS:

http://www.ksag.org/page/domestic-violence  (Attorney General Site):

Domestic Violence

The new Domestic Violence Unit within the Kansas Attorney General’s Office seeks to keep our families safe, stop domestic abuse and end the cycle of violence that threatens our communities.

Online Resources:

(Be sure to catch this “get inside their head” speculation (many didn’t apply to my case, i know):  date:

Source: The Battered Woman by Lenore Walker, Harper & Roe, 1979.  (I’m comforted to know that the Attorney General has the latest psychological profile of batterers and their victims — only 30 years old…..) 

  • Believes all the myths about battering relationships  {{NO one questioned me, and I hadn’t heard these…}}
  • A traditionalist about the home, strongly believes in family unity and the prescribed sex role stereotype  {{The alternative being, punishment….}}  {{BY THE WAY, this now describes the Health and Human Services Dept., in general, on this matter….}}
  • Accepts responsibility for the batterer’s actions  {{SAYS WHO?}}

Resources for Law Enforcement

 

Child Exchange and Visitation Center Program – (CEVC)

This program provides supervised child exchange or supervised child visitation to children and families at risk because of circumstances relating to neglect; substance abuse; emotional, physical, or sexual abuse; domestic or family violence; etc. The state portion of funding can be used to fund the local match required for receipt of federal child exchange and visitation center grants.

Mighta been helpful for Jenifer Lyons . . . . . 

The Essential Elements and Standards of 

Batterer Intervention Programs in Kansas  

The Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs were developed over 

seven years through the hard work of many professionals who are dedicated to ending 

domestic violence in Kansas.   The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

convened the initial work group and wishes to thank the following organizations for their work 

during this process: 

Developed and/or Reviewed by representatives from the following: 

Alternatives to Battering, Topeka 

Correctional Counseling of Kansas, Wichita   {{MAYBE Mr. Lyons got this and didn’t take kindly to it?”}}{{Or, the problem was, he DIDN’t get it?}}

Family Crisis Center, Great Bend 

Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board 

Halley Counseling, P.A., Girard 

Johnson County Office of Court Services 

The Family Peace Initiative, Girard 

Kansas District Judges’ Association 

Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall 

Kansas Attorney General Steve Six 

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

Kansas County and District Attorney Association 

Kansas Department of Corrections  

The Mental Health Consortium 

Office of Judicial Administration 

Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Center, Hutchinson 

Wyandotte Mental Health Center 

Family Crisis Center, GreatIn 2007, The Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board (GDVFRB), chaired by 

former Attorney General Robert Stephen appointed a subcommittee to review and update the 

Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs. The GDVFRB adopted 

these as best practice standards in providing batterer intervention programming in Kansas, and 

recommended that the Office of Attorney General implement a training and certification program 

for providers of batterers intervention programs. 

Attorney General Steve Six readily accepted the recommendation to train and certify batterer 

intervention providers in Kansas using the Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer 

Intervention Programs in Kansas.   

For More information about this initiative, contact the  

Director of Victim Services in the office of 

 Kansas Attorney General  

Steve N. Six 

120 S.W. 10th Avenue 

Topeka KS 66612-1597 

785/368-8445

 

“FATHERHOOD  IN KANSAS (google, results 124,000)

 

ACCESS VISITATION IN KANSAS:

Child Custody, Support and Visitation Rights – Kansas Bar 

Visitation, often called “access” is the right of the parent who does not …. Child support and visitation are considered by statute in Kansas to be two 
http://www.ksbar.org/public/public…/child_custody.shtml – Cached – Similar – 


Crisis Resource Center of SE Kansas –

Child Exchange and Visitation Center. 669 South 69 Hwy.  Wichita Childrens Home Child Access. 810 North Holyoke 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/…/access_visitation…/ks.html – Cached – Similar – 


Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson website  Funding Source, The Federal State Access &Visitation grant program is a formula grant program to states and 
http://www.governor.ks.gov/grants/grants_savppp.htm – Cached – Similar – 

 

  1. Overland Park Visitation Attorney | Leawood KS Parenting Plans 

     

    Visitation & Parenting Plans. Kansas Visitation Lawyer  custody or non- residential custody, your children have the right of access to both parents. 
    http://www.cavlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Visitation-Parenting-Plans.asp – Similar – 


    You will have access, at our Download Site, to the legal forms you need to modify custody-visitation in Kansas

    These forms are the most current versions 
    http://www.custodycenter.com/MODIFYCUSTODY-KS/index.html



    Following an emotional breakup, many moms allow or deny visitation by whim, {{OR WHEN HE THREATENS TO SLIT ONE’s THROAT< CASE IN POINT}}
    leaving the dads without regular access to their children. 
    http://www.kslegalhelp.com/Divorce-and-Family…/Paternity.shtml – Cached – Similar – 



    YES, THERE WAS A DIRE LACK OF SERVICES FOR MR. LYONS…

(2 more headlines) Distraught and Distracted? A Domestic Dispute (or, the economy) made them do it? These 2 men seemed Organized and Coherent (“Cool, calm & collected”) before, and after, 3 planned murders, apparently.

leave a comment »

 

Good afternoon, Plano, Texas and other visitors, I hope you are well today.  I include a headline contest below for viewers of the 2nd article.  Submit via comments.

Unfortunately, 2 (more) bleeding headlines.

 

(1)  California, “not a hot-blooded event”

 

The day before the killing, he delivered flowers and candy to her, and said they could just be friends….after a 13-year relationship

Follow up to the “distraught by economy” “domestic dispute” version of a double-homicide this week:  She was trying to end a co-habiting relationship, and, unfortunately, worked in a toll booth on a busy bridge.  When jogged up and shot her to death, there wasn’t a ready exit. Yet the first article portrayed it as a “domestic dispute,” a real knee-jerk, inappropriate phrase.  Before I could point this out in a post, Demian Bulwa of the SF Chronicle straightened us readers out in a follow-up article:  This murdering man set up the situation, and the unidentified 2nd man murdered was a friend of the girlfriend, a kind male who had given the woman a ride to work (which, did the murderer have work?  So, she goes to work, and is killed there…)

I did no follow-up research, but reading the first article, could’ve laid money, if I had some, that it was indeed a cold-blooded assassination.  Even so, the article below uses the word “rampage.”  No, the DC Sniper was a rampage.  The Columbine shootings, maybe not.  This one.  He didn’t shoot bystanders, or motorists.  He had two targets, and made them.

Folks, that’s ALSO typically how domestic violence goes.  I hope someday we “get it” that having a nice chat with someone doesn’t mean a lot, even when it’s daily for years, in these matters.  Do we just not KNOW each other, and know how to assess character any more?  Or characterize an incident after character just showed up, with a loaded gun (and apparently — below, a knife too).  

 

Bridge killer set up slayings, prosecutor says

Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, August 13, 2009

08-13) 13:51 PDT RICHMOND— Nathaniel Burris, the man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll plaza, set up the rampage {sic} by slashing a tire on the man’s pickup truck so he could blast {kill.  the object was to kill.  The decibel level was not the main point} him with a shotgun as the victim waited for a tow service, a prosecutor said today.

(selections from the article):

The pickup truck belonged to 58-year-old Ersie Everette III of San Leandro, but was driven to the toll plaza Tuesday afternoon by Burris’s ex-girlfriend, Deborah Ross, a toll taker, said Contra Costa County prosecutor Hal Jewett.

Everette arrived later, having been dropped off by a co-worker after getting off his shift as a Golden Gate Transit bus driver, his family said.

Jewett said Burris, 46, punctured a tire on the truck, apparently with a knife, before Everette showed up, then hid where he could watch Everette though a pair of binoculars.

When Everette arrived and saw the damage, he called AAA for help, Jewett said. He was still waiting at 5:30 p.m when Burris approached and shot him once from close range, the prosecutor said.

{{I am so sorry that this individual, it appears did not suspect that his truck might have been chosen for a reason, rather than say, random violence.  Or that some other solution could’ve been had for fixing the tire.  There are down-sides sometimes to NOT being on alert.}}

According to police, Burris then jogged across traffic lanes to Ross’ toll booth and shot her several times before fleeing in a van that belonged to his employer, an airport shuttle company. He was arrested early Wednesday after he was spotted in the van on Interstate 80 in Placer County.

{{Can we deduce this man, driving for an airport shuttle company, did not have a criminal record?}}

Characterizing this crime as a tragedy is an understatement, particularly with the calculated and deliberate way he committed these crimes,” said Jewett, who heads his office’s homicide unit. “This was not a hot-blooded event but a cold-blooded series of killings, and we think the charges reflect that.

Ross, 51, and Burris were in a relationship for 13 years before she broke up with him just before the killings, Ross’ relatives said.  {{how much “just before”?}

The day before the shootings, Burris delivered flowers and candy to her in the Richmond townhouse a mile east of the toll plaza that they had shared, and said they could remain friends, Ross’ relatives said.

{{Just be friends after that long a relationship?  In general, don’t you believe that, ladies!  Well — are you SURE you know that guy?  If you were so sure, how come after years, the answer is, separate?}}{{and I do NOT know if tying the knot would make a difference or not.  At this point, I just do not.}}

{{Flowers and candy — if these aren’t normal, consider it a red flag?}}

Richmond police Sgt. Bisa French, a department spokeswoman, said it is not clear whether Ross was romantically involved with Everette.

{{Whether he was or not, he was probably perceived as such.  As helping her.  1. He was male, and 2.  he helped her.}}

Everette’s relatives said today that he and Ross had been engaged and had talked of marriage.

{{wait a minute — she broke up with him JUST before the killings, yet was ready to marry someone else, perhaps?  Although the two that were living together did NOT get married. . . .  That must’ve upset Burris….}}

Ross’ relatives, though, said the two had merely been friends from an Oakland church where Everette was a deacon.

{{Probably she shared about some of her troubles with Burris?  Was Burris going there too?  Was there a history of violence, or etc.  Were there really no indicators, or were people just not alert?}}

One of Ross’ sisters, Jane Walker of Oakland, said she was shocked to hear of the new allegations involving Burris.

“Oh my God, that’s scary to think that you can know someone all these years, and that they would plot and plan something like that,” she said. “He deserves whatever they give him. He’s not the person I thought I knew, and I’ll never forgive him.”

{{If my own family had similar sentiments, after I filed a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, I would not be here writing this blog.  We’d probably both — he, and me — have moved on in life without further escalations, child-stealing, fights around child support, and all that.  PROBABLY.  I tell you one thing that would probably be different.  I’d still be working in my profession, and have the children here.  But my own family, like MANY families, didn’t “get” the reality of the relationship}}{{Sorry, in their pain about their sister, but the thought comes to mind that NOW they are aware….}}{{What is the lesson here?  All that glitters is not gold?  People are not what they seem to be?  Nice guys can turn violent — or have criminal thoughts and act on them?}}

 

Burris is expected to be arraigned in a Martinez courtroom as soon as Friday morning. He is being held without bail at Contra Costa County Jail, where he declined a request for an interview today. Richmond police brought Burris back from Placer County on Wednesday evening.

The shotgun used in the killings was found in bushes under a window at the home of Burris’ mother, authorities said. Ross’ relatives said the mother lives in Sacramento. Efforts to reach her have been unsuccessful.

 

Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/13/BAHO1982PG.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0O6stJgMK

(2) Pennsylvania, I think

I’m running a contest for the most appropriate,

subject line for this article.  Submit in comments.

Non-sarcastic entries will be summarily dismissed

as utterly inappropriate:


Murder suspect wants to place kids

By Liz Zemba, For The Valley Independent Wednesday, August 12, 2009

 

A Fayette County man accused of running over over his wife with his car and killing her wants his parents to have legal custody of two of his children.

 

>>>YES, they did a good job raising this man, and would be great prospects for raising the children of the woman he murdered.  There are no other decent, mature adults around with terrific track records of children they raised, who wouldn’t be tempted to backpedal (or have a conflict of interest) on the issue that, their Dad killed their Mom, but was really a nice guy at heart. Which is going to be something, an issue, those children will have to deal with.  

>>>By the way one reason I didn’t post yesterday (other than aftershock off the tollbooth shooting, and other work) another case came up of a woman being recalled from iceland over a custody battle with a U.S. father.  Hoping to find out more about that situation, I ran across a “cold case” (so to speak) from the 1990s, in which two Mormon parents snatched their daughters baby and took off to Iceland.  (Hanes/Shelton/Zenith). This had uncomfortable reminders, as in my case, when family members get a certain opinion of a certain generation, and decide they’re better parents than others.  Add to the mix, the poor Mormon grandmother was on her 6th husband couldn’t conceive, and tried to persuade her own daughter to donate some eggs.  Maybe I’ll post that one — it has a runway snatch, shows how CHURCH folk often protect their own (case in point, when my kids were stolen, more than one church group appears to have helped try to sanitize the situation).<<

In addition, Ronald Lee Higinbotham wants the cousins of a third adopted child to have custody of that youngster.

 

Can we “just say no” when the guy has, allegedly, just killed a woman, intentionally, with a car???  How far does co-parenting (only she’s dead) and “Fathers, get involved with your children” GO?  How about setting a little standard.  I PERSONALLY think that if a man can’t stop hitting his wife, he should lose access to his kids, and stop sugarcoating it.  I didn’t think this 7-8-9 years ago, but now in retrospect, it would save society a lot of grief (and grief counselor social services).  Can we at least say:  “IF YOU MURDER YOUR WIFE, YOU’RE OUT OF THE PICTURE, THIS IS JUST “OVER THE TOP, out in left field, WAY out of line:  GOT IT?”  You want to murder her, and then participate in some decision-making process about your kids?  No!!!  Not only will we not follow your suggestions, we are not interested in them.  Someone who hasn’t murdered recently, or been accused of it, will make decisions regarding your children.  I know we aren’t all perfectly insightful, but I suspect you likely aren’t at this point, OK?

Then maybe the next person who had a domestic dispute, or felt a sense of loss when she left, or it was the economy — (or maybe it was overentitled narcissism? ???  In action?  Or, maybe misogyny, I mean we had a single man elsewhere just walk in a gym and start spraying bullets at women — not men —  hitting some and killing them….. to assuage his feelings of rejection.  Until he also killed himself…)

So, it’s  – – – No, No — you kill your wife, you lose custody privileges.  TIME OUT!!!   It’s called a deterrent to the next asshole.  (Am I allowed to call someone who (allegedly) ran over his wife and killed her with a car a bad name?  If he’s innocent, then I retract the appellation.  If not, then I don’t. ) 

Has this yet been tried, consistently, across the board, across the nation?  YOu kill the woman, you lose visitation privileges AND any whiff of joint legal custody.  What, is the man now suddenly (how suddenly?) repentant and “concerned” for his kids?  Was killing the wife part of how he expressed concern for his kids?

Has anyone posed these questions at a conference of experts yet?  I know Jack Straton of Nomas did in 1992 re Supervised Visitation.  Was he not on the list in the ones deciding these things?  He had a Ph.D., isn’t that an entrance requirement? (or, MFT, or being in law enforcement, or Esq., etc.)  

This culture is expert at turning its backs on and shunning mothers trying to leave, particularly women from communities that base a lot of emphasis on families (as mine did, although I had a leg in the professional world, which I FOUGHT to keep in there).  I mean, as I’ve pointed out before, the white house was real good at shunning the word “mother” and “motherhood” from its game plan (except in the context of home visitation nurses, or getting the kids back to Early Head Start and Mom back to school).  LOOK:  just TRY it, try turning the  back on men that murder — at least for a LITTLE while.  Give them some alone time to think about what just happened.

Higinbotham, 44, of Brownsville, is charged by state police with criminal homicide in the hit-and-run death of his wife, 30-year-old Carmen Higinbotham.

 

LADIES:  I can be wrong, but I recommended (based on some headlines that keep popping up in this topic) sticking to men within 10 years of you.  It’s not a guarantee, but it MIGHT be a deterrent to being used as a baby-maker. I know prime time is prime time (apparently she was 21 for the first daughter by him, and he? had previous children too).  But, in the U.S., there should be other situations you can help develop yourself in, for the kids’ sakes.

In a criminal complaint, state police allege Higinbotham drove his 2000 Hyundai Tiburon over his wife shortly before midnight June 20 on Route 40 near 7235 National Pike, then left her to die.

 

Not just into, but over.  Not his “estranged” wife, but his wife.

Yes, I think every one should trust this man’s judgment and follow his suggestions about the disposition of offspring. That way they won’t lose touch with the man who murdered their Mom, or at least people related to him.  AND anyone, well, who put adopted children into his care.

Carmen Higinbotham was the mother of six children, including two of her own, two stepchildren and two who were adopted.

According to separate civil actions scheduled to be presented in Fayette County motions court today, Ron Higinbotham is the natural father of two of the children – a 9-year-old girl and a 6-year-old boy. He is the adoptive father of a third child, identified as a 15-year-old boy.

The two younger children are staying in West Brownsville with Ron Higinbotham’s parents, Patricia Ann and Donald Lee Higinbotham Sr., according to one of the filings.

In a separate civil action, Higinbotham wants a judge to grant custody of the adopted 15-year-old boy to the boy’s cousins. The boy’s cousins, Eric W. and Maxine R. Rosie, of Smithfield, already are caring for the teen, according to the civil filing.

Attached to both filings are custody agreements, both of which have been agreed to and signed by Ron Higinbotham.

 

He sounds very coherent and organized for someone who did such a deed.  I wonder if he got help from a “healthy marriage promoting responsible fatherhood” funding, or whether he will get help from “mentoring children of prisoners” programs either to encourage father/daughter/son contact in accord with our national policy that the TRUE social crisis of our time is “fatherlessness.”

 

Well, this is part of its face, and part of how SOME fatherlessness gets started.

He remains lodged in the Fayette County Prison without bond. {That’s reassuring, for now}.  He faces a preliminary hearing scheduled for 9 a.m. Aug. 28 before South Union Township District Judge Joseph George Jr.

 

{{I’m just a little speechless on how to summarize this one…. Help, readers…Analyze, comment, suggest: how could that question even come up?}}{{well, he has a right to file whatever civil action he wants to.  Just sounds real organized there, real together, or real, he got some help in that matter.  So how come women can’t get help on child support enforcement against a former ex, under current policy, if he falls into the “Father’s Return” policy target audience, eh?  90% of the “help” evaporates once a case gets into family law, and believe me, the word is out on that one.


I would’ve been SO much better not looking for help, at all, and just enrolling immediately in some law courses, while working, with children in the household, rebuilding a business, trying to establish boundaries, newer, healthier relationships, advocate for my daughters’ educations, after they’d been forced back into inferior situations (by this same persion) and healing from all that prior abuse.  I should’ve been sitting in a legal classroom rather than calling nonprofits, agencies, and so forth, the people assigned to take care of these situations.  Of course I’d have to do this during school hours while I was working, because women that work when are looked down upon in this venue for not being a homemaker.  They are also looked down upon for BEING homemakers, a situation that often puts them in need of child support, and vulnerable to secret bargaining with the access/visitation-mongers.

I made another serious mistake during a brief period of a single, evening job, duration about 2-3 hours, when both children were teens.  I said to my daughter, go ahead, go with your friend to her youth group.  BIG mistake.  Churches might as well have a target on the outside for stalkers and as a source of great, submissive, and needy 2nd wives, or people that will help such people down the road apiece in their quests.

That was SUCH a brief time, and it quite backfired for my situation. God bless the churches in this matter – — they are real faithful to those who come through the front doors, and real watchful also, to safeguard their flock from within and without (like the churches I was in while being battered at home those years).

 

After the emotions surrounding the latest femicide, homicide, aghast, we didn’t know, surprise, shock, grief, etc. (if there’s still some lost in the public bloodstream/ psyche), THEN what.  What action to take?  What insight to gain.  What policies to question.  What prevsiou assumptions to question about who you know how well?  Any – – – or none?  What’s the bottom line.

 

Here’s what the Bible says.  Of making many books there is no end, much study is weariness of the flesh.  Hear the words from a wise masterbuilder:  

Fear God, and keep his commandments:  this is the whole (duty) of man.

Ecclesiastes 12, end of the book.

 

From the mouth of Solomon son of David, whose father set the way for him to build the temple, lived a lavish life, possibly leaving descendants (more than possibly) in Ethiopia, had no end of women (wive and concubines both), even with all that concluded “vanity of vanity, all is vanity” and in the end helped burden and take down his kingdom, in great part through burdensome debt.  

He then had a son, Barack (EXCUSE me, Rehoboam), who when cautioned to ease up on the federal spending said, listened to his younger, progressive, utopia-minded advisors and retorted, “you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet, we will stimulate yet more economy” and under whose realm the kingdom split, possibly because of this.  Or because (it’s said) of all the other gods all those wives, making allegiances with other kingdoms, brought in.

It’s possible I have the facts (and probably I have the quote) quite wrong:  feel free to look them up, almost any version,or language, at 

http://bible.cc.

 

“The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, given from one shepherd.  And further, by these, my son, be admonished:  of making many books, there is no end; and much study [including blogging] is weariness of the flesh.  Let us hear the conclusion of the matter:  Fear God, and keep his commandments for this is the whole of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good, or whether evil.

 

I’ve been in the legal system now almost 10 years.  One  thing I have noticed — there are very, very few situations that don’t correlate to situations already described in the Bible, if you understand principle, the heart of the matter.  Our culture is in many ways as polygamous as any other, and as sexist.  There is still war, there is still poverty, there are still many gods, and there is still no utopia.  

BUT – – –  BUT – – — in looking at the 10 Commandments (Exodus or Deuteronomy), nearly every one of them has a correlative in some criminal law, except the sabbath.  There is no law about adultery, that I know of, but men still kill when they feel cheated on, so I’d say that’s a caveat.  This is not related to whether or not they themselves may or may not be cheating.

AND, moreover, a person who does not believe there is a God, or there will be a judgment and that their secret places are going to remain secret – — who really, really doesn’t think that someone will find out, or if through cleverness, deceit, immunity, or simply accumulating cronies, and power — criminal behavior won’t be caught — that person is dangerous.  

Thou shalt not kill (any complaints with this one?)

Thou shalt not bear false witness (any complaints with that one?)

The two outside ones:  Thou shalt have no other gods before me –and thou shalt not covet — are probably the hardest.  

The Catholics get around the 2nd one, no graven images, by omitting it, and then patching up the 10th one to come up with 10 total.  I saw this engraved in stone, and thought it was an anomaly, til I heard George Carlin’s version of the 10.  (If anyone has a video link please SEND it!) 

Honor thy father AND thy mother — well family law just shot that one to hell.  …… in the name of “co-parenting” we will ignore the behavior of one parent and reward the other.  . . . OK. . . . . . .  

 

Is it really that complicated?

$2.4 million for designer families in California, and cut the shelter money (but not the money to the DV coalitions nationwide).

I found out yesterday that of that $2.4 million, it was taken from TANF funds.  Go figure!

Oh, and that about $2 million was going to a Poverty Court for the homeless in SF, rather than, say housing.  They have holding cells though (see “poormagazine.com”), for homeless people who are being a nuisance and committing crimes or misdemeanors.  This should of course be a blog.

We are supposed to have as a nation a degree of self-discipline and self-control.  To encourage that, we are so confused about religion in the public schools, we supposedly eliminate this.  Then put back in Character Education to replace it.  The 10 Commandments are thrown out of a courthouse (after a lot of arguing), but the faith-based groups have a welcome home when it comes to both making and enabling policies.

Whatever happened to inalienable rights, and let us figure the rest out, for example how to get up, sit down, go out, come back, and raise our kids?  If we break a law, then punishment, if we don’t, then none.  

Although I did vote, and did catch a good deal of the last Presidential Election, I have not had a reprieve from “family court matters” yet.  I did, however, notice the Messianic promises of our current president (for whom, by the way, I voted.  And by whom, presently, as a former single “female-headed, father-absent” household, I feel betrayed.  I did not expect this person to confuse his background with the background of women who left because of violence and don’t feel like re-engaging.

For one, we also don’t, some of us, want to end up like the woman on the road above, or the woman in the tollbooth.  We don’t want our children to be emotional OR literal orphans as to their mothers.  WHAT is so hard to understand about that, National Fatherhood Initiative (and your nonprofit, governmental-agency offspring)? And why is the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women) curtsying towards this movement, as I last heard in an NCADV policy alert about funds to shelters being cut — a high-ranking woman in the office visited President Obama’s Town Hall on Fatherhood.  Take a stand with the rest of us and stop giving an audience to doctrines that get women killed.  Stop talking about “preventing” violence and do the right thing once it happens – – stop TALKING about accountability and let’s say that killing and beating and stalking and all this really IS wrong.

 

And let’s get that message into the family law system, or get the people running the place out of their offices and make them spend a few days in a shelter, or in a soup line, and ask women there how they got homeless. (The former was done, at least an overnight, once in NYS, I heard). OR, let’s get the homeless and others from the shelters (not just a single, sanitized spokesperson, or maybe two) and see what they look like, into these conferences — EVERY one of them — on what to do about all the poor folk.  We will personally explain (without threats) what we think of all this, and about being threatened ty the system after we have been threatened by individuals for thinking that we can think, and THINKING that it would be better to totally separate the batterer — not the reporter — from minor children for a least a very significant season, and too bad if this is sad for him, he should’ve thought before lashing out with kids around.  Or without them.

A recent joke (well, not that recent) going around a certain county, where they help people who lack food EAT, that the county was seeking volunteers to count the homeless.  They felt that this count might be better done by a few of them (and for pay, too).  

While I realize that there’s not an identified presence in any system for Burris, or that I know of for the other person here, I still say, let’s re-route some of those diverted funds that discuss “what to do” into “doing.”  For example, a year ago, I would’ve been content with a SINGLE (let alone 3 in a row) unemployment checks.  All I wanted then was phone and internet sufficient to keep going in a business I was already jumpstarted.  Years of living so marginalized through this system (NOT “the economy, I guarantee you in this case”) and with total chaos in relationships made building anything much up (with weekly visitations, any one causing an incident?) a moot point.

To “solve” this I now have no access to either child and am expected to buck up and do it again, and forget that for the past many years, each successive time I did so, it escalated and was stopped.  What was that, family entertainment?  

(end of whine).

The question is not, is the topic getting national attention.  It is.  The question is, what use is being made of all the funds that follow the loudest, or best connected, speakers?  A nation of non-investigating sheep is going to get sheared.  Then complain about the cold.  Complaining about the cold doesn’t make it much warmer.  Find out who are the sheep-shearers, and take the scissors.

http://usaspending.gov

http://taggs.hhs.gov 

And your local county business offices, etc.

Cross-check data between the two databases (which ain’t easy; yesterday I saw a missing $2.342 million in one state, marriage funding, from one database, different recipient names, one listing of programs is by program number, the other alphabetical by program name, but done inconsistently.  The years covered are not the same.  A program which receives MILLIONS in funding, and has for many, many years is not searchable in one.  The other one, you can search awards by number, but not get a description, however it appears to have more spreadsheet type functions, the other alllows one to sort on many more fields, but not total reports, etc.

(that’s only a start)

etc.

 

 

 



Until you have talked to a law enforcement officer, with guns, holding the immediate future or your children in (his) authority, realized he knows who has custody, and watch him and his friends turn down your requests to honor this, and thereafter ask a district attorney to do th esame thing:  Honor and existing custody order and file a report to get them back — it’s just something, that’s all.

 

And then just watch how aggressive and persistent the follow-up is when it’s serve and collect vs. serve and protect, same area.  Who were all those laws for, exactly?  ??  And why can’t our country do a little better than a single abusive family system did the prior decade?  Or better than a few religious institutions, in this single matter, single case.

 

Ah well, of making many books . . . . . . 

Don’t forget the headline contest, though….

 

 

 

Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”

with 5 comments

We all know our state (California) is bottomed out.

Supposedly.  

 

“June 19 NYT: Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose manly posturing either charms or repels, . . sent an oblong, melon-size sculpture of bull testicles to Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the Democratic-controlled State Senate.

The gift was apparently meant as a barbed joke, symbolizing the Republican governor’s hope that California legislators would display fortitude in deciding how to close a $24 billion budget deficit.

Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press office said the gag was a retort to a lighthearted present that Mr. Steinberg had sent the governor. That gift, a basket of mushrooms, followed Mr. Schwarzenegger’s description of Democratic budget proposals as “hallucinatory.”

I have not been hallucinating and I will display fortitude in reminding us that both government and nonprofits or both of them hand in hand (with foundations), have not opened their books and given an “evidence-based” (versus, walked through our doors-based) account of whether, to what extent, and HOW  are they addressing hard social issues (including domestic violence, and the poverty that comes in it train

(NB:  poverty does NOT cause abuse; abuse is a CHOICE, and there is no excuse for it.  I have been poor in many ways during my years with this person, and I have not stalked, attacked, slapped, pushed, threatened with a weapon, attempted to cut off his relationship with his family (as he has — and has succeeded — with mine, including my own daughters — or any of those.).

Instead, they have run us around the block 15 times promising “help” and selling grandiose intentions until, wisely observing we’re exhausted, no evidence of help is even on the horizon yet and we just PAID someone with our time in expectation, or false hope.  

THANK THEM!  For boot camp in self-awareness — we just learned we’re gullible.

THANK THEM!  For boot camp in self-sufficiency — we just learned how important free time and a purpose for it are.

And the entire structure of the U.S. economy is that those who, for one reason or another, DO have time to spare will (generally speaking) spend it on either themselves, or some noble cause to inflict on those who do NOT have time to spare.  Though I’m pretty well educated, it took me the school of hard knocks knocking on nonprofit (and government agency) doors for simple, basic HELP, to figure out WHY this problem of making excuses for abuse.

For those of you who do refer to scripture (Bible), here’s the relevant parallel.  A woman went to the doctors, and having spent all, was still bleeding, and as a result (in her society) considered in a continual state of “uncleanness,” she was an outcast socially.  

(Mark 5):

25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.

~~~~~~~~~~

In addition to  (with DV) these people not only bleeding, they are hemorrhaging jobs and relationships, and sometimes HOPE, as well. Whether or not you believe the situation or the miracles, this IS how it feels not to be able to get free from domestic violence (it’s hard, with children involved; it’s near-impossible, once one sets foot in family law arena, which typically doesn’t like to ACKNOWLEDGE that abuse is a choice, domestic violence is dangerous to those kids, but instead holds conference about how to put them back with their abusers — 100%, or at a minimum weekly.  And bill the public (or the nonbattering parent) for this.  Don’t believe me?  read my blog!  Access Visitation Grants funding.

What that woman needed was NOT another coalition of doctors discussing blood flow, she needed it STOPPED while she had some strength left, and as the account says, she already had no money left! . . . . . .    I have actually been in this situation, literally as well as figuratively, during a highly stressful time in my life (in fact, it was actually that season I was in a full-blown custody suit, as well as possibly that “season” of my life).  I needed to take a long, long car-drive and was not going to be able to do so in this condition — or at least I’m sure the driver wouldn’t have approved the multiple stops.   You know what?  The solution was SIMPLE — an herb costing about $11.00 called “shepherd’s purse.”  For a little 2-oz. bottle.  I was able to get it, and make the trip.  If I’d actually HAD health insurance coverage at the time, I’m sure I’d have been put through an appointment, and on a prescription.  Butt I didn’t, so a simpler way had to be found.

 

I believe if we as a society really WANTED domestic violence to stop as much as we wanted not to change our ways (or institutions — can anyone say “faith institutions” ??)  or beliefs that someone else is handling this, when they aren’t, or give up our mythic continual trust in Big Brother to come and rescue us —  it would be stopped.  I’m SURE of it.  How hard is it to really shun an abuser, the way a person reporting it gets shunned and outcast and stripped of her funds, and eventually (and partly because of this) children? – – but not of the abuser’s ongoing access to her.  

SERIOUSLY NOW, we are hearing daily on the news how broke we are.  Take for example, BUSES have been cut back one day a week, and routes re-routed, and shortened.  Things and tempers are tight at times.

 

Across the nation this week, funding for domestic violence programs is being cut, incoming emails proclaim:

 

In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “terminated” the budget for domestic violence programs.  Although cuts were anticipated, the elimination of all programs was not.  Learn more.
 
The City Council in Washington, DC voted to cut an already underfunded victim services budget by 10%.  
Read more.
 
If your state is facing similar cuts, let us know at
publicpolicy@ncadv.org.  We’re here to help!

From the “National Coalition on Domestic Violence” website and update:

California News (KFSN) — California’s recently adopted budget has dealt a severe blow to the state’s victims of domestic violence. Governor Schwarzenegger cut 20-point-4 million dollars to 94 shelters and centers statewide. As a result, many centers will have to make drastic cuts to their programs.   Some will have to close their shelters altogether.
Now many of us going through this “where are your kids” routine (see blog buttons to right)” know, as you will if you visit some sites, that a key issue in the violence against women movement is the decade-plus backlash to it, which is the fatherhood movement.  [[just a little heads-up on this matter for the uninitiated]].  They know it, we know it, and there’s a lively (and caustic) ongoing debate and blogging counter-blogging “thang” going on.  However, it’s not a laughing matter, either financially or otherwise, although one CAN get some good satire out of many of the claims.  As I do below today.
But please tell me, why on this same email about Governor Schwarzenegger’s outrageous fund-slashing, is THIS:
In This Issue
National Call with White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
Domestic Violence Budgets Take a Beating
Help Protect the VOCA Fund
Vice President Announces New White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
President Holds Town Hall on Fatherhood
Ex-CUUUUUSE me ???    ????  This is talking to the 6/19/09 Town Hall, i.e., Father’s Day…..

Executive Director, Rita Smith, attended President Barack Obama’s Town Hall meeting on Fatherhood held on Friday, June 19, 2009.  {{IN WHAT CAPACITY?  TO ENDORSE THIS, AS IF THE MOVEMENT WAS LACKING ENDORSEMENT?  OR TO REPRESENT THE VOICES OF WOMEN WHO COULDN’T BE THERE– BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD, IN A SHELTER, IN HIDING, OR DESTITUTE FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF FATHERHOOD PROMOTION FROM “ON HIGH” THAT HAS DILUTED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MOVEMENT AND CHANGED ITS CHARACTER ENTIRELY, WHILE KEEPING SIMILAR LABELS ON THE ORGANIZATIONS?))  President Obama discussed the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities, meeting obligations to children and serving as a role model to them, even if one’s own father could not do so.  The President also encouraged fathers to break their fathers’ cycles, learn from their mistakes and “rise up where [their] own fathers fell short.”  Watch here and read more.
Is this a test to see which women leaving violence are actually AWAKE, and which are drunk on their own professional level within an office.  Is this a gullibility sensitivity test?   

However SOME of us, because we look!, know where some of that money goes. (if not — yet — what’s done with it once it gets there).  For example, although social services are going to be cut, judges’ supplemental pay apparent is not going to be.  Nor can we sue judges retroactively who took bribes, apparently (Richard Fine is still in jail for confronting THAT, Senate passed a law prohibiting it). 

I’m sure our Governor and Legislature will work SOMETHING out that won’t leave them, at least, out in the cold:

Here’s another Schwarzenneger ‘reassuring’ budget cut idea for women leaving abuse — release 27,000 prisoners, early. They’ll  use GPS on them, or something…

Then  ONE organization I thought was on the same page (understanding relationship between “family court matters” and “domestic violence” and “feminists v. anti-feminists (a.k.a. “Father’s rights’ promoters) ” and the general funding war, sent out another panicked alert that the Guv (Governor Schwarzenegger, i.e., the social services “terminator”) was cutting funds to domestic violence shelters, and this alert bore the name of some group I’d not run across, although for the past 10 years I sure have been RUNNING (and driving, calling, web-surfing, networking, asking, etc.) for HELP, etc.  The name, being “California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.”  Then the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” sent out another.  

I’d recently turned from tracking HHS funds to finding out what’s up with all these DV Coalitions across the country…

 

I said, “say, WHO?”  and then ran across THIS:
I’m not the only person that noticed this ? ? ? ? 
gs

Governor Schwarzeneger is right about cutting DV funding

 

 

Okay, with all the chaos floating around about how wrong Governor Schwarzenegger is for cutting or vetoing Domestic Violence funding all together I have to say he is right on point.  I never thought I would agree, however, I am coming from the victim point of view.

I reached out to get help from dv coalitions, who refused to help me.  For what I am about to say isn’t going to sit well with people, but I am sorry, I didn’t get help,

 Heather Thompson didn’t get help and was basically battered by her local coalition to stay away and was told if she didn’t they would file a restraining order against her.Yes, that’s right, a restraining order against a victim of domestic violence begging for help.

Maria Phelps, a victim who resides in New York, has been following protocol and filling out forms that are required to receive help and the folks in New York, pull her chain on daily basis. What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to get their needs met from those who claim to help. 

Claudia Valenciana, a former Ventura County Sheriffs Deputy was turned away from the Coalition to End FamilyViolence in Oxnard.

 Alexis A. Moore was refused help simply because of the profession her abuser was in and she ended up living in her car, is this what the states money is funding?  Survivors In Action has started a petition for Domestic Violence Reform, we are calling you out and believe us when we say, this is serious.

Thousands of victims of domestic violence have been refused help.  In California alone, there are many, most are afraid to speak up. This what I feel is the threat of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, this means the salaries of the big wigs who work at these coalitions are going to be cut. They won’t be able to drive around in their nice cars or buy their fancy clothes to wear to State Capital hearings.

Commentary  Cars and clothing don’t bother me.  What bothers me, personally, is all the conferencing, policy-making conferences, forgetting that the REAL stakeholders are those whose very lives are most directly at stake, literally.  And that among the stakes that these nonprofit participants hold, when those funds come FROM government, the recipients have a duty to actually serve the PUBLIC.  Not themselves, their ideas, and their careers. When the nonprofit funding comes from individuals, or foundations, it’s a bit different, BUT, the jobs done SHOULD relate to the title on the funds collected.  “Are we done yet?” in some of these issues?  And if not, WHY not?  (Just to distinguish my point of view from what I’m quoting here).

I understand that Tara Shabbaz of the California Partnership To End Domestic Violence spoke out about what a travesty this would be. I didn’t see anything on their website. Perhaps Tara, your salary is in jeopardy of being cut, are  you getting a little worried that you and other executives will be hurting and that you may not be able to pay your rent, make a car payment or a utility payment, well maybe this is a sign that you may have to suffer like the rest of us? I think this is exactly what should happen. While you sit in your cushy office, victims ARE SUFFERING.

WHILE I’m here, there’s a “CFDA” (federal grant program code) called 93.591, and according to this database, the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” got funding in 2008 & 2009.  Is this a new code?  I DNK:

 

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2009  FYSB  CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  MODESTO  CA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Special Interest Organization  0901CASDVC  2009 SDVC  06/11/2009  93591  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalition SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 241,086 
2008  FYSB  CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  MODESTO  CA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Special Interest Organization  0801CASDVC  2008 SDVC  04/18/2008  93591  Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 231,230 

 

 

AND, ANOTHER SOURCE< RELATED:

Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable

Author: Randi Rosen

Domestic violence victims are not getting the help and services they need when reaching out to their local DV coalitions. More and more women are coming forward and expressing their frustrations which needs to be addressed.

Domestic violence coalitions receive federal funding for the victims of domestic violence, so if the victims aren’t getting services they need, where is the money going? This is a personal issue for me. Many years ago, I reached out to the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence in Ventura county. No ever called me back. I shared this with my mother and she couldn’t believe that I was ignored and a victim of domestic violence, she called the coalition herself and received the same response, nothing.

(I presume you called more than once, right?  As I see below, obviously.  I know how often I called agency after agency– ran up that cell phone bill….NONE of them were prepared to deal with chronic, long-term, family abuse through family court AFTER the restraining order expired, by which time you were supposed to be, I guess just hunky-dory fine…)


In January 2008, Assembly member Fiona Ma introduced AB 1771 Nadga’s Law. Assembly member Ma stated, “California can do more to curb the dangerously high number of domestic violence incidents through prevention.” That meant providing online information about prior convictions and providing potential victims with useful tools to avoid violence or a potentially violent partner, thus reducing the number of domestic violence incidents.

 

(Here is the blurb on “Nagda’s Law”:

Assemblywoman Ma Announces Groundbreaking Legislation

to Create Online Database of Domestic Violence Offenders

Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) and former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer will unveil a landmark bill to create a state-wide database of domestic violence offenders. The legislation, AB 1771-The Domestic Violence Prevention and Right-to Know Act of 2008, would require the Attorney General to develop an online database that would report the name, date of birth, county and date of conviction for individuals convicted of felony domestic violence or multiple counts of misdemeanor domestic violence. The database would keep updated information available for 10 years. It is believed that this would be a first in the nation law and would go into effect on January 1, 2009.

Assemblywoman Ma, who is the Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence, introduced the bill in response to the case of Nadga Schexnayder and her mother who were shot to death in 1995 by Ronnie Earl Seymour, a former boyfriend of Nadga’s who had a 20-year history of violence against women. Hammer secured a life in prison conviction as the lead prosecutor in the case.

WHEN:        

Wednesday, January 16, 2008
10:00 a.m

Alexis A. Moore, President of Survivors in Action who sp0nsored the bill, stated, “This bill will reduce the numbers of domestic violence incidents by providing prior conviction records on line. Equally important, the bill will be a valuable preventative measure to help potential victims and their family members protect themselves from violence.”

The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), California District Attorney Association and Interface California Family Services opposed the bill claiming an infringement on the perpetrator’s privacy. Interface is an organization that is contracted with the court system to provide batterers with anger management classes.

The bill was introduced to protect victims and potential victims of violence and these organizations are worried about the privacy of the perpetrators and their personal information. There is something really wrong with how domestic violence legislation is voted on, especially the very coalitions who claim to protect the victim. The laws that are in place today, are not working and they need to be changed, no longer are the victims willing to be the status quo.

Now, the coalitions want to spend a great deal of money to change Domestic Violence Awareness month which is October and shared with Breast Cancer Awareness, to another month. The intent is to separate the two different causes so Domestic Violence gets all the attention. What for? Why spend all that money on advertising and printing, when it should be used to help the victimsDomestic Violence is still in the closet as far as being taken seriously with Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. Look at how many women are being murdered as result of DV**. These coalitions need to be held accountable for their programs and services. When a victim of DV reaches out for help, those services have to be provided to them. If victims are turned away, then the coalitions should prepare to show where the money is being spent.

About the Author:

I founded Women’s Legal Resource in 2006 to help women who face the brutal challenges of the legal system. After going through my own experience in the Family Law Court without the financial resources to obtain proper counsel, I was faced having to represent myself. I attended Los Angeles Valley college in the paralegal studies program which helped in legal research and document preparation. All though I faced many legal hurdles, I felt the need to help other women, especially those who are Domestic Violence victims in document preparation and as a advocate.

The present laws as they are written is flawed and not honoring the safety of victims of violence in the United States. The manner in which police officials and the courts enforce protection orders, custody orders, child visitation and confidentiality escalates violence which leads to murder. Women’s Legal Resource is a nonpartisan organization to support the effort and petition congress for the revision of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault laws. Women and children are being murdered at the hand of their abuser’s, accountability; intervention and prevention are the crucial elements for change.

Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable

 

I realize (really I do!) this chart will not display well (any more than the others throughout my blog):

However, the CFDA code “93.592” under this http://www.taggs.hhs.gov website, is labeled officially:

“Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary”

This is a single California Entity (high-profile) that knows about this funding, obviously.  I do not know whether they work also with

battered women’s shelters, or more on the “discretionary” part.  I do also know that this group seems to have undergone a recent (to me) “sea-change” in the focus of its work.  It has recently become intensely interested in “Fathers” work.  I guess this is to help more with the prevention aspect.  

 

Year Program Office Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Award Code Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2008  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  07/28/2008  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,178,812 
2008  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  09/27/2008  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  DEBBIE LEE  $ 145,000 
2007  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  08/13/2007  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,178,812 
2007  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  01/26/2007  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  DEBBIE LEE  $ 32,940 
2007  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  09/20/2007  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  DEBBIE LEE  $ 182,375 
2006  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0377  SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  09/19/2006  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  DEBBIE LEE  $ 1,145,872 
2005  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  08/29/2005  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,125,689 
2005  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/14/2005  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  ESTA SOLER  $ 115,000 
2004  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/14/2004  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,125,689 
2004  FYSB  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/27/2004  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  ESTA SOLER  $ 90,000 
2003  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  08/07/2003  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,133,236 
2002  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/04/2002  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 1,113,796 
2001  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0246  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/13/2001  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  ESTA SOLER  $ 958,542 
2000  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  07/10/2000  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 804,542 
1999  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  08/19/1999  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 698,710 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  09/19/1998  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 678,710 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0153  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES  09/30/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  ESTA SOLER  $ 50,000 
1998  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0157  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES  09/19/1998  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW  LRNI MARIN  $ 50,000 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0012  P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC  07/11/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  OTHER REVISION  JANET NUDELMAN  $- 9,549 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  07/17/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ESTA SOLER  $ 600,000 
1997  OCS  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND  SAN FRANCISCO  90EV0105  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  06/13/1997  93592  DISCRETIONARY  SOCIAL SERVICES  ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)  ESTA SOLER  $ 37,604

 Summary report on these 3 categories:

93.591

93.592

93.671

(All, basically “Family Violence Prevention” funding, and ALL have the word ”

 

 

 

 

Let’s Get Honest COMMENTARY: – which became a discovery — which became the remainder of this post — 

RE:  “Interface California Family Services opposed the bill ”

I thought I’d look to see WHO would oppose a bill letting people in our very mobile society know who has had a conviction record on-line (for those, like me, who aren’t expert at running down to the court, or cannot afford background checks…).  While I don’t know about this bill, I was curious about “Interface California Family Services.”  What I found there stopped me in my tracks.  

So, I’ll detail what happened to those “DV Coalition $$” in an ensuing post….. I know y’all (even Plano Texas) probably don’t get through posts more than 4,000 words, and that data is too important to leave at the bottom of a post …..I DO have some rarely published (I think) observations……

After I started studying these DV coalitions (the ones that didn’t help me once I set foot in family court — it wasn’t their “venue”) are actually doing.  Not in detail, but in the broad sweep of the market (niche) — I mean, it’s clean, it’s antiseptic, for the most part, and it’s colorfully logo’d internet-based, replicatable ideas that have LITTLE to do with the legal infrastructure of this nation, INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RIGHTS, but only “units,” of which a man MUST be a part, or it ain’t a family.  

I’ m beginning to see the name of the organizational game>>>>>>  that basically leaves actual suffering victims OUT of it, including kids, moms, and road kill…. and policies that do nothing to make a dent in those statistics.  But are a GREAT market niche.  Maybe we should just skip welfare, child support, and all that, and teach women leaving abuse how to start a nonprofit, and some internet skills, catch the surf of federal funding foundations (figure out first what the foundations actuallly really want — and here’s a headups.  MOST of them are old money and DON’T want women to leave a marriage just because he’s a batterer.  They also want no kids out of wedlock, hopefully, because people in trauma don’t make good employees.  Just hang in there and take it a few more years……If you can’t, you’re on your own, because these days, it’s not about individual rights, or legal rights, it’s about “FAMILIES.”  )

OK, so below here is my guided exploration to where your $$ went and what social policy is, apparently, these days.  This may explain why the headlines haven’t changed much in a decade.  People still throwing up their hands, “why??” did he suddenly “go off” and “off” his family, a police officer, a bystander or too, and/or his kids?  

(I get more and more sarcastic as I go, so you might want to quit before the end of the post.  )

 

Interface Children Family Services

These days, almost any organization that says “family” “healthy” “children” (“parenting”) basically is NOT sticking up for violence against women.  It’s just a little linguistic thing.  So I just looked . . . . I’m not saying they aren’t doing great things.  But, I do know what help I just couldn’t seem to access, though having gotten it on time MIGHT have meant (1) solvency (for which safety was a component) and (2) neither my daughters, nor I, nor the several organizations I was working for at the time, nor the closer friends I leaned on (reeling from this event) might have had to experience an overnight, traumatic custody switch in the context of increasing child support arrearages, escalations outside of court and increasing denial INSIDE it, that domestic violence ever happened to start with, OR, that this was indeed the real thing.  

On this site, we find, under “PROGRAMS (i.e., what they do, right?) ” . . . .

OK . . ..

Batterer’s Intervention Program
Court Recommended
A 52-session program to help individuals change their violent behavior patterns. 
The program provides the knowledge and tools to make new choices.

I’m not impressed . . . .. 

HEY! — there’s no EXCUSE for abuse.  It constitutes choices.  Suppose that guy doesn’t WANT to make new choices, but fakes it well?

(This has been documented in later DV murders).  WHY is this still going on, and at whose expense?  Who is documenting behavior change and later safety of the partners?

(AND information showing the difference between violence/nonviolence, warning signs, and encouraging us to make a safety plan.  Been there, done that.  . . . . . .  ).  And the wheel of violence (old as the hills, and from Duluth).  And what DV is, and  so forth.  How much funding is going towards maintaining THAT page?  Let’s move on to another category of “Interface California Family Services.”  What are they serving up?

 

 

 

AHA, now we are learning something . . . .

Strengthening ORGANIZATIONS to Support Families and Communities.  (Probably training..–what kind of training?..)

Strategies is funded by the 

State of California, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the S.H. Cowell Foundation

A comprehensive training and technical assistance project for Family Resource Centers ???)  and more.

Strategies provides practical and highly interactive training, as well as organizational needs assessments and individualized technical assistance to professionals in the field of family support.

I GET IT:  “Technical assistance and Training” is a great way to access federal funds.  It’s not so messy as dealing directly with victims, (and their PTSD, fears, and/or injuries) perpetrators (and their attitude), or PPIT (“poor people in trouble.”)  It’s easily replicatable, and a lot of information-based (websitek printouts, powerpoints, seminars, etc.)  I GET IT !!!  The key word is, they are going to help the PROFESSIONALS.  

Also, what is this vague, wide field of “FAMILY SUPPORT” (I somehow don’t think it’s the $$ counterpoint to “child support,” meaning funding that goes to children (supposedly)…)?  What is meant by “families” and what kind of support?  Pro bono legal to get (or defend from) a restraining order?  Child support enforcement?  Helping that dude get a job?  

 

Strategies’ capacity building activities focus on using a strengths-based perspective, promoting evidence-based practice,** sustainability planning and developing effective public/private partnerships.

**flag — that “evidence-based” terms is often a fatherhood indicator.

This is the history.  In 1994, some “prominent thinkers” (Per National Fatherhood Initiative) decided there is a crisis of father-absence throughout the nation.  Helpfully, one of the NFI guys also had this post, or got it, in the Health and Human Services department, THE largest US Dept.  He was the Secretary, or HEAD of it.  He had some pull.

IN 1995, “coincidentally” a Democrat President endorsed this supposedly Republican conservative viewpoint, in a famous, short, memo (link on my blogroll) endorsing this point of view and telling all HIS departments and agencies to quickly “hop to” (into line with the above-mentioned prominent thinkers.  No, I do NOT have their names, it’s not on the website, but we are told to take it on faith, this is THE major social ill around.   Well, as to moving the huge wheels of state to point in a different direction, there ought to be SOME evidence to base it on.  RIGHT?  I mean, we have SOME progressives and radicals around the country (meaning, women that sometimes make a hard choice between staying, and being hit, and leaving and being criticized for being single; as well as men and women BOTH that simply didn’t do the marriage thing.  

Note:  I CANNOT criticize these people, because I DID the marriage thing, and it almost killed me, literally, and apart from some fantastic children (that I can’t see any more, thanks to programs like these spawned, and what they did to the process of divorce), I really am not in a place to look down on some who didn’t opt in the wedding band “thang”. . . . . In THEORY, yes.  I think it’s better to figure out a serious commitment before pregnancy, than, say pick up the Son of the Porn King in a bar, as a women did recently, and ended up dead on her daughter’s 1st birthday.  There are definitely some kinks also in marriage to be worked out in practice, and many of which this overentitled “fatherhood” (really, male supremacy) theology put in there to start with.  It kind of meant, for me, I had to leave the “human” parts at the door (or they’d be kicked out), and when in the home, pretty much just only do things that looked REALLY “wifely.”  

LIke scrubbing laundering, listening, giving birth and nursing (unless he wanted sex, or to engage in a lecture of some sort), oh yes, bringing home the bacon, but also handing it over once I did (Because after all who’s the head? It’s divinely, genetically ordained), smile when people were over, and shut up when they weren’t (well, I could talk, just not talk back to abuse…), and not complaining when the (US, incidentally) mail was opened, to make sure I wasn’t engaging in any NON-wifely, NON-womanly activities without permission — like

singing, playing the piano, and spending money I’d earned without clearance from the head.  Or even saving it (possibly for an exit).

Eventually I did get a PO Box (after 3 warnings to stop this), there was a good deal of resistance (which was of course punished), but then he just assumed I was squirreling away money (when I wasn’t) and withheld contributing to the household even more.  At this time it had been my assigned job to pay rent, and utilities, and my own way (and the kids’, too).  

That I did this while in full possession of two college degrees, a professional background, and, I thought, my senses, is something of a real marvel, in retrospect.  What I DIDn’T have from nearly the beginning was consistent access to:  (1) Finances, or even a bank account, and (2) transportation.  So I kinda sorta try not to blame myself for this.  I also didn’t have ANYONE confronting this joker in front of me and saying “STOP” to back up my (frequent) STOPs!  And I DID tell (not cover up), but was not fully informed on WHO to tell (Or, they just didn’t respond).  Now, to hear women in 2006, 10 years later, say the same things, is very sad to me.

Well, back to the “evidence-based” phrase.  Grants are grants, and they go to universities and researchers, and when it comes to the social sciences, well, it’s a little unclear whether the chicken (policy) came before the egg (studies, institutes, etc.) or vice versa.  I guess I should’ve used the word “sperm” instead because after all this is regarding fatherhood, but then I couldn’t really in public complete the analogy.  ANYHOW, in 1998 and 1999 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives kind of went along the same “fatherhood rules, father-absence is a social plague” line of thinking and voted in some resolutions, just in case Clinton’s revamping all departments and programs to accommodate fathers better didn’t really work.  This is the short version; in short, major universities got in on the grants also, and so everyone is stroking everyone’s policy/procedures/evidence back.  The federal grant #, should you care to check, is 93.086, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriages”, which is only part of the mountain, and which if you’ve been paying attention here, is clearly, well, a going concern in California.  

Now about those “evidence-based practices.” in a little nonprofit with the word “family” in it….

 

So, let’s see how this:  

(NOTE:  at bottom of page:

 

New for agencies and practitioners:  Supporting Father Involvement. 
For information visit the Supporting Father Involvement website.

Strategies is funded by the State of California, Department of Social Services,
Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the Stuart Foundation
.  (what happened to the “S.H. Cowell Foundation,” above?  How many foundations are in on this thing??)

© 2009

 

Let’s see how it develops the theme of “Strategies to Support Families & Communities”:

 

Increasingly, the social service sector is being challenged to provide evidence that their work is making a real difference for the people and communities they serve.

That’s for damn sure.! IN part, because the same domestic violence fatalities, child-kidnappings, and difficulties with “access/visitation” still happen.  People are still poor, of course, and women are still jailed when they try to protect a kid that the courts won’t protect, but Dads are NOT jailed for harrassing our asses through family court allegations, hearsay or frivolous in nature, rather than, (say), working, and moving on in life.  And for denying past, present, and risk of future abuse and extreme psychological difficulties for kids. . . . That’s not ALL Dads, I am talking about abusive ones, who are having a heyday in the family courts, and through this managing to trash attempts to get free from the relationship, share visitaiton, but NOT being part of a tyrannical dynamic.  . . .. This was my issue, I know.  I don’t see that it particularly phased ANY of the court-related OR the nonprofit-related organizations I was dealing with in the past several years.

You know what I recommend?    ASK US!!    READ THE NEWSPAPERS !!!  TALK TO LITIGANTS!  

No, that’s too messy.  Can’t be data-justified; no reports can really be sold from anecdotal evidence, and in short, we’d just rather not.  Here’s a BETTER idea (and use of short-in-stock social services funding….):

A powerful and user-friendly evaluation tool to help programs answer these questions is the Family Development Matrix.

That’s the better idea — a BUSINESS NICHE.  There you go.  THAT will help families experiencing stress from repeated interferences with work and relationships coming out of these situations . . . . 


In a unique partnership the Strategies and the Institute for Community Collaborative Studies at California State University Monterey Bay provide training and technical assistance to organizations interested in learning how to use the Family Development Matrix in their programs.

The Strategies web page lists all upcoming trainings, includes a virtual tour of a Family Resource Center, provides links to relevant resources, and hosts a library of sample policies and procedures.

Community Training
Strategies draws from the broad range of expertise of Interface’s staff and consultants to provide community trainings in the areas of family support, child abuse prevention, cultural competency, domestic violence, mentoring programs, mental health issues and non-profit management.

Upon request, Strategies also provides meeting facilitation, strategic planning assistance, and individualized coaching services.

My idea of a “Family Resource Center,” before I was in the social science sphere of family court, was my FAMILY.  And a little privacy within it too:  Home, meals, schedules, activities, associates, children and their friends and their firend’s parents, work, school, transportation, shopping, playing, time outside when possible, facing challenges together.  AND seeing their Dad regularly on the weekend (my particular idea didn’t include the stalking and trauma part, but without that, I think you could definitely call it a “resource center,” our home.  It had musical instruments, books, food, clothes, bedding, pictures on the wall, play gear, usually some pets, and sunlight.  It had sleep walk, jump, talk, eat, drink, inside and outside, plan, and play.  It was VERY resourceful and inspiring to combine these activities in the best way for the most richly rewarding use of our limited RESOURCES to get education, work, relationships and growth to happen.

The only problem for too many people — we weren’t in a properly approved PROGRAM, on the government radar, or asking permission from Dad to breathe or not breathe, come or go, sleep or not sleep as the case may be.  Now THAT was a resource issue.

My idea of a resourceful family lifestyle did NOT include being analyzed every moment from waking up to going back to sleep too late and worried about the next exterior “analysis” of what we were doing from a persons or institutions  who didn’t care if we were threatened or not, prospering or not, and safe or not.

Well, if can’t beat’em, might just as well join ’em.  Here are some of those trainings:  

Sho ’nuff, here’s one for “Fatherhood.”  We want us all to be on the same page about THAT doctrine now, eh?
 

» Supporting Father Involvement – Redding September 16, 2009
(REMEMBER, this is supported, I believe, by Calif. Dept. of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention….)
HOW / /  / did I know?  (been around the block a few times).  Here’s one clue:  the word:  “FAMILY” is code now for FATHERS FIRST.
http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/initiatives/index.php
Supporting Father Involvement
Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009       

Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS

Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dads

Family service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by focusing only on mothers and ignoring fathers, according to a groundbreaking study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers..”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We ARE???      Where’s “motherhood.gov” or “hhs.motherhood.gov”  — ever looked?

OH YEAH, it’s GROUNDBREAKING AND NEW — As new as the 1995 letter from President Clinton, as new as the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, and many other “Social Research Demonstration Projects.”  It’s as “new” as “fatherhood.gov” and “hhs.fatherhood.gov.”  To promote schlock like this:

A growing body of research has concluded that fathers are important to their child’s development, and yet the vast majority of programs that serve families with young children, especially low-income families, tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.  

It’s “growing” because it pays to study this field! Get a logo, write something, set up a website, and start marketing — you got a federal grant coming your way SOON!  Get on the bandwagon, there’s room for plenty-a-more!

(Basically the page exactly mirrors Obama’s “Families” page propaganda in every point).

Perhaps this is why the women above couldn’t get help from the Coalitions they sought help from???  Social Services funding — and this IS funded by social services –a re going to father propaganda, spread by basic internet marketing practices through government agencies and other community organizations.  We’re in the internet age, after all…..

 

the logo has two adults, right — nurturing a (single) child: 

HEY — in this photo (a trick question) – – 

 

sKids kissing their father

WHERE’S MOM?  DID HE GIVE BIRTH TO THOSE BABIES?

 

“As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness practice, resources, and networking.  If you have ideas, please submit these to benefit us all!”

and . . . . 

The Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) intervention is entering its 5th year of implementation. From its inception, SFI has been a collaborative effort in funding and implementation representing a strong private-public partnership. The project is funded primarily by the CA Department of Social Services (DSS), Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). Its partners have included the University of CA at Berkeley, Yale University, and Smith College School for Social Work. The state social services provided the impetus for SFI through its need and vision, funding, and administrative oversight. The college and universities have provided faculty leadership for design, implementation, and research. 

 

 

 

 

The project has been implemented in a robust and supportive way {{OH!! That sounds so ‘masculine ‘ it sends shivers down my spine.  WHERE IS HE??}}{{Unless they were talking about a coffee flavor — robust and supportive}}{{Oh, dang, it was just a “project.”  But at least it was implemented robustly and supportively…}} by five able

{{oh mi God, able-bodied too? Where IS this?}}

 Family Resource Centers 

{{Translation??:  Spiffy websites with downloadable information, telephone numbers and a few trainers, and occasionally we’ll rent a hotel room, pull in some speakers (like us) and promote more fatherhood doctrine, and keep “mum” about the fact that domestic violence can suddenly turn lethal, batterers are NOT good role models, the cruelty of kidnapping to punish an ex-partner, the deaf ear the family courts turn when child sexual abuse is actually reported, and the fact that the custody evaluators (et al) are making a killing, financially, while the women adn children aren’t.  And sometimes are killed, or Dad does himself in too.  I bet these conferences don’t talk about THAT hard truth……??}}}

in Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare (Lindsay), and Yuba counties.

{{Well perhaps this explains a few court cases I’m familiar with throughout the state….}}

 Strategies, the technical Assistance arm of OCAP, is helping to disseminate the program to organizations throughout CA.

{{Why don’t they, instead, disseminate the laws against these crimes, and things such as the flow of a lawsuit in the criminal, vs. civil, vs. family court?  Why don’t they disseminate how to financially plan to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren by starting businesses, running them, or investing?  Why not try something like, with that MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE, a copy of the laws against DV?   Why don’t they disseminate to faith institutions that, fatherhood dominance or no fatherhood dominance, they are still mandated reporters, and next time they WILL be reported on if they fail to follow through?  And give them some helpful books on the topic.  And mention that economic abuse and verbal abuse is STILl abuse . . . . . . Why don’t they disseminate some thing that would help in REALITY, not in THEORY?}}

Additional funding for dissemination and public policy initiatives, as well as cost-benefit evaluation, has come from the Stuart Foundation and a grant is under consideration at the CAL Endowment. 

 

Given the widespread significance of the indications of SFI program success in terms of father-engagement and family well-being for California’s families and the agencies that serve them,. . . 

 

1.  Don’t break your back patting yourself on the back.  The message is clear:  you wouldn’t be looking for MORE funding were not the program so widely signficantly indicating that it’s engaging fathers, which is, (FYI), our definition of “family well being” and our version of child abuse prevention (it is funded in part by that office of child abuse prevention still, right, or advertised on a site that is….)

2.  Suppose they don’t WANT a particular Dad engaged, because he’s dangerous and abusing a child?  Does that still qualify as ‘family”?  Would you lose some funding?  SUPPOSE, in a situation like that you went ahead and engaged the Dad anyhow (the ones that the “access visitation funding to the states — all millions of  it” didn’t already haul further into their lives, including sometimes out from a jail cell, or unemployment intentional to punishing an ex by not paying child support), and the situation “went south.”  Would you re-evaluate the SFI program success a little DIFFERENTLY?

SFI is actively disseminating the rationale and results of the study. {{We got it already, OK.  It’s straight out of Whitehouse.gov/issues/families page — the one with the word “mother” barely in there, remember?}}

We are open to and seeking support for expanded public-private partnerships to publicize the compelling results of these evidence-based best practices to increase awareness of service providers, practitioners, and policy makers with the goal of  

fostering substantive organizational change within public and private organizations to think of fathers as caretakers  of California’s and the world’s children. 

 

WOW, so much for custodial mothers.  I guess we’re out the door then?

and Wow, that “target market” is not even just CALIFORNIA’s children, but the World’s.  That even tops the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition’s” target audience of  everyone — literally, married, or unmarried, parent or not — 15 years or older in the entire state.  (Guess that includes me….)  Not content, “Strategies for Families” is going for the world’s children.

And it’s only our broke state of California helping FUND the organization…..

Does anyone in these programs (or the brunt of them) actually READ this shlock?  First of all, it appears as though the prime EVIDENCE is if a warm-bodied father (whether or not robust and supportive, let alone ABLE to fulfil his responsibilities — and did we talk about INTERESTED in doing so?).

Second, it appears that the noble esoteric business GOAL is to “foster substantive organizational change . . . (blah blah blah) TO THINK OF FATHERS AS CARETAKERS.  

In short, to change the way organizations “think.”

First of all, this organizational change within public and private organizations has ALREADY taken place.  TRUST me, I stood in front of a mediator three times, at least, in the past 10 years, and the “fatherhood thing,” well, he “got” it.

There are few places a single mother can hold her head up, when it comes to agencies.  There are few policy making places I’ve seen in the past several years — I DID find one in Australia several posts ago — that accept the concept of a single mother living with her children and NOT in frequent contact with Dad as even acceptable, let alone legitimate.  I live in a “blue” (Democrat / progressive for internationals) state, and the moment I went single, I had government folk down my pants almost, and saying, essentially, put back on a skirt and take orders from us, or we take your kids.  This began with a certain male in my family (not himself a father, perhaps he had regrets in that matter and was looking for someone new to dominate, as his wife, well, they’d been married a long time and living together a few decades….I’m not sure how submissive she was either, in private life.  OR, they needed a reason to live — which FYI, kids really make a difference in, folks.  LIving for someone else in relationship with you.  Women need this too, at times….)

 

Now this person had absolutely no legal standing, no jurisdiction (and no legitimate reason) to start bossing me around, or my kids. I wouldn’t have mind, except he was herding us back in a direction I’d already adequately explored, and knew where it went — back towards poverty and dumbed-down education, with more stress and less success.  We are not exactly in the top performing public education system in the nation — in fact Arne Duncan came out here several months ago and started scolding California like it was a bad little boy.  And I took my kids OUT after this man had forced us in, and in a covert, dishonest, and pressured way when I didn’t have a valid choice not to obey.  

At THAT point (or very shortly thereafter), I went to my government structures to put down a righteous foot, legally.  But all I can figure out is, they’d already seen my girls, and they were (by and large) pulling the API (grade point averages) up,  plus if I could be made to actually need SOCIAL SERVICES again, then at least something could be gotten out of this domestic violence survivor actually making it almost to the shore of solvency and safety — WITHOUT THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT!  

And this is where the anti-feminism thing, through the courts, really kicked in.

 

AND I am really off base here.  I hope the post was informative.  The next one contains the data I had in THIS one, til I saw this fatherhood shlock again, hiding in a federally supported program purporting to stop child abuse and reduce domestic violence.  ACTUALLY it doesn’t claim anything of the sort, just has drop-down menus with those titles on them.  However, the real “thrust” of the overall website and “family resource centers” is obviously leading one to “Support Fathers Involvement.”  The other pages barely have sublinks and downloadable information — just a phone number for a batterer’s program, not a lot more.  And a few flyers about some upcoming trainings.

(Ah well. . . .. )

 

“Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) is a family focused, evidenced-based intervention aimed at effectively engaging fathers as a key participant in family support and strengthening.  It is also a method of fostering organizational development and growth for agencies and professionals serving at-risk families.

SUCH DOUBLE-TALK:  INTERVENTION IN WHAT / / /  in the way these organizations, often protecting children (and one way to protect children is to support the parent they’re with, emotionally or financially, i.e., that bond.  When it comes to VIOLENCE< the bond with the NONbattering parent is the one that, if supported, will help and allow that child to heal.  This is NOT, currently, public policy in the United States.  But in case some “old-school” folk are still around, this workshop is here to “intervene.”  

Notice the word “fostering,” a loaded word in the social science field.  Good choice . . .. . ANd they’re talking about agencies and professionals as if they were living, animate beings, growing and developing (like kids, right?).  While this has an element of truth in it, why isn’t the focus on the actually living animate beings IN those families?  ANd their immediate safety and welfare, and then setting them free from program after program??

SFI offers multiple levels of participation in building effective strategies and methods to recruit, engage, and support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their families and the services provided, which includes access to web based materials, other resources, and networking.  Agencies can assess their current Father Friendliness {{gag!!!}} and measure growth and improvement over time, using the SFI Organizational Self Assessment.

NOTE:  there are so many millions $$ of funding going to from the Feds to the States ALREADY, which I have blogged about and which you can look up under 93.597 CFDA on the TAGGS database (going back to 1995), or if you want cool graphic summaries with lots of breakdowns and bar charts, you can get 2000-2009 on usaspending.gov under “grants.”  These are the “Access visitation” grants ALREADY corrupting due process in the family law, so that results have required out come of more noncustodial “parent” (father) time by mandatory mediation, etc.  MOREOVER, CFDA 93.086 {“Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. . “}has been up and running STRONG and FULL THROTTLE through the same department since about 1995, as I have blogged and you can search.  Yet the materials always make it sound as if this was some radical NEW idea.

OR some grassroots, bottom UP movement, when it was nothing of the sort — not when a President, without legislation, issues a memo like that which revamps a federal agency.  

DECEPTIVELY (very), “USASPENDING.GOV” does NOT have a searchable subcategory 93.086 along with all the others, but you CAN and WILL find plenty of funding by searching on other fields as to this.  For example, one time I searched on “Noncustodial Fathers” and found millions of $$, and one of the 10 largest recipients across the entire country was, surprisingly, “Family Violence Prevention Center” in SF.  The light bulb went off in my brain as to why the word “mother” was disappearing from this major nonprofit’s publications, agenda, and website.

For a noncustodial mother who’s had now almost 20 years of her prime work life, adult life, badly interrupted (you can call THAT an “intervention”) by domestic violence, first living with it, and then trying to leave it, after several years of which, setting proper limits and boundaries and doing what I would call incredibly heroic efforts to rebuild things AND send  a clear message, AND when it was ignored, seek outside help for enforcement, AND when that really didn’t come through just about learning law, the courts, a whole field of study (domestic violence) and amazing number of related communities — WHILE also taking care of my kids, and trying to keep DAD off my front step, library steps, friends telephones, MY telephone, and other related areas — I cannot tell you how discouraging it is to see the direction of public policy and initiatives in these matters.  It’s as though the entire structure just lost its mind and forgot the Constitution and what this country was ‘about,” which was independence from oppression and colonization.

GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND NOT TO RESHAPE HUMANITY.  ALL PRESIDENTS, SWORN IN, are SWORN TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION, AND FULFIL THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT (IN REVERSE ORDER).  THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM, MANDATES, AND BASICALLY BRIBING THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO INVOLVE FATHERS AT ALL COSTS.  OR FOR THAT MATTER TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT IS SUCH A FAILURE, WE’VE FORGOTTEN THESE THINGS.

Look at this:  remembering that this “Strategies” is part of “interface California Family Services” and is state-funded.  And our state’s BROKE, supposedly:

Strategies embraces an approach that acknowledges that no child, family, or organization stands alone

WHAT THE HECK DOES “EMBRACES AN APPROACH” HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?

So much for the Declaration of Independence

Rather, they {{THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL}} must navigate complex systems in order to thrive.

Personally, I have tried to keep my life fairly simple and its processes too.  But my thinking is a lot more complex than the tripe I’m reading on this website.  Bureaucratese that simply loosens up $$ to get more professionals together to push propaganda that doesn’t, it appears, help them THINK better, and how can one operate better without thinking straight?  It’d be better to haul out some classic literature and assign it.  A man working with Viet Nam vets with severe PTSD did just that — he used the Odyssey!  (apparently it helped too — last name “Shay.”  You can look it up).  I’m sure some personal relationships were involved in the process — not pdfs and websites and one-day or three-day trainings designed to infiltrate (sorry, “intervene” in how an organization operates….

Strategies’ initiatives provide an opportunity for organizations to participate in comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based projects that address complex systems change. Each initiative involves multiple sites that work together over time to achieve common outcomes designed to strengthen children, families, and communities.

This Day Will Include:

  • Introduction and Orientation to SFI  (WHICH WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BECAUSE . . . . . ?)
  • Interactive Tutorial of SFI Web Based Resources
  • A Discussion of Barriers and Bridges to Involving Fathers

(just tell them to go to family court, or head down ot the local child support office, where they will be recruited into a program).

  • Resources Available Right Now To Strengthen Efforts to Serve Families

(guess you have to “be there” to understand.  But of course serving families, well, that’s a great goal.  I deduce it mostly means, putting Dad back in.

  • A Luncheon Discussion Focusing on Next Steps of SFI Participation and Implementation

Basically, sounds like a cult. . . . . . 

 

(OK, I get the picture — that’s enough.  ALL THIS on just one little company, “InterfaceCalifornia Family Services”

We encourage you to integrate the resources of this site into your work with 
families and your community.      

As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be 
relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness 
practice, resources, and networking.  If you have ideas, please submit these 
to benefit us all!

 

OK, I’ve had enough for now.  

But what you see here is going to be in nearly every service organization, and branch of government.  This will help explain that kind of “glazed look” you get in certain quarters when speaking of things like laws, rights, and enforcement.

No woman, or man (although men, if fathers, are being “recruited” remember? to be more “engaged” in their families. . . and getting help making this happen through the courts, help women do NOT get in retaining custody of their kids IF a local man wants them…..) could possibly go throughout the internet and figure out this was going on to such an extent.

the only reason I took time to was after running the gauntlet of expecting a court order — ANY court order — to be taken seriously in court — EVER, when it favored my rights, and not his whims.

 

 

forget it.

 

 

The Golden State’s Gold Rush, 1998-2009, Healing Families, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood

with one comment

FYI:  In re budget crisis……

For your viewing pleasure and information.

http://www.taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm

 

This unbelievably patronizing budget, focused on healthy marriages, head starts, responsible fatherhood, parenting classes, and forcing adults who separated — often for the woman’s, or the man’s own safety and sanity —  to stay joined at the hip (through “access/visitation grants — more on this below), and thereafter trying to manage “high-conflict relationships” — through the court system – is (collectively) the truly most IRresponsible father(land) I have yet met.  

Most irresponsible fathers will affect a family line, and those individuals who come into contact with members of that family line, through work or otherwise.  This, however, respresents an unbelievably presumptuous and dishonest treatment of the portion of the American public that, by maintaining taxpaying employement or employEES, including many who populate and staff its institutions, pays its bills.

At some point it is simply responsible to admit that a relationship has failed, and separate.  ESPECIALLY in cases involving battering, domestic violence, or other forms of abuse.  Or  even, say, ongoing promiscuity  — or refusal to participate in supporting the household — on the part of one or both partners.  Generally speaking it’s one more than another.  One person has been “used.”  This is a horrible example for any children involved, and a real drain on the community, which often has to make up the gap.  But the principle of cutting one’s losses can come to the rescue, and stop the process before another family is dead, or homeless, or traumatized out of social functionality.

When it comes to hazardous JOBS, if there is an alternative, a person is allowed to of his or her own free will, QUIT.

I admit that some people take relationships casually, and perhaps when these people are identified, their LOCAL communities should address the issue.  But good grief — to try to force this on an entire NATION, and bill the entire nation (those who pay taxes) to fund the concept that there should be a chicken in every pot (yet we have vegetarians), and  a biologically related FATHER in every child’s life, no matter whether this is good for the kid, or the mother or not — that’s budget suicide, and sometimes suicide for him, and death for the Moms too, or children.  This is the story the headlines are telling us.  Some people don’t handle stress and relationships well, and are better off kept away from the person they hate to the point of having committed crimes against their partner.  Rather than face their personal demons, they externalize, blame (“demonize”) someone else, and then attack and attempt to destroy them, and people associated with them.

I am sorry to say this, but this at times includes the children.  When a situation has become dangerous to a parent, then to suddenly proclaim “Kids need their Dads no matter what!” is social insanity.  And, presently, policy.  

Why not when it comes to hazardous marriages?  WHY??  oh WHY??? is the Federal Government encouraging the States encouraging the Courts (with help from “faith-based” organizations and “Community Action Organizations” and other nonprofits of dubious parentage) to rake divorcing families over the coals in order to recreate a United States in which EVERY child has a Dad in his or her life, and EVERY mother has either a MAN in her life (if he’s alive), OR the Government telling her how to raise her children and educate her children (and by virtue of this, her lifestyle?   To be permanently punished for a poor choice of spouse or partner, when one has otherwise behaved in an upright and responsible citizenhood fashion, is abusive, and a sign Federal Government In Loco Parentis having totally forgotten its own origins:  “of, by for the people” and “consent of the governed.”   It has lost its mind — or, has NOT lost its mind, and is of a mind to leech a living off its own people by creating a constant source of conflict, between the courts, promoting this “fatherhood” thing (alongside most fundamentalist religions) and the nationwide school curriculum saying “It’s Elementary” (etc.) that some families have two parents of the same sex, and anyone who disagrees is committing a hate crime.   

It seems to me that in both institutions – courts, and schools — a habitual undermining of basic civil rights, as well as promotion of a certain “religion” (in one place, the nuclear family, in the other, the dismantling of the traditional nuclear family [if indeed this ever existed], both practically and as to teaching), and at the other end — as people come of age to procreate, which appears to be a more engaging activity than the studies in many public schools — as if an afterthought, now that some of these parents are on welfare, this same government then wants to now teach them how to be parents, especially Dads.  Moms are taught by default how to make babies for government studies and programs; the fodder for Ph.D. “Child Development Scholars” and other therapists.

OK, now that that’s out of my system, how this relates to

the “Gold Rush” in the “Golden State,”. . . .

 

I’ve posted below, for only ONE state, and only TWO “Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance” (“CFDA”), and from only ONE major U.S. Exeuctive Branch Department, “Health and Human Services.” These are (some of) the many types of grants given for  redesigning the U.S. family.  Apparently the also significant U.S. Dept. of Education didn’t do a good enough job the first time through (either that, or it’s them “foreigners” (meaning, any group whose feet hit these shores en masse after your particular ethnic group did, except Native Americans…).  We need to constantly make and remake the family til we get it right one of these days.

Again, this is only SOME of where your funding for the local public schools, homeless assistance, or law enforcement, or other social services went.  It went in large part into social engineering programs.

OH, by the way, these programs are also compromising due process in the courts ~~even in the family courts which exist primarily to compromise evidence for conciliation to start with!~~ so they are affecting civil and legal rights under the U.S. Constitution.  That we let this happen is probably a factor of the educational system (and NOT accidental over the decades….), which teaches us neither, really, how government NOR the economy actually operate.  Nor is it real good at uncensored history, especially the history of its own self (dating to a little while after the Civil War, and before women got the vote).

So, this time, I searched:

  • CFDA #s: 93086 (healthy marriage), 93597 (Access Visitation Grants to states)
  • California Only (California has largest court system)
  • All Years, All Recipients, All etc..

I usually cannot get the chart to confine itself to the margins of this post — it goes off into the “blogroll” area and becomes unreadable.

It’s better to view the original site; to this end, welcome to a research tool.  Don’t you want to know WHY some fathers are committing homicide/suicide in desparation over the economy, or (overentitled?) outrage at being ousted, or because they have been publically humiliated in some fashion their psyches could not or would not handle.  Why a decade after this started, can’t we keep up with the family fatalities before the next generation of irresponsible (because, and ONLY because, according to this viewpoint, they were) fatherless Dads is born? 

(Present CEO of the nation that styles itself as leader of the ostensibly Free World excepted).

NOTE:  Mothers are used to being put down, humiliated, forced to beg, and treated like second class citizens for so long, we are not typically going off the deep end over loss of social status by murdering our kids, our spouses, or if they’re not available, someone else associated with them will do.  Women as a whole or men as a whole are not culprits.  We come in different colors, income levels, temperaments, and psyches.  ON THE OTHER HAND, given this, a governmental attempt to define us, our relationships, and our children, is going to be resisted.  It’s a recipe for ongoing conflict, and economic drain.  I suggest ALL U.S. Citizens take a serious look at this.  Here’s ONE underestimated tool.  

In almost seven years in the system, I didn’t find ONE entity apart from this site, point me to this federal department.  One humble but FULL website did.   http://www.nafcj.net.  The site didn’t get my attention (no gov’t grants helped its design, or press), but what it said did.

MOST organizations that say “prevention of violence” in them or “stop abuse” or “battered women” or even “family court reform” or something similar, don’t even mention this TAGGS site or point us to investigate its activities.  Father’s groups naturally wouldn’t, or they could no longer claim that concerns about certain social epidemics just “emerged.”  They did nothing of the sort — they were urged, publicized, promoted, and proclaimed, from Top Down, in typical government style.  I have now gotten to the point of finding out UP FRONT before I deal with any nonprofit or “let us help you” group, who is funding them.  You should too.  Ignorance ain’t bliss.  And it’s got to be a sin (faith-community or no faith-community) to fail to inform women in trauma filing protective orders about all the cooks in the kitchen.

SO . . . .. 

ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN OR RESIDENT?  THEN

THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED

 IT IS A RHETORIC RADAR.  IT IS A DOGMA DETECTOR.  

IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**

EDUCATE THYSELF!

http://taggs.hhs.gov

**

For example, when Glenn Sacks, Jeffrey Leving, Esq.   Sen. Evan Bayh, or President Obama — or any noble-sounding nonprofit (or government agency) such as American Coalition for Fathers and Children  [Doesn’t THAT sound worthy, and united and concerned about, well, FAMILIES??] — writes, blogs, or receives high-profile press coverage stating that we need MORE money to stop the woefully underfunded fatherhood movement (as if this was a new crisis the U.S. (i.e., taxes) hadn’t already poured millions into, without addressing, for example, how the US being the world’s largest jailer MIGHT relate to why SOME kids are fatherless) you will realize when they are simply lying.  

Or, whether they are actually quoting each other and playing Good Cop, Bad Cop {{pretending to fight with each other and be more separate in intent than they actually are}} to confuse the viewers (see ACFC link above).  Broad allegations and statements are made without links or cites, such as this, (date, 2007):

AUTHORS:  Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:

The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. Obama says he seeks to “make it easier” for men who choose to be responsible fathers, but his bill ignores the biggest roadblock fathers face—CLAIM: a family law system which does little to protect the loving bonds these dads share with their children.

FACT:  The duty of any COURT system [[HINT:  JUDICIAL branch, not LEGISLATIVE — remember this??]] is to protect the existing laws, not re-write them.  To determine and allocate consequences for people who violate laws, especially intentionally and repeatedly.  

To make sure that due process happens and evidence is considered as to whether the EXISTING laws have been (a) observed or (b) violated.  There are also RULES for many courts, to aid in the process.

FACT:  The primary characteristic of the “family law SYSTEM” is the prominent use of outside the courtroom decision making.  Even the Acronym of this organization “ACFC” is modeled after another organization “AFCC” which title means “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” an international organization of dubious tax-compliance history until someone caught them operating out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse without a separate EIN (IRS Tax) # — i.e., until they got caught in an audit — and drenched with psychologists, mediators, & custody evaluators holding international!! conferences, with judges and attorneys (conflict of interest there, anyone?) publishing, promoting, and proclaiming all kinds of theories (and making alliances) that the average low-income litigant is naively unaware of, not invited to, and not encouraged to know about.   All of this is patronizingly, ostensibly, for the greater good, or the country, the families, and I suppose apple pie, too.  As such, these experts don’t trouble to tell ignorant litigants about their alliances, or how much profit is made from the conferences, books, trainings, and publications. 

IRONICALLY, IN 1992, per this source, the courts are drenched with:

2.Due Process Violations 

a. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was 

separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in 

1994. 

b. Attorneys quit prematurely in violation of procedural and ethical laws. 

c. Orders issued after ex parte hearings an/or in chambers meetings or upon 

the judge’s discretion without proper notice and evidentiary hearing. 

d. Removal of testimony from the court (where it should be) under the guise 

of mediation and evaluation.There is no control over the mediation and 

evaluation processes, no public debate of the issues, and no record of evi- 

dence. Once an evaluation report is issued, the court makes few discre- 

tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report. 

e. Presumption that the parents are “equal” upon dissolution in spite of evi- 

dence to the contrary

 

Or, whether (possibly) having used one of themselves for a specific purpose, they then turn and backstab the same person.  Kind of like a high-conflict, divorcing bitter spouse might.

Now you, too (I ALREADY DID), can have a catharsis (SHOCK) of understanding of WHY there is “Disorder in the Courts” and certain systems appear broken, when they aren’t really.  They are doing exactly what they were designed to do — create a cash flow and ongoing transfer of wealth from the taxpaying public into the hands of the “experts” and away from two working parents (whether cohabiting, married, or not) to children, their offspring.

 

Here’s the “TAGGS”  site.

Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System

(You didn’t expect to pass Big Brother 101 without learning a few acronyms, did you?)

Welcome!

The Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) is an extensive tool developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Grants. The TAGGS database is a central repository for grants awarded by the twelve {{12, count’em, 12}} HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs). TAGGS tracks obligated grant funds at the transaction level.

NOTE:  To actually find out what those transactions were used for will take a little more legwork, locally.

 

What’s New

Several new search pages have been added and grouped under the new Search menu.

 

  • TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report – The TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report is now available on the Annual Reports Page. The annual report contains summary information about the HHS Grants Programs tracked by TAGGS. The annual report is available in Microsoft Word format.
  • TAGGS Advanced Search – The new TAGGS Advanced Search enables a very refined search through more than 500,000 grant awards. Criteria include keyword, award title, recipient name, agency, type, title, recipient name, and many other selections in a variety of combinations. Search results can be output and downloaded in Microsoft Excel format.
  • Abstracts Search by Keyword and Advanced Search – The two new Award Abstract Searches provide a search through more than 85,000 Grant Award Abstracts by keyword or by using the Advanced Search. The TAGGS Abstracts Search by Keyword search performs a full-text search of each available abstract based on the entered keywork. The TAGGS Abstracts Advanced Search enables search criteria such as keyword, agency, type, year, and state to be used in many combinations.
  •  

     

    A search of all states resulted in nearly 1,500 results, which I doubt wordpress could handle the pageload.

     

    I find the pattern below (try this link for a better view — OR, select the CFDA #s 93597 & 93086 ONLY, for California, and with the column titles you see below (scroll to bottom of the Advanced Search page to select) and it should come out the same).

    Before you actually LOOK at this, consider yet another Fatherhood “whine,” dating to (originally) 06/30/2007 — after Father’s Day THAT year…):

    Yet most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and while the United States spends nearly $5 billion a year enforcing child support, there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. {{False}} In such cases, fathers must scrape together money for an attorney so they can go to court , and even then courts enforce visitation orders indifferently.

    According to the Children’s Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents {{male, or female?}} interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.”

    WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?

    This is from:

    Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children

    Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

     

    ACFC Washington Office 1718 M St. NW. #187 Washington, DC 20036 
    Telephone: 800-978-3237

    @@@

    Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.

    @@@

     

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City County Award Number Award Title CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2009  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0910CASAVP  FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 942,497 
    2009  OFA  Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul  ORANGE  ORANGE  90FR0003  THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  OTHER REVISION  EDWARD C HARTMANN  $- 148,172 
    2008  ACF  BILL WILSON CENTER  SANTA CLARA  SANTA CLARA  90FR0096  RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  SPARKY HARLAN  $ 243,469 
    2008  ACF  Brighter Beginnings  OAKLAND  ALAMEDA  90FR0099  PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA BUNN  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC  LONG BEACH  LOS ANGELES  90FE0065  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  KIMTHAI R KUOCH  $ 450,000 
    2008  ACF  CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC  SANTA ANA  ORANGE  90FE0080  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  REGINA LINDNER  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  CENTERFORCE  SAN RAFAEL  MARIN  90FR0004  HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CHARLES GREENE  $ 481,554 
    2008  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0076  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL K SWINGER  $ 500,000 
    2008  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0088  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL SWINGER  $ 1,000,000 
    2008  ACF  CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER  LOS ANGELES  SHASTA  90FR0071  PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  VICKIE KROPENSKE  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  SAN DIEGO  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2008  ACF  Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc.  FRESNO  FRESNO  90FR0053  POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LISA M BROTT  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0056  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOSE VILLALOBOS  $ 1,100,000 
    2008  ACF  HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  HOOPA  HUMBOLDT  90FN0001  INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LESLIE M COLEGROVE  $ 146,750 
    2008  ACF  Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program  EL CENTRO  IMPERIAL  90FE0075  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  MARY CAMACHO  $ 515,615 
    2008  ACF  Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry  SAN DIEGO  SAN DIEGO  90FR0016  SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOHN R HUGHES  $ 268,349 
    2008  ACF  PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0092  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  TANYA MCDONALD  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC.  PITTSBURG  CONTRA COSTA  90FE0012  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  FRANCES GREENE  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.  IRVINE  ORANGE  90FR0058  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  M.P. P WYLIE  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  90FE0015  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CAROLYN R CURTIS  $ 549,256 
    2008  ACF  THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  Berkeley    90FE0024  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CATHERINE M REED  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC  VISTA  SAN DIEGO  90FR0024  VCC CLUB DE PADRES  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA MANNINO  $ 250,000 
    2008  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0810CASAVP  2008 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 957,600 
    2007  ACF  BILL WILSON CENTER  SANTA CLARA  SANTA CLARA  90FR0096  RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  SPARKY HARLAN  $ 243,469 
    2007  ACF  Brighter Beginnings  OAKLAND  ALAMEDA  90FR0099  PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA BUNN  $ 250,000 
    2007  ACF  CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC  LONG BEACH  LOS ANGELES  90FE0065  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  KIMTHAI R KUOCH  $ 450,000 
    2007  ACF  CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC  SANTA ANA  ORANGE  90FE0080  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  REGINA LINDNER  $ 378,020 
    2007  ACF  CENTERFORCE  SAN RAFAEL  MARIN  90FR0004  HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARRY ZACK  $ 474,555 
    2007  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0076  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL K SWINGER  $ 500,000 
    2007  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0088  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL SWINGER  $ 1,000,000 
    2007  ACF  CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER  LOS ANGELES  SHASTA  90FR0071  PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  RICHARD N HUME  $ 174,034 
    2007  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  SAN DIEGO  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2007  ACF  Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents  EAGLE ROCK  LOS ANGELES  90FE0085  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DR DENISE JOHNSTON  $ 384,951 
    2007  ACF  Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc.  FRESNO  FRESNO  90FR0053  POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LISA M BROTT  $ 250,000 
    2007  ACF  EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0056  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOSE VILLALOBOS  $ 1,100,000 
    2007  ACF  HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  HOOPA  HUMBOLDT  90FN0001  INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LESLIE M COLEGROVE  $ 146,750 
    2007  ACF  Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program  EL CENTRO  IMPERIAL  90FE0075  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  MARY CAMACHO  $ 399,253 
    2007  ACF  Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry  SAN DIEGO  SAN DIEGO  90FR0016  SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOHN R HUGHES  $ 268,349 
    2007  ACF  PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0092  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  TANYA MCDONALD  $ 550,000 
    2007  ACF  PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC.  PITTSBURG  CONTRA COSTA  90FE0012  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  FRANCES GREENE  $ 550,000 
    2007  ACF  Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.  IRVINE  ORANGE  90FR0058  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  M.P. P WYLIE  $ 250,000 
    2007  ACF  Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  90FE0015  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CAROLYN R CURTIS  $ 549,256 
    2007  ACF  THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  Berkeley    90FE0024  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CATHERINE M REED  $ 550,000 
    2007  ACF  VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC  VISTA  SAN DIEGO  90FR0024  VCC CLUB DE PADRES  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA MANNINO  $ 250,000 
    2007  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0710CASAVP  2007 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 950,190 
    2006  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0610CASAVP  2006 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 987,973 
    2006  OFA  BILL WILSON CENTER  SANTA CLARA  SANTA CLARA  90FR0096  RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  SPARKY HARLAN  $ 207,469 
    2006  OFA  Brighter Beginnings  OAKLAND  ALAMEDA  90FR0099  PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BARBARA BUNN  $ 250,000 
    2006  OFA  CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC  LONG BEACH  LOS ANGELES  90FE0065  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  KIMTHAI R KUOCH  $ 450,000 
    2006  OFA  CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC  SANTA ANA  ORANGE  90FE0080  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  REGINA LINDNER  $ 550,000 
    2006  OFA  CENTERFORCE  SAN RAFAEL  MARIN  90FR0004  HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BARRY ZACK  $ 481,555 
    2006  OFA  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0076  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  HERSHEL K SWINGER  $ 500,000 
    2006  OFA  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0088  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  HERSHEL SWINGER  $ 1,000,000 
    2006  OFA  CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER  LOS ANGELES  SHASTA  90FR0071  PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  RICHARD N HUME  $ 249,034 
    2006  OFA  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  SAN DIEGO  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,342,080 
    2006  OFA  Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents  EAGLE ROCK  LOS ANGELES  90FE0085  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  DR DENISE JOHNSTON  $ 461,186 
    2006  OFA  Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc.  FRESNO  FRESNO  90FR0053  POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  LISA M BROTT  $ 250,000 
    2006  OFA  Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul  ORANGE  ORANGE  90FR0003  THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  EDWARD C HARTMANN  $ 388,193 
    2006  OFA  EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0056  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JOSE VILLALOBOS  $ 1,100,000 
    2006  OFA  HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  HOOPA  HUMBOLDT  90FN0001  INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PL  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  NORMA MCADAMS  $ 146,750 
    2006  OFA  Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program  EL CENTRO  IMPERIAL  90FE0075  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  MARY CAMACHO  $ 479,031 
    2006  OFA  Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry  SAN DIEGO  SAN DIEGO  90FR0016  SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JOHN R HUGHES  $ 268,449 
    2006  OFA  PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0092  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BENJAMIN HARDWICK  $ 550,000 
    2006  OFA  PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC.  PITTSBURG  CONTRA COSTA  90FE0012  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  FRANCES GREENE  $ 527,664 
    2006  OFA  Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.  IRVINE  ORANGE  90FR0058  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  M>P> WYLIE  $ 250,000 
    2006  OFA  Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  90FE0015  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  CAROLYN R CURTIS  $ 549,256 
    2006  OFA  THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  Berkeley    90FE0024  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  CATHERINE M REED  $ 549,999 
    2006  OFA  VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC  VISTA  SAN DIEGO  90FR0024  VCC CLUB DE PADRES  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BARBARA MANNINO  $ 250,000 
    2005  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0510CASAVP  2005 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 988,710 
    2004  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0410CASAVP  2004 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 988,710 
    2003  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9801CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $- 250,805 
    2003  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9901CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $- 139,812 
    2003  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0310CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 970,431 
    2002  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0210CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 970,431 
    2001  OCSE  CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES  RANCHO CORDOVA  SACRAMENTO  0001CASAVP  SAVP 2000  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $- 987,501 
    2001  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0010CASAVP  SAVP 2000  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    2001  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0110CASAVP  SAVP 2001  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    2000  OCSE  CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES  RANCHO CORDOVA  SACRAMENTO  0001CASAVP  SAVP 2000  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    1999  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9901CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    1998  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9701CASAVP  SAVP 1997  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 1,113,750 
    1998  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9801CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 1,113,750 

     

     

    Does the word “Demonstration” raise an eyebrow for you?  Are you curious what a “Demonstration Priority Area” is, and whether your residing (if so) in one either aided or compromised due process in your particular family law case (if such be), or exercise of your civic duty of fatherhood (if such be).  

    I wonder why a subset (Program Office OCSE) of a subset (OPDIV “ACF” — and ALL of these grants were ACF grants) of a subset (HHS) of the Executive Branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)– which the “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement) indeed IS — it IS in the Executive Branch of the US Government — is doing distributin cl

     

    I wonder whether this information is posted at courthouses, or child support offices, like an “under Construction” would be at other sites?   I didn’t realize til, well, recently, that the last X years I spent in the family law system were part of someone else’s Demonstration Grant.  This is what we get for minding our own business, and failing to secure enough excess time in our daily schedules to ALSO mind the business of our elected representative governments, both Federal and State.  

    We farmed out government to the government have ended up (our children, basically, and incomes) becoming someone else’s family farm.

    Suggestion:

    If fewer categories (column titles) are chosen, a search will produce interactive recipient names, or grant #s, and this will tell more about

    the individual activities.  And gets pretty interesting . . . . . 

    . . .  Dang it, I just slipped into bureaucratic passive and Impassive; the language is like a pheronome, or like stale air, if you hang around it too long, you begin exhaling in the same manner:  categories are chosen (I didn’t act), searches (not my choices) produced, just like a domestic dispute “arose” between two individuals, during a, er, ACF-facilitated “ACCESS” exchange between parents. 

     

    I find it interesting that the “OCSE” is administering these grants designed to help noncustodial parents get more time with their children.

     

     OCSE is the “Office of Child Support Enforcement.”  I thought it wasn’t about the money, but about the best interests of the children, who need both parents in constant contact with them.  For example, nonpayment of child support is NOT a basis for withholding visitation of a child from the noncustodial parent.  Women are certainly told that loud and clear when pursuing child support arrears.  

     

    Unfortunately, some parents can’t be trusted alone with their children.  For example, some kids get killed or stolen on overnight visitations which are not supervised.  On the other hands, some unsupervised parents (mostly Moms) also supposedly cause severe emotional distress to their children by actually following through when child abuse or other violence is reported, causing more “high conflict’ between the parties.  Which is “bad.”  “Bad” protective parent:  Here, let us order some parenting classes for you….A common, but costly solution appears to be switching the custody to the other parent, and forcing the reporting parent to pay to see her offspring.  

    But one way to withhold visitation from a designated parent is if she (most likely)  cannot afford to pay to see her own children in a supervised visitation situation that arose AFTER something else (such as child abuse, or other domestic violence-related issues) has been reported or investigated.  I know mothers who cannot afford to see their children, after a custody switch. It does not seem to work both directions AFTER a custody switch (possibly enabled by some of these grants’ services).  Where’s the “healthy families” in that scenario?

     

    If these whole movements (Healthy Marriage, or Responsible Fatherhood & Access Visitation, meaning, it supposedly takes a Village to raise a Child and BOTH Parents (especially Dads) to also do this, which the taxpayers should then fund) are about the CHILDREN and our SOCIETY, then somehow it seems a little odd that the agency entrusted to do this is the CHILD SUPPORT branch, not another one.

     

    The fact, and that history of the matter is that it went kind of like this, as to finances:

     

    1.  OOPS!  Welfare roles are too high!  (Personal Work and Responsibility welfare reform)

    2.  Let’s go Collect Child Support — get those paternity tests and those deadbeat Dads.

    3.   OOPS!  A lot of them are in jail, and others just don’t want to pay, they’ve moved on in life?  What can be done?

    4.   Enter “Access Visitation” grants, in hope that more time with kids will result in more child support collected.  It’s all for the kids, after all.  If they get more time with the children, we will (artificially) “flex” the amount of child support actually due.

    4B.  And the multiple assorted professionals all along the way, all of who are also of course in it for the kids and not the money.

    5.    Who picks up the tab, in the long run, and what is it?  When custody switches are involved, then a parent who historically had been struggling or learning to manage a life (including a work life) around the children will then restructure the life differently, while the parent who just GOT the child will either restructure his (or her) work, or delegate the care of the child to someone else.

    6.  Did I mention Head Start yet?

    By the way, a lot of the funding below is what i call “Designer Families,” i.e., the US Government is actually studying US families (at the expense of the same families) to determine what they DO look like, to run some tests (see “DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS” below) and then report back (not to the consumer — to the experts, of course) on what the tests showed, and then expand the scope of the practice.  This, FYI, is business (perhaps not YOUR employer, but government) business as usual.  Something you don’t learn in grade school, or often in high school, unless your parent was a Senator or a Sociologist.  

     

    Well, two can play that game.  Who wants to come out and play?  

    Want some answers?  

    Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?

    Let’s do it.

    At least it would make some more interesting dinner conversation (assuming you still have dinner), or at a commuter bus stop (assuming you still have a job) than the latest office politics, or doom and gloom.  You can say, “Did you know that I now spend one-quarter (one-tenth, etc. — adjust according to your payscale) of my work day, which keeps me away from spending quality time with my kids, earning money for the government to spend getting other people who won’t or can’t pay child support to spend more time with their kids, in hopes that they will?  Or to keep them married when otherwise they’d divorce? Or just leave?”

    Or you could say, “Where do you think the HIGHEST grant for reducing abuse, poverty, drug use, and other social ills (i.e., promoting healthy marriages) went to in our state?  

    They’ll probably name Los Angeles,  San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento (or other  urban area known for its homicide rates, or radical agenda).

    And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:  

    No:  “Leucadia.”

    Leucadia?  You’re kidding!”

    “No, I’m not.  California Healthy Marriage Coalition, out of Leucadia, California got $2,400,000 last year alone to, er, well — well, they’re not in favor of same-sex marriages, let’s put it that way.  I don’t know where they stand on domestic violence, but they say — well, another group run by the same person says — he needs unconditional respect, and she needs unconditional love.  And those dang feminists, you know, are putting CONDITIONS on how he expresses his love, or whether they continue respecting him, in the form of these anti-violence allegations, and so forth….”

    “In 2006, The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received a five-year, $11.9 Million grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages

    {{{FYI:  “Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California.  Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs. “}}

    As a result of these efforts, CHMC expects to see a decline in the divorce/marriage ratio, a reduction in child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, criminal behavior, and an improvement in physical, emotional, and mental health.”

     

    HEY!  IF I SAY I EXPECT TO SEE SOMETHING, CAN I GET A FEDERAL GRANT, TOO?  

    I WILL MAKE UP A NICE NAME, AND USE BIG WORDS, STARTING SMALL WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, AND THEN EXPANDING NATIONWIDE.  SEE BELOW FOR A TYPICAL PATTERN. . .

    Now I’m curious.  Let’s see where they are on the $11.9 million….   In 2006 I was definitely on the wrong side of the politically correct agenda, obviously, in that I was trying to get UNMarried, complete a safe separation begun years earlier…. and retain housing . . . .  (Searched on “Principal Investigator,” pulled up an unrelated “Stoica”).  Well, maybe not a relative…)  (the name “Stoica” I picked out arbitrarily — well, actually because of the size of the grant — from the larger chart below).

     

     

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2008  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  93086  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2007  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  93086  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2007  NCI  GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY  WASHINGTON  Junior College, College & University  R03CA117467  AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER  93394  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ADRIANA STOICA  $ 75,350 
    2006  NCI  GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY  WASHINGTON  Junior College, College & University  R03CA117467  AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER  93394  NEW  ADRIANA STOICA  $ 77,600 
    2006  OFA  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  93086  NEW  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,342,080 
    2005  OCS  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90EJ0064  COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM  93009  NEW  DENNIS STOICA  $ 583,475 
    2005  OCS  Orange County Marriage Education and Training Institute  ANAHEIM  Other Special Interest Organization  90IJ0201  COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI  93009  NEW  DENNIS STOICA  $ 50,000 
    2004  OCS  Orange County Marriage Resource Center  ANAHEIM  Other Social Services Organization  90IJ0121  CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE  93647  NEW  DENNIS STOICA  $ 50,000 

     

     

    The next RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN behavior then might be to ask, for example, what a particular grant recipient is doing with some of the funds, either on line, or hey, give them a call!  Say, “Hey!  $50,000 is more than I make per year, and a good part of this is being garnished to pay child support already.  Can you tell me what your group did last year with YOUR $50,000 — and who’s on the payroll?  I’d like to see a line item listing, or a few cancelled checks perhaps.  I mean, I work hard (yes, I’m sure you do), and I’d just like to know where my taxes are going.  Thanks!  Send the printout to _________________).” (And then install a security camera….)

    Note:  In the example above (where I picked  one of the larger grants in the big chart, and searched on Principal Investigator)

    In the next post (or so), I will, possibly, show how well all this Healing Families and getting Dads responsible has reduced Violence Against women SO much (in the same time period) that we really don’t need (?) VAWA to keep funding shelters, and other things to help them stay alive, or in one piece.  The momentum of the emerging (still???) Fatherhood movement and Responsibility Movement and Shared Parenting Movement, has really worked, and we now have significantly less separation violence, fewer family wipeouts, and children in the care of the other parent, with help in care of possibly a new girlfriend, or boyfriend, are faring better.  Like the 7 year old boy who was just taken off life support in Massachusetts, after his Dad came back into his life, possibly under one of these programs (although I didn’t investigate further on that one, I admit), after only 8 weeks summertime fun with his father.

     

    In the matter of Designer Families by Federal Fiat, I think we do need to take a closer look.  How’s your state doing?

    %d bloggers like this: