Posts Tagged ‘murder-suicides’

Federal Designer Families: How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation

This post is about 10,000 words. Enjoy!

I have about six posts in the pipeline, all of them timely to some recent indicators (developments) in the “protective mothers” field. All of them, as usual continuing to emphasize a functional vocabulary in discussing the family courts, and pointing out a few significant historical developments affecting them that those IN them rarely point out to clients, which I find strange.

By contrast, the developments in the “responsible fatherhood” field seem to be moving ahead with the usual momentum, and under-reported among “the commoners,” i.e., the general public and most family-court reform groups, who, apparently, don’t consider worthy of notice that this network even exists, or is a priority to understand.

However, it does. In fact, if you check some of the post-PRWORA-propped up nonprofits, centers, institutes, programming and the “same old, same old” hotshots, there is apparently nothing more important to talk about than what they have done, are doing, and how much HHS is going to pay them this time (sometimes that refers to a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant) to further strengthen and extend their communications, technical support, outreach/ recruiting and funding pipelines already set up in the “Fatherhood” network. (Recent example) Using federal funding to a university. One of team members historically associated with AFCC, another thing family court advocacy groups are averse to talking about.

There are also certain chronic weaknesses and vulnerabilities within this “HMRF” field (but also present, to a degree, in the domestic violence prevention field also), which would be excellent leverage to address some of the problems protective mothers are having in the courts, and I have yet to hear any legitimate (if indeed any) explanation why no significant protective mothers organization, or their featured professionals, has seen fit to raise the topic seriously with a view to DOING something about it, for at least the past dozen years, even when after a certain point, the leadership surely became aware that “outside” information on the responsible fatherhood field, HHS grants and AFCC was somehow “leaking” into the field of vision of some of the “fix the courts” promoters. One whitepaper did come out over a year after I, literally, did several posts (on two blogs) naming names of the “Let’s JUST not talk about it!” groups and proving which personnel at least knew the whole time.

Nearly two days of technical (keystroke processing speed almost at a standstill) problems with my computer slowed getting them published. Meanwhile, working out that situation, and concerned about output at this time, I decided to re-publish a 12/5/2009 FamilyCourtMatters post which is STILL more relevant than the average conversation I see on the family court reform in 2016, original title “While You Were Sleeping,… How Congress got into the Family Law Business.”

I have not yet extended the “Table of Contents” back to 2009, so “While You Were Sleeping” was probably missed by most people who may read or follow this blog. It is not the kind of information one tends to stumble across in general search terms on the family courts or its handling of situations and allegations of criminal behavior such as domestic violence or child abuse. Last month, I felt this post was important enough to clean up (formatting) and link to it, now I am actually re-posting.

It references by name key elements in networks I am blogging consistently on — public/private partnerships, and HOW does the federal government got its hand in into the state-level cookie jar without quite getting caught at it, and vice versa, while the courts themselves contribute to an ever-expanding and increasingly dependent on social services population.

**Mostly, these posts-in-the-pipeline again review some basic vocabulary with which we can talk about things which both the protective mothers’ perspective, and definitely in the fathers’ rights perspective have for years resisted discussing on-line in anything approaching a coherent manner, using accurate and relevant terms to describe the infrastructure and how it networks to promote either their own perspective, or the perspective for which they want “systemic changes” or “a paradigm” change for [divorce law, family courts, child support] because it’s: unfair to fathers, unfair to mothers, dangerous to children, or gender-biased against men (or women), is destroying the American family, human rights,civil rights, etc.

We who are concerned, afflicted by, or discussing the problems in the family courts, should ALL know and talk what top-level state institutions (such as the California Judicial Council), federal deliberations courtesy of CRS (Congressional Research Service) (“Should the Federal Government get involved in Family Matters which are under State law jurisdiction?”) (unsaid: “HOW can we get our fingers into family and divorce courts without getting caught on it, or held responsible for any negative effects after we have?”) ….. (And “WHO will help us do this?” some of which this post shows who actually did) are actually involved, or, for example, just how one state ends up copying the court (privatization and outsourcing) practices in another.

For example, I had years of personal encounters through the courts before I became aware of the information in just this excerpt from that 2009 post below. The publication talking about it came out in the context of a state-level, state-wide evaluation of the ruling body of the courts published around May, 2012. Take a look at this excerpt, which will be repeated below, without the olive-green background:

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

A Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts. Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

…

(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d. Link above…)
The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system. Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.” Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind. These are rarely 100% neutral. [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name. It files a Form 990]]

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members. This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them. Not the topic of this post….

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC? I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…

SUMMARY: The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show. The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind…

But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office. Then, they combined them. Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts. “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC. AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.

They are also pretty good at setting the stage for creating new professions at the expense of the courts (the public) and parents (also, the public), one of the earlier ones pushed was mediation, one of the later, “parent coordination.”

Another reason I would question any advocacy group who, knowing about this organization, didn’t talk — and keep talking — about it.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 26, 2016 at 9:43 am

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with "CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?" (CRS Rpt 97-590 updated 6-20-2000), "Outflanking the Nation-State: David Mitrany and the Origins of Functionalism", AFCC, AFCC CFCC AOC Judicial Council, Carmen Solomon-Fears, CRS Rept 97-590, CRS-Congressional Research Service, Due process, Elements of the Network, fatherhood, Global Pound Conference of the IMI, HHS-TAGGS grants database, History of Access and Visitation Legislation, House Ways and Means-Human Resources Subcommittee (Jurisdiction - Titles I ~IV ~VI ~X ~XIV ~XVI ~XX and related provisions of titles VII & XI of the Social Security Act per 112th Congress rules), IMI - International Mediation Institute (Dutch/UN Consultative NGO), men's rights, murder-suicides, obfuscation, social commentary, Statewide Office of Family Court Services (in Calif in 2000 merged into a "CFCC"), Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.

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

with 2 comments

Why?

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

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

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

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your concern.

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

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

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

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

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

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

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

Key in this EIN#

470942805

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

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

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

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

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

Name	Taxpayer ID#	Zip

INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS	17523304719	75225

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

2010

751726710

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother

1980

31,455

1,402

990

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might want to look at this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This site writes their rationale:

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

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

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

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

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF). I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:

Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com
rdjustice@monitor.net

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

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

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

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

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

Hearsay #1:

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

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

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

Hearsay #2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUH?

We who? (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)
Working for whom?*
Define “working” — what’s the goal here? (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE: “IS What We’re Doing Working”

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

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

HEMET: Estranged couple die in courthouse murder-suicide

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

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

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

. . . .

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

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

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

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

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

. . . She moved out, not him….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released. The woman did everything right — almost. She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.

I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze. THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?

There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later. For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.

Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards? How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated. It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached. Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier. If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?

But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.

Meanwhile: We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.

I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of. It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.

Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.

2012 PRESENTERS Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

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

Kathleen Russell*

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

Connie Valentine (CPPA)

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

Phyllis Chesler

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

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

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

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

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

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

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

Dara Carlin*

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

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

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

Rita Smith*

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

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

Mo Therese Hannah

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

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano

Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake. This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces. We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).

Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up. NOTE: That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.

I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are. Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

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

with 5 comments

POST TITLE IS:

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

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

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

INTRO:

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

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

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

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

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

Why I’m addressing it — again:

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

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

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

Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function

Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access

Parenting coordination is a denial of due process

Parenting coordination violates privacy

The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests

Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law

Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups

No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions

No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.

Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people

Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document

Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire

Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract

There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination

Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion

It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them

Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes

Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford

Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds

Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious

Parenting coordination is not confidential

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other

Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders

Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights

Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers

They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody

They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed

Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being

Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted

Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power

Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships

They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”

They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making

They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being

Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent

Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them

Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and

They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

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

Out of control parenting coordinator (Hastings case, FL 2nd DCA, 2002) Caveat custody modification standard

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post). I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida. They have since succeeded, I believe, too.

Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow.

This is primarily what AFCC does. From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.” The problem (sic) is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints.

Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits! {{It looks like I didn’t post that link, or it wasn’t saved to final… unless it’s shown in the DVLeap 2010 brief.}}

DVLeap brief in 2010 case (Washington, DC) arguing some of the constitutional issues More from DVLeap

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

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

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

June 18, 2004

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

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

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

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

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

(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —

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

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

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

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

CASE NO. C064475

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________

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

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________

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

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

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

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

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

The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)

AFCC itself (at least twice)

A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others. These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.

Herself, like 3 times, in:

Shear (2008) In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass-roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute 5 Journal of Child Custody 88…………………………………………..5, 18, 25 (cited on page 5, 18 & 25).

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

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

In other words, to protect her own kind….

Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination.

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

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

by KHOU.com staff

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(REASON 4)

(4)

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

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

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

[supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers. They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]
Reduce parental conflict through anger management, communication and conflict resolutions skills.

[increasing the expense of divorce, treating parents like kids, undermining judicial authority, & due process, and invading one’s privacy sure will “reduce parental conflict”!! . .. And I haven’t even got (this post anyhow) to the training manual which has an openly hostile attitude towards mothers, it’s unbelievable).
Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.

[goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior. Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]
Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.

[Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well. Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans. I mean — the concept is ridiculous! What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]
Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to adjust more effectively with the new family structure.

[You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/ Again, go have your own and show it to us. Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]
Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.

[that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]
Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the recommendations of the Court.

[Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up. One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena. It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .

Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails. It entails respecting its laws. I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]

The NH “Parent Coordinators” Association of 2009 “FAQs” suggest a benefit is:
Q. What are the benefits of Parenting Coordination?

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

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

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

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

Handbook

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

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

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

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

Gloria K. Mitchell, and the four attorneys in the law firm,

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

Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum

3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute

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

*Note: the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened. Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005. So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.

I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.

Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF): notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation. In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage: Legislating Family Values” Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.

But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.

Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties. She is a partner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Jennifer Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community. A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.

To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.

Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs. Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.

(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans: 166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime). As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people. As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000. The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

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

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

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

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

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

Standing Committee on Custody, North: Chair 1988-1990

San Francisco Bar Association

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

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

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

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

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

Where we are going…

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

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

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation. What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are. As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).

** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

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

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)

This report is on-line at “SAIF” where it probably was presented:

Seminars For Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals

They have a form for the (many) professionals listed to say which district they want to be parent coordinator in — PC has its own tab. (Strategic planning)

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

Date	Name (Type)
7/27/2006	SEMINARS FOR ADVANCED INTERDISCIPLINARY FAMILY PROFESSIONALS, INC. D/B/A SAIF (Assumed))

(the entity filed one report in 2008, file notes, it owes 2010/2011 – perhaps IN is only every 2 years).

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

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

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

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

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

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

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

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

. . . .

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

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

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

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

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

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

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

The New Frontier

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

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

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

Abbas Hadjian, JD, CFLS

Graduate of Tehran University School of Law and Harvard…

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

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

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

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

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

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

Children display increased self-confidence.

Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.

Higher grade point averages.

More likely to mature into compassionate adults.

Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.
May reduce health-risk behaviors.
Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.
Happiness and increased physical activity.
Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.
Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.
Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

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

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.

These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute. It must be important:

9:00am – 5:15pm

All Day Institute (2)

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

Lyn Greenberg, Ph D

Alexandra Leichtner, JD

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Apparently even indigent people need parent coordination — there’s a workshop on how to get it to them:

W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordination Program Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent FamiliesHonorable Lorna Alksne// Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA // Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD // Lori Love, Ph D

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

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

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

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

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

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

+ + + + = = = + + + = = =

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

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

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

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

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

General Comments:

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

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

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

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

National Juvenile Defender Center:

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

http://njdc.info/about_us.php

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

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

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm

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

Tagged with "Parenting Coordination is a Bad Idea"-TheLizLibrary, Access-Visitation, AFCC, AFCC Judges-Hugh Starnes (FL), AFCC quoting AFCC quoting AFCC, Attorneys-Abbas Hadjian (CA), Attorneys-Amy Stewart (IN), Attorneys-Chris Emley (VSLP&LSC-CA), Attorneys-Gloria K. Mitchell (IN), Attorneys-Jennifer Jackson (SF:background), Attorneys-Patricia Purditz (VA-NJDC Exec Dir), Bogus ACFLS (not filing Charitable returns in CA) group LOVES to file Amicus Briefs and help Reform the Courts, Due process, Families Moving Forward Inc. (IN), family annihilation, family law, fatherhood, Human Rights Watch on Incarcerated Youth, IACP (Internat'l Assoc of Collaborative Professionals), Jeb Bush Parenting Coord. 2004 Veto, Joan S Meier DVLEAP, Kids' Turn, Legal Services for Children Inc (CA), Leslie Ellen Shear-ACFLS AFCC, Motherhood, murder-suicides, NJDC-National Juvenile Defender Center (WDC Inc.2002), obfuscation, Parenting Coordination, SAIF-Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals (IN-works with Families Moving Forward), Termini-Boyan, Trials and woes of dealing with flawed parents in court, VLSP-Volunteer Legal Services Program (SF Bar assoc)

Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?

with 8 comments

The Nonprofit Preventing Family Violence and Dispensing Family Justice world can be a very friendly set of associates. In getting to know these individuals, besides hearing what they say & write (including positively about each other), I think it’s also helpful to look at who is paying how much for the time and the talents.

Getting to know each other …

On a recent post and here (currently), there is a graphic of Ellen Pence — well-known in Domestic Violence circles — interviewing Casey Gwinn, well known in San Diego and for his work on the National Family Justice Center Alliance, i.e., for starting it.

(Telling amy’s story comes out of Pennsylvania, and I’m starting to wonder who paid for that one, too. The Amy in question ended up being shot by her stalker/abuser and probably just fortune/luck/God (etc.) that her parents and her child wasn’t also shot — as all were foolish enough to drive her back to the house for some diapers (etc.) RIGHT after a strong confrontation with the man. Amy now being dead, others, heads of domestic violence prevention groups, are telling her story — and they are telling HALF her story. They didn’t even notice that it wasn’t too bright to lose one’s life over some nonfoods that could be purchased cheap at a local store.) But doesn’t it look official and appropriate — “Telling amy’s story.” )

Personally, what inspired me much more (while in or shortly after leaving the abusive relationship) was stories of women who were NOT shot to death, and how they recovered, went on to succeed in their new lives, and these stories were told in their own words — which could happen because they lived. They did not die!)

Wikipedia on “Ellen Pence”:

Background

Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A.(in ???_______) She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 (?? see bottom of my pos) and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.

(incidentally, St. Scholastica ain’t your average private liberal arts college. See the 27-member Board of Trustees, for one. Catholic/ Benedictine Order influence)

Here (for the new to this) are some of the “Power and Control” Wheels circulated through The Duluth Model. I’ve linked it to a young woman’s memorial fund who was trying to break out of this cycle while murdered. Her relatives hope that publicizing this may help others… (does it?) They formed a nonprofit to commemorate here and use the wheel with the permission of:

Used with permission of the
DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT
202 E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781
www.duluth-model.org

Not knowing the “Lindsay Anne Burke” case from Rhode Island, I find out that she was girlfriend to a man who’d previously fathered two children, and had had their mothers get restraining orders out on him. Moreover, she started dating him around the time his second child had been born!

A law was named after her dramatic case (PROJO — R.I. paper — describes, 2005)(2007, warning!: graphic account of trial & testimony). QUESTION: If these groups have been educating and warning women about the dangers of stalkers, controlling personalities and in general domestic violence issues since the 1980s, how come this still happens in the 2000s ? Sadly, we see the Burke memorial fund suggesting people contribute to the local Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Yet this horrible murder was clearly preceded by not one, but two domestic violence restraining orders in the context of custody battles — children born in 1998 & 2003 — and the officers are saying they had no record?

The COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY RESPONSE (CCR) TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:

You can see readily how the collaborative response from Duluth might have things in common with the San Diego-based Family Justice Collaboration model, including focusing on training, and credibility when it comes to a great grants stream. One difference is that Pence did not come from public employment in law enforcement or a LEGAL or ENFORCEMENT background, but a SOCIOLOGICAL perspective. I don’t believe this can be said of Casey Gwinn’s background. However, it’s clear they have common ground.

In 1979, there was already an existing domestic violence prevention group around. From what I can tell this group (associated with a university) got basically outclassed and, if I may, “out-gunned” (financially and as to web presence), although it’s still around, it’s hard to find through Google Search, and its current “history” page is blank. It is based in Minneapolis, not Duluth and is associated with (Dr.) Jeffrey Edleson. I reports income of of about $1.6 million (per Guidestar) and is in this tax-exempt

Category (NTEE):Crime, Legal Related / (Protection Against and Prevention of Neglect, Abuse, Exploitation)

Year Founded:1979 Ruling Year:1979 (EIN# 411356278).

It shows 15 board members, 53 employees and 35 volunteers and receives a lot of grants in support. It has not tried, from what I can tell, to change the entire world or justice system, or franchise itself. It does not appear to be drawing from HHS funds, perhaps that’s why it’s a measly $1 million and not a bustling $3 million or $4 million per year, as others… But the question that comes up, why form a group only a year later that is hellbent on transforming the distribution of justice through training projects?

About Justice Alliances and Resource Centers:

Given the economy, perhaps you should attempt to get a job in one of these places, get on the conference circuit and establish your reputation, and then you can run things AND perhaps have a retirement, and a mobile lifestyle (at least periodically) as well. How is it that justice can’t be achieved and violence prevented by the process of equal enforcement (whether towards men or towards women or towards children) of the existing state laws against assault & battery, against felony child-stealing, against rape, against molestation of minors, against abuse in general? Why is it necessary to form nonprofit after nonprofit (staff them, sometimes set up buildings, or lease buildings), build curricula, train & retrain judges, and everyone else, and sell “risk assessment kits” to family law professionals?

What are people so angry about, that they have to keep assaulting and trafficking each other, and where did they learn this habit of treating people like animals, including selling them? . . . Hardly the answer for a single post (or lifetime), but did you ever consider why — given that these things seem to be part of human nature, if not the history of our species — it is now suddenly thought that an institution or resource center could somehow change human nature and stop this, bringing in world utopia, starting with organizations that — by this point in time (say, starting in the 1980s) are actually run by people already involved in running the major institutions of our states and local communities?

Then these organizations, with leadership by public employees or former employees, already whose salaries were paid by the public, drawing on FEDERAL support pooled from the IRS, and distributed largely according to decisions that many local populations are unaware of — meaning from a database of wage-earners in and out of state.

If you can’t grasp the concept — let me illustrate. Have you ever heard of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.?” (pause to allow search).

I have — but only because I research the grants system. Better known is its subsidiary (?), “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project,” and the well-known (among domestic violence circles, and many victims have received some literature on “the Duluth Model.” This is from a facebook page based on a Wikipedia Article which is clearly not written by someone involved with the DAIP. (Contributors). I came here after attempting to find Minnesota Program Development Inc. on the Minnesota AG’s list of charities. So far, it doesn’t exist. Until recently, I’d thought it was some sort of workforce development organization, similar to MDRC a group that kept cropping up as fulfilling contracts with the government, and/or evaluating them. The kind of contracts & grants I’ve been looking at here, i.e., fatherhood promotion and the legal rights dilution process.

FOR COMPARISON, WHO IS MDRC?

“MDRC: Manpower Development Research Development, “What IS MDRC?“

Too often, public policies that profoundly affect the lives of low-income families are shaped by hunches, anecdotes, and untested assumptions. Ineffective policies waste precious resources and feed public cynicism about government. Most important, such policies may hinder the very people they are designed to help. MDRC was created to learn what works in social policy — and to make sure that the evidence we produce informs the design and implementation of policies and programs.

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.

A Foundation/Federal Agency blend has significant power and influence. Its apparently top 3 Board of Directors are from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, you DO know who they are, right?), the JFK School of Government at Harvard, and The Urban Institute. Reading below the line, I notice the first one (the list is alphabetical) is Ron Haskins, well known (nay, infamous!) for having pushed through the Access and Visitation Grants section of the 1996 Welfare Reform, and from his work at HHS. Translation: Fatherhood promoter. The last one, Isabel V. Sawhill (both of Brookings Institute) and both known as collaborators and researchers on fatherhood and family issues, along with such as Sara McLanahan, Ron Mincy, and others.

Inbetween, we have people from Harvard [Economics], Harvard [Education and Economics], Harvard [Education], Princeton, @ Univ. of Chicago [School of Social Service Administration], UNC (North Carolina), a bank (Citigroup) the president of a foundation, and “Chair, Steering Committee Association of Corporate Counsel Value Challenge.” Counsel, as in lawyers — corporate lawyers’ association.

Clearly, this is an influential group of some very high-ranking people influencing and possibly directing policy of masses — like THE masses (see K-12 education influence) of population, with an emphasis on the poor. Their (2009) budget being over $80 MILLION (66% from gov’t, 28% from private foundations, 1% from Universities, and a small sliver from others) takes a few pie charts to even visualize. I’ve dragged it here — or see link:

Financial Profile:

With an annual budget of more than $80 million, MDRC derives its revenues from a wide variety of sources. About 67 percent of MDRC’s funding comes from federal, state, and international government contracts. The rest comes from foundations, corporations, universities, individuals, and other sources. MDRC uses these funds to support the work of its five research policy areas: K-12 education, youth and postsecondary education, families and children, low-wage workers and communities, and health and barriers to employment.

We are all citizens, but some citizens have more influence than others, and those running foundations, perhaps as much as government. Moreover, foundations are historically close to the running of the U.S., however much we struggle to view ourselves as individually sovereign citizens with individual rights, and seek to uphold the law without respect to, say, connections or wealth. BUT our society is a jobs-focused, Public-education-grounded (for most children), earn wages and consume products and services (including products and services we probably don’t need most of), while the leaders and innovators work on consolidating their wealth to organize new technologies, explore outer space and deep oceans (great projects), build bridges and highways and so forth. It bears a humble reminder from time to time how relative & subjective the word “freedom” is.

What we sometimes forget (and it’s certainly not mainstream media headlines) is that a lot of this “technology” is in management of humans, and measuring how well that management has been working. We may think in terms of civil rights and due process, but there are groups like MDRC (and with the foundation influence) thinking in quite different terms…. And that nonprofits, corporations (including those that fulfil government purposes, for profit), and foundations define themselves, in the U.S., in relationship to the IRS, the strong-arm-collection agency of the taxes that support every governmental function and institution.

OK, CONSIDER THE INCOME TAX . . .

(1) From “infoplease” article:

The US Tax system has a dubious history, obviously. Originally, early (1791, this source says), it internally taxed certain [sales of] goods, including slaves. A quick review from this “infoplease.com” page does indeed relate to business at hand today — why some people can have laws to protect them enforced, and others can’t — and why more of us should pay more and more organizations to figure out why…

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation’s first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation’s 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.

Hmm. . . . .Seizure of property and prosecution….

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.

So, a good part of what we may call government included from the start raising money by selling slaves (not to mention that those who governed OWNED slaves), and then a nice income tax to help wage the civil war to free slaves (and prevent the South from seceding, etc.). Now, presidents seem to rise (or fall) on what they do with taxes, and as we see above, groups like MDRC who know how to qualify to be wealthy and pay less taxes, and do business with government, decide without our real input, what to do with the population of the United States who do NOT know how to do these things, or run government. While this isn’t technically buying and selling slaves, by controlling/influencing JOBS, FAMILIES & EDUCATION, it sure is great people management. I imagine this is real heady work, helping influence a country of this size and wealth. But the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller, etc. were always pretty good at these activities…..

So, in 1981, Congress enacts the largest tax cut, and (see below), in MINNESOTA, MPDI, a NONPROFIT AGENCY (what’s THAT corporate structure, as far as the IRS goes?) WAS FORMED, MAIN PROJECT “THE DULUTH MODEL” WHICH FILTERS ITS POLICIES THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT, AND PUTS MILLION$$ GRANTS IN THE HANDS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS (THE HHS TERM) WHICH THEN SET POLICY — IN EFFECT — APART FROM OPEN DISCUSSION BY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT IT.

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan. . . . On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton, In 1997, Clinton,…President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001…. [[OK, that’s enough!]]

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1OKM4FlHq

(the ground was ripe for 1996 PRWORA act, which then allocated $10 million a year to run social science demonstration projects on people, through various agencies, and at the bequest/behest of the “secretary of Health and Human Services.” It’s understandable, in this context, while policies voted in to do something — anything (or allegedly do something, or anything) about welfare, or child support enforcement – might be popular. This is the world we inhabit, whether or not we are conscious of it…..)

Or, say

(2) from MISES institute article: “The Income Tax: Root of All Evil“*

“The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913,” wrote Frank Chodorov. Indeed, a man’s home used to be his castle. The income tax, however, gave the government the keys to every door and the sole right to change the locks.

Today the American people are no longer the master and the government has ceased to be the servant. How could this be? The Revolution fought in the name of the inherent natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to enthrone the gains of individualism. Instead, federal taxation bribes the States and individuals to serve the interests of ever-greater submission to the centralized will.

How did tax slavery come to the land of the free?

OK, if you are a woman or descended from people who needed a special amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to VOTE, not exactly in the 1700s, (or, if you, now more enlightened, see what they’re missing) — they still have a point. The American people ARE no longer the master nor does the government appear to think of itself in private and in practice, at least, as the “servant.” However, public proclamations justifying more and more expenditures to solve problems created by the same governental system to start with — will generally use the word “SERVE” as in, “Health and Human Services” or “Family Court Services” or “Child Support Services” or, for that matter, “Child Protection Services.” And this site is probably a good read, whatever we (or you) think about (particularly any women adn children who have been captive in an abuser’s “castle” while knowing that others outside were cautious to invade or infringe upon it by, say, getting inbetween a man (or woman) assaulting, imprisoning, exploiting, or mentally torturing for years, a wife (or husband, or offspring).

Possibly because the word “SERVE” and ‘SERVICES’ has been so overused (or, like CPS, have developed really bad public reputations), the tendency now is to go for “Centers” especially “RESOURCE CENTERS” and coalitions, of course are also popular, plus partnerships. Anything almost, but rule of law, plain and simple, and fairly practiced.

*an obvious misquote of “the love of money is the root of all evil.” Notice, that the person who wrote this (apostle Paul) spoke of something in the heart, loving the wrong thing — but this is speaking an institution set up to collect and pool it, then dispense favor at will to those who qualified. The system does bear questioning..

WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:

(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention. From HHS):

(HHS grants, from TAGGS.hhs.gov) RECIPIENT INFORMATION

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

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	DULUTH	MN	55802-2152	ST. LOUIS	193187069	$ 18,027,387

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

(Note, this database only goes back to 1995, i.e., there are 14 previous organizational years unrecorded on the database).

Printer-friendly Version

Recipient:	MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC
Address:	202 EAST SUPERIOR STREET DULUTH, MN 55802-2152
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	ST. LOUIS
HHS Region:	5
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

This organization obviously has a budget, and must have a payroll. Though pretty hard to find by a Google search, and it being a private nonprofit (registered in MN?) NGO, it has to process these funds somehow. A woman lists it in her resume, as an accountant on LinkedIn. The question I have is, would it exist without federal funds?

Staff Accountant

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Nonprofit Organization Management industry

June 1996 – December 2000 (4 years 7 months)

Accomplishments – Financial Leadership
– Developed annual budgets ($5 million) and financial statements presenting them to management and Board of Directors.
– Partnered with Management Team, defined/executed software conversion, created new chart of accounts, and streamlined individual funding, program and organizational reporting processes.
– Managed annual fiscal audit and all audits by State and Federal regulatory agencies.
– Integrated in-house payroll system, processed payroll in multiple states, and eliminated outsourcing costs.
– Recruited, hired, trained, and mentored staff accountants and support staff.
– Wrote, produced, and disseminated organization-wide policy and procedural handbook and administered employee benefits program.
– Managed all employee benefit plans.

Some non-profit!

MPDI is still training (seems to be the emphasis, and disseminating information) (notice Who they are training)

Found at the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women (also a grants recipients but nowhere so large as this one):

A Multidisciplinary Response To Domestic Violence

Date and Time:

05/05/2011 – 8:00am –

A Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence Part 1 (Part 1 of a 2 Part Series)
The Kandiyohi County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council

Thursday, May 5, 2011 – 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. – Kandiyohi County LEC Emergency Operations Center – 2201 NE 23rd St., Suite 101, Willmar, Minnesota.

Part 1 of this 2 Part Series focuses on the foundational level principles in providing a meaningful response to domestic violence. The target audience for this training includes law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, corrections/probation agents, social workers, and any professionals who respond to domestic violence. Featuring Scott Jenkins from The National Training Project of Minnesota Program Development, Inc.

Part 2 of this series will be offered in 2012.

BEFORE I GO ON: Here is a reference to who created the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, and when:

Welcome to Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs

Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs offers domestic violence training and resources based on The Duluth Model to help community activists, domestic violence workers, practitioners in the criminal and civil justice systems, human service providers, and community leaders make a direct impact on domestic violence.

The Duluth Model is recognized nationally and internationally as the leading tool to help communities eliminate violence in the lives of women and children. The model seeks to eliminate domestic violence through written procedures, policies, and protocols governing intervention and prosecution of criminal domestic assault cases.*** The Duluth Model was the first to outline multi-disciplinary procedures to protect and advocate for victims.

Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs was founded in 1980 by Minnesota Program Development, Inc.

** as we see, it makes no mention of domestic violence that comes up through or is “handled” through the Family Law system (in which criminal activity gets reclassified as domestic disputes, and downgraded to a family, or civil, matter). Don’t be fooled easily though, recently a subsidiary of DAIP (see site), called “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has collaborated with the (in)famous AFCC on Explicating what is (and, more to the point, is NOT) domestic violence in custody venue. More on that another time…

Who IS Minnesota Program Development, Inc., then? I mean, what is their organizational status — who owns them, who runs them, if they are a nonprofit, where are their annual tax fillings, etc.? What do they DO?

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 22 of 22 Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2010	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	5	0	ACF	09-15-2010	193187069	$ 1,178,812
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:								$ 1,178,812

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2009	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	4	0	ACF	08-27-2009	193187069	$ 1,178,812
2009	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	4	1	ACF	09-17-2009	193187069	$ 50,000
Fiscal Year 2009 Total:								$ 1,228,812

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2008	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	3	0	ACF	07-22-2008	193187069	$ 1,178,811
Fiscal Year 2008 Total:								$ 1,178,811

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2007	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	2	0	ACF	08-27-2007	193187069	$ 1,178,810
Fiscal Year 2007 Total:								$ 1,178,810

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	1	0	ACF	09-21-2006	193187069	$ 1,178,811
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 1,178,811

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2005	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	5	0	ACF	08-29-2005	193187069	$ 1,343,183
2005	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	4	1	ACF	03-11-2005	193187069	$ 0
Fiscal Year 2005 Total:								$ 1,343,183

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2004	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	4	0	ACF	07-27-2004	193187069	$ 1,343,183
Fiscal Year 2004 Total:								$ 1,343,183

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2003	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	3	0	ACF	09-06-2003	193187069	$ 1,350,730
2003	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	2	1	ACF	09-06-2003	193187069	$ 0
Fiscal Year 2003 Total:								$ 1,350,730

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2002	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	2	0	ACF	09-14-2002	193187069	$ 1,331,291
Fiscal Year 2002 Total:								$ 1,331,291

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2001	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	1	0	ACF	09-14-2001	193187069	$ 1,275,852
Fiscal Year 2001 Total:								$ 1,275,852

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2000	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	5	0	ACF	08-10-2000	193187069	$ 1,121,852
Fiscal Year 2000 Total:								$ 1,121,852

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
1999	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	4	0	ACF	08-19-1999	193187069	$ 1,016,010
1999	CCU511327	VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM	05	0	CDC	09-24-1998	193187069	$ 268,831
Fiscal Year 1999 Total:								$ 1,284,841

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
1998	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	3	0	ACF	09-19-1998	193187069	$ 988,119
1998	CCU511327	VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM	05	0	CDC	09-24-1998	193187069	$ 268,831
Fiscal Year 1998 Total:								$ 1,256,950

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
1997	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	2	0	ACF	07-17-1997	193187069	$ 800,000
Fiscal Year 1997 Total:								$ 800,000

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
1996	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	01	000	ACF	09-23-1996	193187069	$ 589,908
Fiscal Year 1996 Total:								$ 589,908

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
1995	90EV0011	P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC	03	000	ACF	09-13-1995	193187069	$ 385,541
1995	90EV0011	P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC	03	001	ACF	04-19-1996	193187069	$ 0
Fiscal Year 1995 Total:								$ 385,541

Total of all award actions:

$ 18,027,387

Until recently, I figured, then that this Minnesota Program Development, Inc. — which I knew to be receiving millions (larger than average grants, at least outside the healthy marriage movement) from the Department of HHS, so I figured that probably they were some workforce development group. Particularly as it showed up looking for staff; they were hiring. However, now I am not so sure.

Many of MPDI’s sub-programs were there, and their annual statements and EINs. But this organization based at 202 Superior Street Duluth, MN, was not.

It is NON-PROFIT (but has no EIN#?) PRIVATE and NON-GOVERNMENT, and its chief purpose is SOCIAL SERVICES (not law enforcement, etc.). The difficulty I have with this is, through this type of collaboration (however noble the cause), it is taking the policy-setting procedures further and further from public awareness unless they run across its programs, long after they are established. Given the Technical Assistance / Resource Center grants (not that these are bad ideas), they are always going to be a few jumps ahead of individuals, including people that are the target clientele to be served. Who works at MPDI? Where are its financial statements, and how can the public access them? Who audits its work? Why should the public be funding this is we have no evidence of its effects, even though it’s clearly an ongoing resource?

The Four Resource Centers I seem to have identified not because (as a member of the public) it was ever explained or publicized AS “four resource centers” but because I have been searching TAGGS grants, and noticed that these were some big recipients in the field of violence Prevention.

This chart (better if you search the categories on-line yourself, I searched ONLY on the person’s last name, that I happened to know from prior searches):

Shows that these are EV grants (Education on Violence, presumably), they pull from 3 program codes: 93671, 93592 and 93591. ALL are “social services” and ALL are “discretionary.” The projects are visible, and no abstract description (other than the project title) is yet on the database:

1

Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183 Abstract Not Available

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
View Abstract

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810
View Abstract

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
View Abstract

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
View Abstract

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000
View Abstract

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
View Abstract

Has it been proved that “Information & Technical Assistance” saves lives, yet? I’d like to know.

I searched on “Four Special Issue Resource Centers” and came up with (this time) only grants with principal investigator, Ms. Gamache, and all headed up by MPDI.

FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS? What constitutes a “Special” issue as opposed to a normal issue, or a legal issue? (I linked to the HHS definition and listings. Some are by topic, some are by population as you can see.

However these heavily HHS- funded four resource centers, to my knowledge exist in other states. One is the Texas DV Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE). Another is, I believe, the Nevada NCFCJ, which is a family law group. Another, in San Francisco, CA (with office in Washington, DC, as I recall?) is the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” with website “http://www.endabuse.org.” Another is probably in Pennyslvania (PCADV), and another was (last I heard) in SD, focused on Indian Tribes, and called Cangleska, Inc. These were identifiably by the amounts of their grants. Cangleska, Inc., had some financial irregularities and I ran across some press where the tribal elders had fired the people running it (a husband/wife couple) for this reason.

Thanks to our wonderful internet, cross-referencing and on-line organizations (with no real “brick and mortar” site) can indeed exist. Something could be a “resource center” but have no actual front door, I suppose. Names also change, for example on the HHS listing, I see:

Health Resource Center on
Domestic Violence
888-792-2873
www.endabuse.org

Well, “endabuse.org” is basically “FVPF,” as it says:

The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence

The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence (HRC), a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), works to improve health care and public health responses to victims of family violence. The HRC works closely with the American Medical Association and other professional health associations to produce practice and policy guidelines for health care professionals responding to domestic violence. The HRC provides technical assistance, training, public policy recommendations, and materials and responds to over 7,000 requests for technical assistance annually. A number of the resources developed for health professionals and the domestic violence advocates who work with them are available on the FVPF web site, www.endabuse.org

Not mentioned here is that, for example, the same organization also attempts to reduce domestic violence through “fatherhood” based institutes, as I have mocked before on-line at this blog (in 2011)…

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children. […]

But I’m a little slow, because the “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND” has changed its name — again. Click on “endabuse.org” and you are now redirected to “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE“(.org) and the announcement, and an entire website makeover, with a Green color scheme, not vivid red, as before. Not only do they have a new website (and obviously some good HTML help), they also have a new physical residence, high-profile for the SF area. FIRST, the family (through fathers) — NOW, the WORLD. COme visit their Global Leadership Center at the Praesidio, and know that if you’re an American taxpayer, you helped build it:

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP, ACTION & TRIBUTE

The Futures Without Violence Center at the Presidio is a global center for action and thought leadership, where individuals and allied organizations from around the world will gather to realize the potential of a world without violence.

The June 1st move to our new headquarters represents years of focused vision, support and hard work from many supporters and our dedicated staff. Housed in a historic military location on the Main Post of the Presidio National Park in San Francisco, this international center will serve as a global town square to promote the safety and wellbeing of all through education, advocacy, and leadership programs, giving voice to women and girls, men and boys everywhere.

Copyright © 2011 Futures Without Violence. All rights reserved.

(The DUNS# lookup shows the title has also been changed, but not yet the address. DUNS# are for US Govt contractors and grantees)

Lord help us, we have been sponsoring people who think they can stop war (often over economics) and that the public should support this concept. They forgot the origins of the income tax, which was to wage it, and beyond that — the intent to change human nature (without its informed consent) is going to have a little competition from, say, the Catholic Church and conservative Protestantism who — rather than consolidation efforts, are still endlessly splitting ranks over ordaining women, or gay / lesbian pastors. San Francisco, as a global town hall forum for this group (and its many supporters) will teach ’em a thing or two! Not to mention, what would Islam say — in some international circles, it hasn’t reconciled itself to letting women drive, let alone vote!

Guess this goes to show why it’s important to look at IRS-based indentifiers (EIN, DUNS) and organizational origins & funding. For example, I doubt a search on “Futures without Violence” would pull up this:

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

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5177 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 19,368,114

Family Violence Prevention Fund SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5178 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 31,000

(note: single change in zip code, last digit)

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recip

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	94103-5177	SAN FRANCISCO	618375687	$ 19,368,114
Family Violence Prevention Fund	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	94103-5178	SAN FRANCISCO	618375687	$ 31,000

Futures without Violence has a powerpacked Board of Directors (US House of Rep, a Judge or two, Pres. of Business Operations of Univ of Calif., you should really take a look), however it’s Chaired by Dr Jacquelyn Campbell, She is also well-known for her Danger Assessment for Domestic Violence Victims and the focus is from the medical/nursing/health perspective. The Honorable Ronald B. Adrinne of Ohio, his blurb acknowledges that this group is funded by the U.S. DOJ: “He chairs the faculty of the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, a joint initiative of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Futures Without Violence (formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund), financed by the U.S. Department of Justice. ”

Keeping track of the names, the “NJI” (Nat’l Judicial INSTITUTE on DV) is a NCFCJ & Futures (aka, formerly FVPF) joint initiative financed by the DOJ.

So why is it we need more Family Justice Centers, then, with all this clout already on the scene preventing violence and crafting futures without it? (Even if the world became vegetarian — unlikely — there’d still be local, tribal, and international wars over land and over controlling the food supply, in the bottom line, money….., don’t you think? And why do we need in addition a continuing Minnesota Program Development, Inc. person coordinating Four (only) of the “Special Issue Resource Centers?”

The “NCFCJ” is already one of the Four Special Issue Resource Centers. Bolstered by ongoing grants, drawing from fund-pooling enabled by the 1913 passage of a certain amendment to the constitution, resulting in the enforcement arm aka IRS — in a time of economic job losses, the former FVPF is another. Clearly we are moving away from government in local or even county or even state courts, to policy being set in distant places, without public awareness (unless they dedicate their miserable — or joyful — lives to following this stuff) (I wouldn’t say a joyful life would consist of running around after shape-shifting and name-changing governmentally sponsored hybrid organizations to see if you can protect yourself, or offspring, from their next well-intentioned (presumably) plans for — you and your offspring.

Now let’s look at this DUNS 618375687 that just renamed itself “Futures Without Violence” and got a nice new building — 2010 Activity only:

Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions (I copied only 2010, obviously)

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action

2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 0 ACF 07-01-2010 618375687 $ 1,178,812

2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 2 ACF 12-22-2009 618375687 $ 0

2010 90EV0401 CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 618375687 $ 250,000

2010 ASTWH090016 FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 03 DHHS/OS 11-17-2009 618375687 $ 1,500,000

2010 CCEWH101001 FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 1 00 DHHS/OS 09-14-2010 618375687 $ 1,600,000

Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2010	90EV0377	SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	5	0	ACF	07-01-2010	618375687	$ 1,178,812
2010	90EV0377	SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	4	2	ACF	12-22-2009	618375687	$ 0
2010	90EV0401	CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE	1	0	ACF	09-24-2010	618375687	$ 250,000
2010	ASTWH090016	FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM	1	03	DHHS/OS	11-17-2009	618375687	$ 1,500,000
2010	CCEWH101001	FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM	1	00	DHHS/OS	09-14-2010	618375687	$ 1,600,000
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:	$ 4,528,812

We can see that it’s drawing from three TYPES of grant series, in the FIRST year (see “year of grant) column: The well known (to me at least) 90EV series, the CCEWH, the ASTWH (though they have similar descriptions, one is labeled FY09, and FY10 gets a new series of labeling.)

FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE IS AN EXPANSION OF PRE-EXISTING FVPF “Special Resource Center”

The sleeper here, a baby by comparison, is Futures Without Violence, at only a $250K bite of the $3.350 million of funding. WATCH OUT (trust me….) this is just seed money:

2010

90EV0401

CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE

ACF

09-24-2010

618375687

$250,000

“Futures without Violence” is a household move, a rename, and a facelift of the same old concept that constantly training and educating others, or running risk assessments, is somehow going to change a District Attorney’s, a police officer’s or a family law judge’s, or for that matter, a father’s opinion about crimes perpetrated against women & children. It is a continuation of promising (but — delivering???) increased chances of survival and becoming free from abuse, including economic abuse, to distressed women and children, and it also by simply existing, has provoked antagonism from fathers-rights groups who take funding FROM THE SAME DEPARTMENT, HHS!

(searched on USASPENDING.GOV) recognizing that this group draws from both HHS and OVW sources, here a May, 2011 contract from OVW:

Transaction Number # 4

Federal Award ID: 90EV0401: 0 (Grants)

Recipient:	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND 383 RHODE ISLAND STREET , SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:	75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency:	Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program :	93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants
Description:	CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE

Do you think ANY of this is going to build, staff, or support shelters? (I doubt it, but one can always call them and ask, I suppose…)

In public, – they pretend to be the squabbling couple — DV vs. FR. But in practice, they get along quite fine, and know what to do with the respective federal grant streams, wouldn’t you say? The real gap is Practitioners and Hotshots versus the Practiced Upon (which justify funds for “servicing” them).

Futures without violence is a cooperative agreement with the Family and Youth Services Bureau. I suggest writing your local legislator and asking what the point is; the US is already the world’s largest per capita jailor, and its jails are clearly racists, judging by who’s in them, compared to what % of the population a certain minority is in the UA. These overcrowded jails are possibly a product of one of the worst public educational systems in the “developed” industrial world, and that’s not because of how much money is spent on it, either.

Click on these funds, and notice some detail. You’ll find, typically over $1 million of “discretionary” expenditures:

”

ward Number:	CCEWH101001
Award Title:	FY10 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
OPDIV:	DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES/OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (DHHS/OS)
Organization:	OFFICE ON WOMEN’S HEALTH (ASH/OWH)
Award Class:	DISCRETIONARY

Obviously, the real money is in Technical Assistance and Training /// Education. The sky’s the limit. It’s “discretionary.” Relocate. Revamp the website — or start a new one. Hire staff. Get topnotch, hotshot boards of directors in some of the cities known for the highest homicide rates around and whose urban areas still have all kinds of domestic violence homicides/familicide, and wipeouts (while the conferences continue) and no one reports much at all on the family law system’s role in this, or child support’s. Talk about the problems created by a crumbling infrastructure, while building your web – and conference-based own. Become a trainer! Until the country finishes going bankrupt, or getting bought up by overseas interests — and becoming a defunct through mismanagement nation — you can have a real, paying job and go purchase food, housing, rent, transportation and a college education for your kids.

I SEARCHED THE FVPF “Futures without Violence” DUNS # on “USASPENDING.GOV” (for what it’s worth) and under “Advanced Search,” scrolled down (ignoring basically ALL the categories) to put it in under “Parent DUNS Number : 618375687*.” Found 15 contracts, some performed (per the map) in Georgia?

FVPF draws from a variety of sources: HHS is not the top source. Totals that this (2011, today) search drew show:

Filters:

Search Term: “Family Violenc.. (FVPF)

Total Dollars:$38,512,886

Number of Transactions:89

Top 5 Contracting Agencies

1. Office of Justice Programs $21,134,457 (55%)

2. Immediate Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services $11,207,290 (29%)

3. Administration for Children and Families $5,500,562 (14%)

4. Health Resources and Services Administration $272,394 (1%)

5. Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code) $218,997

Here is a “timeline” chart reflecting funding (this also, I believe, includes contracts to FVPF, not just grants). The interactive database allows a Map, Timeline ,and Advanced search options. The “TIMELINE” bar chart shows clearly that the year 2005 (Reauthorization of VAWA) showed a huge jump in number (it was 22) of awards (grant or contract) for FVPF, but the highest total amount of awards, year to date was 2009, when they got $7.825 million of awards I’m sure this would allow expanded infrastructure capacity. The question is — what are they doing with it? Does training really induce honesty, accountability, or greater ethics?

Or does it breed — more & more training entitites with increasingly global aspirations? And as so many US jobs are being outsourced, and US land being bought up by foreign entities, perhaps we should ask some of them — how about some Arab countries for starters — to start contributing to the public monies supporting VAWA-style sensitivity and arrest accountability trainings, even though “endabuse.org — excuse me “futureswithoutviolence.org originally called itself the”Family” Violence Prevention Fund. Looking at these charts, I feel that the operative word is the last word, “FUND.”

MapCurrent Tab

TimelineTab

Advanced SearchTab

(SEE THE PATTERN YET?)

The Duluth Model or Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program developed to reduce domestic violence. The Duluth model was developed by Minnesota Program Development, Inc., a nonprofit agency in Duluth, Minnesota. The program was mostly founded by social activist Ellen Pence. The Duluth Model is featured in the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America.

Origin and theory

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project was the first multi-disciplinary program designed to address the issue of domestic violence. This experimental program, conducted in Duluth, Minnesota in 1981, coordinated the actions of a variety of agencies dealing with domestic conflict. The program has become a model for programs in other jurisdictions seeking to deal more effectively with domestic violence.

MPDI, as I search it on “USASPENDING.GOV” shows itself not to be as big a “player” as FVPF although it’s been around as long. See?

Total Dollars:$27,989,388
Transactions:1 – 25 of 41

If you do this search (and you should), and sort by date, or dollar — it’ll show that on the JUSTICE side, the grants are category 16.526, Office of Violence Against Women Technical Assistance Initiative, or “16.588, VAW Formula Grants (Technical Assistance Program), or 16.589, (etc.)

16.588 : Violence Against Women Formula Grants
Description:	FY 03 OFFICE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program :	16.589 : Rural Domestic Violence Dating Violence Sexual Assault and Stalking Assistance Program

and on the HHS side, the grants are the usual discretionary stuff I have already posted:

CFDA Program :

93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants

IF a battered woman’s shelter is going to get any help, it’s likely to come if (and ONLY if) whoever gets these “discretionary” grants (or “State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” grants) feels like forwarding some. People like Sandra Ramos of “Strengthen Our Sisters” in NJ (see recent post, bottom). who actually get the help to real-time, real women, and can show it, as seen in the faces of the women she’s helped — can forget it, if they are not into building a larger, nationally-organized infrastructure — primarily circulating training and resource materials among each other, and marketing some of this, too. Independent success is competition, in this world, it would seem.

Like FVPF (as my search shows on a US map) they have a surprising involvement in the state of Georgia, which turns out to be Dept. of Homeland Security, or Veterans Affairs, or US Coast Guard, trainings — i.e., DOmestic VIolence Video, etc. (one can click on exact purchase orders)

Total Dollars:$57,032
Transactions:1 – 13 of 13

This group shows up with 80 employees and revenues of over $3 million, per “Contractor Description” to produce such trainings:

Organizational Type

Number of Employees 80

Annual Revenue $3,710,570

Organizational Type
Number of Employees	80
Annual Revenue	$3,710,570

In the long list of categories to describe federal contractors — is its ownership a small disadvantaged business? or from a Hist. Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) ? No.

Who is this contractor, MPDI, again?

Is it Black American, Native American, Asian-Pacific American, Subcontinent Asian (Asian-Indian) America, Hispanic American, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian owned? No.

Is it an Indian Tribe or Tribally Owned Firm? No.

Is it Veteran or severely disabled veteran-owned? No.

Is it WOMAN Owned (after all, it’s certainly utilizing VAWA grants)? No.

Is it in any way, shape or form, Minority Anything? – – – – – – No, No, No, and again, No. For one, it’s in MN, and although MN has plenty of Native American tribe activity, MPDI, while quite willing to train anyone and everyone on how to deal with these populations is not owned by any of them.

(Well why NOT?)

Well, is it in any way, shape or form, a government (Federal, State, County, Municipal) or GOvernment Owned firm? no.

Is it a shelter, battered women’s or homeless? Hell, no:

Domestic Shelter	N: Other than Domestic Shelter

In the entire list, the only category MPDI checked “Y” on is “nonprofit.” And its revenue exceeds $3.750 million (that’s per year) and it employed 80 people (do the math, subtract expenses and operating revenue). Go figure . . . . ..

It trains everyone in authority how to change the world so that shelters become obsolescent and to save others. It’s a multiple, cross-disciplined collaborative model of how to do this, it sets up and supervises (I guess) special- issue (see above populations for a sample) resource center builder, paid for by all of the above who are still working.

(The product in the particular 2006 one I just quoted from reads:Product or Service Information (Award) (Contract was for $22,800and place of performance, Duluth, Purchaser, Dept. of Homeland Security — so I’m guessing they flew some people up to Duluth to get trained….)

Major Product or Service Code	69: Training aids and devices
Product or Service Code	6910: Training Aids

Contract Description	DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VIDEO

(did they view it, or get interviewed to help create one?). A VIDEO can be sold over, and over, and over, and over, again…….)

Despite over $3 million of annual revenue, it looks like this group forgot to register with the Office of Attorney General in Minnesota, although some of its subsidiaries didn’t. Under this state’s site on how to tell a real charity from a fake one, we note:

Charities that provide few services. In other cases, nonprofit organizations may solicit donations for a charitable purpose, when little of the donated funds are actually used for that purpose. People may be asked to give money, donate their car, or purchase a product from an organization that promises to help support worthwhile causes. Upon closer review, however, most of the funds may actually be used to pay for high fundraising costs or executive compensation. These organizations may be nonprofits with tax-exempt status. This means that donors must take time to research all unfamiliar organizations before donating to find out how much of your money is actually going to worthwhile programs.

Follow these tips to be sure your money is spent as you intended:

Is the organization registered with the State? Charities must register with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office before they may solicit donations in Minnesota if they have raised or expect to raise more than $25,000 or have paid staff. Before you give money, research whether the organization is registered by visiting the Attorney General’s website at www.ag.state.mn.us or calling (651) 296-3353 or 1-800-657-3787. It should be a big red flag if an organization calls you for a donation and is not registered with the Attorney General’s Office.
How does the organization spend money? Take time to research how the organization has spent money in the past. Charities that are registered with the State must file an annual financial statement showing how much money they have raised and how they have spent it. The financial statement is called a Form 990. You may obtain copies of the Form 990 from the Attorney General’s Office. You may also obtain from the office copies of contracts between charities and their professional fund-raisers so you can determine what percentage of your donation is going to charity.
Is the organization tax-exempt? Find out if the organization has been granted tax-exempt status by calling the IRS tax-exempt hotline at 1-877-829-5500 or searching Publication 78 on its website atwww.irs.gov. It should be a red flag if an organization asks you for a donation for a supposed charitable purpose but does not have tax-exempt status from the IRS. and:
Don’t be pressured by emotional appeals. Take time to do your homework before you give. Some disreputable organizations may pressure you to give money immediately, in some cases making you feel like you are letting down a good cause if you don’t. Don’t be pressured— any reputable charity will appreciate your donation just as much if you take the time to research the donation first.

I find it hard to believe that anything of this size would NOT be registered with the state. I will look at the IRS.gov site — but for sure, organizations that go STRAIGHT to HHS and DOJ grants (and get them, consistently) don’t have to appeal so much to the public — who then may be unaware of their size and influence. They simply go for the money that the IRS collected from the public. ….

On their search site, it reads, right underneath the search button:

SEARCH NOW

NOTE: It has come to our attention that some of the information on this site may be compromised. We have removed the information in question while we look into the matter.

(I don’t see how to key in a DUNS# for a search and the title of MPDI didn’t surface on a simple title search there.)

Cumulative List of 501(c)(3) Organizations, IRS Publication 78
Find a searchable listing of 501(c) (3) charitable organizations, or download the complete Publication 78 in compressed text format, or an expanded version of Publication 78 with EINs ** in compressed text format, or view the Documentation of the Publication 78 file.

(**I’m downloading this one — it’s going to come in handy)

I’m puzzled, because per IRS search, in Duluth Minnesota, there are 450 registered charities. Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs shows up (and is registered with the State of MN), as does “Mending the Sacred Hoop” and “Praxis, International.” All of these have their own EIN#s (I looked). But MPDI, which lives (allegedly) at 202 E. Superior Street, in Duluth does not, at least that I can find to date. What is a nonprofit “agency” anyhow?

Praxis started? in 1996 (same year federal legislation enabled “access visitation” grants series, one of the target purposes was supervised visitation…

Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

(YEAH, OK, we get it. Changing the world. And who isn’t??)

Praxis works (among other things) with OVW Supervised Visitation and Exchange Centers, it says here:

Supervised Visitation & Safe ExchangeBeginning in 2002, Praxis worked in partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women to provide technical assistance to the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Demonstration Initiative, and to provide training and technical assistance to grantees in the Supervised Visitation Program. While this project ended as of April 1, 2010, we continue to support visitation programs and their community partners via the resources developed during that partnership and found on these pages.

It has a product list

To review: The Executive Director of PRAXIS INTERNATIONAL is Ellen Pence:

Background

Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A. She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.

I was able to (finally) discover that Dun & Bradstreet considers one (of several) subsidiaries ? of MPDI to be the same as MPDI. This subsidiary is the one that focuses on Batterers Intervention Programs — which are hotly debated as to effectiveness, which probably is why they are still ongoing (because they are NOT confirmed to work effectively). When in doubt, throw more money at it, and expand the focus.

DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT	202 W 2ND ST, DULUTH, MN
	MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Also Traded as DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT, THE	202 E SUPERIOR ST, DULUTH, MN

202 W 2nd Street looks/looked like this, at least in 2006:

This would be where perhaps where they run (or at least organize) the DAIP classes, self-referred, court-referred, church-referred men’s programs, programs for women whose men are in the programs, and another one for battered women who battered back….

By contrast, the MPDI address is actually a government building (or at least website), which when searched, pulls up this:

Office of Justice Programs

A Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety:

ICH (I noticed today) was getting plenty of HHS grants also, in fact what MPDI or individual tribal groups didn’t get, they did, it seems.

A Fathers group lists this address as a Visitation Center, which makes sense, given DAIP / MPDI’s emphasis.:

Duluth Family Visitation Center
A safe place for children and parents. Our mission is to provide a place that is safe and free from violence where children can build and maintain positive relationships with the parents **

Visitation Center
202 East Superior Streeet
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781 Ext. 204
www.TheDuluthModel.org

A description tells how the MN Legislature later mandated this type of intervention project throughout the state. DO THEY WORK?

Effective Practice

Description The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) began in 1980 as the first project of its kind to coordinate every criminal justice agency in one city in an effort to deliver justice for battered women. This project served as a model nationally and internationally. The DAIP collaborates with the area shelter for battered women to provide advocacy for battered women while they work through the legal system.

Results / Accomplishments Due to DAIP’s success, in 1991 the Minnesota Legislature mandated that each of the 38 Legislative Assignment Districts establish an intervention project coordinated by a battered women’s advocacy group. As of 1997, there were 44 intervention projects in Minnesota.

(**INCLUDING PARENTS WHO HAVE BATTERED THE OTHER PARENT, OR MOLESTED THE OTHER CHILD?) (Does this include parents who have “alienated” the other parent by reporting abuse, or allowing a child to reported to another mandated reporter, but then through the family law system, have this infrastructure turned against them?)

I thought my readers might want to take a look at the physical address for such an influential group. I cannot drag it (because map is so interactive) but am looking at a storefront (many windows, display cases) called “Center for Non-Violence” and on the outside of the building, like a banner, the Power & Control Wheel (or, perhaps it’s the DAIP logo seen on their website, more likely) on a corner. This is also the home of Mending The Sacred Hoop (separate set of logos, subset of “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” (as opposed to “Project”)

The Executive Director of this organization, “Linda Riddle” fled an abusive marriage in 1987 and is very active in homeless coalitions, and much more. Speaker Bio:

Linda Riddle brings more than 20 years of involvement in the battered women’s movement to the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. First, as a battered mother with small children, a woman who received helping services – she became an active board member of the Women’s Resource Center of Winona, MN in 1987, and then became the executive director of Houston County Women’s Resources (HCWR) – a position she held from 1992 through 2006. At HCWR she developed and implemented progressive new programming in her rural community, including both resident and scattered site transitional housing for homeless victims of violence and a flexible supervised visitation and exchange program. Ms. Riddle has a deep love for political and social action, and works through the MN Coalition for Battered Women and the MN Coalition for the Homeless to help shape legislation and funding for Minnesota organizations and the people they serve. Now beginning a fourth year in Duluth as the executive director of DAIP, Ms. Riddle is moving the Duluth Model forward into a new era of social change to end violence against women and children.

Social change is fine. But $29 MILLION of funding over a period of years is a lot, with over $30 million from the “ENDABUSE” new group in its new location (and website facelift, “Futures without Violence” (still one of the “Special Issue Resource Centers.”

Meanwhile, I could show you a very small organization (staff, 7 people) with probably just as modest a physical presence, in Denver, that has (parallel to this) helped totally transform the family law and child support system. Its location is HERE, just 2 miles (or a 10 minute drive) away from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence. Don’t tell me these groups don’t know about each other… in a MidWestern town with clean streets and a bit of office space (plus internet, plus political connections) it is indeed possible to change the world.

Now, we need more “justice centers”? ?? At what point does a person get to say STOP? Where’s the justice, and why hasn’t domestic violence — or family violence — stopped by now, with all that intervention going on? Are we chasing the virtual Holy Grail here, or what?

(Sorry about the laborious length of this post, which started when I saw several DAIP-type programs at a Family Justice Center ALLIANCE Conference in San Diego.)

While “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” is not of the size and funding of “MDRC” — I feel it’s in the same business, with slightly different staffing and origins. It is in the Development of PROGRAMS based on personal visions of the founders — and being spread with Technical Assistance and capacity building public funded help like a fast growing tree nurtured by the IRS and the dual prongs of HHS and DOJ (all EXECUTIVE BRANCH of USA) grants.

Kind of reminds me of the transplant of Eucalyptus Trees to California. Starting to crowd out the native vegetation and now an accepted part of the landscape, even though they don’t produce the lumber behind the original idea.

I understand that people want to respond to PROBLEMS and then start and continue PROGRAMS to solve them. But now the PROLIFERATION OF PROGRAMS has really become a major PROBLEM itself. These programs have tremendous leverage because of their existing structures, and relationships. Too much of the public remains clueless that half of them even exist.

And — people “served” doesn’t mean people — or even lives! — “saved.” Nor do judges (etc.) trained necessarily increase judicial ethics or “domestic violence awareness.” I see the grants, I see the people, I see the programs described, and you can’t beat those website — but where is the data that any of this is actually helping?

Instead, the Supervised Visitation Network is being used AGAINST the mothers and children it supposedly is to protect.

2 from 2002 and the Kitchen Sink: Why Sociologists (are hired) to Rule America

1,

2,

3,

4.

As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle. So we have:

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

4 was simply me mentioning the theme of “income v. wealth” that I know by now is critical in the social engine called these courts. It’s basically workforce development, and US/Them paradigm. There are several links and quotes. I could’ve chosen any. But it will hold together, I trust. At the top, I’m going to post a QUOTE from a Professor Dumoff, a sociologist at UC Santa Cruz. It’s from his site “WHO RULES AMERICA?” which is a good question. More below, at the banner.

In my last year of research and reflection (including on my own experience) of who’s doing WHAT in the courts an WHY those dang nonprofits have been useless, basically, I had to get to foundations, who support the nonprofits doing nothing. Then I began to understand the forces that are driving America into materialistic chaos, to sustain a global economy based on permanent debt. I feel this ain’t too bad work, considering what have also been through in the “decade of the courts” in my adult life.

I suggest we read this site THROUGH.

I am burnt out on reporting on outrageous family law cases, also beseeching noncustodial parents I know to take a little more critical look at organizations — not just good/cop bad/cop individuals. I have . . . . . I also have repeatedly encouraged people to take a very illuminating glance at some of the IRS 990s on some of the “helkping” organizations who continue to pay CEOs over $100,000 year to report on the carnage or insults to personhood.

Losers in the family law situation who don’t end up physically and emotionally dysfunctional might definitely end up homeless may definitely end up homeless, male or female. Yet there’s a real reluctance among litigants to not just look at the role of the child support system (federal) as a planned move to socialism for most of us based on policies set by the foundations hiring the nonprofits selecting what will (and will not) get talked about in the arena. They may blog or acknowledge it briefly, then go back to collaborating with the closest nonprofit that makes a big noise.

Battered women who’ve gone into the family law court after leaving the relationship are in a UNIQUE position to understand and speak to the power structure from underneath, analytically and as to attitude.

Once I began looking at organizational structures (it helps to have a model of a virtual “gang” in one’s own family for reference) I never stopped looking. Here’s a diagram for the more visually organized:

This is how such an inane policy as “fatherhood” could actually go through Congress, and get enacted. It’s a form of psychological warfare, basically, to frame the conversation nationally, yet fail to inform have the litigants in court that the conversation is taking place.

ANYHOW, this represents my post for today, and welcome to it. Do your own homework!

Here’s from Part 4, to think about in 1, 2, and 3:

“The rich” coalesce into a social upper class that has developed institutions by which the children of its members are socialized into an upper-class worldview, and newly wealthy people are assimilated.

Members of this upper class control corporations, which have been the primary mechanisms for generating and holding wealth in the United States for upwards of 150 years now.

There exists a network of nonprofit organizations through which members of the upper class and hired corporate leaders not yet in the upper class shape policy debates in the United States.

This I can attest to. See (for a starter) “shady shaky foundations of family law” and some of the organizational geneaology. IN good part, that’s what this blog is for — to show the connections. This tells me also why the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” simply “cannot” hear our truths.

Members of the upper class, with the help of their high-level employees in profit and nonprofit institutions, are able to dominate the federal government in Washington.

The rich, and corporate leaders, nonetheless claim to be relatively powerless.

Working people have less power than in many other democratic countries.

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

If I don’t post something more “detached” today, I’m going to post the entire docket for Hal Richardson v. Claudine Dombrowski in the “Third Judicial Court of Public Access,” Kansas. Claudine has been in this system for 14 + years, and isn’t broken yet, though it’s making a good effort to do so to her. Her case also illustrates the cognitive dissonance between criminal and family law, and between family law as stated and as practiced. Not to mention what the U.S. is doing to the half of parenthood in the United States who are female. We are still fighting for recognition as human beings and thus covered under civil rights, due process, etc.

Even though I know so much about this case, it’s still possible to be entirely shocked at the behavior of the court and court personnel in it.

As summarized in a blog, August 1, this year

Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their “co-parenting.” WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson affirmed Buchele’s previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine’s being able to call the police.

As reported in Manhattan (KS) Free press, July 9 years ago (also see blog):

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine’s attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that “Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson.”

In other words, were she not a mother, she would have the right to flee to protect her unalienable right to LIFE. However, unknown to her, other things had already been cooking in Congress around this time, which are mentioned below. In 1994 a little National Fatherhood Initiative had been formed. In 1995, then-President Clinton had issued his (in)famous Executive Order about Fathers. In 1996, we have Welfare Reform, some of the Congressional Testimony of which I posted recently and which is summarized below on a site calling itself “Progressive Policy.” I call it Regressive, because it results in cases like this. You can track the REgression in individual cases, and how it happened, through adding personnel besides the judge.

Hal was given supervised visitation

Why this Supervision shouldn’t have been done with him inside a jail cell, I just don’t “get.” Rikki must’ve seen her mother’s stitches — what message does that send to a young girl? It’s OK for fathers to beat up mothers, right? A family court judge will sweep up the evidence . Whistleblowers will be punished.

Reading on in the case, he WILL get even for even that restriction. A GAL will help, Scott MacKenzie (if I can keep the narrative straight who did what when….) In time — that’s how these things go — Supervised visitation will be switched to the mother. Then, her fight will be to get that UNsupervised. She will win that “privilege,” but apparently wasn’t docile enough, because she then loses all contact entirely for a while. It’s all in the record. Meanwhile, the various parties are REAL serious about getting the money she owes absolutely everyone for these types of “services.”

In Judge Buchele’s Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: “Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski’s unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court’s view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age.”

And THERE, “in a nutshell,” you have how a family law judge skillfully Re-frames the conversation and Re-Prioritizes it from safety to reconciliation. Better Claudine maybe die the next time than a father’s rights be conditioned upon not abusing them — or her. Sounds “squirrelly” to me. A woman gets temporary reprieve and safety, then this is reversed, and made worse. The decisions become more and more authoritative.

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.

And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: “Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager.”

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there.

RIGHT THERE — is a typical “between a rock and a hard place” situation. I have experienced a modified situation, where I was so frightened, I drove, fast, to a police station in another city. They told me to go back to practically the scene of a stalking incident that had terrified me. There, I was treated abominably by officers, who refused to report, though dispatched to do so by the intake person who heard my voice; the incident was also witnessed by others, and signed letters are in the file.

Claudine had a choice of, NOT REPORTING, saving her own skin (to hell with her daughter) and just dealing with it. Supposed the injuries had been different and the bleeding faster, and she didn’t TRY to appease an outright vicious court order, but reported right in Topeka at first, and going straight from having wounds tended to, to jail (or soon thereafter) in contempt. She did what any mother would in a crisis — stop the bleeding, let the mandatory reporters (probably ) report, and go save her daughter.

Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her.

Now, does that “revise” your opinion of what Sherriff’s Departments are in the business of?

The Shawnee County Sheriff’s Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, [2001] Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week

Here is a link to that ex parte, JUDGE-initiated order (Neither party initiated it. The judge in this matter totally redefined his own role in the courtroom. This judge ain’t the only one around doing this.). Can you read it? The link is “scribd” and take a while to load. My computer is too slow today to load its 11 pp. Also, I’m curtailing my own commentary because even keystrokes are coming out one at a time, slowly. I can only fill up a short “buffer” zone, about 4 words, and then have to just wait for it to catch up.

Shawnee County District Court– Topeka, Kansas, 200 SE 7th Street 66603 Div 2 – Hon. Richard D. Anderson (785) 233-8200 Ext. 4350

Order without motion from either party WITHOUT Hearing on his OWN—I REPEAT on his own

Took my daughter and gave her to a KNOWN AND convicted Batterer and drug abuser AND CHILD RAPIST

Fast-forward 9 years or so. ..

By way of a 2007 Petition before the “Inter American Commission on HUMAN Rights” On Item 17 Courageous Kids personal stories, please read “Letter to IACHR by siblings” (#3 )here. These are 4 siblings now aged out of the system, detailing what happened when they called the cops, or ran away, what happened to their mother; how one girl was thrown out by her father and forced to live in a car for a while in retaliation. It’s only 3 pages. These are the types of fathers getting custody in this system.

THIS site has links to more details:

People are outraged everywhere. The last time 15 year old Rikki called to cancel her two hour Sunday visit she is allowed each week with her mother, she was crying on the phone and said she couldn’t come. Abuser WOS (waste of skin) Hal Richardson was yelling in the background, and Rikki cried more. Dear Claudine told her daughter it was okay, that everything would be okay. That was it. After that, not even a phone call to cancel, Hal Richardson failed to produce Rikki at the Topeka Police Station as he was ordered to do. Nothing. And the court let him get away with all 67 violations of this court order on August 20th when they went to court.

(the woman who writes this, above, herself lost contact with her own mother, a generation earlier).

(Compare, above, when Claudine “messed up” by going to a hospital, even though she attempted to go to the politically correct one, in 2000. I believe this was when she was punished for bleeding and trying to regain her child, by losing custody of her child then about-5-year-old daughter.)

Contrast this case history and pattern of bad ethics and decision-making with the more detached narratives, below.

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

I decided to post two pieces (first — long / second – short) that talk openly about the social agenda in the family court/ family law arena. That SOCIAL AGENDA is what most offends me about the Family Law Process. Not its equally destructive consequences. What’s most offensive is how the process eradicates precious civil rights, that are encased in the documents foundational to our country. An elitist attitude and practice, that disdains these, needs to be dismantled. Instead, they have become increasingly blatant and oppressive (similar case, CA 2000/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).

[Criminal jury exonerates mother, after she was jailed, fleeing to protect her children. Ignoring this family law judge STILL leaves custody with the abusers, and mother has to pay to see her own children. This is how “supervised visitation” — marketed and sold to the public as protecting children from violent FATHERS, is being used to punish protective MOTHERS),]

even after people are dying as a consequence of bad custody calls (2 women and a man dead, Maricopa Co., AZ, 2009/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).

I hope the people I network with as well as visitors will download and read these. The first one may explain why so many of us are being treated dismissively and as silly putty to be stretched, bounced, and reformed in amusing or comical distortions that please the manipulators rather than acknowledging that they are of the same substance as us, as human beings, just occupying different seats in the room.

(1) BIFURCATION

in the Legal Regulation of Parenthood

This is 44+ screens long and from GeorgetownLaw; popped up under a search for “The Origin of Family Law.”

I look forward to reading the rest of it. The “bifurcation” around gender. You will see…

There are some misspellings on the website. Font changes are (most likely) mine. I am not indenting for the quote, and will put any comments in bullet form

Parenthood divided: A legal history of the bifurcated law of parental relations

INTRODUCTION

The American law of parent and child is conventionally understood to be extremely deferential to parental prerogatives and highly reluctant to intervene.1 But this picture, endorsed by legal authorities and popular commentators from the nineteenth century to the present day, reflects only one tradition in the law’s regulation of parenthood. Since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, {{1875-1900}}there has also been massive legal intervention into the parental relation. This second legal tradition, moreover, has been guided by norms wholly different from those conventionally associated with family law, often evincing a radical suspicion of parental autonomy and an eager willingness to reshape family relations.

.

A STARK DIVIDE IN THE LEGAL REGUALTION OF PARENTHOOD EMERGES IN LATE NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA

The founding of the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children marks a pivotal moment in the bifurcation of the law’s treatment of parental relations. The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was established in New York City in 1874 by two elite reformers, Henry Bergh and Elbridge Gerry, who used the occasion of a celebrated case of physical violence against a child to create the first organization designed to combat “child cruelty” in the United States.7 Common law courts of the period staunchly protected the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised over the custody and control of their children.

SPCC formed by two elite reformers

“the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised. . . .”

8 But the New York society accorded almost no weight to the prerogatives of the parents it was concerned about, characterizing their connection to their children as little stronger than the ties of happenstance. Gerry explained at an organizational meeting in December 1874, for instance, that the society would “seek out and rescue from the dens and slums of the City the little unfortunates whose lives were rendered miserable by the system of cruelty and abuse which was constantly practiced upon them by the human brutes [their parents] who happened to possess the custody or control of them.”9 Describing the homes of cruel parents as “dens and slums” offered a key clue, of course, to the limits the New York society placed on its jurisdiction. From the start, it focused on families that had not been successful in the wage labor economy, operating on the principle that this economic failure had been caused by some crucial moral or character flaw.10

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

(2) COMPLETION

of the Critical Job of Welfare Reform

And — what else — “promoting responsible fatherhood“

AND THIS from Progressive Policy Institute. BOTH of them let us know clearly that family law is a social engineering project. Too bad it says “law” on the outside which has other connotations to the unwary.

PPI | Policy Report | March 19, 2002
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
Some Promising Strategies
By Megan Burns
One of the key successes of welfare reform has been in the increase of low-income single mothers in the labor force. Due in part to a strong economy and the 1996 welfare reform law, 16 percent more poor moms entered the labor force over the past six years. However, evidence suggests poor men did not fare as well. Because the first round of welfare reform required mothers to work, this next round should issue a similar challenge to fathers in order to help them become current and continue to pay child support.

According to the Urban Institute, about two-thirds of the nearly 11 million American fathers who do not live with their children fail to pay child support.¹ Therefore it is no surprise that children who grow up fatherless are five times more likely to be poor.²

This reasoning assumes that women who have left an abuser (which are among those numbers) cannot do better financially afterwards, or that women in general cannot do well alone — in short, it assumes a stable working wage. In 2002, I had tripled my working wage, and was doing better. But I had to use a nontraditional model of employment. This was not the model that welfare funnels women onto.

This 2002 report was also six years into welfare reform, and fails to account for cases like Dombrowski/Richardson, above, where (thanks go fathers’ rights movements and encouragements) cases STAY in the family law venue for years, impoverishing the family through ongoing litigation, and removing protection for the protective parents.

Social researchers also note that while women flooded the labor market, poor men did not. For example, during the 1990s, the labor force participation of young black women rose 18 percent, whereas the participation rate among low-income, non-college-educated black men actually fell by almost 10 percent.³

Well, now we have it clearly who welfare policies affecting all populations are aimed at. Supposedly.

In recent months, policymakers have increasingly begun to recognize that bringing fathers into the work-based system created by the 1996 law will be the next critical step in finishing the job of welfare reform. While “responsible fatherhood” programs have sprouted across the country, fatherhood and family formation promise to be central issues in the reauthorization of welfare reform legislation this year.

This type of discussion defines where income comes from — labor. However, that’s not at all where it comes from all the time. People who set policies KNOW this and they are not the chief laborers in question.

4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

MOST people can find out the difference between wealth and income, or understand it (I believe) if someone engages in a discussion of it. The policymakers and the child support enforcement system are here to make sure that discussion never happens in any significant way. Here are a few links:

2003

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

May 2003 – VOLUME 24 – NUMBER 5

The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest

An Interview with Edward Wolff

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.

In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth. Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff: Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff: Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.

2005

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

Wealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff

September 2005 (updated July 2010)

This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

This sociologist actually quotes Wolff, above.

The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/class_vs_income.html

May 17, 2005

Class vs. income vs. wealth

Wealth is how much money you have, income is how much you earn, and class is how much other people think you have based on how you behave.

People often don’t realize class exists because most people only associate with people of their own class. They don’t comprehend that people from other classes behave and think in ways totally alien to them.

If people are aware of class, it’s only of the class directly below them whom they feel superior to. Yes, class has a lot to do with looking down at people, which is why it’s a topic that’s seldom talked about. It’s not politically correct to admit that you look down at people.

2008

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9611

Confusing Wealth and Income

by Richard W. Rahn

Richard W. Rahn is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth.

Added to cato.org on August 27, 2008

This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 27, 2008.

Which of the following families is “richer”? The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000.

The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 23, 2010 at 8:32 pm

(Yet another) Court-enabled infanticide on court-ordered visitation

with 12 comments

You want to know why I call the DV Restraining order process “certifiably insane?” Whether granted, or NOT granted? Here’s why.

Local News in Victorville, CA

Pinon Hills man plans murder of infant son, suicide on Facebook

Comments 55 | Recommend 8

February 01, 2010 11:19 PM

Beatriz Valenzuela

In a chilling letter posted on Facebook for anyone to see, Stephen Garcia, 25, of Pinon Hills appears to detail how he planned his suicide and the murder of his 9-month-old son.

…..

Thinking that it is going to help us is grasping at straws. Instead, make a safety plan.

However, this mother had a choice of possibly going to jail for contempt if she decided to disobey a court order that overrode her mother’s instincts.

“I led everyone on my side of the family to believe I wouldn’t of done this because I did not want them to know…” the letter reads. “I had been thinking about doing this for months.”

In other words, the guy was deceitful, deceiving even his own family. However, the mother of his son, who apparently knew him more “intimately” saw the danger, and tried to stop it. She tried with the usual tools that women in this position are given: Seek a restraining order.

She didn’t even GET one, because there had been no prior criminal record.. Therefore, he could not have possibly been a danger. Sure…

The post may help San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Homicide investigators piece together what led to the Sunday morning tragedy, when Garcia took his infant son during a court-ordered visitation, drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks and ended both of their lives.
In the letter posted to his Facebook profile, Garcia claimed the deaths were an attempt to save his son from a difficult life — and to punish the baby’s mother, Katie Tagle, for refusing to come back to him.
“Our deaths are a lot for her,” the post continues. “It will have to suffice as her punishment. But that is not the reason I did it. It was the only way we could be happy without Katie. I did this out of love for our son, to protect him and myself.”
Saved letters, text messages and massive files containing e-mails and other correspondence give a glimpse into Garcia’s obsession, cursing Tagle and her family in some posts and asking her to return to him in others.
Court documents tell more of the story, with Tagle filing a request for a domestic violence restraining order on Dec. 11, 2009. On Jan. 12 that order was denied, as it was found Garcia was not a “threat to petitioner or the minor child.”
A search of his criminal record showed no history of domestic violence, battery or similar offenses in San Bernardino County. However, in one of a slew of other online letters attributed to Garcia, it states, “I’m sorry for hurting you. I’m sorry for hitting you. I’m sorry I made the wrong choices.”
On Jan. 17, shortly after the final visit with Judge David Mazurek, Garcia joined a Facebook group called “Organ Donor.”
In the days leading up to the murder-suicide, Garcia posted a half-dozen videos and dozens of photos of Wyatt with cryptic captions such as, “Please, it’s not too late.”
On his MySpace page, his mood over the last week was listed as “tested,” “bummed” and “scared,” with “one more day :(” his final post.
Hours before officials got a call Saturday night that Wyatt was missing and Garcia had threatened to kill him, he made his final online post: “We love you all.”
The suicide note was posted on Garcia’s Facebook profile Sunday, about eight hours after Hesperia Sheriff’s deputies found the bodies in Garcia’s car. It appears Garcia left directions for someone to post the letter and make it public for everyone to see.
The lengthy post also reads as a will, with directions for how to distribute his possessions and personal notes to family members and friends. It also states that Garcia left a signed letter in his truck, confessing to the killings and explaining why he did them.
Though Garcia mentions using a gun, investigators have not released information on how he killed Wyatt and himself, stating only that they both died from “traumatic injuries.”
Anyone who may have information about this case is asked to call Detective Ryan Ford or Sgt. Frank Montanez at the Sheriff’s Homicide Detail at (909) 387-3589 or call WeTip at (800) 78-CRIME.

Brooke Edwards and Natasha Lindstrom contributed to this report.

Beatriz E. Valenzuela may be reached at 951-6276 or at BValenzuela@VVDailyPress.com.

Here’s the SFGate Report on this:

SoCal man mentioned son’s killing on Facebook

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

(02-02) 09:04 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —

A newspaper says a San Bernardino County man who killed his 9-month-old son and himself left a Facebook message saying he did it out of love.Sheriff’s officials say 25-year-old Stephen Garcia of Pinon Hills was on a court-ordered visit with his son Sunday when he drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks, killed the boy and committed suicide.

The Daily Press in Victorville says Garcia left a message on his Facebook profile about eight hours after his body was found. The note, apparently posted on his behalf by someone else, says Garcia had been thinking of the crime for months and wanted to punish the baby’s mother for leaving him.

Garcia says the deaths are the only way he and his son can be happy without her and says he did it out of love to protect the boy.

Information from: Daily Press, www.vvdailypress.com (the first article, above).

He did it for “love.” Some kind of love….

Here’s a fellow-blogger’s reaction.

http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/california-judge-denies-protective-order-to-mother-bam-father-murders-young-son-and-kills-himself/

And a site worth spending time on. . . .

See the heartbreaking MySpace page that belongs to the father and the bizzare RIP on it.
Judge J. David Mazurek needs to held accountable on this, and charged as an accomplice in this murder. This needs to happen to every judge that allows abusers to take children, and then hurt or murder them. Maybe then judges will start taking domestic violence seriously. Thanks to the father’s rights advocates and their “false allegations” drivel, they have turned America’s judges into a bunch of pussies who absolutely have no clue. Just get the child to the father….doesn’t matter if he is violent or not. It is time to stop listening to the mantra from these groups and start taking these violent guys seriously, and start putting judges in prison that don’t.

We Moms are NOT de-sensitized to this insane callousness to who lives, or who’s going to die. But if a Mom goes to jail in protest, what good is that to her children? If she doesn’t go, then the risk goes to the children. And/or her, and/or innocent bystanders, in some cases.

THIS overentitled, disillusioned, and unable to have a vital purpose in life other than punishing the mother of his child (how perverted is THAT?) was only 25. Bet he attended a public school system, possibly in this great state. Did he do college too? If so, to what point? Whether or not, there is clearly an attitude problem, a spiritual problem, and a moral problem. I don’t think the millions upon millions (literally) going to the California Healthy Marriage Coalition are going to stop troubles this entrenched. This guy was narcissistic, period. And to a point, he was a product of a system that encourages — and does not DIScourage — this. It’s a system where women have to fight uphill to get away from ground zero in their own lives.

I wonder how well we (well, people) are also reading characters before having babies. Makes you think, right?

BUT: Apparently the courts are, and clearly the judges are callous. Or, they are bound by the requirement to keep an ongoing stream of unwilling clients to their cronies. Excuse me, colleagues.

Well, no, I don’t think the judges are not clueless, and they are not pussies, I believe. They just don’t care! Why? What’s at stake if they do? . . . . An entire system.

A bribe perverts justice. I’m not accusing this particular judge of taking a bribe, but the court docket below tells clearly that they passed the buck to family court because there were custody and visitation orders. That’s how it goes.

And family court was SET UP from the start, at least per some sites (CANOW.org family law page, NAFCJ.net, and some others) to be abuser-friendly, and father-friendly (despite allegations to the contrary).

It was just business as usual. And if you want “business as usual” to change, friends, you have to change who is paying for the “business as usual,” and in the bottom line, this is the taxpayers. The Dept. of HHS in combo with some DOJ (Office of Violence Against Women) sources are conferencing together, educating together, declaring together, but the ONE thing they are NOT doing is confronting t he mandated mediation or custody evaluation where there’s conflict. And that “required outcome” model of the court process.

The judge is not going to be charged as an accomplice to murder. With luck, and persistence, he MIGHT be held accountable if this becomes a pattern. The people most highly motivated to do this are probably already victims of the court system, and are still in the process of trying to stay housed, alive, and their kids alive also.

However, what we MIGHT do for the next batch of innocent young mothers who show up thinking that family court is something you can walk into, and then also walk OUT of with a restraining order, is warn them…

HERE’s the Docket:

12/11/2009 – She requests ex parte DV restraining order.

12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete

WOW, lots of “Tagles” in this jurisdiction. This appears to be Katie Tagle in a previous relationship, or another Katie Tagle. In this one, she was charged with domestic violence.

Either way, the KNEE-JERK reaction of the court is to:

1. Consolidate with a family law (dissolution, I guess case).

2. Make a really STUPID order as to where violence has been alleged. THIS one has a daughter, “Dakota” and they are to alternate every other DAY, and — of course — go to mediation, or else.

Here: 2007 DOCKET, different couple (or at least, father)….

Case MFLMS010721 – RICARDO TAGLE JR -N- KATIE MARIE TAGLE
Action: (Choose)04/04/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…04/03/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR
04/03/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M2

BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING.

CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ

REPORTER: GARY RAGLE

–

PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT

DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT

–

PROCEEDINGS:

DECLARATION RE: 4 HOUR NOTICE FILED.

WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE JR IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.

WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.

EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.

CASE CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE(S) MFL010729 MASTER FILE MFL010729

–

{{NOTE: THis “consolidation” is where the issue of the DV gets basically lost, and is intentional. It happened to me. … This consolidation action violates due process for at least one of the parties, but is routine…}}HEARINGS:

CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/04/07 AT 08:29 IN DEPARTMENT M3.

–

TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS: PARTIES STIPULATE TO

SHARE CUSTODY OF DAKOTA TAGLE ON AN ALTERNATING

BASIS BEGINNING 04/01/07 EVERY OTHER DAY UNTIL

FURTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. WEDNESDAYS DAKOTA

IS TO BE PICKED UP BY FATHER FROM DAYCARE UNTIL

04/18/07. IF IT IS MOTHERS DAY FOR EXCHANGE IT

IS TO BE MADE AFTER MOTHER GETS OFF WORK.

THESE ORDERS ARE TEMPORARY UNTIL FURTHER ORDER

OF THE COURT. THINK: IF violence truly occurred, the Court just buried discussion of it, and made SURE that the child IS going to be in the full, unmonitored (not that I’m thinking monitoring makes a difference) custody of the abusive parent.

–

THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO REPORT ON 04/11/07, AT 08:00 TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES AND TO COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT SERVICES COUNSELORS DURING ALL STAGES OF THE MEDIATION/EVALUATION {{Do you GET this yet? The racket is going through mediation and evaluation and counseling. Yes, I said “racket.” See “Access/Visitation funding” which was thinly veiled way to get more fathers (although it says “noncustodial PARENTS, in practice, and even the language frequently slips into saying, FATHERS) more time with their children. I have blogged on this earlier..}

PROCESS. CUSTODIAL PARENT(S) SHALL MAKE CHILDREN AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES REQUESTED BY COUNSELOR.

PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND ORIENTATION ON

04/09/07 AT 3PM.

ACTION – COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

==MINUTE ORDER CHANGED OR CORRECTED BY P MARTIN; CHANGES MADE ARE AS FOLLOWS: TO CHANGE TO ORIENTATION ==

It might be that she filed for divorce, and he quickly filed for DV. I don’t know without further research.

Here’s the minutes of the order, the next day. As you can see, the court called the DV “mutual combat” (Sure, right….) and ordered them to a “Strengthening Families Class.”

Here it is. We are talking, now 2 YEARS (almost) before another infant son died:

EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR (==link here)
04/04/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3

BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING.

CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ

REPORTER: GARY RAGLE

–

PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT

DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT

–

PROCEEDINGS:

WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.

WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.

WITNESS — SOMMER MERCER IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.

WITNESS — CARLOS TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.

WITNESS — MARIA BROWN IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.

EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.

EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:

EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.

EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:

COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL

CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY.

THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE:

HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS.

–

THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS.

–

PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING

FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE.

–

HEARINGS:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT

PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING.

ACTION – COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL

CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY.

THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE:

HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS.

–

THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS.

–

PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING

FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE.

–

HEARINGS:

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT

PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING.

ACTION – COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

There are “Strengthening Families” programs across the nation. A search found one from San Bernadino, UTAH (not this case, obviously), but this is probably typical of how it’s organized and got started:

(see original link, above for visuals. This is, naturally, an “Evidence-based” practice. The evidence in the Tagle case, out of San Bernadino, CAL is still that something ain’t getting that job done. …. No matter, the court-ordered parenting classes continue…)

The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) is a parenting and family skills training program that consists of 14 consecutive weekly skill-building sessions. Parents and children work separately in training sessions and then participate together in a session practicing the skills they learned earlier. Two booster sessions are used at 6 months to 1 year after the primary course. Children’s skills training sessions concentrate on setting goals, dealing with stress and emotions, communication skills, responsible behavior, and how to deal with peer pressure. Topics in the parental section include setting rules, nurturing, monitoring compliance, and applying appropriate discipline.

SFP was developed and tested in 1983 with 6- to 12-year-old children of parents in substance abuse treatment. Since then, culturally modified versions and age-adapted versions (for 3- to 5-, 10- to 14-, and 13- to 17-year-olds) with new manuals have been evaluated and found effective for families with diverse backgrounds: African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, Australian, and Canadian.

Goal / Mission

The goals of this program are to improve parenting skills and children’s behaviors and decrease conduct disorders; to improve children’s social competencies; and to improve family attachment, harmony, communication, and organization.

Results / Accomplishments

SFP has been evaluated at least 18 times on Federal grants and at least 150 times on State grants by independent evaluators. {{I question HOW independent…}}The original National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) study involved a true pretest, posttest, and follow-up experimental design with random assignment of families to one of four experimental groups: 1) parent training only, 2) parent training plus children’s skills training, 3) the complete SFP including the family component, and 4) no treatment besides substance abuse treatment for parents.

SFP was then culturally adapted and evaluated with five Center for Substance Abuse Prevention High-Risk Youth Program grants by independent evaluators using statistical control group designs that involved quasi-experimental, pretest, posttest, and 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Recently, SFP was compared with a popular school-based aggression prevention program (I Can Problem Solve) and found highly effective (effect sizes = .45 to 1.38), employing a true experimental pretest–posttest, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up design in two Utah school districts. A NIDA four-group randomized clinical trial with about 800 primarily African-American families in the Washington, DC, area also found good results.

Categories

Social Environment / Family Structure
Social Environment / Children’s Social Environment

WHICH (to me) JUST GOES TO PROVE, THERE’S NO “FREE” LUNCH. YOU GO TO A NONPROFIT (POSSIBLY FUNDED B Y THE US GOV’T OR A STATE, OR BOTH) OR THE GOV’T (VIA AN AGENCY) FOR HELP — OR FOR THAT MATTER, ENROLL A CHILD IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR EDUCATION– AND YOUR CHILDREN, AND PROBABLY YOU, will, (read my lips), will BE “AT RISK” of becoming the subject of a demonstration, or randomized trial of some behavioral management theory.

in this case, Ms. Tagle went to a judge seeking protection for her (new) infant son, and lost. Again, I do not know that this is the same Tagle. Possibly, possibly not. Different man, though. Last names not changed. Was this a rebound relationship?

Oh yes, the 2009 docket, in reverse chronologic order. No dissolution in this one:

Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/12/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. M3 OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
01/11/2010 ANDREW H. LUND IS REMOVED AS ATTORNEY FOR STEPHEN GARCIA, AND PRO/PER IS ADDED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPP DECL BY KATIE TAGLE BY MAIL ON 01/07/10 AS TO ATTORNEY ANDREW LUND, FILED. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 DECLARATION OF KATIE M TAGLE FILED Not Applicable
01/05/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANSWER TO TRO/IE BY MAIL ON 01/05/10 AS TO KATIE TAGLE, FILED. Not Applicable
01/05/2010 INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA Not Applicable
01/05/2010 ANSWER TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA, PARTY REPRESENTED BY ANDREW H. LUND. Not Applicable
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
12/11/2009 CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT RECEIVED. Not Applicable
12/11/2009 EX PARTE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
12/11/2009 REQUEST FOR ORDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION Not Applicable
12/11/2009 REQUEST AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED.(DV) Not Applicable

Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Action: (Choose)02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/12/2010 – OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FI…12/15/2009 – EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC…
EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
12/15/2009 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3

DEBRA HARRIS PRESIDING.

CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH

COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE

–

PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT

RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT

SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY LORI SMITH FOR ANDREW EUND FOR RESPONDENT.

–

PROCEEDINGS:

OSC/MOTION HELD.

BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED.

DECLARATION REGARDING EXPARTE NOTICE FILED.

EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD.

EX PARTE ORDERS DENIED.

–

HEARINGS:

OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE IS SET FOR 01/12/10AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT M3.

ACTION – COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

For those unfamiliar with the process, let me narrate:

She asks for ex parte protection (12/11/09) which starts a process, and gives the respondent time to go get an attorney, which he does. The request for protection stands, it’s just not ex parte — a requirement which is for safety purposes, because of potential for retaliation.
12/15/09 the OSC for EX PARTE (immediate, without telling the other party) protection is apparently denied and the request for protection is continued to 01/11/10. NOTE: Christmas seasons, holiday seasons, can be very dangerous for the parties when there’s been a breakup; as it highlights “family” and a family is breaking apart…
On 01/05/10 the man, who by now has an attorney (WONDER WHO PAID FOR HIM… ACCESS / Vistation FUNDING?), Mr. Lund, and files an answer.
The parties exchange income and expense reports (if family law is going to make some money off this, it’s important to know which side has the money…. If not, they’ll be sent quickly through mediation, not evaluations….).
On 01/07-08/10 the woman files and serves (by mail) a supplemental declaration to the man’s attorney, properly (Proof of service).
On 01/11/10, the man’s attorney QUITS. (not enough money in it for him? Or, the case has already been, basically, decided).
On 01/12/10, the OCS for a normal domestic violence protection order occurs, as follows:

OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
01/12/2010 – 9:00 AM DEPT. M3

J. DAVID MAZUREK PRESIDING.

CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH

COURT REPORTER JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND

–

PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT

RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT

–

PROCEEDINGS:

OSC/MOTION HELD.

BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED.

COURT FINDS THERE IS A PENDING PROCEEDING IN

THE VICTORVILLE COURT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CUSTODY

AND VISITATION ORDERS.

–

COURT FINDS THERE IS NOT THREAT TO PETITIONER

OR THE MINOR CHILD.

THE OSC IS DENIED.

–

ORAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES BY RESPONDENT IS

DENIED.

–

BOTH PARTIES ARE REMINDED BY THE COURT OF THEIR

FAMILY COURT SERVICES APPOINTMENT FOR THEIR

VICTORVILLE CASE.

COMPLAINT STAGE AT DISPOSITION – OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL)

DISPOSITION OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL)

COURT ORDERS ENTIRE ACTION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REASON: REQUEST DENIED..

ACTION – COMPLETE

=== MINUTE ORDER END ===

This (civil, I presume) venue tosses the ball back to the FAMILY law venue, and reminds them to be good little girls and boys, and go to Family Court Services.
01/26/2010 (LAST week, folks), something regarding fees is filed.
01/30/2010 — Father kills son on court-ordered visitation, and then himself. (NOT ON DOCKET).
01/31/2010 — Sheriff’s Dept. reports to press (see top of post):

01-31, 18:38 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —

Authorities in San Bernardino County say a 25-year-old father and his 9-month-old son have died in what investigators believe is a murder-suicide. A sheriff’s news release says deputies found Stephen Garcia and son Wyatt Garcia dead in a vehicle on a rural dirt road in the Twin Peaks area early Sunday.
The release says the Hesperia Sheriff’s Station had received a report Saturday night that Garcia took his son during a court-ordered visitation and threatened to kill the child and himself. The department did not say how the pair died, only that they “sustained traumatic injuries.” The county coroner will conduct an autopsy on both father and son this week.
Stephen Garcia was from the Pinon (pin-YONE) Hills area and his son was from Yucca Valley.

02/01/2010 Someone requests a Court Transcript.

I had not meant to spend so long on this case, After all, EVERY WEEK, even in my own Golden State, it seems someone ground up by this system, dies. If not a child also. I can’t keep up.

But it does illustrate the futility of (I think– make your own decision, and this is NOT legal advice) seeking a civil restraining order, versus criminal, versus, better yet, some kind of safety plan. Then again, for women with kids leaving abuse in the family law, there does not appear to be any safety. Congressmen (Danny Davis was active in a case) will help fathers haul kids back from overseas (China, Brazil, come to mind recently), but good luck getting yours back from your own state, or a next door state.

And again, a word to the wse — not that it’s an excuse — but cool it on the rebound relationships, if this was one.

AND — whoever posted on Facebook, and whoever SAW what was posted on facebook (i.e., a cry to have his threats taken seriously, as they should’ve been), YOU are responsible if you knew this couple, and did nothing. Sorry, but you are.

AND all of us need to get on the stick about this family law system. The AFCC and all their experts that PROFIT from these situations leading to, basically, more deaths, is convening in February — this month. Do research, people! It’s not rocket science, just an investment of time!

I think that if marriage, and relationships are continuing to be this dangerous to have, and leave, it is a testament to the strength of testosterone (and other hormones) that people continue to engage in sex, let alone ongoing relationships. Good grief!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A task force or a committee is not going to stop this stuff. A good audit, ongoing, by someone with courage (and other source of income) MIGHT make a dent….

Wish I had time to say more, but I don’t.

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 »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 5, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with "CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?" (CRS Rpt 97-590 updated 6-20-2000), Carmen Solomon-Fears, CRS Rept 97-590, CRS-Congressional Research Service, Due process, fatherhood, HHS-TAGGS grants database, History of Access and Visitation Legislation, House Ways and Means-Human Resources Subcommittee (Jurisdiction - Titles I ~IV ~VI ~X ~XIV ~XVI ~XX and related provisions of titles VII & XI of the Social Security Act per 112th Congress rules), men's rights, murder-suicides, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

	Privatization, Funct… on Monkeying with Mothers, Lovely…
	Privatization, Funct… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	Let's Get Honest on Behold, a municipal family cou…
	IT’S ALL ABOUT… on For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV G…
	Let's Get Honest on 2018 Blog Posts and New Pages…

Grantee Name	Award Number	Award Title	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions	Award Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0011	P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC	09/13/1995	93671	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 385,541	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0011	P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC	04/19/1996	93671	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	OTHER REVISION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 0	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	09/23/1996	93671	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NEW	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 589,908	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	07/17/1997	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 800,000	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	09/19/1998	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 988,119	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	08/19/1999	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,016,010	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	08/10/2000	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,121,852	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/14/2001	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NEW	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,275,852	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/14/2002	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,331,291	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/06/2003	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,350,730	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/06/2003	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	OTHER REVISION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 0	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	07/27/2004	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,343,183	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	03/11/2005	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 0	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	08/29/2005	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,343,183	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	09/21/2006	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NEW	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,811	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	08/27/2007	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,810	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	07/22/2008	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,811	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	08/27/2009	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,812	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	09/17/2009	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 50,000	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	09/15/2010	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,812	View Abstract

1.	Office of Justice Programs	$21,134,457	(55%)
2.	Immediate Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services	$11,207,290	(29%)
3.	Administration for Children and Families	$5,500,562	(14%)
4.	Health Resources and Services Administration	$272,394	(1%)
5.	Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)	$218,997

Posts Tagged ‘murder-suicides’

…

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

So here we go:

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

HUH?

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

Working for whom?*

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

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

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

I posted this on August 17, 2009

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

INTRO:

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

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

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

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

(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —

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

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

About Jennifer Jackson

Where we are going…

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

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

+ + + + = = = + + + = = =

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

On a recent post and here (currently), there is a graphic of Ellen Pence — well-known in Domestic Violence circles — interviewing Casey Gwinn, well known in San Diego and for his work on the National Family Justice Center Alliance, i.e., for starting it.

Wikipedia on “Ellen Pence”:

Background

About Justice Alliances and Resource Centers:

FOR COMPARISON, WHO IS MDRC?

“MDRC: Manpower Development Research Development, “What IS MDRC?“

OK, CONSIDER THE INCOME TAX . . .

(1) From “infoplease” article:

(2) from MISES institute article: “The Income Tax: Root of All Evil“*

WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:

(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention. From HHS):

(HHS grants, from TAGGS.hhs.gov) RECIPIENT INFORMATION

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Some non-profit!

MPDI is still training (seems to be the emphasis, and disseminating information) (notice Who they are training)

AWARD ACTIONS

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP, ACTION & TRIBUTE

Top 5 Contracting Agencies

Origin and theory

Who is this contractor, MPDI, again?

Is it a shelter, battered women’s or homeless? Hell, no:

Background

SHARE THIS POST on...

Like this:

1,

2,

3,

4.

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

Hal was given supervised visitation

Fast-forward 9 years or so. ..

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

(1) BIFURCATION

in the Legal Regulation of Parenthood

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

(2) COMPLETION

of the Critical Job of Welfare Reform

4. Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

2003

The Wealth Divide The Growing Gap in the United States Between the Rich and the Rest

2005

Wealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff

September 2005 (updated July 2010)

The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest