Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘NDAA

Ignorance — about Privatization, Reorganization of Government within the USA– Ain’t Bliss!

with 5 comments

[In present form, this post is over 12,000 words. I’m posting it anyhow; it should raise awareness of certain types of national organizations [nonprofits or centers with the word “national” in their title] as a pattern, as well as awareness of specific influential ones –some long-standing, some newer– each with its agenda for ALL states [as witnessed to in part by their name including the word “national“] which bypassing the local (state-level) legislatures and general public awareness locally, then, through force, bullying (one example below, this includes litigation — suing), or simply “outflanking” informed consent of the public through inclusive, open, public debate seeking to inflict privately-agreed-upon models, practices and values developed among collaborating experts, as “in the public interest” and therefore, to be applied to all.  
I hope this reveals some of the strategies already in place to bypass due process in writing, passing state laws, or policies.  You MUST look at the nonprofit sector as the powerhouse it really is, and as the position that nonprofit organizations hold by virtue of not having even public shareholders — and by partnering with the significant financial clout involved in government entities.  501©3s  and 501©4s, for example, being private NONstock entities (although they certainly can and do invest in or own stock, or sometimes even control for-profit related businesses) are primarily accountable to their boards of directors.   Even after their existence reaches one’s awareness, their funding is not always immediately obvious.  Where that funding is private, it also may not be traceable at all.  Where it’s public, it’s listed on the Form 990s as “government grants” and good luck locating consistently– from which government agencies!    These organizations, as a sector,  therefore should NOTbe ignored!
Whatever the specific agenda and policies end up being — you can be sure it will involve moving the balance of power away from government into the private trainer, technical assistance, and program-providers.  Government, meaning, “the public,” of course is welcome to continue funding all stages of the system change, and the new systems — coming, going, and inbetween.]

Recently, I re-booted (so to speak) a service which lets me see where blog visitors are coming from.  Highly recommended (statcounter.com) and not too expensive. Readers cannot view this on the site, it’s a password protected service to help bloggers understand their audience.

On seeing the quality and affiliations of visitors (WHO is watching — or at least repeatedly visiting this site), I decided to speak more plainly about the macro-systems through which privatization of government and progressive reorganization of the Executive Branch of the USA has been set up, was planned at least 100 years ago and is proceeding, fast, in the same direction:  Undermining representative government at the individual level, and strengthening the stranglehold of the nonprofit/government alliances.

I was surprised to see that despite over a year and a half of silence (no new posts), within 2016 alone, including before I broke the silence on January 23, 2016, FamilyCourtMatters was visited, repeatedly, by: HHS, USDOJ, several state governments (as in “State of Minnesota, State of Hawaii, Colorado”), repeatedly from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and, for some reason  DOD NNIC (Navy Network Information Centers), Bureau of Corrections in two states, Northrup Grunman, Lockheed, Ford Motor Company,multiple universities (Including MIT, and Yale at least once), a few law firms, California Judicial Council AOC, “The City of New York,” (and various other cities), surprisingly, several school districts, the IRS and the FBI — I think perhaps someone else may be getting the message that we are (I am!) now still reporting on certain things whether or not it’s popular, or picked up in mainstream or social media.

If these entities are at still looking at this blog, perhaps the average viewer (unaffiliated person) might also just want to acquire some time and patience to consider its basic messages, and the supporting evidence.   (Qualifier:  These are IP addresses which come in with their labeled names via statcounter, and not individual people or homes.  I do not have access to individual viewers by IP and would not report if I did).  Some of the visitors seem to relate to what I was blogging on, or potentially my own visit to their site. A visit also doesn’t tell me why someone was reading, and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the visit was related to official business by any of the above.  It’s just a “came from” web address, that’s all. It could be people on break at work, etc.)


There aren’t many comments on this blog, and for one which has been around so long, really not that many registered followers.  I’m not promoting it enough (or consistently) on Twitter, on Facebook (basically at all).  I have always focused on writing my own material, which makes for less frequent posts (possibly less traffic).  Certainly, I quote plenty of others within posts, but I personally search out, personally process the information (to varying levels depending on the relevance)  and write.  The overall position I take, on the blog and on specific posts and, on the topics covered in each post, is my position:  this is my voice and understanding, and no abject copycat of a political, gender-based, or group-based.  If we were sitting face-to-face, I would say the same things conversationally, referring to the same themes, and offer even more in-depth examples.

Perhaps that’s what makes this resource (the blog is a resource) different from so much information now available on-line about domestic violence, child abuse, custody battles, and even “custody of children going to batterers,” let alone “protective mothers”  —  a term I hate because the “-ive” ending on “Protective” indicates a job not done or even likely to be accomplished, at least not in the family court venue, which was designed for:  collaboration, mediation, cooperation and (in effect) “conciliation” — not protecting children, or for that matter, their mothers.    The family courts have carved out a completely different market niche, namely “therapeutic jurisprudence” and “bring on the behavioral health experts…”

A much better designation involving the word “mothers” might refer to our ability, developed possibly in the process of raising children, or maybe it’s instinctive, innate? in being able to smell a rat, or smoke out a lie, particularly when offered as a pitiable excuse for some recent very bad behavior.  For example the words smart, savvy, or a well-placed comment, “Seriously?” Anything indicating we are actually a force to be reckoned with, instead of highlighting the victimization might be better than “Protective Mothers.”


For this Smart, Savvy, “Seriously??” “Force to be Reckoned With” to actually apply to mothers (or others), mothers (or others) have to exercise some due-diligence-reading, and use logic, commonsense, and a wider field of vision than just single-topic scenarios. A  sense of history (time passing in the development of any trends) also.  The ability to summarize, impromptu, key elements in creating a certain condition (in the courts, or elsewhere), to “get to the bottom of the issue” and then talk about it in those terms.


SO, in 2016, there have been admissions that federal incentives to the courts exist, and in recent years (2011ff) some investigations into the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts operations (state chapter in Connecticut especially). Should this be called, “Breaking the Silence (on Who or What is Behind The Family Court Curtains)”??. Maybe, but….

What about the dozen, or more, OTHER associations also involving mixtures of judiciary (judges) or other civil servants (or, government entities) and private business interests?  Can you name a few? In this environment, is it really possible to discuss government without reference to the tax-exempt sector?

Read the rest of this entry »

Why Supervised Visitation (per se) Sucks. Federal Millions, that is (DOJ Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046) [Publ. June 6, 2013, Format Adjusted May 31, 2021].

with 12 comments

POST TITLE:

Why Supervised Visitation (per se) Sucks. Federal Millions, that is (DOJ Grant 2004-WX-AT-K046) [Publ. June 6, 2013, Format Adjusted May 31, 2021]. (short-link ends “-1Ln.” Post published June 6, 2013, about 8,300 wds)

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

There are people who make a living in evaluating federally-funded grants programs, such as Safe Exchange and Supervised Visitation.

I have made a survey of the field. A quick check of one of the major international nonprofit associations of providers, Supervised Visitation Network, Inc.. Based on my sampling, plus field experiences, and supported by two DOJ/OIG audits of a certain grant promoting supervised visitation to both providers (regarding the fathers) and to Mothers, to indoctrinate them into accepting the situation, I have come to the essential evaluation (which no DOJ grant was used in producing):

Supervised Visitation, per se, Sucks

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

You can sometimes spot these on the fly: Looks like another one:

Legal Resource Center for Violence Against Women (“LRCVAW” here, also that’s its url):

Working with Attorneys . .To provide Justice and Safety . . . for Domestic Violence Survivors . . in Interstate Custody Cases. “This project was supported by grant number 2004-WT-AX-K079 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice. Points of view expressed in this document are those of the author, and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Office on Violence Against Women, United States Department of Justice..

This is another T&TA site: sign up for trainings (aka webinars) and “resources” include the list of State Coalitions, some ABA commissions, and one of the groups I’m profiling below which got nailed for mis-use of federal grants (the same kind!) by the US DOJ/OIG, which is to say, the auditor’s office. LRCVAW apparently incorporated in Maryland on 6/27/2003,** changed the address once, and says it is a nonprofit. (I just looked grantee up under USASpending.gov and found a grant helping supervised visitation centers with interstate custody cases. Over $2 million in grants so far. 6 awards;, not bad for a small organization.

(**Broken link (search again @ (look up “Maryland Business Entities Search”) but the LRCVAW.org link above still active and still not posting its EIN# or any financials. Or see http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos/ to search by name for  EIN# //LGH 31May2021).

USDOJ Audit Reports are grouped into “By Component” and “External.” Notice the the OVW is “External” See next link to view the OVW audits, of which I randomly (really! in general, I was interested in Pennsylvania’s DV groups) chose to audit a certain one, and found material for this post….

Office on Violence Against Women External ReportsThe Audit Division reports on the expenditure of federal funds by certain recipients of grants from the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW).

2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 | 2005 | 1998
2012
October 12, 2012
~ Audit of the Office on Violence Against Women Safe Havens Grant Awarded to the Michigan Department of Human Services, Lansing, Michigan, Audit Report GR-50-13-002

September 27, 2012
~ Audit of the Office on Violence Against Women and Office of Justice Programs Grants Awarded to the Idaho Supreme Court, Boise, Idaho, Audit Report GR-60-12-021

~>~>~>~>September 5, 2012
~ Audit of the Office on Violence Against Women Technical Assistance Cooperative Agreements Administered by the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, Enola, Pennsylvania, Audit Report GR-70-12-009

Page “3” footnote of this one, referencing $4 million (4 Technical Assistance Grantss) to PCAR fround $336K of questionable costs.

The other (April 2010) audit was not to PCAR, but to the nonprofit NDAA, covering $16 million (16 grants) of which $4million of questionable costs came up. Some of these questionable costs covered the grant mentioned in this title, to “APRI” (American Prosecutors Research Institute), which I happen to know some battered women love to quote as it talks about PAS. However, they don’t look at the financial angle enough to understand they just quoted an organization engaged in questionable financial practices!). That Grant 30-10-0001 is linked to & mentioned again below.


My evaluation approach differs radically from approaches by, say, Dr. Daniel G. Saunders, Professor of Social Work a UMichigan, that Barry Goldstein keeps quoting and holding out as “new light” on how to protect children. While he and his colleagues publish – and do not perish– about these matters, we mothers (and fathers) (and taxpayers) ARE perishing surrounding the topic. I think I might blog that separately, but just FYI, he is on the same TYPE of grants streams as these other technical training and service providers.

You wouldn’t believe how networked these groups are! Take a look, it’s evident.

The thing is, most of us do NOT take a look, and go unconsciously about our business without considering the money forked over for redistribution as actually ours: once it’s out of sight, out of mind. This gets, in the long run, to be like any other project left ignored for years — it tends to expand in scope and trouble to clean up or clear out!

Some projects involve an excess of inanimate objects (like junk in a garage, leaves on a lawn, dishes in a sink, or dust in the house, for a few examples). However this project involves millions (actually, over time, billions) of dollars and live human beings receiving paychecks, sometimes pensions, filing tax returns.   In short, it is a process in which filing for corporation creates a status that attracts grants, which then go do SOMETHING, allegedly some function.  Even when that “social service” or “justice” function isn’t actually formed done,* the money still keeps pouring out until something is done about it — and streams, rivers of water is a good analogy (in many respects) for the flow of funding.

(* 2021 copyedit for clarity, at least as I think I meant 8 years ago…//LGH)

FYI (just in case you think this is a “disgruntled parent” speaking: No,…), we (my ex-batterer/stalker/deadbeat Dad etc. ex-husband and I) were on the bottom of the two-tier custody track. Had anyone offered me supervised visitation (I even at one point asked), I’d have taken the bait. Contact with my daughters was eliminated ON an “unsupervised visitation” exchange. Like most Moms, at the time I had no clue that federal funds for access visitation to improve [sic] noncustodial outcomes* existed.

But because the courts didn’t label us as a wealthy couple [no real estate involved], we entirely missed the referral to supervised visitation for his battering and stalking or my “alienation” (which wasn’t occurring: all visitations ordered, while they lived with me, were made available. When he got custody, that standard was eliminated immediately, overnight, and never raised its ‘ugly’ head again.

To get to this point of total eradication of the sense of “court order” meaning anything at all, we were sent repeatedly (periodically) through through the revolving door of “wham, bam, thank you ma’am” mandatory mediation, in California. We even “mediated” a felony crime called child-stealing. Mandatory Mediation is indeed Miraculous (California Courts Review, Spring 2006: See p. 16, written by a Judge**) — I see it can even undo restraining orders and undermine criminal law. No wonder the therapeutic jurisprudence community loves it! The DV industry gets its DOJ grants, and the family law professionals get their HHS access/visitation grants, and the kids get a lifetime of wondering which end is up, minus a lot of child support, and stable households.

[**with dual NCJFCJ-AFCC membership.  LGH comment 2021, although I probably knew it in 2013 also].

However, readers should know this is from observation, not personal experience with having been subject to supervised visitation in my own custody case. In our case, they simply switched the kids overnight, end of story (or at least of mother/daughter contact, basically, til they aged out), no factual or legal basis ever given, though I definitely formally requested it of the court.

No, I am against this field: because it sucks as a practice; because the trainers are known to be associated with AFCC, and in conflicts-of-interest positions administering their own grants that help fund it; and because, like AFCC itself, the nonprofits associated have to skip state when caught unincorporated, which they simply do … Perhaps this is why conferences of a Florida-domicile nonprofit have to be held in Ontario, Canada?

“Supervised Visitation” cannot be justified logically, financially, or in any common-sense theater, which is I guess why it has to be promoted under public health & welfare and written up by social service and domestic violence career professionals.


Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: