Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..’
Privatizing Child Support (and the courts) in Michigan; County Workers picket. Judge was AFCC
I looking up Maximus, and what comes up alongside it, Lockheed-Martin, no matter which way you push it, one finds fraud and complaints about fraud. I am starting to wonder about how much practices like this contributed to the economic troubles in Wisconsin which caused legislators to exit the state rather than vote to compromise the union’s rights to bargain, that ushered in 2011.
When fraud is entrenched, routine and too much has been invested int he agency committing the fraud to eliminate it from further government contracts, than our government is too big for its britches, which we paid for. Government Of, By, For, WHICH people?
This article, though 2007, seems to typify the problems with privatizing child support. Of course there are other problems with keeping it in place, and having the access/visitation “Designer Family” incentives, too — and with the capricious nature of enforcement, and the vested interests in keeping the states staffed by child support agencies and workers as an antidote to poverty, which I am starting to think, it just ain’t. I think anymore it’s a contributor. Parents who can separate and were decent to start with, the one will be willing to support HIS children without going to court to force some sort of child support order. They will write it up.
Those who can’t are subject to fleecing whether or not through Title IV-D programs.
I did submit a full-length post (and looked up this judge, some) to the same post; it’s not up there yet but I hope will be.
It’s not about individual judges — it’s about systems. But the forum is helpful if it links to other news articles, or data for those using or viewing it.
MI-Remove Chief Judge Marybeth Kelly (Posted at: Courthouseforum.com)
| The Michigan Citizen – 2669 Bagley – Detroit – MI – 48216 � Phone: 313-963-8282Monday, SEP 17, 2007 MichiganCitizen.com |
|
|
Kelly moves to privatize Friend of the Court
Councilwoman JoAnn Watson (r) with supporters of Judge Deborah Thomas in her fight for jury rights. DIANE BUKOWSKI PHOTOS March for Kelly’s removal
By Diane Bukowski
The Michigan CitizenDETROIT — Wayne County child support workers joined hundreds of youth, legal luminaries, government officials and rank and file Detroiters Sept. 10, marching outside state offices at Cadillac Place, and packing the Coleman A. Young Municipal Center {{“CAYMC}}} auditorium, with standing room only.
They were there to support Wayne County Circuit Court Judge Deborah Thomas in her struggle for racially representative juries, among other concerns, and to demand the removal of Chief Judge Mary Beth Kelly.
On Sept. 6, Kelly announced her intent to contract out the jobs of 169 Friend of the Court employees to a private company which will employ a total of 225 workers at lower wages, with no benefits or pensions. Kelly said the move would increase the amount of collections and a cut of them which goes to the county.
BIDDERS HAVE PRIOR LEGAL ISSUES
Among the national companies likely to bid on the $28 million contract are MAXIMUS, Inc., a Lockheed Martin spin-off, and Tier Technologies, which currently operates the state’s centralized child support disbursement system.
The companies would get either a flat fee or a cut of the amount collected. MAXIMUS and Lockheed-Martin recently paid millions in fines to the federal government for defrauding social service programs, and Tier Technologies faces a securities fraud suit by its shareholders.
“We have mostly Black employees here, a lot of them with 18 or more years of seniority,” said a child support worker who asked not to be identified. “We’re already working like dogs on the biggest caseload in the state, but now they want to reduce our wages to $8 or $9 an hour. We won’t be allowed to bump into other county positions.”
The Wayne County Friend of the Court is the largest FOC in the state, with 300,000 active cases. In 2006, according to figures released by Kelly, it collected over 74 percent of the $426.2 million owing in the cases, a figure which surpasses the 2005 state-wide collection rate of 60 percent and ranks among the top state percentages nationally.
Failure to collect outstanding amounts is largely due to the poverty rate of non-custodial parents, according to Marilyn Stephen, Director of the State Office of Child Support.
“More than 75 percent of child support arrears in Michigan are owed by parents making less than $10,000 annually,” Stephen said. Over one-third of payments go primarily to the state to reimburse it for assistance to poor non-custodial parents, who get only a small pass-through of $50 a month.
WHAT KIND OF ASSISTANCE TO NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS? TYPICALLY THAT PHRASE GOES, TO REIMBURSE IT FOR ASSISTANCE TO CUSTODIAL PARENTS (WHO ARE TITLE IV-D).
ENGLER OPENED DOOR TO PRIVATIZATION
State Attorney General Mike Cox originally proposed privatization of child support collection in 2003. Former Gov. John Engler and Supreme Court Justice Maura Corrigan opened the floodgates, supporting a 2002 law allowing privatization of state social services. Kelly is a member of a state child support panel appointed by Corrigan.
Is that this woman, Wikipedia now showing as Head of Michigan DHS?
Description of Michigan DHS (from this site, bottom):
The Michigan Department of Human Services (DHS) is the state’s second-largest agency. The DHS oversees almost 10,000 employees and has an annual budget of more than $4 billion to administer federal programs.
The DHS staff handles more than 1.5 million medical assistance cases and 1.2 million cash and food-assistance cases all across Michigan. It oversees Michigan’s child and adult protective services, foster care, adoptions, juvenile justice, domestic violence, and child-support programs. The DHS also licenses adult foster care, child day care and child welfare facilities.[4]
She graduated from Marygrove College in Detroit, Michigan in 1969 and earned her Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from theUniversity of Detroit Law School in 1973. While in law school, she worked as a probation officer at a Detroit court.
Her first job after law school was with the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she served as a law clerk to Judge John Gillis. She next worked as a Wayne County Assistant Prosecutor. In 1979, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney, serving as Chief of Appeals; she later became the first woman to serve as Chief Assistant U.S. Attorney. In 1989, she became a partner at the Detroit law firm of Plunkett & Cooney. In 1992, Governor John Engler appointed her to the Michigan Court of Appeals. She was twice elected to that court and served as its Chief Judge from 1997-1998.
Corrigan is a long-time member of the Federalist Society, Michigan Lawyers Chapter. She was also president of the Incorporated Society of Irish-American Lawyers and of the Federal Bar Association, Detroit Chapter.
A member of the (Pew Commission on Children in Foster Care, Corrigan has been recognized for her work on foster care and adoption issues, including The Detroit News‘ “Michiganian of the Year” award.
Corrigan is the widow of the late Joseph D. Grano, a professor of constitutional law at Wayne State University. She has two children: Megan Grano, a comedian with Second City in Chicago, and Daniel Grano, an associate attorney with Flood, Lanctot, Connor & Stablein, PLLC, a law firm in Royal Oak, Michigan. She has supported several of George W. Bush‘s nominees to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit which includes the state of Michigan.
Wayne County Executive Robert Ficano also supports Kelly’s move.
“We are particularly grateful with the Court’s requirement that the successful bidder hire all FOC employees whose jobs are the subject of the Request for Proposal,” said Ficano in a statement. “We expect a smooth transition.”
However, Wayne County Commissioners Jewel Ware, Bernard Parker, and Tim Killeen attended the CAYMC rally, supporting Judge Thomas and expressing strong opposition to the privatization proposal.
{{Ever since I learned about the behavior of some County Commissioners in Northern and Southern California, I am generally wary. In S. CA ,they were in bed with the large developers (and others), and in N.CA, voted to allow an Interim D.A. just prior to the other’s planned retirement, enabling (Orloff) in effect to pick his successor (Alameda County DA Nancy O’Malley), who then went on to propound another PRIVATE NONPROFIT WITH PUBLIC EMPLOYEES situation, the Family Justice Center. She was recently seen with her team seeking support of a California (not US Congress, but a STATE) bill which would incorporate a certain alliance of counties (already working together) as the central, training grounds (3 of them) for more Justice Centers. I’ve never met anyone who has received help from here, or heard it in the press other than their press releases, and our landscape is strewn with domestic violence and sexual assault outrages, and deaths, plus corruption in law enforcement also — who are entrenched in that Justice Center setup. “Just say “NO” or at least “Whoa!” post, and/or “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys post,” this blog)
Ed McNeil, assistant to the President of Council 25 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) reiterated their opposition.
“Michigan ranks fourth in the nation in the collection of child support payments,” said McNeil. “Our folks are doing their job. All the monies collected ought to go to the families, not to some private entity that gets a percentage to make a profit.”
The workers’ contract expires Sept. 30. AFSCME staff representative Danny Craig, threatened that employees “will take it to the streets” if the county insists on the privatization move.
Wayne County’s Third Circuit Court previously had a $5 million contract with MAXIMUS in 2000, to modify the child support distribution system. The state had a five-year contract with a Lockheed Martin spin-off, Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., to develop and operate its centralized state disbursement unit. It now contracts with Tier Technologies to run the unit.
In July of this year, MAXIMUS entered a criminal deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, and paid a $30.6 million fine because it submitted claims for servicing all foster care children in the District of Columbia regardless of whether it had.
Also in July, Affiliated Computer Services agreed to pay the federal government $2.6 million because it admittedly submitted inflated charges for services it provided to programs run by the Agriculture, Labor, and Health and Human Services departments.
Tier Technologies is facing ongoing prosecution in New York in a class action securities fraud case, brought in 2006 by its shareholders.
I’ll be back. There is more . . . .. . .
SHARE THIS POST on...
Evaluate, Coordinate, Prepare to Call “Alienator!” — Pt. 2: CFCC and AFCC people Nunn, Depner, Ricci, Stahl, Pruett(s), and others DV groups fail to talk about
And how this dovetails with purpose of Access Visitation Grants grants…
The last post (or so) discussed practices in Pennsylvania and Indiana, with side-trips to Kentucky and California, where they originated from anyhow.
(If you read it, I meanwhile confirmed that KidsFirstOrange County Gerald L. Klein & Sara Doudna-Klein, yes,are married. I forgot to include how much they charge for services ($300 per parent, $120 per kid) in teaching about parental alienation and conflict….. I wonder who was the first Mrs. Gerald L. Klein… and whether these two have children together or not.
In context, Kids Turn, or Kids’ First, or steering cases to certain mediators, certain GALs, etc. — is the habit. And then, to top it off, extorting parents into participation through the child support system (Kentucky), or changing the civil code of procedure AND even the Custody Complaint form to name ONE provider of ONE parenting education course (Libassi Mediation Services) which is already being marketed elsewhere — outrageous.
This was tried in California, to standardize judge& attorney-originated nonprofits through the California Judicial Council, but our then-governor vetoed it (though both houses of the legislature passed it).
Now pending — Probably still — is another one that is legitimizing a practice already established, the Family Justice Center Alliance out of San Diego, like Kids’ Turn and financial fraud at the City Attorney’s office level, and so forth. Why stop while you’re ahead?
This has currently flown through House & Senate and as of June 9th was referred to Location: Assembly Committee Public Safety Committee and I think, Judiciary. Here’s some analysis from the Senate Appropriations Committee. Senator Christine Kehoe (who sponsored the bill) just so happens to be chair of the appropriations committee and from one of the cities involved in expanding the Justice Center concept (actually the city that started it: San Diego).
(link gives the bill’s history; the following is accessible through it)
Senate Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
Senator Christine Kehoe, Chair
Hearing Date: 05/26/2011
BILL SUMMARY: SB 557 would authorize the cities of San Diego and Anaheim, and the counties of Alameda and Sonoma, until January 1, 2014, to establish family justice centers (FJCs) to assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, human trafficking, and other victims of abuse and crime. This bill would require each FJC to maintain an informed consent policy in compliance with all state and federal laws protecting the confidentiality of the information of victims seeking services. This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 (thereafter, the FJCs are to be locally funded)
_____________________________________________________________________Fiscal Impact (in thousands) Establishment of FJCs Unknown; potentially major local costs for operation and services
Major Provisions Report to Legislature $17 to OPP (Office of Privacy Protection) in advisory role General_________
…This bill would require the Office of Privacy Protection (OPP), in conjunction with the four pilot centers and relevant stakeholders, to develop best practices to ensure the privacy of all FJC clients and shall submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2013.
…Should the specified cities and counties opt to establish a FJC, there will be unknown, but major local costs for operation and the provision of services to FJC clients. Costs would be dependent on the number of clients, FJC procedures, staffing, and the availability and cost of local treatment and service providers.
…The OPP has indicated a cost of $62,000 as the lead agency to develop best practice privacy recommendations and coordination of the report to the Legislature.
To reduce the costs of the bill, staff recommends an amendment to have the four pilot centers reduce the OPP to an advisory role over the development of best practices. The OPP has indicated reducing their involvement to oversight and review of the report would result in costs of approximately $17,000. (WELL, the OPP is slated for elimination anyhow, this report notes).
I’m posting the SB 557 updates for California residents. Information from:
RECENT POSTS:
Recently, I posted on:
- Kids Turn (Parent education curriculum, nonprofit started & staffed by family court personnel, with wealthy patrons AND gov’t sponsorship through federal Access/Visitation Funding)
- Family Justice Centers (origin in San Diego; Casey Gwinn, Gael Strack) and their background. INcluding a boost by Bush’s OFCBI initiative in 2003 — adding the faith factor to violence prevention. Sure, yeah..
- Family Justice Center #2, Alameda County — see “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post.
- Also, remember the Justicewomen.org article on the importance of District Attorneys in safety (or lack of it) towards women. A D.A. decides whether to, or NOT, to prosecute individual cases. It’s a huge responsibility.
- What’s Duluth (MN) got to do with it?
- What’s Domestic Violence Prevention got to do with this California-based racket? I questioned what a Duluth-based group spokesperson (Ellen Pence) is doing hobnobbing with a Family Justice Center founder (Casey Gwinn).
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- The elusive EIN of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” which gets millions of grants (around $29 million, I found) but from what I can tell doesn’t even have an EIN registered in MN, although its address is 202 E. Superior Street, Duluth, MN, and it definitely has a staff.
- I have more unpublished (on this blog) draft material on this.
- Toronto Integrated Domestic Violence Courts
- This was intended to be a “break” on SB 557 and Family Justice Centers, but thanks to the internet and international judges’ associations, and downloadable curricula, this is simply (it seems) another AFCC-style project. (Kids Turn knockoffs, talk of high-conflict & parental alienation, and modeled after several US states). The intended “global” reach (UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, etc.) is happening, and makes it hard to “take a break” from California basic corrupt practices by looking at another country’s handling of the same issues. The world is flattening — Internet, I guess.
- Last post, I addressed some partner-type organizations: AFCC/CRC, or CPR/PSI (in Denver), and personnel they have in common.
REMINDER — in CALIFORNIA — Three accepted purposes of the A/V funds system remain:
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009–2010)
Federal and State Program Goals
The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.”3 Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to
support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement** (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:5
- Supervised visitation and exchange services;
- Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
- Group counseling services for parents and children.
(This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature under Family Code section 3204(d).Copyright © 2010 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the Courts. All rights reserved.)
Report 12 Executive Summary (Sept 2000)
Preparing Court-Based Child Custody Mediation Services for the Future
DIANE NUNN
- LEADERSHIP AND NEW ROLES FOR THE JUDICIARY a 2002 conference at Univ. of Pacific McGeorge School of Law,
“The Many Faces of California’s Courts”
Diane Nunn, Director, Center for Families, Children & the Courts,
California Administrative Office of the Courts, “She supervises projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Ongoing projects include training, education, research and statistical analysis.” (Note, presenting alongside Bill Lockyer, then California Attorney General, whose wife Nadia ran (til recently) the Alameda County Family Justice Center).
AFCC wishes to thank Symposium sponsors and exhibitors for their support:
Children’s Rights Council, Hawaii (that’s CRC)
Christine Coates, JD, Dispute Resolution Training Complete Equity Markets, Inc.
Dr. Philip M. Stahl, ParentingAfterDivorce.com (alienation promoter)
Family Law Software, Inc. J.M.Craig Press, Inc. LifeBridge
Eileen Pruett and the Supreme Court of Ohio Office of Dispute Resolution Special Committee on Parent Education for the material on parent education, which is replicated in Appendix D.
In Ohio, “To achieve this goal, the Task Force recommend(ed, in 1999): 1) All parties in proceedings that involve the allocation of parental functions and responsibilities should attend parenting education seminars……Sixty-seven Ohio counties currently mandate parent education seminars for all divorcing parents;
More than two dozen experts from around the state and across the country presented testimony to the Task Force over a six-month period. Representatives from a variety of parents’ organizations, as well as a panel of teens who had experienced their parents’ divorces, brought their unique concerns to the Task Force. Staff members obtained research articles and statutes from around the nation and the globe to find the latest policies and practices. Members of the Task Force traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, to meet with staff at the Maricopa County Court system, a nationally recognized leader in court services and pro se programs, and to conferences sponsored by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, an internationally acclaimed organization which provides research and programs for professionals dealing with families in conflict.
Given who was on the task force, and what it did, this kind of conclusion is a little predictable:
The following report and recommendations are the result of this extensive research effort and debate and have been unanimously approved, without any abstentions or dissents, by official action of the 17 members of the Task Force present at the final meeting on June 1, 2001.
The OTHER Pruetts (I’m still on that 2004 AFCC flyer which mentions Diane Nunn as AFCC “Advisory Task Force”) include Dr. Kyle (child psychiatrist from Yale) and his wife Marsha Kline (also a Ph.D.). They have three daughters and one son and have naturally dedicated themselves to promoting fatherhood, as a search on “Marsha Kline Pruett, Kyle Pruett Fatherhood” will readily show, at a glance. Dr. Marsha Kline even got an award for “Fatherhood Initiative Community Recognition Award, State of Connecticut (2002), and Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award, Awarded by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. She is definitely (with I gather her husband, Dr. Kyle) on the Grants stream for investigation: “University of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/09-6/30/12: Total (T) $176,924 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-InvestigatorUniversity of California, Berkeley: Supporting Father Involvement 7/1/04-6/30/09: Total (T) $353,849 Marsha Kline Pruett, Ph.D., Co-Investigator
CHARLENE DEPNER, Ph.D., AFCC, etc.
Now (just for the heck of it), more on “Charlene Depner, Ph.D.” First of all, Ph.D. in what? the answer — per LinkedIn, is Social Psychology at U Michigan
Assistant Division Director, Cntr for Families, Children & Courts, CA Administrative Office of the Courts Govt. Admin. Industry 1988 – Present (23 years)/ Education: U Michigan, PhD, Social Psychology 1972 – 1978
So it appears, about 10 years, if any, in private practice or employment of some sort?
A. Does the history of violence in the relationship predict whether the visits are supervised or unsupervised?
We found no statistically significant relationships between the history of physical and psychological abuse or injuries and court orders to a supervised visitation center, family supervised visits or unsupervised visitation. More than three quarters of the participants had experienced severe forms of physical and psychological abuse from the father of their children. One can surmise that these pervasive experiences provided no useful information to the court to determine which fathers might pose a current and ongoing danger.
The one exception was severe injuries, which had been experienced by less than half the participants (46%). Nevertheless, fathers who had severely injured their former partners were no more likely to be ordered to supervised visitation than unsupervised visitation.
A 1996 report (issued by this CA Judicial Council AOC) on “Future Directions for Mandatory Child-Custody Mediation Services:….”
” notes:
Court-based child custody mediations affect the fate of nearly 100,000 California children each year. Many of them are already at risk when parents come to court. Currently, one- third of all mediations address concerns about a child’s emotional well-being. Child Protective Services has investigated a report about children in 33 percent of all families seen in mediation. Children in half of all mediating families have witnessed domestic violence. Today’s Family Court faces the serious challenge of protecting the best interests of the next generation.
Well, pushing mediation does not appear to be the solution!
Joan Meier, of DV Leap writes on this, and most any battered women’s advocate without AFCC collaboration in the bloodstream, might say the same thing — it’s counter-indicated! Whatsamatta here? Joan Meier, of “George Washington University Law School” (and ‘DVLEAP.org”) as posted in a noncustodial mother’s blog. NOTE: She quotes both Janet Johnston, Ph.D. (AFCC leadership) and Depner, who both acknowledge that MOST of the the high-conflict cases entail child abuse or domestic violence. This has been known since the 1990s….
Most Cases Going To Court As High Conflict Contested Custody Cases Have History Of Domestic Violence
By JOAN S. MEIER, George Washington University Law School
Janet Johnston’s publications
Janet Johnston is best known as a researcher of high conflict divorce and parental alienation. {{NOTE how AFCC often pairs those terms– that’s an AFCC language habit}}. Not a particular friend of domestic violence advocates or perspectives, she has been one of the first to note that domestic violence issues should be seen as the norm, not the exception, in custody litigation.
Johnston has noted that approximately 80% of divorce cases are settled, either up front, or as the case moves through the process. Studies have found that only approximately 20% of divorcing or separating families take the case to court. Only approximately 4-5% ultimately go to trial, with most cases settling at some point earlier in the process.
– Janet R. Johnston et al, “Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-Disputing Families,” Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2005, 284-294, p. 284;
– Janet R. Johnston, “High-Conflict Divorce,” The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182, p. 167 both citing large study by Maccoby and Mnookin, DIVIDING THE CHILD: SOCIAL AND LEGAL DILEMMAS OF CUSTODY. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U. Press (1992).Johnston cites another study done in California by Depner and colleagues, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, “[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated… [for an average of 30-42 months]”. Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon.”
Mediation is an easy way to increase noncustodial parenting time without the protections that facts & evidence, without the disclosure of conflicts of interests a judge has to abide by, without the attorney-client work product relationship, and much more — in short, without the PROTECTIONS — that a regular trial might afford, and finish. Mandated mediation is bad enough. Some counties (in Calif) also have what’s called “recommending” status to the court-appointed mediators, meaning, their reports are taken more seriously by judges. I have seen how this works year after year (from being in the courtroom) — the mediator’s report is often delivered IN the courtroom, and NOT prior to the hearing, if then. It is typically a shocker, and this really violates due process, but it’s accepted practice. Mediation is the poor-person’s “supervised visitation / custody evaluation.” If no private family member can be made to pay for the latter two, or then the quick & dirty custody hearing is going to involve mediation.
Guess which organization is heavily composed of mediators, and ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution services) and emphasizes this to unclog the courts? You betcha — AFCC.
· Attempts to leave a violent partner with children, is one of the most significant factors associated with severe domestic violence and death.
– Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston, MA: University Press.· A majority of separating parents are able to develop a post-separation parenting plan for their children with minimal intervention of the family court system. However, in 20% of the cases greater intervention was required by lawyers, court-related personnel (such as mediators and evaluators) and judges. In the majority of these cases, which are commonly referred to as “high-conflict,” domestic violence is a significant issue.
– Johnston, J.R. (1994). “High-conflict divorce.” Future of Children, 4, 165-182.
What “DVLEAP” does in its own words:
A STRONGER VOICE FOR JUSTICE
Despite the reforms of recent decades, battered women and children continue to face unfair treatment and troubling results in court. Appeals can overturn unjust trial court outcomes – but they require special expertise and are often prohibitively expensive.
We empower victims and their advocates by providing expert representation for appeals; educating pro bono counsel through in-depth consultation and mentoring; training lawyers, judges, and others on cutting-edge issues; and spearheading the DV community’s advocacy in Supreme Court cases
(photo also from this site):
They even have a “Custody and Abuse” program, and have taken on the “PAS” theme. These are specific cases that have been taken to the Appeals or even Supreme Court (state) level. Here (found on-line) is an Arkansas Case where they took on “PAS” alongside: Arkansas Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Justice for Children and The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence (on which I believe Ms. Meier is a board or advisory member), the NCADV, and National Association of Women Lawyers. It is an Amicus Brief and will likely go to discredit PAS.
The Leadership Council’s:
Mission Statement
The Leadership Council is a nonprofit independent scientific organization composed of respected scientists, clinicians, educators, legal scholars, journalists, and public policy analysts.
Our mission is to promote the ethical application of psychological science to human welfare. We are committed to providing professionals and laypersons with accurate, research-based information about a variety of mental health issues and to preserving society’s commitment to protect its most vulnerable members.
Goals
- To develop a coalition among professionals within the scientific community, the legal system, the political system and the media to provide professionals and laypersons with accurate information about mental health practice and research which helps insure access to the highest quality of care. (and several others are listed. . . . . .. )
In the bottom line, the Leadership Council is still talking psychology, acknowledging trauma, and opposing “PAS” — but, who they are and what they do is clear — “Apply Psychological Science Ethically.” So, if you put this psychological group together with some domestic violence lawyers, or lawyers who recognize that batterers (etc.) are getting custody — you just the opposite of the AFCC “J.D. & Ph.D.” combo of attorney & mental health practitioners
The problem is — the AFCC, being around longer, and having strategized better — have the judges, too.
As I look at The Leadership Council’s page on “Child Custody & PAS” and associated “resources” below, I notice that they have said NOTHING about the things I blog on, and some others, individuals, who have simply observed. There is a striking omission of the organizations promoting “alienation” theory — no mention of AFCC, CRC, or the influence of the Child Support System & Grants Stream on how cases are decided. While NAFCJ (and a similar Illinois group) are listed — for a change — they are one in a dozen-plus links that a mother in a crisis system could not sort through or wade through in time to help her case — if indeed that information even would.
I appreciate the work these organizations do to “out” that violence does indeed happen in the home. Of course most people experiencing it know this already….
But how much better might it have been to give TIMELY information on the operational structure of the courts, and who is paying whom. How in the world can one enter a contest being ignorant of the habits and devices of the opposite side? What’s up with that?
So, I talk about these things. And so do a FEW others.
Domestic Violence Nonprofit DVLEAP gets a “Sunshine Peace” award:
“This award is so meaningful to me,” said Professor Meier, “because I have so much respect for others who have received it in the past. I am also grateful to the Sunshine Lady Foundation for the financial contribution to DV LEAP associated with the award which will make a significant difference to our small organization that manages to accomplish so much with so few resources.”
According to the Sunshine Lady Foundation (which was founded by Doris Buffett), the Sunshine Peace Award program “recognizes extraordinary individuals who make a difference; those who help to build communities that are intolerant of domestic violence and through whose work peoples’ lives are changed for the better.”
Since Professor Meier founded DV LEAP in 2003, the organization has worked on cutting-edge issues in the domestic violence field, submitting 6 friend of court briefs in the Supreme Court. In the past year, in addition to lecturing and consulting with survivors, DV LEAP staff have worked on 10 appeals, a remarkable output for an organization of its size
Well,this is all very nice — and certainly I”m sure professional work. But is it the most important task? I say: NO! Neither DVLEAP nor the State Coaliations (why, I hope to show soon enough), nor the related Leadership Council mention the operational systems of the courts — which is their related professional associations and nonprofits — as well as the grants stream and the child support system. How hard is that to comprehend? There are different systems working within to promote more and more work for the marriage counseling and therapy industry, PERIOD.
For example:
They did not mention that in 1999, in Ohio, an AFCC-laced Task Force lifted some AFCC_designed policies for custody, then flew to Arizona to attend an AFCC conference as part of their transformations of the courts. These groups do not mention, typically, fatherhood funding, or the history of Family Law as an offshoot of a brainstorm between “Roger & Meyer” (Judge Pfaff and Counselor Meyer Elkin) long ago, or anything at all about the Marv Byer discoveries in the late 1990s. They don’t mention that around the US, “fatherhood commissions” building of the National Fatherhood Initiative have been formed to legalize some of the policies these very groups say they oppose. Nor, FYI, do they (for example) broadcast to women that the NCADV and associated alliances are actually collaborating with the father’s groups at the national and financing level, and talking policy with them.
They certainly don’t mention when a local legislator slips in some bill to legalize steering court business to court professionals, as Senator Christine Kehoe (San Diego area) did when an Assemblyperson in 2002 (proposing a bill naming Kids’ Turn in its first draft; see my “kicking salesmanship up a notch” post), or as She (sponsoring?) did again in SB 557 (with her chief of staff then and now Assemblyperson, Atkins) in legalizing the “Family Justice Center Model with an alliance run out of the San Diego City’s original brainchild.
Nor do they mention how the money keeps flowing in after conferences, for example, as in this 2008 AFCC conference:
Not only does the material itself show (coach) professionals how to be prejudiced against mothers — but it also probably more than breaks even (though aren’t judges paid enough in our states?) by selling the stuff!
READ THIS! Read every sentence and simply think about it. This is the pre-game and post-game plan for a custody hearing. And it’s only one of how many?
These are existing people who decided WHERE kids live (or don’t), whether they see their own parents’ income go to professionals and evaluators, or to the children’s future college funds, or simply survival funds. This is AFCC conference material:
Your Price: $25.00
Item Number: AFCC-08-011-M
Quantity:
Email this page to a friendThis panel will demonstrate how the judge, evaluator, psychologist performing psychological testing and the childrens therapist work together to complete the evaluation process. The panel will present an actual case in which a family comes to the court with allegations that mother is alienating the children and is clinically depressed. Father is asking for full custody. Mother is making counter allegations that father and his live-in girlfriend are verbally and emotionally abusing the three children. The parents have a history of high conflict and the police have been called many times to keep the peace. The family is referred for a child custody evaluation. The panel will demonstrate how the evaluator relies on the childrens therapist and the psychologist performing psychological testing on the parents, fathers girlfriend, and the child experiencing emotional distress, for information and case consultation in order to give the judge the most complete history and assessment possible. The panel will describe how and why the recommendations were made for this family.
The police were probably called because someone (not both) was being assaulted. However, a single evaluation of a police call might obtain the cause of the call. To “keep the peace” is an evasion. 911, or non-emergency police calls have causes. We all know this. If the police were called many times to “keep the peace” was no referral made? Was no restraining order solicited? Why not get to the bottom FIRST of whether or not a crime was committed. THEN, if the answer is conclusively, NO, it might go to the next level.
Why do that, however, when a custody evaluation can be instead ordered.
I might just get this product and find out how they frame the situation.
To be continued . . . .
@@@
SHARE THIS POST on...
(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose?
This post is: “(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose? (Published 6-5-2011, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-J1”)
Seriously, now …..
What did a District Attorney, a City Attorney, and a Republican Faith-Family-Marriage-Fatherhood-pushing President have in common? In 2003, or since?
(Besides an urge to jumpstart an alliance of
One-Stop Family Justice Shops Centers)
BUSH: Family of Secrets (by Russ Baker)
Russ Baker shows that Decision Points is no candid memoir.
Investigative journalist Russ Baker updates what he uncovered in Family of Secrets about the Bushes with his responses to the former President’s best-selling book. In sum, Bush started a war under false pretenses, allegedly left the cockpit because of substance abuse, got fabricated religion in order to keep power, desired to invade Iraq even before his presidency, and works to set up his brother Jeb for the Presidency. Baker finds the Bush Family political system to be a brilliant con job, benefiting large wealthy interests, and being continued by Obama.
Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years [Interview]
(note: I don’t have this book. But my work here, continues to run across the Bush brand of religion influence and its infiltration of the legal, judicial, etc. systems).
”Or,
“The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlett:
(from Harpers article 2003 by author. Note: The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative (below) began in 2003)
Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.
The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family’s leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.”
Suharto reputedly involved, that he engaged in anti-Communist massacres didn’t seem to matter…Search “Suharto” and “Somalia” here (interview):
“The Family’s devoted membership includes Congress members, corporate leaders, generals, foreign heads of state, dictators. The longtime leader, Doug Coe, was included in Time Magazine’s 2004 list of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. “
The connected, the powerful, the very wealthy, the dishonest, the means-justifies-the-ends crowd. I am not being facetious at all by placing these two books here in preface to protesting the expansion of a “National” (and planned INTERnational) Family Justice Center Alliance. I am alerting us to question exactly which “families” are referred to her, and not to be fooled about the underlying intents. Look at who is sponsoring the movement!
OK, let’s look back to the West Coast Connections and Family of Inter-connected politicians, including some who are indeed Family to each other.
DA = Alameda County Family Justice Center — headed up originally by someone with real “family” connections, til she began running for County Supervisor,
a post she got, though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponent. Her husband just happens to be (presently) California State Treasurer, previously State Attorney General. Later in the post, more on this process is discussed. Mr. Gwinn & startup of the San Diego Family Justice Center has been addressed (in part) in earlier posts towards the end of May, 2011, and the topic itself is not exactly a new one to my blog.
ex-CA = San Diego County Family Justice Center
President = well, he was always into promoting Family.
Let’s Get Honest (that’s me) generally looks behind the scenes at funding and organizational histories of new Initiatives, Institutes, Centers, Movements, and other Projects proposed by those with political connections to better serve those without them, whose lives will be used to justify whichever project is next.
Right now, it seems that the Family Justice Center Alliance is proudly endorsed by the OVW (White House) starting back in 2003, and up and running. How the first two got up and running is a bit debatable. Used to these, I ignored it for a while, until I ran across CA SB 557.
California’s SB 557 has been passed by Senate and is awaiting in Assembly
Here is some of the voting and excerpts — plus my comments
The California Bill SB 557 is to streamline and authorize the Family Justice Center Model. It’s whizzing by committees, and as we speak, was read in the Assembly June 2, and being held at the Assembly Desk. Right now, per “aroundthecapitol.com,”
Votes
- 06/01/11 – Senate Floor: 39-0 (PASS)
- 05/26/11 – Sen Appropriations: 9-0 (PASS)
- 05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 (PASS)
- 03/29/11 – Sen Public Safety: 6-0 (PASS)
and
I am pleased to send you the enclosed Resource Manual for the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Assembly Bill 233). Passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last fall, this landmark legislation will take effect on January 1, 1998. Under the new law, funding of the trial courts will be consolidated at the state level to ensure equal access to justice throughout California.
Over the last several months, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), along with the California State Association of Counties and the Department of Finance, have worked together to familiarize the state’s judges, court administrators, and county executives with this historic new funding law. As part of that process, we are presenting this Resource Manual to assist you in understanding and implementing the new law.
There aren’t too many places in California politics, or its recent history, [SF performing Gay Marriage v Schwarzenegger] that one can go without finding the imprint of Mr. Lockyer.[Pension issues]
So I’m just wondering whether the relatively fast passage of this SB 577 was affected by the legislature’s knowledge (it’s obvious) that his wife was the former CEO of this grants-grabbing initative. And that the local D.A., who helped get this wife installed, was recently in Washington, D.C., lobbying with the OVW director for it . . . ..
- 06/02/11: In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to
establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to
assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and
human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to
access all needed services in one location and to enhance victim
safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to
services for victims of crime, as provided. The bill would permit the
family justice centers to be staffed by law enforcement, medical,
social service, and child welfare personnel, among others.
About privacy of information:
The bill would authorize a family justice center to share
information [WITH WHOM — each other?] pursuant to an informed consent process, as provided. The bill would authorize the National Family Justice Center Alliance, subject to certain limitations, to maintain nonidentifying, aggregate data on victims receiving services from a family justice center and
the outcomes of those services.The bill would provide immunity from civil liability to staff members of the center for information shared with others based on an established client consent procedure, provided that the center has a formal training program with mandatory
training for all members, as specified.
There are so many issues with this (again, original version) its hard to know where to start. But those familiar with the history of the founder of this system can see why (he/they) might have addressed specific issues, including civil liability for sharing info.
(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be
defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where
public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or
part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of** domestic
violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, or human trafficking from one
location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell
their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help,
and increase access to services and support for victims and their
children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised
of, but are not limited to, the following:
**First of all, public agencies are on the public payroll.
Child victims and parents coming for help are quite likely to have business before some arm of the courts where any member of those public agencies may have a built-in conflict of interest in the case. Consider, if it has to do with guardianship of a child, child support, or other issues. When it comes to private agencies— (private organizations, individuals, or “agencies” — what is a private “agency”?) there are issues of where does the law protect the victims seeking help by accountability to any of these private members. The “consent process” has to be taken with a grain of salt — a person in desperate circumstances such as these crimes, may not comprehend what it is they are signing away at the time, their emphasis is survival. Anyhow, potential staff might include:
(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys. {{note: = who created the 1st & 2nd justice centers in CA….1 of each.
(Tell me — for what purpose might a CITY attorney have any business in a family justice center? )
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(hey — are there still readers (active in this field as advocate, or survivor parent) who don’t understand, yet, that there are FEDERAL incentives to the states for
any number of actions which might quite well involve a social service agency staff member, or a child welfare agency social worker — such as adopting out, fostering out, or
declaring a child in need of services that may not, really, be in need of services. There are program funds for these activities. What about program administrators of such funds?
and so forth…..)
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(Translation: People administering TANF funds. We already have become aware that the fatherhood movement has a significant interest in portions of Title IV-D (welfare) finances going towards facilitating increased “noncustodial parent” (i.e., possibly perpetrator) access. No. Uh-uh, No. )
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.
Huh….
Excerpts from “Analysis” of this bill again specifies already-existing justice centers by name and requests they expand who gets served:
This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the City of Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma to create a two-year pilot project for the establishment of a family justice center, as specified. This bill defines the Family Justice Center model in the law and expands the reach for whom services will be provided to include, not only victims of domestic violence, but also victims of officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and human trafficking.
(The cyber-stalking (stand-alone) and cyber-bullying provisions would just about make the average high school student eligible for services…)
This bill also allows for the FJCs to be staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare personnel.
This bill provides that victims of crime will not be denied services based solely on the grounds of criminal history.
(don’t quite know where to file that last statement. )
Votes so far, if you live in California and in any of these are your legislators:
03/29/11 Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.
- 05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 pass as amended (see site)
Ayes – 5 Blakeslee, Corbett, Evans, Harman, Leno
- 05/26/11 Sen Appropriations 9-0 — PASS as amended
Alquist, Emmerson, Kehoe, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Runner, Steinberg, Walters
- 06.01/11 – Senate Floor 39-0 (1 absent abstain or not voting – Emmerson)
Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee
– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Some of the Senate Amendments (strikeouts, replacement):
The bill would prohibit victims of crime from
being denied services at a family justice center solely on the
grounds of criminal history and would prohibit a criminal history
search from being conducted during the client intake process.prior sections a, b, & c, were struck through.
Sections e, f:
(f) Each family justice center shall develop policies and procedures, in collaboration with local community-based crime victim
service providers and local survivors of violence or abuse, to ensure coordinated services are provided to victims and to enhance the
safety of victims and professionals at a family justice center who participate in affiliated survivor-centered support or advocacy
groups. All family justice centers shall maintain a formal client feedback, complaint, and input process to address client concerns
about services provided or the conduct of any family justice center professionals, agency partners, or volunteers providing services in a
family justice center.
No criminal background checks to be run, but protection for victims & professionals in the center who participate in affiliated survivor centered support or advocacy groups (off-grounds? How would this be done). This seems to address in part the situation Casey Gwinn’s employee Josie Clark sued him over (see recent posts).
Formal feedback good: (don’t recall that this even entered the original version — feedback fro participants…)
WELL, THERE WE HAVE IT. IT”S PASSED WITH FLYING COLORS, SO FAR, AND IS SITTING ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. MAYBE IT WILL PASS IN TIME FOR FATHER’S DAY, BUT I HOPE NOT. See “District Attorney Dubious Doings.” and re: nepotism, cronyism, racism:
Politics in this famous SF Bay Area, at least Alameda County are, in one blog I read — while probably not equal to Chicago’s or New York’s, known for:
Nepotism, Cronyism, Racism and Corruption
The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.
{{Quote is from a blog post dated July 2009,
The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it. . . . By hiring Chris Bates and Lisa Lockyer, Orloff had the kids of both the local assemblyman, Tom Bates, and the local Senator, Bill Lockyer (later became the Attorney General of the State of California), working for him. He already had the local Congressman’s kid, Jeff Stark, working for him, and he prmoted Stark.
And one of the articles I drew off in reporting this:
Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center
Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT
This is a very short article and commentary on Nadia Lockyer, wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, being givena a $90,000 per year job as Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, a job for which she seems to have no special qualifications. The article also questions the propriety of her employment, considering her husband’s position.The Alameda county Family Justice Center is one of meny local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW).
{{more on this, below — LGH…}}
The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Execuitve Director. Eventually, Nadia Davis Lockyer was given the top job, which pays about $90,000 per year. (initial pay was $65,000 but extra money was found to make it $90,000. I am researching where the extra money came from)
…Selection process was all for show, Nadia Lockyer is DA staff
Steve White 01.Jan.2007 15:47
I have just received a letter from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office which indicates Nadia Lockyer is an employee of that office.
The letter goes on to respond to my Public Records Act request for all info relaated to her hiring. The DA’s office claims all the info is exempt from disclosure, except for a brochure announcing the job. So they sent me a copy of that announcement.
The denial of information was expected. What was surprising to me is that Lockyer is an employee of the DA’s office. I thought the Family Justice Center was an independent entity which worked with the DA, not a subordinate office.
and, more, after he contacted the OVW for grant applicant guidelines:
[he] clicked the first link, which as the first page of a book on guidelines and rules for Federal graants, then went to the chapter entitled “Conflicts of Interest”
Reading that, it seems pretty clear Lockyer violated the Federal law, and presumably this is why they went through the big show of pretending to use an objective process to pick his wife for the job. These folks knew they were doing something shady from the start. Further evidence is that everyone involved is trying to duck my Public Records Act requests for more information. More on that in my next post
Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC
Steve White 25.Sep.2007 13:37
The first week of September, 2007, the ACFJC announced a large grant from the US Department of Justice, and in the grant announcement, which naturally everyone was very happy about, they added some statistics on how much good the ACFJC had done so far.
The stats were impressive. They claimed “Since it’s launch” the ACFJC had reduced Domestic Violence (DV) deaths from 26 to 6 in 2005, and, they had provided services to “20,000 victims and their families”.
Both claims were untrue. I checked with the Alameda County Public Health Department, and it turned out there has been a very long term decline in DV deaths, from 26 in 1996, eleven years back, to 6 in 2005. The Center opened in the last half of 2005, in August.
MORE (9/2007) INFO FROM Steve White “Boatbrain” on the ACFJC fudging (lying) on its statistics, in addition to improper appointment of CEO. Please read entire article we find further conflicts of interest and very disturbing dishonesty, reminiscent of the San Diego outfit:
The Alameda County Family Justice Center is an agency set up two years back as “one-stop shopping” for victims of domestic violence.
It was started by a Federal program to centralize several different types of services, (prosecutors, counselors, emergency housing) to DV victims. There are about 15 around the US, the Alameda center has been open two years as of August 2007.
I have already published, on Indymedia, an account of how the ACFJC hiring of Nadia Lockyer, the wife of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Executive Director of ACFJC was rigged by Nancy O’Malley, the Chief Assistant DA in the County.
Now, it appears the ACFJC is involved in other nefarious activities.
Recently, the ACFJC received another US Dept. of Justice grant, and the award was announced on their website.
The announcement gave several detailed claims for the achievements of the ACFJC, two of which seemed unlikely to me to be true: Since I knew the ACFJC was only open a bit over four months in 2005, I knew there was no logical basis for attributing all the 2005 decline to their actions.
But more than that, the reduction from 26 to 6 in one year struck me as extreme and improbable. That is an almost 80% reduction, too good to be true.
So, I called the Alameda County Public Health Department to try to get DV death rates, and called the office of the County Supervisor quoted in the article, Alice Lai-Bitker, to ask about the number.
My conversations with Public Health and Supervisor Lai-Bitker’s staff confirmed my suspicions. Too good to be true was exactly right. To get a death toll of 26 in the County, you have to go back to 1996, nine years before the ACFJC existed. There has been a steady long term decline in DV deaths since then.
The number for 2004, the year right before the ACFJC opened, was 11. Obviously, 6 in 2005 is a lot better than 11 in 2004, but there is a problem in the stats, in that Nancy O’Malley, the effective head of the ACFJC, is also the head of the DV death reporting team for the County, so she can fudge the figures.
I realize, one would not think deaths can be fudged. You are either dead or you or not. But, by using varying protocols for what the death was caused by, there is some maneuvering room for this. I am contacting the DV death reporting trainer for the state to try to nail this down.
All that aside, the point is, as far as attibuting the reduction in DV deaths to ACFJC, that was an extremely misleading claim, and I would argue deliberately misleading
He goes on . . . . after challenging the “20,000 victims and their families served…”
It seems much more likely they deliberately lied, to justify more funding in the future.
The County Administrator, Susan Muranishi, who was the highest paid employee of the County, a few years back, at $231,000 per year, is also quoted in the press release, expressing approval of the ACFJC and the grant.
I called her office to try to get documents to indicate what numbers ACFJC has been giving the County to justify the County’s funding. The receptionist there claimed they did not have any figures, and I had to contact ACFJC. If this was true, it seems to indicate a severe lack of oversight. No reports to the County Admin from the Center? How does Ms. Muranishi know how the County’s money is being spent? I doubt there are no reports, and intend to push them to release them, to see if there are any false numbers in the official accountings. Ditto for the Feds, who I have also requested info from.
That kind of reporting is why we most definitely need INDEPEPENDENT media centers, and pesky bloggers like myself and Mr. White (wonder what happened to is FOIA and Public Records requests on the ACFJC…
In 2010, here’s an article (and comments) on Ms. Davis-Lockyer running for county supervisor, replacing one of the retiring supervisors who, improperly, voted in Nancy O’Malley (per indymedia Steve’s writing). WHat goes around comes around. Again, for non-Californians, this is about how policies get institutionalized in practice, regardless of what results they produce — including initiatives, collaborations, institutes, coalitions, and so forth. This Family Justice Center seems symptomatic of what’s wrong, from both this end and (below) the White House end.
WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ON FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS – AND GWB DECLARES OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH (in 2003).
I have a general rule of thumb. If it has the word “families” on it — it has a fatherhood (and possibly governmentally endorsed) / faith influence. This appears to be the case with the FAMILY justice centers, as it did with the FAMILY violence prevention fund of SF (see recent posts). After all, US is just one big “family” and everyone in power is there to serve and protect the little vulnerable ones among us, right?
The “Family Justice Center” model is absolutely federally funded, and here is the October (DV awareness month, or as I put it, DV Industry Awareness month) October 8, 2003 White House Press Release:
This offers $20 million of funding to establish 12 centers. The emphasis is Under One Roof (after all, the service providers are just one big happy family, right?) and with a particular emphasis on including Faith Based Initiatives, says our former Prez:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Contact: Angela Harless
202-307-070
JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SPEARHEAD PRESIDENT’S
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INITIATIVE TO BETTER SERVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMSWASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the Justice Department will lead a $20 million-dollar program to develop comprehensive domestic violence victim service and support centers in 12 communities across the country. The unprecedented pilot program, the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative, will make a victim’s search for help and justice easier by bringing professionals who provide an array of necessary services together under one roof. President Bush unveiled the initiative earlier today at a White House event formally declaring the month of October as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.”
“Domestic violence is unacceptable, and this Administration is determined to end the vicious cycle of violence,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “Our efforts across the federal government have made it possible for tens of thousands of women and their families to renew their hope, reclaim their dignity, change their lives and protect their children.”
{{HYPOCRITES!!}}
The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative will provide comprehensive services for domestic violence victims at one location, including medical care, counseling, law enforcement assistance, social services, employment assistance, and housing assistance. The Department of Justice will award grants to 12 communities nationwide to develop Family Justice Centers. Communities will be encouraged to look to the family justice centers in pioneered in San Diego, California and Indianapolis, Indiana for the development and creation of their own centers.
{{Sounds like Casey Gwinn (note: Republican) had a White House connection here… Indianpolis, home of Sen. Evan Bayh, is prime “fatherhood” country. Unbelievable….. The Indiana “Child Services” (a.k.a. Child Support Services) government website directly solicits “Fathers and Families” to pursue grants, as well as notices CRC (Children’s Rights Council)….. I doubt that the choice of these two cities was anything approaching accidental. Who else (grassroots up) was starting Family Justice Centers, around the United States, at this time?}}
Justice Department efforts will be further supported by its partners from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Labor.
{{So much for treating domestic violence as the criminal/legal issue it really is, with consequences, of course, across the spectrum of life, as crime does….}}
“The President’s Initiative will provide communities with the resources designed to co-locate coordinated services to domestic violence victims into one facility,” said Office on Violence Against Women Director Diane M. Stuart. “The services provided by the Family Justice Centers will help victims pursue safe and healthy lives.”
Family Justice Centers are designed to bring together advocates from non-profit, non-governmental domestic violence victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys,chaplains and representatives from community-based organizations into one centralized location.
Involvement of the faith community is integral to the Family Justice Center Initiative, as well as to the President’s overall strategy to end domestic violence. The Justice Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department are coordinating their efforts to ensure that faith communities nationwide get the training and tools necessary to help domestic violence victims in their communities.
{{Chaplains, imams, and rabbis don’t lack the “tools” to stop wife-beating — or the ability to network — but the problem has been historically the desire to do so. They are mandated reporters, too, and of child abuse. GO ask “SNAP” about how well that goes….
{{Reading this now, and as a survivor of domestic violence which was rationalized through religion, though I never accepted that basis, — I understand, and believe I’m right about this — that this has a more sinister purpose than “helping” victims from the faith-based perspective. Many of those victims that end up using the legal system went first to their spiritual perceived authority (translation, pastor, priest, etc.) and were ignored and the danger trivialized. SOme of the perpertrators were those people at times. Welcoming this group into these “centers” with open arms is simply wrong….but, how very “Bush”!!}}
“The faith-based component of the Family Justice Center Initiative is critical to its overall success,” said Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels. “Faith-based institutions are often the first place a domestic violence victim turns to for support and guidance.”
(and the last place they are about to find it — which has been documented repeatedly . . . . ) Next steps, integrating the faith community into the system (2004 release)…
I got on the SB 557 kick, here, because I heard about it accidentally. Accidentally, I happened to browse the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Annual Report of 2010 (yeah, this is my “casual reading material” at times)… only to find that this San Francisco Bay Area [“East Bay”] county leadership was running up to the OVW and trying to sell legitimizing the Family Justice Center” model (see “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post)….
District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and the Alameda County DA’s Office are proud to announce the publication of the 2010 Annual Report.
We invite you to view this comprehensive report.
Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 2010 Annual Report (7MB PDF).
Because I’m familiar with the Justice Center idea already, I picked up on the graphics and mottos that also supported further promotion of it: the 2nd page of the report is a full page photo of a child and parent(?): “Justice isn’t served – – – til Crime Victims are.” On the palms of their hands is written: “I have the right to protection” “I have the right to be heard.”
Compare: (graphic on banner of the Alameda County Family Justice Center reads, next to an icon showing scales carring heart & dove, plus two figures reaching for them) “Justice isn’t served until victims are.”
Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center
Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ACFJC), a one-stop center for families experiencing domestic violence.
{{Domestic violence is a crime, and is committed by an agent. Note the grammar change: “families experience” it — no one actually DOES it. The District Attorney’s Office is the office deciding which crimes to prosecute, and which NOT to prosecute, and doing so ethically and honestly. District Attorneys offices in East Bay (and SF) counties have been experiencing multiple scandals recently, along with police departments… such as tampering with drug evidence and causing cases to be dropped, infighting during an election that resulted in an office fist-fight (Contra Costa County — nearby) and other serious problems, as well as having various members of their forces from time to time being prosecuted by employees or fellow colleagues on rape or other sexual harassment issues. In this context, I don’t recall hearing a major grassroots call for centralized, one-stop services.}}
The ACFJC provides, under one roof, the services required by domestic violence victims and their families:
- Crisis intervention, survivor support, and victim advocacy, incl “MISSSEY”
- Legal assistance services
- Medical care and mental health counseling for victims and children impacted by family violence
- Employment assistance, and information and referral to other community services
- Law enforcement investigation and prosecution of offenders
In the past, domestic violence victims often had to seek help from a fragmented, disjointed system of separate agencies offering related by frequently uncoordinated services.
I’m thinking diversity, rather than inbred centrality might be the better order of the day overall. After all — was our country designed for efficiency or liberty?(But I’m talking, pre-Bush Dynasty there…..)
From the DA’s report, a segment:
5. Putting Victims First Page
Alameda County Family Justice Center 22
Domestic Violence Unit 23
Restitution Unit 24Victims’ Rights & Services 25
Marsy’s Law 25
Victim -Witness Assistance 26
AND . . . .
Legislative Initiatives . . . p. 33
Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.
…. such as (one of several — the others sound legitimate, although if parents are involved, it’ll bounce to family law and become “moot” point sooner or later) . . . .. . . .
SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.
The TREND towards, meaning, the PUSH, enabled by BUSH towards . . . . . for these models. (other than, since the 1980s, the Duluth Model has been pushing this also, called “Coordinated Community Response.” So, how’d we say it’s going?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?
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:
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.comhttp://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).
| 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 CouncilThursday, 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 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 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 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 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 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
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. […]
.jpg)
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
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
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 | 1 | 0 | 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
|
|||||||||||||
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.”
(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 |
| CFDA Program : | 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants |
- Total Dollars:$57,032
- Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
Organizational Type Number of Employees 80 Annual Revenue $3,710,570
Who is this contractor, MPDI, again?
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 |
|---|
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.
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.
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)
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??)
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.
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.
| 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 |
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.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
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.
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”)
Memorial Day Weekend. Let’s remember that people who started out an organization pulling a fast one on the public -successfully – are likely to try the same thing, again.
Keep an Eye on our Public Servants: District Attorney’s Offices
Always.
Take for example (1), Los Angeles County‘s:
(By way of finding out WHY one better watch one’s local DA’s office..and make sure they know you are.)
For a clue what may happen when one doesn’t, see Gil Garcetti, L.A. D.A. (retired?)
BIOGRAPHY
Although Gil spent 32 years in the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, eight years as the elected District Attorney, much of his life has been spent as an urban photographer. His first photo book, IRON: ERECTING THE WALT DISNEY CONCERT HALL, (November 2002, Balcony Press), received much critical praise in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and other publications. The photographs emphasize the contribution of the ironworkers to the building of America, but they also document the beauty of the curved, angled, and bent raw steel of this building before being covered by its exterior skin.
Photographs from his second book, FROZEN MUSIC, (November 2003, Balcony Press), have been featured in multi page features in the Los Angeles Times Sunday Magazine, American Photo, Newsweek, Time, Harvard Design Magazine, California Lawyer and other magazines. Gil’s second book is his interpretation of the abstract art created by the finished building. The book is a portfolio of 45 panorama lithographs.
How Nice.
I’d love to resume arts, leisure, writing activities like this, too — or even the concept that I might have some sort of “retirement” whatsoever. HOWEVER, thanks to this system, a lot of time is spent reconstructing where my kids, time, legal rights and finances went. Why does it keep leading back to these offices, in particular — whose function is to prosecute crime AFTER it happens fairly, and do it right & without corruption, to the extent of their budget. Just imagine in a world where crimes to & by men, women, and minors actually received prompt punishment as a deterrent and a message to others….
While Mr. Garcetti’s retirement plan includes urban photography and some book royalties, up here (and in San Diego), the retirement plan, I figure probably includes selling and letting someone else run, FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS — which is why this post. If the demand isn’t great enough for a family justice center, it helps to have a nice District Attorney well-positioned to get funds to start one anyhow, and with connections to staff it — and it appears also even connections enough to then legislate it into a business model for all times (and counties).
But this is the Los Angeles District Attorney’s legacy, here:
Pre-Retirement (from the office):
WIKIPEDIA describes — clearly from a bit of a disgruntled fathers’ perspective (and with good cause — ) his “Life as (Los Angeles) District Attorney” – First and Second Terms, 1992-2000 starting right after Rodney King riots, prosecution of O.J. Simpson, Ramparts scandal, and, as it mentions:
In the late 1990s, Garcetti’s use of default judgments in child support cases were considered by many to be particularly heinous. Garcetti openly refused to rescind judgments against men who later proved through DNA evidence that they were not the fathers in question. By 2000, 79% of paternity judgements in Los Angeles County were assigned by default.
Which is why I bring him up, as representing a Southern California leading District Attorney’s legacy…
Wikipedia (voice of the people, or at least people who write Wikipedia articles) goes on about the child support issue, a bit of heartfelt passion enters into the narrative…
Gil Garcetti created so much chaos and heartache that even diehard feminist attorney Gloria Allred protested.
Gloria Allred was a single mother in need of child support — which she went after. As this was before the invention of the post-feminist (?) “fatherhood” movement to keep people like her in place, and also became pregnant because of a rape, possibly part of how she became a “protester” activist lawyer: “During her years in practice, she has successfully sued Los Angeles County to stop the practice of shackling and chaining pregnant inmates during labor and delivery; put a halt on the city of El Segundo from quizzing job applicants about their sexual histories, …”
Allred, who has perhaps done more than anybody to promote the phrase and concept of ‘deadbeat dads,’ called Garcetti’s office ‘an organization without a heart, without any compassion, and without a sense of priorities…[it’s] a system run amok’… Jackie Myers, a former Deputy District Attorney under Garcetti, said that she quit her job because ‘we were being told to do unethical, very unethical things.’
Allred didn’t find out about the $14 million of collected child support cooling its heels (and earning interest) in Garcetti’s office, instead of going straight to its recipients, the children. Richard Fine did. The law said, if they couldn’t find the mother (parent) within 6 months, it goes back to the father. Narrated briefly here: When Fine saw them dismiss the Silva v. Garcetti case, it led to the discovery of payments to judges in the County (Sturgeon v. County of Los Angeles). Funny the upset for fathers wikipedia guy didn’t mention this — but MSM silence on certain cases can be effective.
This was an unbelievable mess. Child Support collections was eventually (in CA at least) specifically removed from the province of the District Attorney’s Office, probably because of this, and now the practice of holding onto child support collections while they collect interest (at least 30 days before anything is considered “late”) and attempt to divert them for private crony use, or otherwise seriously mess with mothers (and fathers) — is in the hands of a different centralized agency in California — and “Local CSA’s” (child support agencies) by county, for the most part. They’re doing approximately as well when it comes to conflict of interest and honesty, but at lest someone else had a crack at screwing families financially for a change.
See? CA.Gov
Welcome to the Department of Child Support Services Website!
California’s Child Support Services Program works with* parents – custodial and noncustodial – and guardians to ensure children and families receive court-ordered financial and medical support. Child support services are available to the general public through a network of 52 county and regional child support agencies (LCSAs).
* this must be why it’s “Child Support SERVICES” not collections, or enforcements. How ‘holistic.’
and (from same website, different tab) a note about the administrative costs:
The May 2011 Revision updates the DCSS local assistance budget for State Fiscal Year (SFY) 2010-11 and SFY 2011-12. It provides the estimates of the administrative costs for the local child support agencies, as well as the detailed methodology for each estimate. The total administrative costs for local assistance are estimated to be $906.3 million ($277.7 million State General fund (SGF)) for SFY 2010-11 and $866.6 million ($270.8 million SGF) for SFY 2011-12.
and such financial concepts as:
Federal Performance Basic Incentives
DESCRIPTION:
This premise reflects the Federal Performance Basic Incentives. Pursuant to the Child Support Performance and Incentive Act of 1998, the federal incentives passed onto local child support agencies (LCSAs) are to be based on the five performance measures and Data Reliability Audit compliance. California’s historical performance is displayed in the Auxiliary Tables section of this document on the Historical Incentive Performance Measures chart (Chart A-10).
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
The federal performance incentive methodology was implemented October 1, 1999 and phased in over three years.
OR, say, a measly almost $100,000 to keep the pipelines open to Strengthening Families and other Cross-Collaborations which many child support recipients (meaning payees/ payors) would be hard-pressed to comprehend, or track (if they even knew these existed). No doubt this is far better than having ONE corrupt District Attorney’s Office simply sitting on the stuff, Los Angeles Style, until caught at it and sued to stop it:
Partnership to Strengthen Families Grant
DESCRIPTION:
This premise reflects the funds for the Partnership to Strengthen Families Federal Grant. The project will support partnerships among state child support program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) agencies and university scholars and researchers. Research and data analysis will be performed to improve coordination between the state child support program and TANF agencies.
The child support program and TANF program serve many of the same customers and share a program goal of family self sufficiency. Cross organizational partnerships can support improved efficiency and effectiveness by bringing together program experts to evaluate policy making and to assess processes that cross both organizations. The policy choices of each program can have a significant impact on the other. Isolated decision making is not in the best interest of the child support program nor the TANF program. This demonstration grant will serve as the foundation for an integrated and more effective communication between programs.
This partnership will benefit both the child support and TANF programs with the help of university faculty and scholars to design and support data exchanges, store and analyze data, and conduct special studies or evaluations of program policies or practices. Additionally, the steering committee for the partnership will also involve local child support and TANF welfare directors so that all elements of the program leadership are included. A collaborative effort is expected to add substantial value to otherwise independent planning and actions by these organizations in isolation.
IMPLEMENTATION DATE:
This premise was implemented September 30, 2009.
KEY DATA/ASSUMPTIONS:
• Authorizing statute: Section 1115(a)(2), 1115(b) and 1115(b)(3) of the Social Security Act [42 United States Code 1315].
• This grant is effective from September 30, 2009 through February 28, 2011.
• The total project cost consists of Section 1115 grant funds, a required 5 percent state match, and federal financial participation. The 5 percent state match will be funded through redirection of existing resources. [from Childsup.ca.gov, various links]
Now, instead, they can figure out what to do with approximately $4 billion (per year) of federal funds to states intended to enforce child & family support (or, promote marriage, a.k.a. fatherhood), including Compromising Arrears (that they ran up to start with), jailing fathers for nonsupport of outrageous amounts — then letting them out into classes about “How to be a father” (including abstinence education — go figure) run by court-affiliated program promoters.
But that’s another topic.
Take for example (2), Alameda County’s:
Now, for ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
I casually noticed that the Alameda County District Attorney actually had an Annual Report 2010, I figured, why not take a look? (note: I also look other places – so should we — such as vendor payments for this one, contracts, payrolls, etc.)
For Annual Report, read “Sales Promotion” for receiving more money for more programs. It’s basically going to be a Business Plan, or part of one, right.
Being the smart woman that I am, I went straight to “LEGISLATIVE INITIATIVES.”
I’ve been around the block a few times, and know what the word “initiatives” means
I find it odd that the law enforcement is so eager to write the law also. Kind of like the Executive Branch of the US changing the legal system (and adding a faith-based office to help the separation of church and state just a little more) and the Judicial Element forming nonprofits and directing traffic to them. Or the Legislative Element getting press for helping the homeless, while their wives are busy charging $225 an hour to subcontract work that probably should’ve been done by a public agency (which the public pays for) to start with.
Makes you kind of wonder where the criminal element of society really is, sometimes. I mean, what’s truly causing the level of poverty and street crime and disrespect for authority seen throughout this county (home to the 4th and 5th highest homicide cities in the country, last I heard — Oakland, and Richmond, California). Does no responsibility ever rest with this department?
So, here’s “Nancy (O’Malley) goes to Washington” — What a Wonderful Life it must be.
Once there she has some nice chats, by mutual request it seems, with Dianne, about SB 557 – instead of having this chat first with the citizens that actually live in this state and who don’t always have our U.S. Senators’ ear. They’re lucky, many times, if they can get law enforcement’s ear, if it’s just a “family matter” (aka domestic dispute), even though these matters can get both family and officers killed, and have.
And here’s SB 557. Glad I happened to hear about it. And guess who proposed it (sponsor, co-sponsor):
CORRECTED APRIL 27, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 25, 2011
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 05, 2011CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2011–2012 REGULAR SESSION
SENATE BILL No. 557
________________________________________Introduced by Senator Kehoe
(Coauthor(s): Assembly Member Atkins, Fletcher)
Wow —Senator(SB117) Kehoe (SB747) & Assemblyperson Atkins (SB 887): the Dynamic Duo strikes again
- This time, to help their cohorts get proprietary language to promote a certain concept promising “justice” coach parents suffering from domestic violence and separation, including with their kids, from abusers.
- This is not to say the same people don’t also propose better bills — like adding “strangulation” to the definition of “traumatic injury.” However, this still ain’t gonna change how little family law judges care about it, as opposed to pushing co-parenting, therapy and marriage & fatherhood to people who are, er, divorcing (etc.). Generally, they fall under the category of “special interests” it seems, including:
- SB 117 (Kehoe)
Public contracts: prohibitions: discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. (see my last 2 posts on how Atkins’ partner got San Diego business…)
While this may be a good concept, common sense says to take it up with the California Healthy Marriage and the Bush-originator and perpetuators of National Fatherhood In Aeternum. Isn’t there some way we could lock the different factions into a single room — like is done with a sequestered jury — and duke it out while the rest of us get about our own business, and sex lives? Note: no minor children should be allowed into the room for any purpose during this time.
Actually, it was Kehoe sponsoring SB 2263 nine years ago, trying to one-stop shop an all-expense-paid (i.e., public funding through California Judicial Council) assessment of (Kids’ Turn). Has she had children? Has her partner had children? So what’s with this fascination with coaching others about how children feel about divorce, and what parents should tell them during the process?
Somehow I”m starting to wonder how these types of bills relate to each other.
So long as family court judges continue to exercise “wide discretion” and retain immunity for screw-ups, and so long as parents are too busy on on-line forums (arguing PAS or anti-PAS) and going to rallies to Washington, D.C. to plead for mercy — it doesn’t matter that Governor Gray Davis vetoed that one, saying gently that perhaps the highest judicial body in the state wasn’t, er, qualified to measure mental health (i.e., attitude adjustments that certain mental health professionals wish to see).
Family Law already makes just about any other law a moot point, no matter what gender you express this in — it’s possible to get permanently screwed in 2o minutes, or ex parte, and with or without a $$ to spare.
We, the People of California (insert your state, but this state has a well-earned reputation for being off the charts sometimes, it seems) should instead actually investigate who’s married to, in business with, or on the board of directors with whom, and we’d better keep our eyes peeled about whassup in the legislature, and whassup in Washington, too. And start respecting bloggers that do (historymatters of Sandiegooneline, or Ronkayeinlaw, etc.), rather than on-line weekly reporters (Mr. Peter Jamison of SFWeekly) that don’t.
February 17, 2011
________________________________________
An act to add Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) to Part 4 of the Penal Code, relating to family justice centers. **
**the last suggestion (see my recent posts) was to simply amend Civil Labor Educational Insurance and Penal codes to clarify that gender expression is a civil right (as I understood it). This one simply adds a Title subdivision, i.e. 5.3.
While AFCC is busy legitimizing and legalizing “Parenting Coordinators” to further undermine due process (and confidentiality) a.k.a. legal rights, the DA’s office itself is trying to legitimize and hallow “family justice centers” that shouldn’t even be necessary IF the DA’s office (law enforcement and prosecution) had been doing their jobs right to start with, including taking criminal activity committed by one parent against the other without respect to gender. Same general idea — exploiting prior screwups by the same people to add another layer of bureaucracy to “coordinate” all the services needed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL DIGEST
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGESTSB 557, as amended, Kehoe. Family justice centers.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Title 5.3 (commencing with Section 13750) is added to Part 4 of the Penal Code, to read:
TITLE 5.3. Family Justice Centers13750.
(a) A city, county, or city and county may establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to assist victims of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking to ensure that victims of abuse are able to access all needed services in one location in order to enhance victim safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to services for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and human trafficking. Family justice centers, if established in a city, county, or city and county, may include community-based domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, and human trafficking agencies in partnership with survivors of violence and abuse in the planning and operations process of a family justice center, and may establish procedures for the ongoing input, feedback, and evaluation of the family justice center by survivors of violence and abuse and community-based crime victim service providers.
(b) For purposes of this title, the following terms have the following meanings:(1) “Abuse” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6203 of the Family Code.
(2) “Domestic violence” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 6211 of the Family Code.
(3) “Sexual assault” means an act or attempt made punishable by Section 220, 261, 261.5, 262, 264.1, 266c, 269, 285, 286, 288, 288.5, 288a, 289, or 647.6.
(4) “Elder abuse” means an act made punishable by Section 368.
(5) “Human trafficking” has the same meaning as set forth in Section 236.1.(6) “Victim of crime,” “crime victim,” or “victim” means a victim of domestic violence, officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyberstalking, cyberbullying, or human trafficking.
(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or part-time basis in order to provide services to victims crime from one location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help, and increase access to services and support for victims and their children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised of, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.
(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.
(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.
(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.
Text found at Survivors in Action (which addresses stalking — not parenting — issues)
Wow. I felt SO o o o o distracted by investigating the Nonprofit Filings of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” which I already knew was itself a Dubious District Attorney Doing. San Diego (where the model started) also reported on their Doubts as to why a retiring City? attorney should simply move functions that belonged to government over to the Y, later to become what I like to call Casey Gwinn’s Retirement Plan Model.
I found out that after getting a $3 million grant, producing a nonprofit structure (channel?) that has 0 $$ and 0 boards of directors (if one looks at the paperwork) yet suddenly a subsidiary group, “Family Violence Law Center” is getting flush with $millions of education & prevention programs under a different EIN.
Having wondered why none of these groups actually tell us how Family Law Operates (which is through AFCC/CRC and a host of nonprofit groups to receive federal funds to fix families, even though the fix is getting some of them killed from the resulting mix of turmoil & entitlements) — I see that the Executive Director of this Family Violence Law Center, has a background in Family Law.
Together, while they do not talk honestly about each other (or their relationships), they comprise an assembly line that shuffles families from separation through dissolution to destitution, getting grants along the way to “prevent family violence” at the top of the chute (abandoning those halfway down).
Wait a minute — don’t we deserve some better accounting of the EXISTING family justice Centers before they become the model of how to (not) help Victims of Crime navigate the family law system?)
FROM THE ANNUAL REPORT:
D.A. Nancy E. O’Malley and U.S. Senator Diane Feinstein
In May 2010, Alameda County D.A. Nancy O’Malley led a team from the District Attorney’s Office to Washington D.C. to honor fallen officers at the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial and meet with legislators.
The team met with many officials to discuss the Office’s nationally recognized programs and initiatives. Highlights included presentations on the Restitution Unit, the H.E.A.T. Watch program, and the Alameda County Family Justice Center
(A Nancy O’Malley/Davis-Lockyer, affiliate of the San Diego Family Justice Center model, founded by someone who was personally sued by one of his own staff for ignoring severe domestic violence and what appears to be death threats to one of his own employees, to which it seems he (Casey Gwinn) responded by moving the situation to a different floor, and thereafter ignoring it. Which I have blogged. Guess they don’t read my lovely, graphics-intensive, professionally organized posts.)
. Also overviewed was the Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center and the innovative and successful partnerships between the D.A.’s Office, Probation Department, Alameda County Office of Education and Alameda County Health Care.
In a briefing with the White House Advisor on Violence Against Women, D.A. O’Malley spoke about the Family Justice Center’s concept of collaborative comprehensive services.
Time to review (From FIRST AMENDMENT PROJECT), “The Brown Act.”
THE BASICS
Meetings of public bodies must be “open and public,” actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meetings laws may be voided. (§§ 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d))
WHO’S COVERED
This is my HOLIDAY (or the Sunday before it) and catching up with a Northern California District Attorneys’ latest Dubious Doings and proposed legislations wasn’t on it. Can I — like Kehoe recommended that Kids’ Turn (initially) — get some public funding to study the effectiveness (or rather, lack of it) of both kids’ Turn AND all spinoffs functioning in my area — AND of the local Family Justice Center closest to me? (I posted others, from an IRS lookup of charities with the name, yesterday, bottom of the post).
In other words, we can either work, and trust our local representatives and elected officials to do their jobs at least as well as we do our own — OR, we can scale back on work (and thus fewer taxes for them to waste) and take time to divert some of the slush funds to our scrutinizing the rest of the slush fund activity.
Having a family law attorney running FVLC is a conflict of interest, as shown (last I heard) on the total SILENCE on the characters, traits, and habits of the family law system and the nonprofits surrounding it, like
NAUCRATES DUCTOR (pilot fish):
(no, the term is not familiar to me, but isn’t the image appropriate? Because what they are escorting is indeed a shark. And the nonprofits surrounding the family law system, which may or may not be smaller than it (who knows? WHo is tracking) — are feeding off a fish which itself is paid for by the public to start with. At some level, this is starting to resemble family COURT systems, not just FAMILY courts. And I’m not the only person that seems to think this way — I have a photo on here of a bunch of judges (SF area) dressing up as royalty at an AAML meeting. They composed a cute song based on “Camelot” (itself a reference to the Kennedy White House as royalty) to go along with this and seemed to think it was funny. )
From the Legislative Initiatives section of the Annual Report.
Legislative Initiatives
Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.
In 2010, we were instrumental in writing numerous pieces of legislation, including:
SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.
As with “fatherhood” programs — this “trend” is hardly a grassroots demand for justice centers. No, certain people have a vested interest in continuing to “initiate” them.
I have a motto to counteract this trend:
JUST SAY NO!
Meanwhile…
Anyone willing to do some legwork and track the nonprofit status and get some verified results from any of the existing family justice centers — please do so. Are they all set up like this one? Are they obtaining public & private monies and funneling them to a favored nonprofit and changing the character of a nonprofit which used to simply help its clients?
How many of the board members are actually public servants — and let’s get some payroll records.
A reminder — someone who walked through the doors — in fact even someone who got a restraining order (already proven to have a good risk of getting him/her (a) dead or (b) eventually completely eliminated from (her) kids’ lives — when the people who should be instead supporting court order enforcement are those collaborating instead to “educate” and “train” others inside new centers…
McDonalds is hugely successful — it serves a lot of people. That doesn’t mean everyone should buy all their food form fast-food franchises…..
This “trend” is going to increase the number of DISenfranchised citizens, whose real needs don’t fit neatly into such expensive and unproven collaborations.
Just Say No. Then get on-line, and get involved demanding a better explanation of why we should put up with this.
Take time from TV and do some FOIA requests under the Sunshine Ordinance. Each one teach one — we can do this!
SHARE THIS POST on...
All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?
Well, it depends on the point of view. In yesterday’s obnoxiously long post, I ran across the phrase “Recalcitrant parents” being used in Kids’ Turn propaganda. The word “recalcitrant” is generally applied to the word “child” —
A Sampler of Timeless “Wisdom” across the centuries:
-
“All the World’s A Stage” … the bottom line is…
1600s, roughly:
William Shakespeare – All the world’s a stage (from As You Like It 2/7)
All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. And then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honour, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slipper'd pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.
Whatever you may think of that phrase, it’s full of metaphors, and takes a few minutes to chew on them, translate into perhaps common terms (what is he referring to, in other words?) and you come out with a perspective on life pretty close to “from dust to dust.” Shakespeare’s seven stages of man go from infant to infant: A child “mewling and puking in its nurses’ arms…” and towards the very end, like the last scene, “sans (without) teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything.” There is a real truth to this, and perspective — Life has stages, beginning, and end. Noting this, with elegance, puts man — meaning ALL of us — humbly in place; all have exits and entrances, and all go to the same final stage — helpless, like a child…
For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound.
At least it makes you think!
The World is a stage, and a sense of perspective says there are different acts, AND bottom line, the play is over, it has an exit, no matter how poorly or well we played our parts. He pokes fun at the sixth stage, a Justice — “full of wise saws (sayings)…”. He’s going to slip into high-pitched voice, no teeth, and that impressive presence is going to turn back into a helpless infancy on the way out…
Shakespeare’s speech finds something to mock in every stage — appropriately, because,
the bottom line is… there will be an exit.
Hundreds of Years BC (or, to be Politically Correct, “BCE”):
Solomon (book of Ecclesiastes, “the Preacher”)
-
Vanity of Vanity, all is Vanities — the bottom line is …
From Ecclesiastes 12 (last chapter)–
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them; 2While the sun, or the light, or the moon, or the stars, be not darkened, nor the clouds return after the rain: 3In the day when the keepers of the house shall tremble, and the strong men shall bow themselves, and the grinders cease because they are few, and those that look out of the windows be darkened,4And the doors shall be shut in the streets, when the sound of the grinding is low, and he shall rise up at the voice of the bird, and all the daughters of musick shall be brought low;
Basically, he’s describing that seventh stage of life, in a very picturesque way, rich in symbolism.
5Alsowhen they shall be afraid of that which is high, and fears shall be in the way, and the almond tree shall flourish, and the grasshopper shall be a burden, and desire shall fail: because man goeth to his long home, and the mourners go about the streets: 6Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. 7Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it. 8 Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher; all is vanity.
And he gently mocks the endless writings….
. . .of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
To be condensed into:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Again, the bottom line is Fear God, because what you do, including what you tried to do in secret, is going to be judged (in the resurrection, is implied):
Remember thy Creator while young, and Fear God, keep his commandments. THere’s even a rationale provided: “for God shall bring every work into judgment, every secret, whether good, or whether evil.”
Even those who may not believe in that future judgment, or in terms such as “good” or “evil” (perhaps this is a sad loss in our society, to openly say we believe there is good and there is evil — as opposed to functional & dysfunctional, healthy and unhealthy (as defined by ……?) might be able to grasp some interest in the symbolism, the recommendation towards humility in life. Some of the phrasing, about Times and Seasons has made it into music, old and new… it’s simple enough to grasp the concept….
“Simple Pictures are Best!”
The basic commandments cited were about ten only (one for each finger, in intact humans), not too many to count…and they too had a condensed internal order to them that refer to ethical behavior and not putting onesself first as “God” in worship, or in relationships. Most of these have some direct parallel in law today — i.e., thou shalt not bear false witness ( slander, libel, perjury), though shalt not steal (self-explanatory!), thou shalt not commit murder (homicide), and a few most have tossed since — honor the sabbath, honor mother and father, don’t commit adultery (definitely tossed by the wayside), and stop coveting all your neighbor’s stuff.
How about just TWO concepts?
Anyhow, moving on… Jesus, in the gospels, further simplified those 10 down into just 2: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Hard to remember? No. Hard to do? Yes. But one need not Ph.D- it (pile it higher deeper) (Ph.D.) to practice, or sit at the feet of one to practice these, either. It relates to choice, determination, and will — not education only..
Even atheist George Carlin (search my site — believe I linked to this YouTube) was able to boil those 10 down to 2 also, and with some humor. Most normal people could figure these out. It takes a special mindset NOT to….
Fast forward to somewhere between 30 and 70 A.D. excuse me, politically more correct, “CE”). This — still in Shakespearean English (but in any language — Greek, Hebrew — the elegance of language still holds)
Or, OK, THREE main concepts…
-
Things go better with “Love” (Charity) — without them, it’s just all show and noise”
The apostle Paul, to some Gentiles with significant “relationship” problems, including even incest, strife, and divided loyalties, ignorance, and (this addresses), the omnipresent hyperinflated EGO…
|
There is a difference between doling out tons of charity, and living with this love and concern for others’ well-being. They are not the same things, and sometimes people sitting atop and running charitable foundations can be real pompous and arrogant. I can think of few things more arrogant than the attempt to train the entire U.S. population (at its own expense) in concepts like “fatherhood” or “abstinence” and so forth…. let alone “healthy relationships.” Sorry, but that’s ARROGANT! Congresspeople that voted for this are not likely monogamous, uniformly faithful to their own wives (and/or husbands — though its the male indiscretions we hear most about), or even all straight. The intent is to legislate this for the common folk — not the upper echelon or the policymakers. |
||
Bear with the Bible stuff, please…
I wouldn’t be exposing readers to all this scripture without a point, be patient please. To recall: all the world’s a stage, in the bottom line, all is vanity — you’re going to die, one way or another/strength will fade; constant writing of books is weariness of the flesh, and MOST wisdom can be condensed down in to a very few basics — whether 2 items (Fear God & Keep his Commandments), 2 OTHER items (Love God with all you got AND your neighbor as yourself), or here, we are going to have THREE items, and ranked as to which one ranks the highest:
12For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. 13And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of theseis charity.
This world view values humility, and realizes that changes happen — that we are NOT know-it-alls or perfect. So, until then, recognize this, and focus on the three most important qualities:
- Faith
- Hope
- Charity
The first two relate specifically to the religion — faith in Jesus Christ, hope in the return, and future judgment of good & evil, and that we are on the right side of that judgment, and recognition that, like it or not, a lot of secret things will exist till then. ALl will come out in the wash. Faith and Hope relate SPECIFICALLY to where the individual will stand at that future judgment, and expects it to come.
I don’t take this (case in point, see blog!) to mean passivity in the face of evil, or lack of social justice efforts. But anyone who undertakes serious reporting of corruption, crime, or attempts to clean up institutions, or to live so clean one-self regarding all standards– will soon learn it’s a rough road (if a good one) and a risky one, and vast in nature. Without some kind of personalized hope, personalized faith in what one is doing, the sustained effort simply wouldn’t be worth the pain and drain!
People who have this faith and hope (whether in this religion, or other causes they actually are personally committed to) are hard to manipulate, sway, and intimidate — and threaten people to whom those practices are normal.
Among such groups are parents attempting to protect their children from abuse, and I have to say judging by the courts, that SOMETHING about the mother-child relationship must be quite threatening to the status quo — because it has been disrupted, intentionally and systematically, by judges, and “in the best interests of the child.” The real bottom line in the courts is, parents cannot decide for themselves, and must not be allowed to. they are infants, they are incompetent, they are “recalcitrant” some literature from Kids Turn said (last post….). They need to be taught…. ALL of them…..
We just passed the month of Valentine’s Day. That’s about romance. This is a deeper kind of action:
The Greatest of these is Charity.
It will abide beyond the Faith and Hope…
It is the deepest motivator.
the bottom line is… charity. And a healthy dose of humility — because now, we know in PART…
Now, I’d like to contrast the above sections with where we are now, in the permanently in need of education, training and I suppose, diapering?, population of the United States of America primarily from the Executive Branch, and again, at its own expense…
No more stages of humanity — for those teaching or for those taught. Of childhood and development, yeah sure – but once in the courts, immaturity for ever seems to be assured. THis is basic public policy (those doing the teaching and “training” excepted, of course). We have really sunk so low to a permanent, unchangeable state of needing to be taught and trained…. And this is reflected in the degraded, pompous, self-important language of the trainers, which bears no relationship to the timeless wisdom of the ages — Love God (i.e., YOu are not God..) Love your neighbor, work no ill to your neighbor, and keep things in perspective…life has stages, and consider how you spend them, because assuredly there is an exit.
Nope, no more of that. Instead we have “constructs” and “Initiatives” and “Explications”. We have ever-expanding “mental health” needs (probably because the society is so insane!….).
How about “Parenting Coordination”?
I’ll just pick a random AFCC conference agenda, or a random term, for a sampler:
- All North America — well, at least (here) USA — and heck, let’s throw in Canada — needs PARENTING COORDINATION:
-
Parenting Coordination. The bottom line is. . we need parenting coordinators.
But someone has to Coordinate the “parenting” coordinators — so why not put together a task force to define practices in this new field defined (and created) by the court system itself…
This is from May, 2005
Guidelines for Parenting Coordination
Developed by The AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination May 2005
Scratch the surface (or look at the foundations — see my blog!) of almost any family court, or “domestic relations” court, or “Unified Family Court” system — and this AFCC organization will be there, and probably helping run it as well.
Just enjoy the elegance, catch the flavor, catch the drift…..
The Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (“Guidelines”) are the product of the interdisciplinary AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (“Task Force”). First appointed in 2001 by Denise McColley, AFCC President 2001-02, the Task Force originally discussed creating model standards of practice. At that time, however, the Task Force agreed that the role was too new for a comprehensive set of standards.
The Task Force instead investigated the issues inherent in the new role and described the manner in which jurisdictions in the United States that have used parenting coordination resolved those issues. The report of the Task Force’s (2001-2003) two- year study was published in April of 2003 as “Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues.”1
The Task Force was reconstituted in 2003 by Hon. George Czutrin, AFCC President 2003-04. President Czutrin charged the Task Force with developing model standards of practice for parenting coordination for North America and named two Canadian members to the twelve-member task force. The Task Force continued investigating the use of the role in the United States and in Canada and drafted Model Standards for Parenting Coordination after much study, discussion and review of best practices in both the United States and Canada.
AFCC posted the Model Standards on its website, afccnet.org, and the TaskForce members also widely distributed them for comments. The Task Force received many thoughtful and articulate comments which were carefully considered in making substantive and editorial changes based upon the feedback that was received.
I was in the court system at this time. No one asked MY opinion…. Of course we weren’t the type of family that could afford the custody evaluation/parenting coordinator route. There are two tracks in the courts (surely you know this by now) — families with money to be drained out — they go for the custody evaluation route — and families WITHOUT money to be drained out — they go the mediator route, with the end goal of getting the minor children away fro BOTH parents and into the foster care system somehow. Alternately, someone in government could end up personally adopting children, or adolescents, if such is desired. (see my Wacko in Wisconsin series — an account is detailed, and the on-line docket supported the pattern the forlorn, probably bankrupt by now mother, described). Sometimes foster care kids get trafficked (Franklin County, NE coverup being a horrible example). Sometimes they run away and get picked up by other abusers, as has happened in the Northern California area at least once. So the No-MOney-to-extort segment of society, they are encouraged to fight in court, and then, any number of alternatives may result — but I do know in my case, when I said I was NOT going to call in CPS on a simple (but blatantly illegal) violation of a physical custody order, the local law enforcement stood by with their arms folded. I wasn’t going to, as a mother, produce some income for the county up front by abandoning my children, so “forget you!”
Track one — extort money from the parents by promoting litigation on frivolous issues, call in some parenting coordinators, custody evaluators, court-appointed attorneys, or in short almost anything court-associated. The medical equivalent would be something similar to dialysis — blood is drained out, recirculated at huge expense, and put back into the parent’s and children’s blood stream, a total sea change of relationships…
Track two — is “Give us your kids, or forget you”
Back to the sample of “literature” in the endless education field of the courts:
Even the name of this document was changed to “Guidelines for Parenting Coordination” to indicate the newness of the field of parenting coordination and the difficulty of coming to consensus in the United States and Canada on “standards” at this stage in the use of parenting coordination. The AFCC Board of Directors approved the Guidelines on May 21, 2005.
The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.
1 See AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues, 41 Fam. Ct. Re. 533 (2003).
Joan Kelly, Ph.D. (not ‘J.D.”) appears to be one of the grand dames of the system – her name, and her work is “everywhere.” Then again, AFCC has great PR.
At the bottom of this post (under the line of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ‘s) I’ll post a classic 2003 condensed summary of the interrelationships, still a good writing on this (Cindy Ross). The same intelligence is also found at NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’) blog, which has been exploring these matters since 1993…
The key to the system is the “business and professions” model analysis. Where professional organizations, and certain professionals who conference, task force, promote certain legislation, etc., fit into this picture is that these ASSOCIATIONS (affiliated with certain professions – judges, mediators, psychiatrists, mental health services providers, and of course, now, parenting coordinators….) are going to, each and every time, try to drum up more business. Why not — the groups boast memberships with judges on them ,and have learned how to become “principal investigators’ or “program directors” in various funding streams, and then channel those streams one way or another — and parents who lack the skill to investigate and challenge this — are babes in the wood when it comes to the family court process. THey get lost there, too.
-
the bottom line apparently is, “NO exit from this system, at least in this life…”
The system expands — endlessly — and gets more and more pompous and arrogant in the positions, the languages, and the number task forces needed to change a light bulb. Experts fly to and fro across the country to collaborate with each other on the next (scam) (possible profession to establish from the messes created by the courts to start with!). …. Most parents are not alerted to the hyper-active flight schedule of their overlords…. or where they congregate.
What pithy language, what clear terms, what graphic real-life symbolism comes from this trade:
Overview and Definitions
Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
And a little grammar fluke “assist parents . . . .. to implement their parenting plan” The correct usage is “assist parents . . IN implementing their parenting plan…
To review the wonderful terms, nouns, verbs, adjectives.
PARENTING COORDINATION IS a . . . . . . PROCESS.
….Wow, I’m gripped already…. I can’t wait to hear the rest of the plot.
What kind of process?
. . . . it is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process….
Wrong on both counts.
(1) It’s not focused on the children, it’s focused on the professionals, and drumming up more business for them. Decently written “parenting coordination plans” (what are we, cattle?? In need of personal assistants to write in dates and times of drop off, pick up?) would need extra help to implement.
(2) From what we are reading about the courts, the disputes don’t get resolved — but rather heightened and escalated until someone breaks, or someone else shuts down emotionally socially, etc.
…in which a mental health or legal professional ….
i.e., what AFCC is primarily composed of, and of course not any ordinary person. People outside the fields promoted and endorsed by this group NEED NOT APPLY. (i.e., an elite squad of only the truly informed…)
…with mediation training and experience…
Of course. The “mediation” promotion (also endless in this field) is CENTRAL to family courts and has already been identified as how to increase noncustodial parenting time. They have rules, but don’t follow them. Fact-finding on the parents is DISCOURAGED in some circumstance. Recently, an ETHICAL mediator was fired (for doing the right thing — actually reading where criminal records existed — unheard of almost, in this field) and won a case that her firing was discriminatory retaliation for, basically ,whistle-blowing.
This quote is from TODAY’s post, article by Peter Jamison, cover story on the SF Weekly.
{FYI: I have submitted 2 comments (under this name) on the site Rightsformothers.com which, if approved, may shed some more light on the article and what it does, and does not, cover.}}
Emily Gallup, a Stanford-educated mediator in the Nevada County Family Court, was fired after her supervisors criticized her for reviewing parents’ criminal histories when making her custody recommendations. In a March 2010 written reprimand of Gallup prepared by Court Executive Officer Sean Metroka, and obtained by SF Weekly, Metroka states that it was “unprofessional and unacceptable” for her to have requested a criminal history report in a recent case she was handling. “I admonished you not to take the role of a court investigator,” he wrote.
Research on parents is part of a mediator’s job, as it is for evaluators, minors’ counsels, and judges — no single court official is specifically designated as an “investigator.”
Hmm. I was told — to my face — by a court mediator that he could NOT even look at information I submitted which completely countered the story portrayed in court. It included handwritten notes from my daughters at a young age, and some photographs of them. But I was told that because it hadn’t been filed also with my ex (on the record) he couldn’t look at mine. THis didn’t go both ways — the information he himself had, submitted by my ex, I hadn’t received before the meeting. And I had ONE shot to state my case as to a multi-page, pre-fab, INDEXED parenting plan which I hadn’t seen in advance, to “come to an agreement” or take it back to court. My ex didn’t type at the time, and it clearly wasn’t his work. Moreover, once I (year or so later!) learned the rules of court for parenting plans involving domestic violence — this didn’t follow any of them. I suspect by then he’d already been contacted by a fatherhood-funded program attorney, who knew what to do — file for divorce and custody, and set up a parenting plan that didn’t state place, or exact times, and was GUARANTEED to produce a lot of debating and negotiating on these matters — and there was a restraining order on at the time….
I can see wisdom in the mediator NOT going beyond the court file– contrary to this article’s portrayal. How can a parent respond to invisible information he or she has not received or been served? It dilutes the legal due process.
Metroka says that Gallup went too far, conducting criminal background checks in cases where they weren’t relevant. “It’s easy to violate [parents’] due-process rights if you try to make more out of a case than is there when it’s presented to you,” Metroka says. “Emily’s position is that in every case a mediator should investigate and get every piece of evidence she can before the mediation.”
Just last month, Gallup prevailed in a grievance against the family court system over her dismissal. Arbitrator Christopher Burdick found that she “had reasonable cause to believe that Court’s Family Court Services department had violated or not complied with statutes and rules of court,” and ordered an audit of the court to investigate the claims in her grievance.
“They’re making these monumental decisions based on air,” Gallup says. “They think if you have too much information about a parent, that makes you biased. My contention is, if you have more information, that will make you less biased.”
Something doesn’t smell quite right about this situation. Perhaps Gallup is not aware, as some of us are, of the true purpose of mediation– which is to increase noncustodial parenting time, per federal grant, and allow the Secretary of the HHS to suggest (and get states to implement and evaluate) demonstrations on people that come through the courts, generating MORE revenue for those in courts employ, or at least in their entourage. She musta been a rookie….
For example, suppose — in a “mis”-guided (according to this mindset) attempt to comply with the state code, (I can’t speak to Nevada, but IF it has the rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer code) — she checked for a criminal background in domestic violence. This would compromise the mission of retaining federal funding and INCREASING custody to such people, and it would actually add some weight to a protective parent’s position.
OK continuing with this 2005 AFCC Coordinating the Parenting Coordinators whose job is to help IMPLEMENT an already- written coordination plan that parents are working with — people who do this must also:
Overview and Definitions
Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
. . . assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan….
[pause to adjust to the “assist . . .. to” syntax error again. OK, I’m better now …I’ll go on…]
Any legal professionals ought to know that one way to encourage a parent to comply with a written plan incorporated into any court order is, if it becomes habitual, file a contempt and seek some kind of sanction for it through the courts, putting this IN the court record..
Let us remember again – parents that comply with well-written parenting plans don’t drive more business to the courts. This behavior should NOT be encouraged……
FIRST OF ALL both parents may not need assistance. ONe may be an asshole, simply decides not to comply, thereby causing problem for either custodial or noncustodial parent, who then gets frustrated. I suppose enough of that frustration, and disruption of the children’s schedules and lives and/or someone’s work, might cause the other parent to come into a state of “needing assistance” and circuitously justify saying BOTh “parents” need this help.
“HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS” — How about someone — for god’s sake! — actually investigating what the conflict is about, i.e, analyzing it, putting that on the record, and fixing it through normal legal means, promptly? This incessant lumping of both parents into “high-conflict” when only one may have started and continued to cause it is wrong. It’s a lose-lose combination.
Any good parent has conflict with certain BEHAVIORS, one of which is called, failing to comply with court orders. Complying with court orders is a GOOD value to give children. IF the courts themselves cannot recognize this (because some organizations wish to perpetuate work for their members) then who will?
well, here’s some more decisive, to the point, and clear writing:
…by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs, and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
….facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner…
[by creating a co-dependent behavior between the parenting coordinators and the parents, in total conflict the court’s own theory that any domestic violence (etc.) issues are just disputes and parents should WORK IT OUT THEMSELVES!]
[“facilitating dispute resolution in a timely manner” and involving more court personnel is an oxymoron. It’s a contradiction of terms! Add to this Task Forces that can’t write straight, and what a mess! Most family law cases I personally know lasted a minimum of five years, some, three -times that. These professionals are most likely WHY….]
…educating parents about children’s needs. .
AHA! We come to the juicy caramel center of what this is about — another opportunity for endless education, including Kids’ Turn -type agenda..
Why don’t these professionals content themselves with HAVING and RAISING their own children — grandchildren, if they need to — and thus be able to help form new characters etc. Or, are they the cast-offs from the public education system, which is constantly having “peripheral” positions cut, such as psychologists and counselors, librarians, and sports/arts/ etc. roles?
“…..and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, . . .
“…OR the court?” Meaning, if the parties don’t approve beforehand, the COURT can make more “prior approval” decisions WITHOUT their approval or prior knowledge? (commonly called ex parte when it changes a court order, so I guess this one just means, sort of fine-tuning the terms of an existing one. If that. . . It shoulda been fine-tuned out the gate. ….
making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.
In other words, high-conflict parents (some of which conflict might be with poorly-written court orders, or inappropriate decisions to start with) should become co-dependent/passive and learn to let these people make their decisions instead. Also, if some highly legitimate causes of conflict exist (like someone threatened to abduct, or did) — then how nice to have already got a new profession in place in case some illiterate judge goes back to allowing shared parenting after custody-switch, etc. (Many mothers know that the “shared parenting” with an abuser escalates in conflict, and leads to various crises, and sometimes on calling on the courts (a mistake, probably) to resolve this . . a judge will switch custody. Thereafter, she may not see her kids again — PERIOD. Or, only for pay — and a high pay — such as supervised visitation for HER (because of potential “parental alienation..”). … And so on.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><>,
(Apologies today — my hyperlink function on this computer is temporarily not functional — so I am pasting titles, not links, to material discussed….).
MORE FROM TEXAS AFCC, 2007, ON THIS SAME TOPIC:
Report of the Texas Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Taskforce on Parenting Coordination
(translation: two years later, still needing more task forces..)
Members
Jack Bannin, San Antonio, TX Carrie Beaird, Dallas, TX Mike Booth, Dallas, TX Mary Bullock, San Antonio, TX Deborah Cashen, Houston, TX Jeff Coen, Dallas, TX
Bradley Craig, Arlington, TX Deborah Higgs, Galveston, TX Sondra Kaplan, Houston, TX
Toni Jo Lindstrom, Texas City, TX Susan Marsh, Houston, TX Judith Miller, Houston, TX Leta Parks, Houston, TX
Aaron Robb, Keller, TX Christy Schmidt, Dallas, TX Dina Trevino, San Antonio, TX Robin Walton, San Antonio, TX
Compiled by Aaron Robb, Chapter President August 8, 2007
Read a bit of this and see how it’s clear they wish to limit WHO can be a parenting coordinator to affilliated professions…. and missed the legislative bandwagon that might have allowed such a professional restriction… This article cites the one above, summarizing the scenario like this:
The AFCC parent organization began examining the issue of parenting coordination early in this century, forming a Taskforce on Parenting Coordination composed of nationally known experts in this emerging field.
“Nationally Known Experts in this emerging field.” . That’s “rich.” why does this, somehow, remind me of The National Fatherhood Initiative’s self-description as having been started by a “few prominent thinkers” back in the 1990s? Maybe it’s just the tone, I can’t say for sure.
“this emerging field” — -give me a break! With time, one comes to understand that in some lips the words ’emerging field” actually means a field that they (themselves, or close associates) are personally developing and promoting — in part by naming task forces after it — and it didn’t “emerge” like grass, or buds at springtime, or chickens from eggs, except that it IS sure that the seed was planted long ago that the sky’s the limit on professions that can spring out of the family court high-conflict parenting theme….
Supervised Visitation “emerged” the same way, as did “Batterer Intervention Programs.” Neither has proven particularly effective, both require lots of conferences, task forces, publications, and nonprofits to actually DO the supervising and intervening. Also those last two terms are known compromises with the battered women’s movement which in late 80s/early 1990s was much more pushing for full separation of the women and children from the danger, whether in shelters, or through full-custody.
The initial Taskforce produced a report entitled Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues in August of 2003 outlining the various forms and formats of practice that fell under the general heading of “Parenting Coordination.” The task force was reconstituted in 2003 and continued its work, expanding to examine best practices in both the United States and Canada.1
In 2004, in anticipation of growing interest in parenting coordination services in the state, Texas AFCC conducted a formal survey of our members, examining basic issues of role clarity and role delineation. At the same time Texas AFCC was approached regarding input on legislation that was being drafted regarding parenting coordination for the 2005 legislative session.
(Probably by someone affiliated with a father’s rights program… or CRC, etc.)
Responses from AFCC members to the survey came [“amazingly” given what AFCC is basically comprised of] from a mix of legal and mental health professionals, however the actual legislation regarding parenting coordination failed to address many of the prevailing opinions noted in the survey.
Chief among these was a strong consensus (89%) that to be qualified as a parenting coordinator a practitioner should be a mental health professional. A majority (56%) also noted that a parenting coordinator should be trained as both a mediator and parent educator.
If this became law, then any HIGH-CONFLICT PARENTS with POORLY WRITTEN PLANS (or, one or more parents who refused to comply with them) ARE GUARANTEED TO HAVE A HIGH-PRICED MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL — OR ATTORNEY — WITH A MEDIATIOR (PROMOTE MORE ACCESS FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENT) MINDSET, AND A PENCHANT FOR EDUCATING PARENTS.
I CANNOT THINK OF ANY FIELDS I WOULD LESS LIKE HAVING IN MY PERSONAL OR RELATIONSHIP LIVES. WOULD YOU? SUPPOSE ONE PARENT JUST DECIDES TO ABANDON THE KIDS ON WEEKENDS WHEN YOU MIGHT HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, A SOCIAL LIFE OR DATE. OR HE MIGHT… CALL IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL AND SIT DOWN — BOTH OF YOU — FOR MORE LECTURES ON HOW TO BE A PARENT, LET ALONE AN ADULT WITH A COMMITMENT OF SOME SORT!
THIS IS WHAT THIS GROUP APPEARS TO WANT.
A substantial majority of members (74%) also indicated that they believed parenting coordination Services should be non-confidential to allow reporting back to the court.
THIS NEXT SECTION IF FUNNY, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT:
The AFCC Board of Directors accepted the final report and Guidelines on May 21, 2005.
Unfortunately this direction from the parent organization came too late for our local group to effectively act on it. HB 252 (relating to the use of parenting plans and parenting coordinators in suits affecting the parent-child relationship) had been introduced in February 2005 and had been voted out of the House by April 2005. It was subsequently voted out of the Senate in May 2005 and sent to the governor just days after the parent organization’s years worth of work on this issue came to a close.
Sounds to me like the would-be coordinator coordinator’s task force, dreaming about expansion into Canada, wasn’t too coordinated — and didn’t pay attention (or process input from the local Texas AFCC group) in time for the parenting legislation to be voted on! They were behind the 8-ball.
And this is who is trying to restrict the profession to people like themselves!
Parenting coordination is a maturing field and nationally there are many different theoretical and practice models for services that fall under the broad heading of “parenting coordination.”
Keep your (God-damn) “practices” away from my kids, and me. If I have a broken leg, I’ll go somewhere around a medical practices. If a loose tooth (both of these factors which may occur around “high-conflict” marriages and/or divorces), a dentist. If I am short an academic degree, or wishing to enter a new field MYSELF, I will approach someone qualified in that PRACTICE and will myself engage, and PRACTICE that they are qualified to teach, forming a contract between me and that person which PROBABLY would be bound the contracts, (i.e., breaking it would be a “tort” and could be handled in CIVIL courtrooms, unlike “relationship” issues which land up in this morass of family law….)
But for the “crime” of having a relationship (marriage, or out-of-wedlock birth parent) that went sour — in other words, it wasn’t a great match, or something seriously deficient or wrong showed up — we are to be doomed FOREVER to being ordered into FAMILY COURT PRACTICE PROFESSIONS (“parents forever, right?”) by a group of people who can’t find something more useful to do with their lives, and which might require hard sciences or truly disciplined practice THEMSELVES….
Here it is — they want more “training.”
Increase education and training requirements for parenting coordinators to include basic and advanced family mediation experience as well as formal parenting coordination training for all parenting coordinators.
Commentary: Given that parenting coordination is now firmly codified as a hybrid ADR procedure it seems only logical that the state should require parenting coordinators to have family ADR training. Issues of positional vs. interest based negotiations and other mediation related issues are core to helping families progress past their disputes and adopt a healthier problem solving strategy. This is reflected in not only the AFCC Guidelines but the Texas Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Parenting Coordinator Taskforce Recommended Practice Guidelines for a Family Systems Model of Parenting Coordination within the Context of Texas Family Law report as well.
Can you do this? Read aloud the title (it’s ONE title) for another related to the courts organization (AMFT). Read it in one breath, without stop, and with a straight face. i dare you. Now picture how many more such taskforces are flying around the land, invisibly spreading bad grammar, creating emerging fields, and writing model practices for those fields, and of course setting up the entrance fees to get into them, through more training…..
Did you? Try again: The Texas association for marriage and family therapy parenting coordinator taskforce (break for the short-winded)… recommended practice guidelines for a family systems model (what other kind of models would there be for ‘parenting coordination’ Extra-familial systems model, like with the athletic department of junior’s afterschool needs, or there’s a budding gymnast in the high-conflict parenting family??) within the context of texas family law
Wow — brilliant. I myself was thinking of developing some practice guidelines that CONFLICTED with texas family law — that way, more business for the cognitive dissonance folk, mental health professionals.
They go on to note (apparently catching up with FL Attorney Liz Gates — who wrote this I bet much earlier in Therapeutic Jurisprudence )
Ethically dual roles are problematic (and highly restricted) for many professionals. {{they’re more than problematic, they create a conflict of interest….}}
Attorneys, therapists, and others who may have had a previous relationship with a family member bring history to the process that may undermine their effectiveness as a parenting coordinator. A parenting coordinator who goes on to serve in one of these other roles with a family may be seen in hindsight as self-serving, and compromises the integrity of the process.
That bird has flown the coop already. People know, parents know, they blog and write and complain on the nepotism, cronyism and backroom deals around the courts — with or without the new field of parenting coordinators.. Here’s a wise group in 2007 noticing that.. This problem is intrinsic to the family law profession, let alone an expansion in that profession..into uncharted territories where “need” is anticipated — probably because these people INCLUDE many judges who are able to order such things, if they choose to..
But, they want more training — naturally.
My friends, … about those court-ordered train the trainers trainings — I have to tell you something:
“Where the Wild Things Slush FundsAre.”
Looking for where the money went, or kickbacks tend to happen? Look no further — you got it!
From “NAFCJ: Fathers Rights and Conciliation Court Law’ (article by Cindy Ross of N. CA area):
When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get [in getting] custody and get [in getting] out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases. Judicial slush funds, such as the “hearts and flowers” fund exposed in Los Angeles Superior Court, are established using fees charged for child custody “training” seminars. [20]
Because Conciliation Court codes specify how funding is dispersed to the court itself, huge sums of money are diverted out of federal and state block grants by AFCC affiliates, in the guise of “amicable settlement of domestic and family controversies”. [15] (See Codes 1800-1852). The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”, i.e., to embed the fathers’ rights agenda into government policies and programs. [21]
This is such OLD news, but [far too] few women seem to be acting to do anything about I. I’ve heard of more men – such as the Richard Fine folk — who at least understand the process and strongly advocate against this. No mention of this was made in the SF Weekly Article above…. and at this late stage of the game, I’d have to say that this omission is suspect. People who work in and report on these fields KNOW the basic literature that’s out on it, it is no longer an unsolved mystery…
Maybe all the world IS a stage, but we need permission to “exit stage left” from this family court system, and as we are forced into the roles, it’s time to find out who wrote the screenplay, and who’s on the Lights, who’s pulling curtains where, and who is providing the cue cards…
To Be, or Not to Be, that is the question…”
A recent hit movie “The King’s Speech” shows how a man overcame a stutter because he had to be king in the time of radio — and when Hitler was threatening Europe and Great Britain. He didn’t want to be a public speaker, OR king — and as presented, he’d suffered some serious childhood abuse, emotional and physical (like not enough food) which probaby precipitated the stutter — but he stepped up to the plate once he fired the bad speech coaches (including the ones recommending smoking!) and got an off-ball, un-doctored Australian who actually knew how trauma works, and how to get past it. The relationship was STILL voluntary, even by a king, or future king — but once it was entered into, it became successful.
We are in times like that. I’d rather be doing something else, and investigative reporting is not my primary field, and smoking out slush funds is very disturbing. But it certainly beats walking around in a daze, wondering what happened, and blaming something or someone else for the problem!
I changed from doing free PR for psychologist professionals who talk about PAS and bad custody decisions (and not slush funds, federal funds, and fatherhood funding, etc.). I changed because I missed my daughters, and I love them, and as part of this love, I want the truth out. As part of caring about my local communities, I want to spare others going through three or four years of anguish as I did (at least) BEFORE I connected some of these dots.
Remember — Three things abide, BUT, the greatest of these is charity.
How’s yours these days?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
For footnote to Joan Kelly being omipresent (sort of) in these organizations and their literatures: From 2003,
NEWSMAKINGNEWS.COM
http://www.newsmakingnews.com/ross,familycourtcorrupt2nd2,19,03.htmFamily Court Corruption, Part 2: Fathers’ Rights and Conciliation Court Law: Federally funded misogyny and pedophile protection
by Cindy Ross © 2/19/03
Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization. [1]
While publicly touted as “responsible fatherhood programs” official federal documents say the purpose of their programs is to provide noncustodial fathers with free attorneys to litigate for custody. [4]. . . . {{SO — read those document, just don’t buy the “party line” that it’s really all about “relationship coaching” and healing, and so forth… It ain’t.
AFCC affiliated experts who have established federal “model custody” programs using PAS methodology, include Joan Kelly, a founding official of CRC, and Judith Wallerstein of the Center for the Family in Transition.
Richard Gardner originally based his PAS theory on Wallerstein’s and Kelly’s research. [23] Joan Kelly sets up family court services programs and trains judges and “special masters” (mediators with quasi-judicial authority), using Access to Visitation grant funding. She is also connected — primarily through CRC — to Michael Lamb, of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Kelly and Lamb promote materials developed by Richard Gardner (and other pedophiliac experts), in conferences and seminars regarding “parenting time” and “alienation”. [8]
Judith Wallerstein, is an advisor to NFI. According to CA NOW’s “Family Court Report 2002”, in 1986, Wallerstein provided testimony — along with David Levy of CRC — to the House committee on Children, Youth and Families. regarding the “problems of single female parent families”. [24]
Members of Wallerstein’s Center for the Family in Transition and Kelly’s Northern CA Mediation Center, have “reformulated” PAS as “alienated children”, possibly to distance themselves from Richard Gardner.
However, in addition to being connected to some of the most egregious local (Marin County, CA) PAS cases, as the “Northern CA Task Force on the Alienated Child”, their group promotes PAS custody switching methods and “threat therapy” at AFCC conferences around the country and the world.
[25]Wallerstein, Horn, Eberly and others connected to NFI, CRC and AFCC have expanded the Conciliation Court agenda to include not only divorce prevention, but marriage promotion. By merging conciliation court and fathers’ rights agendas with a “faith based” marriage “movement”, they call for even more federal programs promoting “two-parent” families, through “marriage initiatives” funded by TANF/Welfare grants. [26]
And we wonder why the economy is in such crisis!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Parental Alienation” is Sign Language….Like “Domestic Violence”
Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day. I don’t feel like telling. Hope never dies that exposing verbal idiocy might result in a net reduction of it.
At least on the part of the consumers — the marketers, well, this language use is wise.
PART 1:
PARENTAL ALIENATION
The words “Parental Alienation” signify that somewhere on this earth, a certain business sector, playing on human emotions, is prospering. As does “domestic violence” “child abuse” “Children and Families” and “Fatherhood” (enough syllables, seems to roll well off the tongue), and “false allegations,” “resource center” and “batterers’ intervention,” “supervised visitation,” and the like. These noun phrases are now just part of the landscape, and have developed their own specialized biosphere, with flora and fauna.
If you were a fine-feathered, raptor, and could soar with piercing vision, specialized hearing (and feathers) and incredible adaptations for dive-bombing your prey from on high in spirals, like the peregrin falcon, or hearing it underneath the snow, like certain owls (obviously I’ve been watching PBS here), and your prey were compromised populations, you JUST might be an initiative, a conference, a collaboration, a task force, a commission, or a nonprofit organization part of one of the above.
RAPTOR FORCE: Eagles, Falcons, Hawks, and Owls
NATURE takes flight on an exhilarating ride with elite winged predators in Raptor Force.
Humans have had a unique relationship with raptors, nature’s aerial killing machines, for more than four thousand years, first through the ancient sport of falconry, and, more recently, as scientists and engineers have turned to these mighty birds — from golden eagles, red-tailed hawks, and turkey vultures, to great gray owls and the peregrine falcon — as the inspiration for the latest in aircraft design. Using the tricks and tactics of raptors as their model, engineers have devised fighter jets with unprecedented maneuverability and stealth.
In Raptor Force, you’ll learn the secrets of these astonishing aerialists, and how they’ve mastered, more than any other type of bird, the art of soaring. And with the help of engineer and falconer Rob MacIntyre’s ingenious miniature television station — a camera, transmitter, and battery small enough to be harnessed onto the backs of raptors — you’ll see for yourself what it’s like to fly with these deadly aces
I already brought up the concept of the Family Law System as a Giant Squid, fearsome tentacles lurking in the dar, able to tear apart ships, the stuff of mythology. Now it’s time to get the view from on high, the “Task Force” viewpoint, the elite, all-seeing, dive-bombing, never-see-it-coming social policy collaboratives (etc.).
Well, like raptors, they come in different flavors, and target different prey. But they’re all aerial artists. Some are solo, some fly in woods, some even work in teams, I learned through this show.
The owl uses sound — its ears are uneven. Its specialized facial feathers help with that.
The peregrin falcon is a dive-bomber. Specialized eye covering deflects flying sand particles, which at high speed, could sure hurt.
With birds, you can see this by their shapes, although closer look gets a finer appreciation. With humans, one has to be more sensitive to language and behaviors to figure out whether they are distressed prey, congregants meeting to figure out what to do about distressed prey, or raptors coming in for those lower on the food chain.
Some go for distressed Dads. Some go for distressed Moms. So long as the conciliation code (at least in my state) rules that ANY couple having a squabble about custody, that squabble per se gives jurisdiction of their young to the raptors. Excuse me, Conciliation Courts, a.k.a., later, Family Courts. Now, what typically distresses said Dads, or Moms, is generally the other Parent. Which brings us to “Parental Alienation.”
(1)
“Parental:”
Define “Parental.” Go ahead — I dare you.
For that matter, define “Parent.” Go ahead. I dare you, find an all-purpose word that fits all definitions, starting with the noun, before it became verbified (to parent) and adjectified (“Parental”), specified as to who has the kids (Custodial/noncustodial — a term also associated with prison, i.e., “taken into custody” as well as with winning a court debate, i.e., “custody granted.”), and finally market-niched (“Parenting classes”).
The word is already de-gendered, as if the world were not, or any of its 3 Abrahamic world religions were not.
(meaning includes “obeying.” This can get complicated in practice, as in:
ABC NewsProsecutor proposes jail time for parents who miss teacher conferences – 4 hours ago Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy introduced a proposal Tuesday at a Detroit City Council meeting that would require a parent to attend at least one .
In this case, the parent is childified…. and the prosecutor, in behalf of the education establishment, is parentified. Ironically, the word “educare” has a root meaning of Lead Out, not Box In (or, Stuff in, as in knowledge into people’s heads).
PARENT:
Now, like they say Eskimos have different words for snow, we have diversified words for “parent” — step-, bio-, surrogate- foster- adoptive- in addition to the older “grand-” (indicating biological). Whoever the kids in custody are living with at the time, they had better obey the Residential Parent, or the court may just switch them to the other one, or to another type of breeding ground called Juvenile Hall.
Such a diversity of language indicates a thriving business, and that obviously some parents are absent, or incompetent, or need supervision, etc. Which just goes to show who the “real” parent is as to assigning custody, but the real “parents” are as to assigning responsibility for any screwups.
Occasionally the word “father” or “mother” will show up in a new sarticle, or in a grants application, but generally, to say it’s neutral, it’s about custody rights, which means “PARENTAL.” Glad I established that. This word does NOT stand on its own when challenged — by anyone, almost — but it does mean, someone is open for business.
(2)
Alien-ation
Alien-Nation, etc.
Let’s keep this one short. I keep thinking about Arizona, where “aliens” are bad and you can be arrested for being alien improperly. So, I’d have to say that “alien” is bad in connotation, even though much business is done by resident “illegal aliens,” and in fact, some business would close were it not. Now, apart from UFO space-ship variety (promoting a different set of businesses, much of it digital, but also involving conferences…)
“Parental Alienation” is bad if a parent does it, but good if you’re in the business of protesting it, or running seminars for judges about it. The call “Parental Alienation” indicates a resonance to the AFCCNET.org philosophy that the goal is to reconcile marriages for the good of the nation. So the net value is neutral (one group of parents and affiliated associations use this term, an opposing group opposes the use of this term. This extends up into the stratosphere, where raptors flying around the Federal Aeyrie (?) can snag some grants to handle the problem, and plummet to street level with demonstration projects and initiatives. So, it’s good for them. Bad for taxpayers, I’d have to say.
============
WHO SETS THE DEBATE? The debate is not “PARENTAL ALIENATION” v . “CHILD ABUSE” any more than it is, categorically, Fathers v. Mothers, or Conservatives v. Liberals.
I see it as “teachers” vs. “taught.” My point in that last post is that I am no longer interested in the verbiage (pro/con) surrounding “alienation.” I am more interested in dishonest usage of the word “Parent” to obscure gender bias, but beyond that, I think it’s time to figure out the profit motive, and think seriously about the role of wealth (as opposed to jobs) in the larger picture. Then the networks become a little more plain to understand, beyond the rhetoric. ALthough I may not communicate it too well, an attempt is at the bottom of today’s post.
Meanwhile . . . .
Words are understood in their usage and in context, including who is speaking.
Parental Alienation is essentially a term coined to get certain things done, including therapists into the legal process, and conferences training judges (etc.) about it, into certain people’s resumes. Perfectly reasonable and pre-existing terms to describe the same thing aren’t as good a market niche. For one, “Stockholm Syndrome” or “traumatic bonding” or “custodial interference” in context might do as well. Or “brainwashing” or “child abuse.”
The debate about “Parental Alienation” is at a stalemate, but the field is full-throttle ahead, regardless of what any organization pronounces about it. It’s derailing the more important questions, and the distraction is intentional, I”m sure of it.
PART 2:
“Domestic Violence”
Domestic Violence Industry Awareness Month – My Comments on this site, responding to another Press Article, by DV Nonprofit responding to a family (he killed his kids) fatality surrounding Battered Shelter & “Unsupervised Visitation” and judge “just not understanding.”
After writing that comment (post-length, actually), I went back to TAGGS.hhs.gov and looked at how many (millions$) were going to Family Violence Prevention and Marriage/Fatherhood Promotion — in the same state. What a shocker. The real question is who is tracking BOTH sets of funding, and why not shut BOTH of them off, leaving some more funds at the local level, and perhaps some marriages might be less economically stressed, which might save lives (though poverty is no excuse for murder, nor is family “honor” !)
This blogger “gets” the grants racket. Needless to say, this POV is not circulated prominently by the DV experts.
Suggest just read the page. In case anyone wonders, I have never spoken to that blog author, I just happen to share many of the Points of View she reports (not all — for example, I’m not in favor of GPS ankle bracelets…). I suspect this will make sense to someone who has experienced some of the types of events she reports on.
It’s a long page, worth scrolling all the way through (and reading).
“Www.FamilyLawCourts.com/Domestic.”
Media rarely reports why these murders keep continuing. However, the reality is they’re profitable for the domestic violence businesses and police agencies seeking Grants.
And so, rather than divorce or break up; we are treated to headlines, like Postal worker charged with murdering pregnant girlfriend but never a real, substantive investigation.
So stories of failed mediation, follow. Murder – Suicide. Again.
As opposed to just killing the “disgrunted” wife. A more common solution. Hans Reiser finally confesses he murdered Nina Reiser after proclaiming his innocence for so long; because of a remark she made.
Kids willing and do, testify, but still these cases are kept in Family Court.
Not only do Family Court judges continually protect the economically superior, the Executive Branch of government rather than enforce existing laws, under the guise of helping women through the Office of Violence Against Women, fund police departments, who are not legally required to respond to calls for enforcement of restraining orders, instead. {{in which we see another blogger utilizes incomplete sentences...the “But also” is missing. Actually, it’s in the next sentence. Perhaps this writer’s sentence ligaments got torn in the process of a custody battle, like mine.pieces drop off in the execution of a thought. Pun not intended...}}
Worse, rather than use funds from their own budget, police departments request funds From DOJ for bullet-proof vests;so officers will be safer when answering calls; which may or may not include responding to calls from desperate women.
See: “LAW ENFORCEMENT” or “ARREST.” Recent news:
…and when might reporters out “Anger Management Classes” run by non-profits serve to buy a paycheck for the top management running them?
San Francisco Anger Management Programs Don’t Work. However, there is no shortage of these “non-profits” meaning the individual doesn’t profit from their services, in any city and backed by any politician.
Man on the way to Anger Management Class Attacks Woman
Wouldn’t it be nice if women could get This kind of security?
So domestic violence programs continue for the funding source they are, mostly without family court litigants being aware, how vested state and city officials are in micro-managing lives, . . . . .
or
To Discipline an Unethical Judge, Just Establish a Commission to Consider Whether To..
Since 1960, with complaints about judges now totaling nearly a thousand per year, but only Sixteen judges have been removed from the State of California.
Because the Commission on Judicial Performance, seldom performs, LA County, by necessity, instituted a separate body, to investigate,
Unfortunately, it was the non performance of the Commission on Judicial Performance, specifically the Commission’s private “reprimand” of two San Diego judges, now both, convicted felons to highlight public awareness to a body that will not act to protect the public from felons posing as judges.
What began as a voter referendum forty years ago, has outlived its usefulness.
Lack of judicial accountability in California is its own scandal, separate from the child abuse and gender bias perpetuated by judges running amok within the system.
The budget for the Commission on Judicial Performance, is $3,704,000, distributed as follows.
16 attorneys or counsel, and 10 support staff
Total salaries & wages plus benefits paid $2,629,000
Total support/operating costs $1,075,000
Total Budget $3,704,000The major task of the Commission of Judicial Performance is to investigate complaints about judges.
[From Sidebar:]
Thirty-five percent of its roughly the four million dollar a year budget, is devoted to not opening an investigation after receiving complaints.
This explains why, after receiving Nine Hundred complaints one year, the total number of judges who were “admonished” numbered, six.
Six.
Four million dollars, almost a thousand complaints, and six,
“Don’t do that.” from the CJP
As the numbers confirm, absolutely the Safest occupation in all California is being a bad judge.
“Parental Alienation” & “Domestic Violence”
-
Street Level — this shows which infantry you are in.
-
Strategic Level – either way, it’s profit, but this is how task forces are delegate to one area or the other.
Another blogger gets this — same as above, on the business of DV — now she weighs in on “Parental Alienation” (although, the Lauren & Ted case, last 2 posts, she took the opposite side I did), it just might be worth a read.
A Nation of Stockholm Children (Aug. 2009, on Open Salon):
In the continued coverage of the Jaycee Lee Dugard case, not likely to be reported is the larger issue of a nation roiling in an epidemic of Stockholm Syndrome kids.
Media’s near total black-out of our nation’s busiest court, dooms our children while ensuring the decades long epidemic of Stockholm children will continue for generations.The most extreme form of parental alienation I’ve seen recently involved a custody dispute in Lawrence, Kansas with the children of Arthur Davis seemingly part of a plan to beat their mother to death with a baseball bat. During a 9-1-1 call, Arthur can be heard screaming in the background to his son, “Hit her harder.”
From failing to educate the public to the profits of those who work in the divorce industry, or family court judges inappropriately adjudicating cases which should rightly be in criminal court;lack of media exposure ensures a nation of damaged children will become damaged adults.
Who profits? Therapists.
. . .(KEEP READING . .. . )
I’m not sure media blackout is the issue, but media spin, and a public so overwhelmed with info, they cannot process it. We do not know how the critical “operating systems” of the country actually work, including courts, law enforcement, government, and the role of religion in all this, child support systems, and the increasingly tightening of networks through the Internet.
Note: I cannot continue “teaching” (publicizing) through posts until my Internet access is up to speed (i.e., MHz very slow!). Just continue to keep in mind: The U.S.A. is the world’s largest per capita jailor, and captive audiences are captive for demonstrations of the latest theories, behavioral management techniques, or justification for (yet more) grants.
I saw a poster on a blog that says what to do, well enough:
It’s time to remember what this man did, and how he did it.
Also, to understand the INNATE characteristics of money — which is to congregate at centers of wealth, and drain from the extremities. That’s the kind of money the U.S. (at least) has, i.e., that which we BUY at interest, which will never be paid off, from the Federal Reserve. There are reasons we “have” to become a nation of consumers, and that failing to consume enough of what we really don’t need (and makes us sick, in some cases) has become an indication of “treason.” In examining the courts from the roots up, it does go to Washington, D.C., and to understand the monetary setting of policy by super-wealthy foundations and families (through government, through universities, etc.), it’s also necessary to grasp, even if dimly, that the North/South (?) division of the globe into countries forced to become export economies, rather than self-sufficient, to pay off THEIR debt — means that those products have to come back to the more industrialized countries. Yeah, I”m an armchair economist, but search “Susan George” on this blog (or just get the book) for a clue.
The Internet flattens, but access (or restricted access) to it also further segments society. The section in Maroon in yesterday’s post bears follow-up (if you can).
Here, is a description of what centrally based (and non-bona fide) money does to communities:
THE PROBLEM WITH CONVENTIONAL MONEY:
- It is partisan
Money as we know it is not a neutral service provided by the government. Our money supply is created by private financial institutions on a for-profit basis. This money system is designed to benefit those who provide it, not those who use it.- It is based on debt
Money is created when banks grant loans. Thus for every unit created there is one unit of debt.- We are encouraged to think of it as a ‘thing’
Money is essentially information and has no physical existence yet banks encourage us to think of it as a ‘thing’ so that they can ‘lend’ it to us and thereby make a profit by charging interest. ‘Thing’ money also has to be created, distributed and controlled so that there is not too much of it. It can also be stolen, lost, bought, sold and counterfeited, with serious consequences for everyone.- It is permanently scarce
The money to pay the interest on debt-money is never created. There is therefore a permanent shortfall of money to pay back both the principal and the interest.- It causes cancerous growth
Banks continuously need to create more money than is required to pay back their loans so that borrowers can pay back the interest on those loans. This is the source of the growth imperative of our economies. There must be a continual expansion of bank credit or else the economy goes into recession. Systemic growth leads to the environmental problems we now all face.- Its value is based on its shortage
The shortfall of money keeps it valuable. There only needs to be enough of it to buy back the goods and services available. This has nothing to do with the monetary requirements of people. Those who have none are not seen by the market and so are marginalised.- It is expensive
Every unit of conventional money is based on a unit of debt. This debt has to be paid back with interest, and the interest on the interest is compounding. Interest is built into the prices of everything we buy, resulting in higher consumer prices.- It redistributes wealth from the poor to the wealthy
Usury is the tool used by the wealthy to suck wealth from the poor and middle classes to the moneyed class. Parasitism and class antagonisms are the result of this.- It promotes dishonesty and corruption
You can get it without delivering anything of value (e.g. speculation, interest, gambling etc.) so people concentrate on ‘making money’ rather than producing/delivering anything of real value. It is usually far easier to get money through dishonest means than by honest work. When you have no money you have no choice but to try and get it dishonestly- It leaks away from where it is created
Conventional money knows no bounds and loyalty. It always leaks away to the ‘money centres’ (financial centres, big businesses, etc.)- It destroys local economies
Goods produced cheaper elsewhere replace locally produced goods. This creates a local shortage of money and reduces the market for local sellers. This also results in the irrational transportation of goods all over the world, consuming precious fossil fuels and creating pollution.- It destroys community
Dependence on money means we no longer need our neighbours. We can get everything from anonymous strangers in return for money. We have no obligation to anyone when the bills are paid. Every trade is a complete and closed action: you provide me with something and I give you money. End of story. No one does us any favours and we need do no favours for anyone.- It fosters competitiveness
The shortage of money means we all have to fight for a share of an amount that is too small to go around. The need to repay interest means that we have to eat others to prevent ourselves from going under.- It creates poverty
While it makes some super rich, it makes most people poor. Poverty is caused by a lack of money (not by a lack of jobs). Usury and the need to keep money scarce ensure that money constantly moves to those who already have money.- It causes social and cultural degradation
The elimination of local opportunities to exchange and relate to one another focuses attention on ways of getting money outside the community. Communities fall apart as they become indebted to entities outside their communities.- And so many more …!
Now let’s think a little bit about TIME. If a person is earning an hourly wage, then TIME in court is wages lost, to say the least. What about their “psychic” emotional and other energy. including creative and thought energies, which would otherwise be put into taking care of their own basic needs, and their family’s (such as it may be, if in a divorce or custody situation). It’s GONE from the mix. In waltzes in (federally, state, then “local” meaning, a child support agency at the county level) – and says we are going to transfer income from A to B. Consider the bureaurcarcy in that, and the antagonism it creates. Families have died over this. Let me repeat. I have yet to hear of a mother murdering over child support, but their is no lack of newsprint on fathers, in this context. His basic authority and social credibility — income producing — has been challenged by the government. Meanwhile, this same Child Support agency waltzes into the newly single mother’s life, perhaps (and if abuse was involved, likely newly poor single) and says, we will interface for you. And yet, this entire system, it later develops, has been co-opted as a custody-switching agency. A federalization of basic life processes. So I say, boycott it. It’s got the power to incarcerate — or not. At will, if a mother has signed over her rights as a result off initially going on welfare. (A fact not typically made much of — but in years to come, will figure highly in any contested case…).
So, here are all these taxes going to socially engineer the country, and causing a lot of strife, and competition for working in the fields supported by this social engineering. How many of the services provided are the most basic ones that we couldn’t do without, and how many of the infrastructures and institutions created are transparent enough for the average participant to actually comprehend
I am certainly not a go-back-to-the-farm proponent, but the codependency here is too much, upon JOBS. The key difference between “job” and “business” is who keeps the profits, and who gets to deduct expenses before taxes.
People who were raised to just love what they do, and specialize in it, are called “professionals,” often, which brings up — who is going to pay for them to do what they love doing, and market it, contract it, do administration, etc. (unless people wish to “do it all” and “keep it small”?) One of the safest places to be a professional in a field that will rarely go away, is to do it for the US Government (I think). And in the courts, too.
Well, there’s a lot more to all this, but the key in the courts is where is the money moving around to, whether through professional referrals, trainings, or simply directly from litigants to fees. Multiply that to all contested custody cases involving children, per state, be aware there are 50 states (and US territories), and think about it.
There is, FYI, a two-tier court track:
1. Can afford fees. They will be “soaked;” one party may be bankrupted later, or up front, to inspire more fights.
1a. Then the therapists can come in and counsel how to reduce conflicts.
2. Can’t afford fees. These will be the revolving door cases, but because there’s such an easy way to get INTO court again, any old OSC almost will do it, and most litigant’s aren’t smart enough to move to dismiss up front (on any of a variety of grounds), these will repeatedly be brought back to court — and possibly produce a candidate for food stamps, SSI, or some other part of the welfare system to continue justifying its existence. Their data will be mined for further studies by social scientists (etc.) in remote locations.
2a. Occasionally a 1a or a 2a may result in someone going off the deep end, with a weapon. However, as this eventually causes social and economic deterioration, over a period of decades, no lack of new, fresh faces for the family law system (and associated professions).
Just a little more on “interest”:
The first source of plunder upon your wealth is the concept of compound interest. Have you heard that the best thing you can do with your money is to let it compound? Such statements are everywhere. “Compound interest is the next best thing since sliced bread.” Do not let these statements fool you. Compound interest is a wealth erosion strategy that has cost the American people billions of dollars.
Why is compounding interest one of the most devastating wealth-eroding techniques? How could having your money grow and compound be bad for anyone? Those who plunder your wealth want you to believe that earning a high rate of interest, and leaving it to compound over a long period is to your financial advantage. Billions of advertiser dollars are spent on promoting this technique to many unwary consumers.
We will present the facts about compound interest. Make sure that you read this material slowly. Use a calculator or computer as you read to verify the accuracy of our numbers and findings. This lesson could save you millions of dollars over your lifetime.
Basically this site is reminding us that, compounding interest or not, what about taxes?
(co. 2004-2008, Evans Financial Group)
My point being, OK, OK,
be aware of the rhetoric,
but pay attention to common “cents” on where the “dollars” are going.
In some respects, could any ex be worse than this system long-term? The answer in many cases is, yes. But, maybe a civic duty is to get the field reports out, for posterity.
What are ALL the relevant elements of any situation — as best you can ascertain them.
Which of those are actionable — now, and in the long run.
What can you do not to overwhelm your personal comprehension system into “Paralysis”?
The human psyche can absorb a LOT of information (varies with individuals), but to act on it is natural. I think that overload jsut builds up tension and frustration, and a sense of powerlessness. To know what to act on, with purpose towards a certain goal, is critical to humanity. Being in systems of such chaos (and corruption) as these family law systems, is dangerous to the health. It tests character to handle it.
To give this post a semblance of structure, I’d like to conclude the way I started:
“Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day. I don’t feel like telling. “
SHARE THIS POST on...
Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Archipelago — Systems to Silence Dissent
LET’s TALK “ARCHIPELAGO”
I often call the Family Law system an “Archipelago,” referring to the networked system that ensnares families.
My other, kind of ridiculous analogy, includes the Giant Squid, lurking in the depths, but with many tentacles, and the nightmare of a ship at sea and sailors’ dreams. When you experience multiple tentacles through this system, the only way to mentally/emotionally grasp the whole is by flexible imagery, it’s a SENSING.
Just in case, someone missed the reference:
June 16, 1974
By STEPHEN F. COHEN
THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO. 1918-1956. An Experiment in Literary Investigation, 1-11.
By Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.
Translated by Thomas P. Whitney. LETTER TO THE SOVIET LEADERS
By Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.
Translated by Hilary Sternberg.
ost books about the experience of holocaust, especially those written by survivors, have two purposes. One is to chronicle the full horror of the holocaust, to sear it into the collective consciousness, so that it may never recur. The other is to explain the historical origins and causes of that experience.
The Gulag Archipelago” is a non-fictional account from and about the other great holocaust of our century–the imprisonment, brutalization and very often murder of tens of millions of innocent Soviet citizens by their own Government, mostly during Stalin’s rule from 1929 to 1953.
. . .
Solzhenitsyn has recreated the history between 1918 and 1956 of “that amazing country of Gulag which, though scattered in an archipelago geographically, was, in the psychological sense, fused into a continent–an almost invisible, almost imperceptible, country inhabited by the zek people [prisoners]”. . .Archipelago refers to the far-flung system of forced labor camps run and augmented by the secret police and its institutions, whose prisoner population grew from small numbers after the revolution of 1917 to 12 to 15 million (about half “politicals”) at any one time by the 1940’s. Gulag is the acronym of the central office that administered the penal camps
AND
June 18, 1978
By HILTON KRAMER
THE GULAG ARCHIPELAGO:1918-1956. An Experiment in Literary Investigation. Volume III.
By Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.
Translated from the Russian by Harry Willetts. KOLYMA: The Arctic Death Camps.
By Robert Conquest.
e have known about the Russian purges,” Edmund Wilson wrote in 1971, “but we have not really been able to imagine them.” The writer who, more than any of his contemporaries, decisively changed this situation, giving the world an epic account of the suffering and destruction Russia has endured under its Communist leaders and giving it in the most concrete, most moving, most classical human terms is Aleksandr I. Solzhenitsyn.Solzhenitsyn who has restored a human face, a recognizable human substance and spirit, to the swollen, faceless statistics of the Soviet holocaust. If, after “The Gulag Archipelago,” we are still unable to imagine what the Soviet reign of terror and death signifies, both for its millions of victims and for us, too, in the precarious comfort of our freedom, it is because we do not want to–because we cannot bring ourselves to face the worst about the politics of our century and the murderous morals of our species.
Solzhenitsyn was one of the many millions in Russia forced by political circumstance into facing the worst as a daily experience. Altogether he has spent 11 yeas of his life in prisons, concentration camps and in exile in the Soviet Union, and now lives in Vermont, in permanent and involuntary exile from his native land. In 1945, at the age of 26 and while serving as a decorated artillery officer in the Red Army, he was arrested for having made some unflattering remarks about Stalin in letters to a friend. It was thus as a zek–a convict in the vast “archipelago” of Russia’s concentration camp system–that Solzhenitsyn was confirmed in his literary vocation. “Prison released in me the ability to write,” he tells us in this new volume, and even after his release–for Solzhenitsyn was among the lucky ones–the moral fire that ignited his literary endeavors in the first place, giving purpose to a condemned existence, continues to rage in every word he writes.
Under the most extreme and intolerable conditions, Solzhenitsyn made himself into the great rememberer of Russia’s terrible ordeal–made of memory itself both a literary medium and an instrument of survival.
You see that “instrument of survival…” — you see this blog, the some of the links on my blogroll, others in this system? This current system doesn’t compare — I THINK — but it sure is headed that way, and becoming an ACCEPTED practice in the USA and overseas, Thought Police is no joke, really.
Combining history and anecdote, analysis and polemic, with searing vignettes of so many doomed lives made all the more eloquent by the author’s intense empathy, his fiery sarcasm and moral fury, Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag” is the kind of book that permanently alters the way we perceive the world in which we live. No one who reads through its many blood-stained pages can ever be quite the same again–can ever again read a newspaper, listen to a political speech or look upon then political and human circumstances of his own life with quite the same complacency and comfort. It is a book that leaves a permanent scar on the reader’s soul.
. . . requires a strong stomach–and something else, too: a moral commitment of the sort that few writers nowadays require of their readers-
You cannot help a situation you can’t stomach even being aware of, naming, or seeing. This is how much abuse gets ignored. There’s an innate alienation to emotionally protect onesself from the (truth) that the world just ain’t fair, AND that “time and chance happen to us all.” No, it must have been something about the victim’s fault, and the “But that’s THEM, and not US” scenarios kicks in, even when it’s someone close to the person. I understand this. It’s a daily balance from being paralyzed by awareness of what DOES and CAN happen, right here, now (not referring to this historical piece) and from realizing that one’s conscience canNOT accept a “back to business as normal,” again.
WIKIPEDIA contributes — and would I miss a chance to mention this? Of course not.
He was raised without a father. Must’ve been at risk of a horrible life because of that (and not wars, political changes, or purges. No, healthy families have two parents. WELL then, with this formula, how does one explain such an author? Or is there ANOTHER reason for this policy in the US, and the Family Court Archipelago here, and overseas?
The Gulag Archipelago has sold over thirty million copies in thirty-five languages. It was based upon Solzhenitsyn’s own experience as well as the testimony of 256[29] former prisoners and Solzhenitsyn’s own research into the history of the penal system. It discussed the system’s origins from the founding of the Communist regime, with Lenin himself having responsibility, detailing interrogation procedures, prisoner transports, prison camp culture, prisoner uprisings and revolts, and the practice of internal exile. T
“In 1918, Taisia became pregnant with Aleksandr. Shortly after her pregnancy was confirmed, Isaakiy was killed in a hunting accident. Aleksandr was then raised by his widowed mother and aunt in lowly circumstances. His earliest years coincided with the Russian Civil War. By 1930 the family property had been turned into a collective farm.
Later, Solzhenitsyn recalled that his mother had fought for survival and that they had to keep his father’s background in the old Imperial Army a secret. His educated mother (who never remarried) encouraged his literary and scientific leanings and raised him in the Russian Orthodox faith;[5] she died in 1944.[6]“
In the BAHRAIN ARCHIPELAGO (physical island chain)
Human Rights Issues in a small island nation:
Yesterday’s post blogged a custody case of a woman and child from Arizona trapped in Bahrain in a custody dispute. Bahrain is an “archipelago.” I showed the NASA photo, and found multiple Human Rights Watch articles on Woman and Child Abuse there. Portugal and Great Britain had their time in its history, divisions between Shi’ite majority and Sunni minority reverse (from what I can tell) the rest of the world’s status, and women only got the vote in 2002. It’s considered more liberal than some of it’s neighbors, and is home to what will be (is?) the WORLD’s longest bridge, from Qatar peninsula to the tiny Bahrain main island. Not the best place for a foreign-born woman to be trapped in a custody dispute!
HERE is an article “Women Don’t Need to Accept Polygamy” (currently that doesn’t seem true, but it presents issues)
And Amnesty International Documented in 1994-1996, increasing abuse of women and children in suppressing civil unrest:
- http://www.amnesty.org
- Description:
- Since 1994, the Government of Bahrain has responded to civil unrest with widespread arbitrary arrests, apparent extrajudicial killings, imprisonment of prisoners of conscience, torture and the death sentence, the first to be carried out in almost 20 years. The government has also continued a policy of forcible exile of its own nationals, sending whole families out of Bahrain, or banning their return if suspected of opposition political activity abroad.
- AND
- “December 1994, there was an alarming, unprecedented increase in human rights violations in Bahrain following widespread pro-democracy demonstrations. For the first time, women and children as young as nine or ten years old were targeted for arrest and many were reportedly ill-treated in custody. For many women, this was the first time they had engaged in an active and vocal participation in public protests, a shift from their traditional role away from the public arena.
- {{Protest – Retaliation. Women and children participating, speaking out, took a real hit: the goal being to quell and suppress, ESPECIALLY if this population was going to mobilize. Even more so if this belies religious traditions. U.S. has its religious influences also, in human rights violations against omwne and children in the courts, and in abuse of children in the penal / juvenile system. We ARE the world’s largest jailor, but do things a little differently undert the form of government…}}
- Groups of women also wrote petitions to the Amir urging the restoration of democracy, and led demonstrations calling for the release of their menfolk and of all political prisoners. Children also joined the protest movement, staging sit-in strikes in schools and participating in street demonstrations which sometimes developed into clashes with security forces. The government dealt with both these groups by arresting them arbitrarily, holding them for extended periods in incommunicado detention and often ill-treating or torturing them during investigation. International standards addressing the particular vulnerabilities of women and children and rules regarding their detention and trial were consistently violated.
- Amnesty International recorded the Bahraini Governments violations of human rights in a report entitled Bahrain: A Human Rights Crisis (AI Index MDE 11/16/95), issued in September 1995. The report detailed a number of cases in which women were held in incommunicado detention for months at a time before their release without charge or trial. As with most other detainees, the women were deprived of their right to contact their relatives or a lawyer during their detention period.
{{they were in islands of their own}}
A number of them were subjected to beatings and threats for allegedly [1] having participated in demonstrations or [2] for attempting to prevent the arrest of their male relatives. Some women were arrested and held as hostages in order [3] to coerce male relatives to hand themselves over to the authorities, while others were detained [4] apparently as a punishment for the opposition activities of their male relatives, who were either detained or had evaded arrest. It would appear that some women were also detained [5] in order to deter other women from joining public protests.”
{{Pause to reread the above paragraph — the various PURPOSES for beating and threatening these women. It didn’t always even related to anything they personally had done.}
National Identity. Bahrainis self-identify as part of the Arab world. There are tensions between the Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, and religious affiliation is of primary importance in defining one’s identity.
Ethnic Relations. Expatriates constitute 20 percent of the population. They come mainly from other Arab nations but also from India, Pakistan, Southeast Asia, Europe, and America. While relations are not unfriendly, foreigners generally are not integrated into Bahraini society. The vast majority are temporary workers and thus constitute a transient population.
Leadership and Political Officials. Political parties are prohibited, but there are several small underground leftist and Islamic fundamentalist groups. The main opposition consists of Shi’a Muslim groups that have been active since 1994, protesting unemployment and the dissolution in 1975 of the National Assembly, an elected legislative body.
Social Problems and Control. The legal system is based on a combination of Islamic law and English common law. Most potential laws are discussed by the Shura council before being put into in effect.
G ENDER R OLES AND S TATUSES
Division of Labor by Gender. Women are responsible for all domestic work, and few are employed outside the home (only 15 percent of the workforce is female). This is beginning to change as more girls gain access to an education, and foreign influence has modified traditional views of women’s roles. There are no women represented in the government.
Relative Status of Women and Men. In the Islamic tradition, women have a lower status than men and are considered weaker and in need of protection. Bahrain has been more progressive than other Arab nations in its treatment of women. The first school for girls was opened in 1928, nine years after the first boys’ school.
What about Here? What about, now, today, the U.S.A. — are we an island in the world, with our Bill of Rights and Constitution, and legislative, judicial, executive branches of government, and just a bit of distance between the states and the feds? (less and less so each administration….). Do we have ROYALTY? Do we have RIGHTS?
Define “we.”
TheLoop21.com
Incarcerated Teens testify about abuse in private prisons
Mon, 08/30/2010 – 10:24Incarcerated youth give testimony of abuse: Private Prisons Part 3
Two teens share their harrowing experiences of sexual assault in juvenile detention facilities
By: Brandale Randolph | TheLoop21 (Add to your loop)
Mon, 08/30/2010 – 10:24After my last piece on Private Prisons, I got several nerve shattering responses. Inmates from prisons all over the country were sending me direct messages and tweets about the piece but what jarred me the most is that I received several messages from kids who had been housed in juvenile detention centers. Still, nothing could prepare me for the conversations I had with several teens who are currently in juvenile detentions centers. Of those, three were housed in privately owned and operated facilities.
For the purpose of this post, I selected one male and one female juvenile inmate. The third juvenile did not say much, we got to a point in the conversation when I heard her cry. Out of respect for the things that she told me, I erased the recording.
Two teens share their harrowing experiences of sexual assault in juvenile detention facilities
Male and Female, they are getting raped, and know better than to protest to the guards, some of who participate
Corrections Corporation of America is making millions, some from prison labor
By: Brandale Randolph | TheLoop21 (Add to your loop)
Mon, 08/16/2010 – 00:00African Americans comprise more than 40 percent of all of the inmates in American. Many of the crimes that have lead to our incarceration are non violent. Crimes such as grand theft, drug possession, prostitution etc., that many see as norms in our community are feeding the worst beast of the prison industrial complex, the private prison.
Private prison companies are literally making billions off the incarceration [of] African Americans. L
Let’s look at, the Corrections Corporation of America, or CCA for short. CCA is the largest private prison corporation in America. With 60 facilities and more than 85,000 beds, they are the fourth largest corrections system in the nation, only the federal government and three states are larger.
Last week, on Aug 5th, CCA announced its quarterly earnings, for the three-month period between April and July it earned a reported $419.4 million. In other words over last three months. That’s along with $414 million reported in the 1st quarter, or $833 million in the first six months of 2010.
Yes, despite the poor economy and reports of dozens of inmate dying because of poor health care and inmate abuse, CCA continues to generate billions of dollars.
However, the revenues generated by CCA do not include just the tax revenue paid by states and the federal government to house inmates. Like other private prisons, CCA generates money from prison labor. Under the guise of vocational training, CCA hires inmates to perform construction duties, law enforcement dog training, and even software testing for Microsoft. All at a fraction of the cost of using labor outside the walls.
In 2008, there was a phenomenal article in Mother Jones by Caroline Winter, “From Starbucks to Microsoft: a sampling of what US inmates make and for whom.” According to the article findings, inmates process food including beef and chicken, packing for Starbucks and even lingerie for Victoria’s Secret.
The larger threat is that CCA spends money on political campaigns as a lobbying organization. For example, let’s look at its involvement in Arizona’s SB 1070.
According to a Phoenix news report a few days ago, CCA donated money directly to the gubernatorial campaign of Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. Moreover, the company receives more than $11 million dollars per month from the state of Arizona. Also according to this report, two of Gov. Brewer’s top advisors have ties to CCA. Paul Senseman, her deputy chief of staff is a former lobbyist for CCA and his wife is now a current lobbyist for the company. Chuck Coughlin one of her policy advisors and campaign chairman, owns the company that currently lobbies for CCA.
I decided to look up this CCA, and found a 2000 “CORPWATCH” article that calls the Private Prison Complex a “Gulag.”
Note: My laptop is slow, and frequently loses text before it’s saved. This is exceptionally frustrating — yesterday, I lost probably 2 hours of work, background on Bahrain — which is why it’s on today’s post. The other part of the word “wait” is some days, simply watching a little “processing” symbol spin around and load a page. Graphics rich pages, such as from TheLoop21.com, are painful to load; guilt tends to kick in at this point for even blogging.
While on this topic: NONE of this blog was done from a regular, home PC. I had a laptop, which was stolen, briefly. Then probably a half year of (back to the libraries) (being car-less), and recently laptopped again — only a older, slower one. So be thankful for whatever comes out cohesive and coherent. Most times, I am looking at a single screen maximum 2 paragraphs visible at a time. Printing is another project. So all in all, perhaps it symbolizes the trouble also being stuck in the courts — basic infrastructure is hard to maintain, and forget it for a current generation of electronic equipment, whether computer, phone, or mechanical, such as transportation.
How could any system which so systematically removes work time from adults be in the interest of children? And the instability of it over time is reflected in parents’ ability to retain jobs and social connections.
We are heading towards world-wide slavery, it seems.
Many (noncustodial) mothers I know, active in protesting and seeking reform, speak eloquently on the human face of the suffering. Others also speak of the legal abuse, and psychological devastation of ongoing threat of losing one’s children, or hope of seeing them again, or being caught (liek the author, above) speaking “in appropriately” and thrown in jail, or being gagged, with the threat of jail, if they don’t comply. As I, too, have become alienated from a normal work life, not through economy, but through the courts, after dysfunctional/violent (which came first?) marriage, and similarly dysfunctional institutions willing to do anything about the violence, I have become more aware of, and personally know mothers who’ve become shadows of their former severals, women who have gone to jail attempting to protect a child, and women who have been threatened with jail if they don’t shut up (“Gag order”). I don’t want to think about how many homeless women I know who got that way after a custody switch, or women who are not homeless, but paying their former batterer.
In addressing this, people protest the indignity and the travesty of human rights, legal rights, and common sense.
WELL, some attitudes are NOT common to all, and better acknowledge it sooner.
FAR FEWER are willing to analyze the common CENTS (more like $$) economically that are behind the system. Some do, but how many people do you know that are willing to become the next Irving Fine ? Or will take their chances, and start to subpoena major organizations’ bank accounts, tax records, and insist that answers be given?
If it’s gut-wrenching and and too much to stomach, hearing about the outrage of children and juveniles being raped, without anyone stopping it, of a complete dual system of enforcement of court orders, and no recourse when failure to arrest still results in unnecessary deaths, LOTS of them, then why not look at some “dry” figures, some analyses, and get really outraged?
The bottom line is the bottom line. We all have our personal, legal ones, but the systems in this country (and extending globally) are political/economic. THEIR bottom line looks a lot different.
Remember, in any relationship, there are two points of view, and two “bottom lines.” When the government power to incarcerate is involved, and combined with this same government’s IRS agency (similar powers) to take and reallocate income — not just people — we have to take a look at their books, and who cooked up the business plan.
Now: PRIVATE PRISON ARCHIPELAGO — CORPORATE / GOVERNMENT PERSPECTIVE
|
, |
|
What is the most profitable industry in America? Weapons, oil and computer technology all offer high rates of return, but there is probably no sector of the economy so abloom with money as the privately run prison industry. |
|
|
|
US: America’s Private Gulag , |
|
What is the most profitable industry in America? Weapons, oil and computer technology all offer high rates of return, but there is probably no sector of the economy so abloom with money as the privately run prison industry. Consider the growth of the Corrections Corporation of America, the industry leader whose stock price has climbed from $8 a share in 1992 to about $30 today and whose revenue rose by 81 per cent in 1995 alone. Investors in Wackenhut Corrections Corp. have enjoyed an average return of 18 per cent during the past five years and the company is rated by Forbes as one of the top 200 small businesses in the country. At Esmor, another big private prison contractor, revenues have soared from $4.6 million in 1990 to more than $25 million in 1995. Ten years ago there were just five privately-run prisons in the country, housing a population of 2,000. Today nearly a score of private firms run more than 100 prisons with about 62,000 beds. That’s still less than five per cent of the total market but the industry is expanding fast, with the number of private prison beds expected to grow to 360,000 during the next decade. The exhilaration among leaders and observers of the private prison sector was cheerfully summed up by a headline in USA Today: “Everybody’s doin’ the jailhouse stock”. An equally upbeat mood imbued a conference on private prisons held last December at the Four Seasons Resort in Dallas. The brochure for the conference, organized by the World Research Group, a New York-based investment firm, called the corporate takeover of correctional facilities the “newest trend in the area of privatizing previously government-run programs… While arrests and convictions are steadily on the rise, profits are to be made — profits from crime. Get in on the ground floor of this booming industry now!” A hundred years ago private prisons were a familiar feature of American life, with disastrous consequences. Prisoners were farmed out as slave labor. They were routinely beaten and abused, fed slop and kept in horribly overcrowded cells. Conditions were so wretched that by the end of the nineteenth century private prisons were outlawed in most states. During the past decade, private prisons have made a comeback. Already 28 states have passed legislation making it legal for private contractors to run correctional facilities and many more states are expected to follow suit. The reasons for the rapid expansion include the 1990’s free-market ideological fervor, large budget deficits for the federal and state governments and the discovery and creation of vast new reserves of “raw materials” — prisoners. The rate for most serious crimes has been dropping or stagnant for the past 15 years, but during the same period severe repeat offender provisions and a racist “get-tough” policy on drugs have helped push the US prison population up from 300,000 to around 1.5 million during the same period. This has produced a corresponding boom in prison construction and costs, with the federal government’s annual expenditures in the area, now $17 billion. In California, passage of the infamous “three strikes” bill will result in the construction of an additional 20 prisons during the next few years. {{GOT THAT? SERIOUS CRIME RATES HAVE BEEN DROPPING FOR 15 YEARS (@2000). GOTTA KEEP THE PLACES FILLED FOR BUSINESS TO TURN A PROFIT, THOUGH. HOW? DRUGS WAR, 3 STRIKES YOU’RE OUT}} The private prison business is most entrenched at the state level but is expanding into the federal prison system as well. Last year Attorney General Janet Reno announced that five of seven new federal prisons being built will be run by the private sector. Almost all of the prisons run by private firms are low or medium security, but the companies are trying to break into the high-security field. They have also begun taking charge of management at INS detention centers, boot camps for juvenile offenders and substance abuse programs. The PlayersRoughly half of the industry is controlled by the Nashville-based Corrections Corporation of America, (CCA) which runs 46 penal institutions in 11 states. It took ten years for the company to reach 10,000 beds; it is now growing by that same number every year. {There’s a TN connection…} CCA’s chief competitor is Wackenhut, which was founded in 1954 by George Wackenhut, a former FBI official. Over the years its board and staff have included such veterans of the US national security state as Frank Carlucci, Bobby Ray Inman and William Casey, as well as Jorge Mas Canosa, leader of the fanatic Cuban American National Foundation. The company also provides security services to private corporations. It has provided strikebreakers at the Pittston mine strike in Kentucky, hired unlicensed investigators to ferret out whistle blowers at Alyeska, the company that controls the Alaskan Oil pipeline, and beaten anti-nuclear demonstrators at facilities it guards for the Department of Energy. Esmor, the number three firm in the field, was founded only a few years ago and already operates ten corrections or detention facilities. The company’s board includes William Barrett, a director of Frederick’s of Hollywood, and company CEO James Slattery, whose previous experience was investing in and managing hotels. US companies also have been expanding abroad. The big three have facilities in Australia, England and Puerto Rico and are now looking at opportunities in Europe, Canada, Brazil, Mexico and China. Greasing the Wheels of Power to Keep Jails FullTo be profitable, private prison firms must ensure that prisons are not only built but also filled. Industry experts say a 90-95 per cent capacity rate is needed to guarantee the hefty rates of return needed to lure investors. Prudential Securities issued a wildly bullish report on CCA a few years ago but cautioned, “It takes time to bring inmate population levels up to where they cover costs. Low occupancy is a drag on profits.” Still, said the report, company earnings would be strong if CCA succeeded in ramp(ing) up population levels in its new facilities at an acceptable rate”. “(There is a) basic philosophical problem when you begin turning over administration of prisons to people who have an interest in keeping people locked up” notes Jenni Gainsborough of the ACLU’s National Prison Project. {{Now we are going to talk about LOBBYING….}}
Private prison companies have also begun to push, even if discreetly, for the type of get-tough policies needed to ensure their continued growth. All the major firms in the field have hired big-time lobbyists. When it was seeking a contract to run a halfway house in New York City, Esmor hired a onetime aide to State Representative Edolphus Towns to lobby on its behalf. The aide succeeded in winning the contract and also the vote of his former boss, who had been an opponent of the project. In 1995, Wackenhut Chairman Tim Cole testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee to urge support for amendments to the Violent Crime Control Act — which subsequently passed — that authorized the expenditure of $10 billion to construct and repair state prisons. CCA has been especially adept at expansion via political payoffs. The first prison the company managed was the Silverdale Workhouse in Hamilton County, Tennessee. After commissioner Bob Long voted to accept CCA’s bid for the project, the company awarded Long’s pest control firm a lucrative contract. When Long decided the time was right to quit public life, CCA hired him to lobby on its behalf. CCA has been a major financial supporter of Lamar Alexander, the former Tennessee governor and failed presidential candidate. In one of a number of sweetheart deals, Lamar’s wife, Honey Alexander, made more than $130,000 on a $5,000 investment in CCA. Tennessee Governor Ned McWherter is another CCA stockholder and is quoted in the company’s 1995 annual report as saying that “the federal government would be well served to privatize all of their corrections.” In another ominous development, the revolving door between the public and private sector has led to the type of company boards that are typical of those found in the military-industrial complex. CCA co-founders were T. Don Hutto, an ex-corrections commissioner in Virginia, and Tom Beasley, a former chairman of the Tennessee Republican Party. A top company official is Michael Quinlan, once director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. The board of Wackenhut is graced by a former Marine Corps commander, two retired Air Force generals and a former under secretary of the Air Force, as well as James Thompson, ex-governer of Illinois, Stuart Gerson, a former assistant US attorney general and Richard Staley, who previously worked with the INS. Leaner and Meaner?The companies that dominate the private prison business claim that they offer the taxpayers a bargain because they operate far more cheaply than do state firms. As one industry report put it, “CEOs of privatized companies… are leaner and more motivated than their public-sector counterparts.” Because they are private firms that answer to shareholders, prison companies have been predictably vigorous in seeking ways to cut costs. In 1985, a private firm tried to site a prison on a toxic waste dump in Pennsylvania, which it had bought at the bargain rate of $1. Fortunately, that plan was rejected. Many states pay private contractors a per diem rate, as low as $31 a prisoner in Texas. A federal investigation traced a 1994 riot at an Esmor immigration detention center to the company’s having skimped on food, building repairs and guard salaries. At an Esmor-run halfway house in Manhattan, inspectors turned up leaky plumbing, exposed electrical wires, vermin and inadequate food. To rachet up profit margins, companies have cut corners on drug rehabilitation, counseling and literacy programs. In 1995, Wackenhut was investigated for diverting $700,000 intended for drug treatment programs at a Texas prison. In Florida the US Corrections Corporation was found to be in violation of a provision in its state contract that requires prisoners to be placed in meaningful work or educational assignments. The company had assigned 235 prisoners as dorm orderlies when no more than 48 were needed and enrollment in education programs was well below what the contract called for. Such incidents led a prisoner at a CCA facility in Tennessee to conclude, “There is something inherently sinister about making money from the incarceration of prisoners, and in putting CCA’s bottom line (money) before society’s bottom line (rehabilitation).” {{Couldn’t have said it better myself: 2 bottom lines. MONEY? or REHABILITATION? (or whatever line someone is pushing at the public, currently}}
The companies try to cut costs by offering less training and pay to staff. Almost all workers at state prisons get union-scale pay but salaries for private prison guards range from about $7 to $10 per hour. Of course the companies are anti-union. When workers attempted to organize at Tennessee’s South Central prison, CCA sent officials down from Nashville to quash the effort. Poor pay and work conditions have led to huge turnover rates at private prisons. A report by the Florida auditor’s office found that turnover at the Gadsden Correctional Facility for women, run by the US Corrections Corporation, was ten times the rate at state prisons. Minutes from an administrative meeting at a CCA prison in Tennessee have the “chief” recorded as saying, “We all know that we have lots of new staff and are constantly in the training mode… Many employees (are) totally lost and have never worked in corrections.” Private companies also try to nickel and dime prisoners in the effort to boost revenue. “Canteen prices are outrageous,” wrote a prisoner at the Gadsden facility in Florida. “(We) pay more for a pack of cigarettes than in the free world.” Neither do private firms provide prisoners with soap, toothpaste, toothbrushes or writing paper. One female prisoner at a CCA prison in New Mexico said: “The state gives five free postage paid envelopes per month to prisoners, nothing at CCA. State provides new coats, jeans, shirts, and underwear and replaces them as needed. CCA rarely buys new clothing and inmates are often issued tattered and stained clothing. Same goes of linens. Also ration toilet paper and paper towels. If you run out, too bad — 3 rolls every two weeks.” Cashing in on CrimeIn addition to the companies that directly manage America’s prisons, many other firms are getting a piece of the private prison action. American Express has invested millions of dollars in private prison construction in Oklahoma and General Electric has helped finance construction in Tennessee. Goldman Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Smith Barney, among other Wall Street firms, have made huge sums by underwriting prison construction with the sale of tax exempt bonds, this now a thriving $2.3 billion industry. Weapons manufacturers see both public and private prisons as a new outlet for “defense” technology, such as electronic bracelets and stun guns. Private transport companies have lucrative contracts to move prisoners within and across state lines; health care companies supply jails with doctors and nurses; food service firms provide prisoners with meals. High-tech firms are also moving into the field; the Que-Tel Corp. hopes for vigorous sales of its new system whereby prisoners are bar coded and guards carry scanners to monitor their movements. Phone companies such as AT&T chase after the enormously lucrative prison business. {{And you thought the concept was just science fiction, or some religious doomsayer, predicting…. NOPE! Shades of Holocauset, much?}} About three-quarters of new admissions to American jails and prisons are now African-American and Hispanic men. This trend, combined with an increasingly privatized and profitable prison system run largely by whites, makes for what Jerome Miller, a former youth corrections officer in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, calls the emerging Gulag State. Miller predicts that the Gulag State will be in place within 15 years. He expects three to five million people to be behind bars, including an absolute majority of African-American men. It’s comparable, he says, to the post-Civil War period, when authorities came to view the prison system as a cheaper, more efficient substitute for slavery. Of the state’s current approach to crime and law enforcement, Miller says, “The race card has changed the whole playing field. Because the prison system doesn’t affect a significant percentage of young white men we’ll increasingly see prisoners treated as commodities. For now the situation is a bit more benign than it was back in the nineteenth century but I’m not sure it will stay that way for long.” This article originally appeared in CounterPunch, a Washington DC-based political newsletter. |
WELL, someone had to say this, and I’m not the first. As to women, a term that continues to come to mind as to this court system was a “Jim Crow” period following some feminist gains in the 70s. The backlash can be severe.
I remind this world that a lot of people became fatherless during WARS.
Now, we are ready to read the next post from the UK area. This post was just an introduction which got out of hand…
SHARE THIS POST on...
2 from 2002 and the Kitchen Sink: Why Sociologists (are hired) to Rule America
Bifurcating Parenthood (Georgetown), 2-Pronged Fatherhood (Progressive Policythink), Ridiculous Rulings (in Kansas) and Who Rules America (UC sociologist)
Today’s post (extended and updated from yesterdays, which I published in short form) has 4 (FOUR) parts:
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).
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.
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
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Let’s Eliminate OCSE — the Office of Child Support Enforcement — and why.
with 6 comments
No, that’s not a joke. I’m serious.
Or, we could just continue to watch this institution gradually eliminate the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution, in fact the entire concept of individual rights whatsoever, in favor of social(ism) science run amok.
This post also ran amok (as you can see) but the links are valuable.
The OCSE has to go. It’s out of control, and is hurting men, women, and children — generation after generation– while loudly proclaiming it is, instead, helping society, families and kids.
WHAT DO YOU WANT — A SOCIAL SCIENCE SOCIETY, OR LIBERTY?
Obviously, it’s either/or, not Compromise/And. Even the experts know this:
Either we recover the OCSE from its fatherhood-dispensing-propaganda (and fundings) — repeal (or defund) the Access/Visitation grants system entirely. There is no question, whatever its grandiose proclamations, the system is rife with corruption, has failed, and hasn’t even reduced TANF, allegedly the purpose for its existence.
Let alone the dubious ROI for this agency — Can you spell Four Billion?
Yes, +/- Four Billion (federal incentives), courtesy the IRS, to fix families, support children by adding “fatherhood.” which as I point out elsewhere, is one of several “hoodlums” used to justify stealing time and money from honest people and transferring them to dishonest.
$4,000,000,000
I’ve uploaded (hopefully) and linke two PDFs to this post to illustrate the cost and the personnel investing themselves into the system. One is primarily charts the other, primarily rhetoric. Please browse the Dept of HHS/Administration for Children and Families (“ACF”)
(Federal)
PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, including for FY 2012, and historic back to 2002. Its charts speak loudly as well as this paragraph justifying some of the expense:
and paragraphs like this:
**(This program has been known to promote mother ABSENCE from lives of the children after custody-switching enabled through mis-use of program funds in conflicts-of-interest with custody hearings…Despite more and more mothers becoming noncustodial, this program still remains father-centric. )
After I sent this document to Liz Richards, of NAFCJ.net, I got the following response:
(**great example discovered by Richard Fine, resulting in the infamous Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit. This extremely disturbing case over county abuse of privilege in MILLION$$ IN L.A. County CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS ALREADY COLLECTED shows how corruption responds to corruption uncovered — Mr. Fine in jail, an attempt to intimidate him and a warning to others who might think to follow in his footsteps. As far as I can tell, this case was eventually dropped, although eventual Mr. Fine was released from solitary coercive confinement, at age 70!)
(This BUDGET document is found at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CSE.pdf)
AGAIN — what ROI, what overall good really comes out of this department, as reported by anyone who is not in on some of its many scams? She writes: “I believe the whole agency should be shut down and the few vital services they have be transferred to Dept of Treasury.”
I’m so glad she’s come around to my way of thinking, after I read enough rhetoric to gag on justifying the elimination of child support for most kids, and the inability of actual, legitimate abused children and/or spouses (primarily mothers) to EVER get free from abuse, resulting sometimes in their deaths at the hands of a father over a court-ordered visitation and after death threats and molestation had already been identified. Alternately, they can just be impoverished needlessly, and society can be robbed of working parents while these parents instead go to court and suffer more legal abuse and trauma, often for years.
I ALSO UPLOADED a “Reviving Marriage in America: Strategies for Donors” philanthropy roundtable talking about the foundations backing to these movements. File it under “what your social worker and child support advocate, your local domestic violence agency, or local legal aid office, didn’t and won’t tell you — but should have — about who’s really behind the fatherhood movement.“)
Looking at both these documents, I have to ask: how much priming the pump is needed to produce a few good fathers, or get child support enforced? Are these indeed producing good fathers, and if not, who gives a damn? The jet-setting, conference-presenting, politically connected fatherhood program administrators? The family law judges, attorneys, evaluators (basically, all AFCC membership categories) whose nonprofits profit from this arrangement? The funeral homes, who get extra business when some Dad goes haywire after separation? The press, who reports the casualties?
An article from the “Institute for Democracy Studies” (Sept. 2001, VOl. 2, issue 1), lead article by a “Lewis C. Daly” focused on the “Charitable Choice: The Architecture of a Social Policy Revolution” cites the Bradley Foundation’s influence, and provides a flowchart with National Fatherhood Initiative and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives central underneath. They point out the “Heritage Foundation” connection (which I’ve noticed) and that a certain Kay James (directing the US Office of Personnel Management at the time — and as such placing “vast numbers of individuals throughout the White House national security apparatus, government agencies (etc.) ) endorsed the resolution of the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention (regarding wifely submission to husbands) — an endorsement that caused former President Carter to resign from this group in protest of its treatment of women.
“O Say Can You See?” what’s happened to the “land of the free” (or even the concept of the land of the free….)
“OCSE”: CLEAN IT UP OR SHUT IT DOWN:
The more I read about this, the more outraged I get at tax dollars being used for social science rhetoric — most of it a combination of belief, myth, and confusion of results with causes.
{{“obviously” no father in the home dooms a child to academic, professional and financial failure, case in point.}}
He’s now at Columbia, degreed, decorated, publishing and promoting. Note the Foundation Connection throughout ….
This tells me, he may have had input into the Access & Visitation factor of 1996 Welfare Reform. And, he’s as much as stated he has a chip on his shoulder from childhood. However directed at low-income noncustodial fathers this work has become, by targeting the child support system, this re-balancing of “welfare” has been exploited by all levels of fathers (including some multi-millionaires) and has resulted in lots of noncustodial (and some homeless) mothers after processing through this wonderful child support system plus therapy-dispensing family law system. It has pushed social science dispensaries (whether institutes or initiatives) to the top of the administrative heap. The discussion is no longer of individual rights, due process, bias — but of outcomes, of best “practices” and “promising projects.” Such language keeps the research $$ flowing and sets up a subject/object relationship between the researchers and the poor slobs with the actual problems and lives affected the most.
Only through the internet have we become more able to “eavesdrop” in on some of these conversations, and hear the incredible logic behind them, pick on the tone of how policymakers view the nation, of how Federal entitities attempt to set up a trainee/dog relationship with the states (good states get more treats [incentives], bad states will have treats withdrawn…. Clearly in such an environment, the obvious line of work is dog trainer — if one is not of sufficient drive, connections, inspiration, pedigree, (etc.) or luck to be the ones paying the dog trainers.
NEXT QUESTIONS:
HOW MANY FOUNDATIONS DOES IT TAKE
TO ELIMINATE THE US CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS?
Whose idea was it, to switch society’s main institutions from the concept of individual rights (eventually — at least in theory — including minorities & females, in that order) in favor of “social science” (next step — back to eugenics….)?
Whose idea was it to centralize rule under Executive Dept. initiatives (versus the original idea — three branches of government).
Whose idea was it to eliminate the restrictions on sectarian religion on public government?
Well, in my book, this is in great part, a 4-letter word: “B.U.S.H.” (GWB), aka Government by Executive Order.
CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
NOT a good idea for women…..
Let alone this particular President’s (and other right-wing Republicans) curious connection with the Unification Church. Don’t laugh. See my “Shady-shaky Foundations’ post and look at that picture of Sun Myung Moon being crowned in a US Senate building. And rethink all this “Family” and “Marriage” promotion agenda in terms of this known money-laundering, criminal-enterprise cult headed by the world’s “True Parents.” Or read from the Steve Hassan’s “Freedom of Mind” site on Moon/Bush: Ongoing Crime Enterprise (2007 article) :
The “Marriage Promotion” and “Fatherhood” fanaticism definitely has Unification overtones. I first began comprehending this summer 2009, while protesting another round of fatherhood funding at the Senate Appropriations Committee. This was headed up by Rep. Danny K. Davis. Naturally, I looked him up, some, and discovered the Moonie (Unification Church) connection. I told some friends, and now they think I’m nuts for the assumption… When our leaders start crowning kings in Senate Buildings, and don’t apologize for it – which Rep Davis did not — we have to start wondering where their heads are at. (Hover cursor over the “Danny K. Davis” link for the incredible/incriminating details… When our leaders start play-acting coronations and it’s somehow a joke, I think it’s time for someone else to be put on the stand and questioned.
Now that I think of this, several Judges in the SF area were found in a similar charade. Poormagazine.com alerted us to this. Photo is from 2002 AAML (Amer. Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers) gathering, apparently. It was accompanied by a spoof of the tune to “Camelot,” called “Familawt.” Compare to “coronation” photo(s)
The Round Table
Queen Dolores Carr (San Mateo)
Queen Charlotte Woolard (SF)
Queen Marjorie Slabach (SF)
King James Mize (Sacramento) King Gary Ichikawa (Solano)King David Haet (Solano)
Queen Beth Freeman (San Mateo) not pictured
Compare:
I’m not against a little light-hearted fun, but given the state of the family law system (and the increasing god-like attitudes found in the Executive Branch overall, towards the rest of the country), this is more than disturbing — perhaps it represents the true regret of some elected leaders and public “servants” (such as the judges/commissioners) that there is no title of royalty available, at least per our founding documents, in this U.S.A., which got its start protesting such abuses of power from England….
There is also a unification connection to an Arizona legislator, (1998 article on “Parents Day”). Sorry I’m not an Arizona resident following their elections, but here’s a 2007 article:
UNIFICATION CONNECTION:
Given what this particular organization represents, worldwide (criminal enterprises, money laundering, and cult activity), the simple math should tell us: (1) The Office of Faith-based Initiative comes from Bush by Executive Order, not popular mandate (2) Bush & GOP ties close to Moon & Moon’s money. (3) Some faith-based groups are just too danged misogynist, and turn a blind eye to wife-beating and molestation. Some women became single to start with, because they found no way to stop this in their local communities. Moreover, many faith-based (husband = head of the household) groups also encourage men to control the finances, thereby when they separate, actually CAUSING, rather than SOLVING, additions to the welfare role.
The co-founders of the influential National Fatherhood Initiative include the first appointee to this Office, i.e., Don Eberly. The other co-founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative is Wade Horn. Successor (?) Ron Haskins was instrumental in passing the Access/Visitation funding mentioned above. Combined with the powerful influence of foundational wealth, their social-science, religious-based myths rhetoric is distributed nationwide, and also funded unwittingly
Then come back here.
The HERITAGE FOUNDATION (with Unification church ties….) has its FAMILY & RELIGION page, and objectives, including developing a rhetoric. Yep:
THEY SAY:
**Not for young women, and middle-aged women honor-murdered for being too Western, or for divorcing.
**This must be why we have the First Amendment, to enable Congress — naw, let’s just work through other arms of government — to establish a state religion called “marriage and family/fatherhood” etc….. and facilitated by some of the most misogynist groups around, including faith groups that don’t permit ordination of women, require celibacy for their priests, and believe that Eve is responsible for bringing sin into the world, primarily because she acted independently from Adam in talking to someone besides her husband.
Here’s a sample Abstract of a Heritage Foundation report on Marriage as the cure for poverty:
The rationale for pushing fatherhood through the child support system is that these engaged fathers will then contribute child support to the home, which would then help reduce poverty. Seems to me that using kids as child-support bait is not a good idea. Seems to me that anything that requires THIS MUCH POLICY PUSHING (and rhetoric-production) IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE FOR KIDS.
Has anyone considered the custody-battle factor? When Moms go for child support, Dads go for custody and have federal help in this. Perhaps PART of the poverty factor is that both parents are being taken out of the workforce to litigate, but only one of them is getting the federal government on HIS side in the family law venue. Besides which child support contractors such as Maximus, Inc. (look ’em up!) have been caught in embezzlement, fraud (repeatedly, and in the millions) yet still get multi-million-dollar contracts after paying millions to settle. I personally think that until we either make a determination to root out fraud from this system — which would have to be consistent, local, diligent, and probably done by mothers and fathers NOT in think-tanks or on the federal (county, or state) “teat,” — we can safely assume that this is where a good deal of the nation’s wealth and GDP is going. Everyone gets a cut but the actual children….
Look at Maximus, Inc.’s range of services:
Look at one review of this group in TN, and the cases, to date, involving embezzlement & fraud:
Here’s a report from Canada complaining that this giant company has already run into problems in 5 US states:
Bill Berkowitz tracks a lot of conservative funding, and wrote a famous article nailing Bush’s payoffs to certain individuals pushing marriage promotion (Wade Horn, Maggie Gallagher, etc.). This 2001 report Prospecting Among the Poor: Welfare Privatization (co. May, 2001, Applied Research Center) summarizes the situation and deals with the Maximus, Inc. group, first, including its troubling practices in Wisconsin:
2001 Prospecting Among the Poor- Welfare Privatization~ Berkowitz
The bonus principle cited here exists in virtually any custody battle; in court cases easily become the “kickback” principle, opportunities to overcharge or double-bill, and opportunities to “buy” a decision, especially as the family law system is known for wide discretion given to judges.
In the Access and Visitation grants (and the expanding other grant systems they attract or work alongside, through the child support agency, as in Texas), the presence of (poorly-monitored) federal incentives, multiple nonprofit sub-grantees, and program facilitators with connections to the courts, makes an atmosphere ripe for case-steering when the stakes are, children and child support.
So I recommend scanning this report and considering its implications. I’m glad that people like Mr. Berkowitz have reported on events that took place while I, and other families, were struggling with their individual cases, and also to survive in their own households. Excerpts:
Not only has the web changed the workplace, it has most certainly also changed government. However the policies forced on the poorer population are geared to the industrial economy, a 9 to 5 mentality, a public education mentality, a faith-based mentality.
The welfare concept eliminates and discourages single parents from supporting themselves in creative ways (including through this internet). Its assumption that poverty has to do mostly with fatherlessness is nonsensical, and dishonest — when many times it may relate instead to a present, and abusive, father. Failing to distinguish one case from another, and listening primarily to their own rhetoric, social scientists in key positions + political appointees force basic “solutions” on the entire society, and stick society with the bill as well. It is basically taxation without representation.
The only people escaping this taxation without representation are those profiting from it — who run or own nonprofit businesses, have or benefit from private foundations or wealth — or in some other way have learned to maximize profits, reduce expenses, and make their expenses, including conferences on how to keep the systems going, tax deductions.
These people are not uniformly two-parent income, or even stable-marriage families. Heck, some (including Presidents & legislators) are not even faithful to their own wives. So how dare they preach to the rest of us, who are not quite so wealthy, or don’t have backing to get into political office, on our morals and work ethic?
In the “Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs” (links above), on page “271” there is an Appropriations History Table, from 2002 through 2009. Its simple, (two-column) and speaks volumes. The costs range from $2+ billion to $4+ billion, and always with an advance of $1billion or so. ALWAYS the appropriation is higher than budget.
The Philanthropist Roundtable (Reviving Marriage in America, link above) lists these benefits to Marriage. Are you in agreement with all of them? If not, do you want your IRS payments to go towards pushing marriage education, (let alone abstinence education for parents), do you want families EXTORTED into high-stakes custody litigation through the child support system, do you really believe that we should have such foundations running our lives through major institutions?
If not, take some time to read the links I’ve provided here, which prompted this piecemeal protest post. Really these are TAX issues. Perhaps more of us should focus on establishing foundations and stop working W-2 jobs;; there has to be a better way. Anyhow, rich conservative foundations declare:
The Benefits of Marriage
[[potential cause of divorce — wife gets tired of living with a chronic alcoholic. Hence, those who stay married might indeed drink less…]]
[[Exceptions: marriages with abuse, or chronic infidelity. Which definitely is depressing and affects psychological well-being!]]
[[! ! ! How are these people checking out African-American’s “life satisfaction” quotient? Apparently, it’s important not to have too many angry, dissatisfied African-Americans around. After all, the prisons are already overcrowded, and with US already the largest per-capita jailor on earth, what’s a ruling elite to do if the anger spills over?]]
[[So women should marry and stay married to encourage men to work. Single working parents, single nonparents should also contribute to the federal marriage movement, because without marriage, men are simply not as motivated to work. Potential cause — the wife at home is supporting the guy, or the wife at WORK is supporting the guy. What about married mother’s wages or likelihood of promotion? Knowing the high potential for divorce, women should (sure, yeah….) most definitely go for marriage, because it’s good overall for the nation, even if they sacrifice their financial futures post-marriage, ending up eventually on welfare, in court, and fighting for custody of their children with a federally-funded fatherhood mandate run through the child support system?]]
[[I really wonder where this statistic comes from… There are obviously exceptions, some of them in abusive religious marriages, some where, at times, a woman was sought from another country to make some babies for a US resident.]]
[**depending on date of this report, one factor may be this agenda being run through the family law system to start with — as it has been since 1996 at least, which guarantees ongoing court litigation where one parent wants to struggle, and the case was flagged for program funding to help ONE side do this.]
[[see note on married men drink less. Child abuse by either parent is a deal-breaker for most marriages. And, what about also the ongoing situations where the child experiences abuse on visitations with the noncustodial parent — such cases would fall under “not living with their married biological parents” — but who is the perpetrator? If someone is willing to abuse a child initially, whether married or single, would life be better if such parents were together, and the abuser had daily access?? This statements imply doesn’t handle many situations.]]
A token reference to the fact that for some, marriage has problems occurs here, in context of the tail end of an inset about marriage education movement. Notice, no mention is made that some marriages result in death by femicide. This is virtual denial…..
OK, so the Bradley Foundation acknowledges there are churches with thoughts about divorce. But ….
Do we or do we not have other religions in this country? (But none mentioned here?). How about Islam — what about Shari’a? Does marriage promotion apply here also? Because the Muslim and the Christian/Jewish (let alone agnostic/atheist) concepts of marriage are radically different from each other. Should the US move towards the Shari’a model because marriage is “good” for a nation? How could any discussion of this topic among conservative foundations just “forget” other major world religions, let alone that First Amendment is intended to protect religious choice — not push one variety of it on all of us through governmental institutions.!
Nonie Darwish at Temple University (April 2011) — these are Youtubes of a presentation, and a following Q&A. I haven’t viewed them (fresh off a Google search to you), but have read at least one of her books:
Nonie Darwish: Shari’a Law & America at Temple University
Q&A to the above presentation
This is another reason why the US should NOT allow religious groups to be grabbing federal funds to collect child support and promote fatherhood. What if the group favors shari’a law, which goes like this:
This woman should know — and has earned the right to speak on it. The blurb:
What about a woman who has escaped a violent marriage, and may wish to partake, for once, in a better one — but because of the family law system, is doomed to struggling with custody until all kids turn 18? Should she suffer, should the next potential partner suffer alongside, because some people believe that the problem with this country is out-of-wedlock fertility, unhappy AFrican American couples (read the list!) and of course the cause of child abuse and poverty is fatherlessness – not failure to prosecute child abusers properly, or economic policies that exploit wage-earners and outsource child support collections to corporations like Maximus, Inc., famous for fraud, gender discrimination, embezzlement, and poor performance?
We do not need cults (Unification Church), Crooks, or Misogynist Faith Institutions running the child support system as if there was a war on fatherhood by virtue of women having gained some options in the mid to late 1900s, including to vote, and an uphill fight that was.
We do not need another caste system — or royalty — created through welfare policies based on myths, which then undermine the primary documents on which our country has been founded by trying to tip the court favor towards fathers based on a job-based workforce system and inferior educational system.
As Berkowitz wrote in 2001 (above), Welfare Privatization is a cash cow, a big one, and Charitable Choice may fall hard on women overall, given how many religious groups already do. Those in the (expanding) bureaucracy get to inhabit lofty positions writing about the poor while those poor often live lives at risk from their partners, their neighborhoods, and the myth that the legal system exists for them — and not for those running it.
OCSE – TANF – FATHERHOOD PROMOTION, MARRIAGE PROMOTION — PRIVATE CONTRACTORS CAUGHT IN EMBEZZLEMENT AND FRAUD — GOP PRESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL MONEY-LAUNDERING, CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE (the Unification Church) & CULT — and PRIVATE WEALTH (whether honestly or dishonestly gotten) RUNNING AND RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, LOWER (EARLY CHILDHOOD) EDUCATION, AND SO ON.
Let’s begin with this Eliminating this Child Support System — which garnishes wages and has the power to put a man or a woman in jail, or homeless, if they don’t pay up, farms out collections to companies known for gender, race discrimination, fraud, embezzlement, and poor performances (Maximus), selling private information and in general tearing up the lives of innocent people (but still getting multi-illion$ contracts). While its federal fatherhood focus is indeed sexist, it is also equipped to turn on EITHER gender, depending on the case, and get away with it. Which, while the original concept was — child support — the “evolution” of it is becoming more and more like an episode of “Aliens” only more frightening.
Which is just too big and too entrenched.
Sounds like a good idea, on the surface: I briefly took welfare (food stamps) and the county went for the father to pay themselves back. They could be the “bad guy” in the situation, protecting me. But in practice, I see, they’ve had a makeover, and are more interested in being the nice guy (and enrolling men in fatherhood programs, access visitation programs, etc.).
I thought it was a great transitional idea immediately after marriage to have someone besides myself (for a change) asking the father of my children to pull his own weight, like I was, and to do so without in-home assault & battery privileges. We got a child support order when I got welfare help (rather than ask him for help myself). Not having the operational structure laid out in front of me, I thought that my getting OFF the system would be the end of the story, and they could go their way, and I mine, end of acquaintance. What did I know about the federal incentives, or how the interest income — of pooled, undistributed collections — was a real low-hanging fruit for the operation, and by withdrawing
Not so, not with all these grant programs and federal incentives flying around the place; not when within my own state, the same jurisdiction that basically spawned the family law industry was caught with its pants down, sitting on millions of collected child support (and its interest) until one father and one attorney caught them at this (John Silva, Richard Fine).
SO, LET’s ELIMINATE — OR AT LEAST BOYCOTT — THE ENTIRE AGENCY. HELP YOUR NEIGHBORS NOT NEED CHILD SUPPORT. KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IN ADVANCE. WARN MOTHERS LEAVING VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS. AND TELL YOUR LOCAL LEGISLATOR (FIND OUT IN ADVANCE IF HE OR SHE IS ON A “NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE” LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE — MANY ARE…) THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! If a program takes over $4 BILLION just to enforce, and is still resulting in increased welfare loads, is not well-tracked, and has already been caught in repeated scandals — then it’s simply not worth the investment.
Mothers of minor children can only do so much, but one thing we can do is boycott (boycott seeking child support if you can. Or marriage — or sex (believe me, it’s been discussed in some groups I know) — or the family law system. You might get dragged in, but don’t go voluntarily — and publicize — put the warning labels out on blogs — they won’t reach mainstream media — and encourage them to find another way to live; there has to be one.
Decent Single Mothers AND Decent single Fathers AND decent non-parents (single or married) should figure out what we have in common, start asking hard questions about this OCSE agency and how it spends its funds. Meanwhile, we should work TOGETHER (unilaterally) to boycott it until it gets the message we are serious.
Most will not, or cannot, because their lives are already so entwined in and dependent upon this system, whether for work, for their kids’ school, or they are simply already employed by the huge bureaucracy. Or, their free time weekends is soaked up volunteering at the local faith-based organization…
FOUNDATIONS AND WELFARE POLICY:
Foundation after Foundation are writing the policy, through government institutions…. When one considers what foundations are, to start with, tax-exempt, one wonders about the arrangement. The Lynde and Larry Bradley Foundation (who published the “Marriage Guidebook — strategy for donors” I linked to, above) also is sponsoring another welfare think-tank in Wisconsin, with the “same old” players included that re-wrote welfare to include more Dads. Hmm. Wasn’t Wisconsin having LOTS of fiscal/political problems recently?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
May 16, 2011 at 7:43 PM
Posted in Business Enterprise, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids
Tagged with Access-Visitation, Beware, Bill Berkowitz, Boycott, Bradley Foundation, Bush-Moonie connection, Child Molestation, Clean up, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, Due process, DV, fatherhood, Feminists, Hazards of Charitable Choice, Healthy Marriage perks for Healthy Marriage promoters, Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS), Maximus Inc., Michael Hayes, Motherhood, Nonie Darwish, OCSE, OCSE -- boycott? Shut down? Eliminate? Beware!, OFCBI Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, Privatization of Welfare, Ron Haskins, Shari'a law, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Social Science v Rights, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., Wade Horn