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

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

Posts Tagged ‘Wade Horn

HHS — Contracts Awarded 8/30/2012 = $156 million. Just for today, August 30, 2012, that is.

with 2 comments

Our relationship to “government” needs to be looked at.  Particularly, why so many people put up with it and haven’t figured out something better than putting lawyers and judges in charge of the place, as facilitated by a Congress which has plenty of people who used to be lawyers in it, no doubt.


 

A glance at this post should clarify that, by and large, we don’t know what the US Government (I mean, “federal”) is doing — although who’s helping fund it?  Wake the hell up and start looking up some CAFR‘s – -it’s the worlds largest contractor, and there are these other issues about Jurisdiction which keep cropping up also.  You cannot SUE this government, really (11th Amendment) unless it consents to.  while we had this Constitution, it appears to me that under Bankruptcy (which the US has never been out of, to date, to my awareness) it no longer applies.  If it did, and one engaged in commerce with the USA (which it’s almost impossible not to), you just became a contractor (u.S. Citizen = no unalienable rights) and shareholder in that thing in Washington, D.C.

WOMEN IN PARTICULAR should be cautious about citizenship.  A woman in our area called police for help “domestic dispute” which ended up in a vigorous chase, the other day, the guy fled.  They didn’t know an toddler was in the car.  He was killed in a hail of gunfire, after which it was reported that this was actually a woman’s BROTHER, not the perp, and he had been I think helping her get his niece (her child) away from the aggressor.  Now, he’s dead.  Did I mention, he’s also Hispanic? (Wikipedia informal list of people, mostly men, some during domestic disputes, killed by officers.  It’s a very very long list…)

Or you could go to a divorce, and have a judge over the domestic violence court (long-term presiding) and the judge tell your young self, a mother (about 23 yrs old, this one), to “go work it out” and no restraining order.  Finally they were in judge’s chambers, and the judge informed the father (a Marine) he would have to pay child support.  The young man (age 29) stepped outside the door, walked back in again, and cold-cocked the mother of his kids, knocking her unconscious immediately on the floor, some black eyes, a broken jaw.  He was finally tasered into submission, and THEN the judge believed that the guy was dangerous.  That apparently didn’t stop him from assigning shared parenting, though (along with jail and $1million bail).  THAT is our country (and it was in 2011 Florida:  (see comments for links to the story, another blog “AmericanAmnesia

MOVIN’ ON . . . .

I mentioned FEDMINE.com to an acquaintance the other day, and have on the blog before.  Its access is more timely (and probably far more accurate) than what is given the average person who looks things up on some free site which isn’t even proofread, but is designed for public consumption, like, say, “http://TAGGS.hhs.gov

It think this figure is worth posting, without too much commentary.  Per FEDMINE.com, the top agency obtaining contracts today was — hardly surprising — HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

WITHOUT HUMANS THERE WOULD BE NO MONEY TO FUND THESE STUDIES SO WHAT, PRECISELY, ABOUT HUMANS IS SO FASCINATING THAT THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY, ON A GIVEN DAY, WOULD BE DEDICATED TO A BUREAUCRACY STUDYING THEM?

ALSO, SEE HIGHLIGHTS FOR SOME ONES SIGNIFICANT (at least that I’m aware of) in this Family Law Field.

If you see I have linked the company name (other links probably not valid) there may be a brief description if you hover the cursor.

COMPANY NAME POSTED TODAY
08/30/2012
YTD FOR AGENCY
049508120  –  WESTAT INCORPORATED 230,376 9,710,743
019121586  –  DELOITTE CONSULTING L.L.P. 1,593,527 32,298,506
072654999  –  VANTAGE HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES INCORPORATED 511,792 511,792
091500090  –  JOHN SNOW, INCORPORATED (out of all of them, this one actually seems involved in HEALTH.  Founded 1978, internationally 106 offices, see “In Memoriam” link) 626,838 5,654,941
021873740  –  HUMAN TECHNOLOGY, INC 511,792 547,006
009399247  –  UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND 85,082 122,852
623214020  –  CONCEPT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED (3796) -4,941 -8,221
947300372  –  CLIFTON GUNDERSON LLP -102,382 -102,382
152149191  –  MC DONALD WALTER R AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 0 2,789,442
825229318  –  MCKINSEY&COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C.

1920s | 1930s | 1940s | 1950s | 1960s | 1970s | 1980s | 1990s | 2000s
 (check out the firm history/mgmt consulting; 1959 London office, etc.  2nd leader (1st died early) was Harvard MBA…
631,181 9,499,045
154308522  –  MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH INC 364,999 14,398,928
088656512  –  IMPAQ INTERNATIONAL LLC(founded 2001 by a couple with govt background, Social Science Research, in MD. He’s economist,she’s History/Educ, he used to work for “Abt”) 415,623 5,197,316
146014373  –  ARSERVICES, LTD 650,102 650,102
183818145  –  CAPITAL CONSULTING CORP 64,557 961,723
197325277  –  LEWIN GROUP, INC., THE**(link is to someone from this group presenting at a 2007 AFCC conference.  Since 1970, they are Health and Human Services consultant; you can look it up). 630,811 4,396,810
127687093  –  CHILD TRENDS INC 1,011,927 1,686,523
072648579  –  ICF INCORPORATED, L.L.C. {{see below}} 500,000 13,942,449
622811847  –  STRATEGIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. [woman-owned, Omaha, services Medicare & Medicaid] 3,198,739 8,861,059
127149784  –  HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC 1,281,472 3,970,432
929125818  –  C2C SOLUTIONS INC 6,323,200 18,091,004
611835203  –  TEYA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 178,013 894,928
781844808  –  SEAMON CORPORATION 197,200 885,831
143208069  –  FRONTLINE HEALTHCARE WORKERS SAFETY FOUNDATION, LTD 81,697 245,090
803935261  –  PROFESSIONAL TESTING, INC. 363,302 361,395
136201493  –  CONSUMMATE COMPUTER CONSULTANTS SYSTEMS LLC -56,190 0
929219772  –  CONTRACT SUPPORT SOLUTIONS INC. -32,171 164,690
175291061  –  THE KEVRIC COMPANY INC 100,871 2,428,892

(I will kind of color-code by background color.  Obviously I am scanning here; the main point is — how little most of us realize, how large is the US Federal Government.  See recent posts on CAFR and USA, Inc. & Bankruptcies, etc.  If you are not a “scanner” this post will probably drive you crazy…)

Not starting with the largest one in “the Lewin Group,” but it does run close to the subject matter of this blog — the marriage/fatherhood movement through federal funding:

THE LEWIN GROUP

(FROM USASPENDING.GOV — THEY GOT (FROM ABOUT 2000 forward I think on this database):

Ranked by $$, the largest shows up as about $4+million (in 2005), “Marijuana Cultivation Study.”  They seem to have plenty in the $2 and $3 million ranges as well.  Fairfax, VA -close to the source, right).

Total Dollars:
$172,544,874
Transactions: 1 to 25 of 740 (most are contracts,only 1 is a grant.
That’s a lot of money…Also most (677) are HHS).
Their founder, Lawrence Lewin just died this past may (age 74); he was Princeton, Harvard MBA, and Marines..– this obit shows his influence and Medicaid connections; another Washington Post 2009 article ties the group as very influential in Affordable Care, and some possible”dirt” (Scandal) related to the United Healthcare (or someone) that bought it in 2007. As part of Ingenix owned by “UnitedHealth” it is a consulting firm owned by one of the largest insurers around that got in trouble with NY Attorney General and the AMA for shifting costs to consumers with skewed data.  not The Lewin Group, but the group it was part of since it got bought.  Apparently Republicans like it?:
Lewin Group, Insurer-Owned Consulting Firm, Often Cited in Health Reform Debate
By David S. HilzenrathWashington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 23, 2009

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.To Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House Republican whip, it is “the nonpartisan Lewin Group.” To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an “independent research firm.” To Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is “well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country.”Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers.

An Evaluability Assessment of Responsible Fatherhood Programs

August 1997

DHHS, Office of the Assistant Secretaryf or Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)

Analysis of site visits to five newly formed responsible fatherhood programs find a series of steps can be taken to improve their viability and evaluability. Program managers can develop core definitions of what constitutes a responsible fatherhood program; conduct process evaluations to define program objectives, activities and best practices; building basic MIS capacity; and stabilizing and enhancing funding.

(This one combines what looks like an HHS? grant to the Lewin group (97FM0122) with an HHS Contract to . . . . combined with a Ford Foundation Grant headed up by Ronald Mincy, wich name is significant (look it up).  Lewin were simply the enablers and to make it look (or be) more scientific and respectable.  This being only 1997, it shows just how much intention and planning to completely continue expanding “FATHERHOOD” as a field (regardless of results) was made — and this of course depended on major foundations like FORD working with WELFARE money.  FYI, Ford Foundation are not the good guys here in the US …)

This gives me a very squirrely feeling (esp. knowing that by 1998 somehow Congress passed a “fatherhood resolution.”)

But on ca. page 110 of this report (link is the title) you see a list of “Experts Consulted” (Two are from Child Trends, the others are also significant).  Johns Hopkins involved also.  The whole thing makes me a little ill, given the impact of this trend on my life, personally, and my (DAUGHTERS’, not son’s) futures! ! !  I made it pink just for “spite,” given the subject matter is the opposite gender…

***II. Purpose of this Report

The increased interest in programs that promote responsible fatherhood and the limited information currently available on the services provided and effectiveness of these programs has generated interest in the systematic evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs. For this reason, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ford Foundation funded The Lewin Group and Johns Hopkins University to conduct an evaluability assessment of responsible fatherhood programs.

Fatherhood programs and emphasis on male parenting are relatively recent phenomena in the social service sector. Many of the programs currently in place are either very new or, if established, have been experimenting with new interventions or changing the program focus over time to meet the interests and objectives of funders. It is generally the case that fatherhood programs have not adequately documented their performance. This may be because of limited resources, a lack of experience with methods of measuring performance, or simply because the focus of program staff has been on serving fathers rather than proving that methods are effective. While program staff may believe that their activities are helping fathers and resulting in positive impacts on society, others, particularly funders, may be skeptical of evidence of program effectiveness that is limited to anecdotes.

Evaluations of responsible fatherhood programs can serve two important functions:

• provide information to outside agencies and organizations regarding the objectives and the effectiveness of their interventions, which may be used to attract and justify fundingfrom these outside sources; and• provide information to program staff that may be used to modify program design to more efficiently and effectively serve the fathers who use their services.

{{Interesting how “ATTRACT AND JUSTIFY FUNDING” COMES FIRST… AND IT DOESN’T EVEN SAY, HELP THE PROGRAMS REACH THEIR STATED SERVCE, BUT “PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PROGRAM STAFF.”}}

Systematic evaluation of fatherhood program outcomes is crucial to both program design and funding. Conducting rigorous evaluations using standard scientific methods . . .[[will provide continued income for the Lewin Group, the Fatherhood practitioners and organizations, and many other people, not including the children that these program are supposed to help by encouraging and enabling their Daddies to “man up” and support their offspring]]


Some of these groups hang together at times.

 the Lewin Group at a 2007 AFCC conference:42. Healthy Marriage Projects: The Influence of Marriage on Child Support Enforcement

The Administration for Children and Families’ top goal in the last few years has been to encourage marriage for unwed low income families through marriage education, community outreach and demonstrations. This panel will discuss the status of Community Healthy Marriage Projects being financed by the Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Building Strong Families” marriage demonstrations being financed by the Administration of Children and Families and the importance of former marriage status or unmarried status on subsequent child support enforcement out- comes.

  • Barbara Devaney, Ph.D., Mathematica, Washington, D.C.
  • Michael Fishman, Ph.D., Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA
  • Hillard Pouncy, Ph.D., Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
  • Moderator: David Arnaudo, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Washington, D.C.  (a.k.a. HHS/OCSE)

(this presentation for sale — only $15.00)

One reason they may be interested to conference at AFCC — AFCC has judges.  Some Family Law judges get to mandate parenting education, etc.  Dr. Fishman is now with MEF, and his bio shows a close connection to welfare matters, and HHS.  I’m sure the personal connections didn’t hurt either.  He has a masters in “organizational psychology”  which is probably the way to go if you want a government career these days, and an MPA from USC..  Hardly suprising, the new company is also into (among other things) and is in Alexandria, VA.

Marriage and relationship education

State Policies to Promote Marriage
This report inventories state policies directly focused on promoting or supporting marriage. Using secondary data sources, the authors compiled information across states documenting the presence of marriage-related activities in a variety of areas such as campaigns and commissions; divorce laws and procedures; marriage and relationship preparation and education; tax and transfer policies; marriage support and promotion programs.

  • State Policies to Promote Marriage, Karen N. Gardiner, Michael E. Fishman, Plamen Nikolov, Asaph Glosser, and Stephanie Laud. With the assistance of Theodora Ooms, September, 2002

I googled “The Lewin Group, AFCC, Fatherhood” but apparently I’m one of the few people catching on to it, per Google anyhow.  One association with the Abstinence Group, “WAIT” (Joneen Krauth — plenty on that on this blog too, I actually looked up their corporate records history in Colorado.  What a group — associated with NARME, etc.  What a racket, too!):  This showed up under “pipl.”  The site AAHMI is African American Healthy Marriage Initiative which is, by any other name, HHS…  Basically…  DNR if this was at Hampton Univ. or where.

The Lewin Group is pleased to share these materials developed for the Joneen Krauth RN, BSN — NEW. Executive Director of The Abstinence and [ Speakers List – www.aahmi.net ]

Title, logo, and menu

“Reference in this web site to any specific commercial product, process, service, manufacturer, organization, or company does not constitute its endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Government, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). ACF is not responsible for the contents of any “off-site” web page referenced from this server or from private, third-party, pop-up, or browser-integrated software or applications.”

NOTE:  A long while ago, I remember this particular AAHMI and some closely associated nonprofits I was looking up, was one key to understanding just how much the HHS is reaching out with money to set up “mouthpiece” nonprofits or groups (including with key speakers) around the country.  I figure HHS at this point is about as criminally-run a US Dept. as HUD is alleged to be, by someone who knows well enough as she used to be near its top.(C.A. Fitts, late 1980/1990s).

[[2016 updated material from LewinGroup.com]]

Viewed at “lewin.com” 4/11/2016 during blog update

(Their “About Us” page, main content):

The Lewin Group is a premier national health care and human services consulting firm. We understand the industry and provide our clients with high-quality products and insightful support.

Why Choose The Lewin Group?

Proven History

We have nearly 50 years’ experience finding answers and solving problems for leading organizations in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

Objective Viewpoint

The Lewin Group is committed to independence and integrity in our work. We combine professional expertise with extensive knowledge and a rigorous approach to analyzing and solving problems to deliver value to each of our clients and to the larger community as well.

Real-World Experience

Our strategic and analytical services help clients:

  • Improve policy and expand knowledge of health care and human services systems
  • Enact, run, and evaluate programs to enhance delivery and financing of health care and human services
  • Deal with shifts in health care practice, technology, and regulation
  • Optimize performance, quality, coverage, and health outcomes
  • Create strategies for institutions, communities, governments, and people to make health care and human services systems more effective
Who We Are

The Lewin Group employs more than 140 consultants drawn from industry, government, academia, and the health professions. Many are national authorities whose strategies for health and human services system improvements come from their personal experience with imperatives for change. The Lewin Group is an Optum company, a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. We’re editorially independent, but through partnerships with Optum, we can tap into a vast body of data and resources. Optum is an analytics, technology, and consulting services firm that enables better decisions throughout the health system.

The Lewin Group provides its clients with the very best expert and impartial health care and human services policy research and consulting services.

 Learn about our independence
 Meet the leadership team

OTHER 2016 observations on The Lewin Group: Street address:  3130 Fairview Park Drive #500, Falls Church, VA — is right near “Acentia, a Maximus Company” which is same street address #800.  Maximus, we may remember, contractor to manage child support, Medicaid, other health-care related record-keeping, collections & distributions in a number of states (and at least one other country).

(3130 Fairview Dr #800, Falls Church, VA. Viewed 4/11/2016 during blog update)

Acentia, a MAXIMUS Company, is a premier employer who provides software, information technology, and management solutions that produce successful programs of national significance, while consistently demonstrating a partnership of trust and value to our federal customers and the American taxpayer.


[Holistic Data Analytics….]

Centers of Excellence” (options:  Analytics / Cloud / Mobility)

“Acentia offers a holistic approach to Big Data and Analytics. Traditional analytics can tell you what happened and why, but leading organizations are using predictive analytics to understand what could happen and prescriptive analytics to choose the next best action.”

…..


 ICF INTERNATIONAL, LLC

(SEE LINK in chart above; Wikipedia gives the history. Started in 1969 by a former Tuskeegee Airman as inner city venture capital, but it changed direction, bought and sold various companies and now is like, LARGE).

I blogged earlier (ca. 2011)

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
I C F, INC  FAIRFAX VA 22031-6050 FAIRFAX 072648579 $ 2,477,256
Award Title Sum of Actions
2011 ACF I C F, INC NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE $ 1,500,000

(NRCSPHM — what did you think it sood for?  🙂  )

(PJ Media — Dr. Phyllis Chesler writes or wrote on there — was kind enough to print my comments here; the 2nd comment mentions ICF).

I profiled this company before, particularly when TAGGS.hhs.gov decided to bastardize its name on the database.  It’s in Fairfax VA with background in Defense, Energy and in 1988 it acquired a division of Kaiser (engineering) and got REALLY large.  It’s currently #64 of Forbes top 100 companies, is traded on the NYSE, and etc.   HHS hired to to do even more (stuff) to promote marriage, whch is the acronym.  ON this blog somewhere, no doubt:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/Grantawards2011.html

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
VA
$1,500,000
Icf Incorporated, L.L.C. is a general contractor in Fairfax, VA. In the top 10% of 15,898 Northern Virginia contractors.

Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, or is it just Commerce? (Or, I’ve Got Georgia on my Mind)

with 2 comments

What IS it about this State?

Wisdom, Moderation and Justice

Great Seal of the State of Georgiaseems to be the Georgia State motto, which I just looked up,

and unlike other states, is part of the State Seal.  The other side shows:

Great Seal of the State of Georgia

Actually, that’s just an excuse to bring Georgia up — but, however, a visitor from Georgia apparently had my Michael Anthony Nelson post  on his/her/its [if a business] mind today.    Michael Anthony Nelson appears to be a talented con-man who missed his calling, possibly by circumstances of birth, and got caught.  He has nothing on some of the groups I’ve seen running to and fro around the halls of justice, government, and commerce, these days, and in the past few decades.  It’s getting harder and harder to distinguish the commerce from the justice.  But so hard to figure what (or who) is the commodity, and who is buying and selling.

Also, Georgia must produce wisdom, because I learned recently that one of its former? judges from Cobb County, Georgia now sits on the Coordinating Council of one of the top national centralized justice systems in the country. . . Judge Adele Grubbs, of the Superior Court of Cobb County Georgia.  

This council has 18 members:  9 “Ex Officio” members headed up by Attorney General Eric Holder and heads of major US Agencies within the Executive Department, and 9 Practitioner members appointed by:  Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States.  You can imagine what a powerhouse that is, and out of all 50 states and territories, a Superior Court Judge from Georgia was one of three personally chosen by the CEO of the United States of America.

This gets interesting to me, because on a recent radio show called “abusefreedom.com” listeners heard the story of (yet another) divorce/custody case where the mother was jailed for, it seems, 18 months based on something relating to bankruptcy sale of the house.  Within the first month of being jailed without cause (and obviously without a warrant, so how to defend from nonextant charges?) she obviously lost her job, and (as I recall) obviously custody, although it appears that the charges related to what happened to the family home AFTER it had been removed from both parents’ control. Perhaps check out:  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/abusefreedomlive.

Maternal Nightmares in Georgia (I have heard of three cases personally so far; two court veterans who don’t feel safe from their ex in the state (after custody actions) and the other mother who did jail time.  At least one of these was in Cobb County.   I can’t give details because cases are still open.

PARENTING COORDINATION CORPORATIONs less than COORDINATED (in Georgia):

I already knew about Georgia that the entirely obnoxious (to mothers at least) field of parenting coordination (training) — run by the AFCC crowd, and coaching court professionals how to get paid to remove children from biological mothers based on alienation  — which I ran a four-post series on — has two major “practitioners” one of who was from Georgia, and I’d heard horror stories from this one as well.  The pair Susan Boyan and Anne Marie Termini are now practicing elsewhere I guess, and I sort of gave up on finding out where (in which state) they are legally incorporated:

(These two women are not the largest fish in the pond, or the biggest blip on my radar, but a persistently annoying one, in what it represents, and the principles that are being broken.  As with Oklahoma Marriage Initiative & how the Bush appointee/FRC man functions, Jeffrey Reiger (last post, bottom) I’ll figure it out one of these days.)

Parenting Coordination Training

                 The FIRST and ONLY Comprehensive Parenting Coordination Training Program!

The Cooperative Parenting Institute (CPI) – – – –

WHO?  See below these paragraphs….

is an internationally recognized leader providing high quality parenting coordination training programs.  Since 1997, the CPI has dominated the field of parenting coordination by creating the only comprehensive step-by-step PC training model. The Institute offers 20-24-26 hour parenting coordination/facilitation training opportunities each year.  A 12-hour advanced training is available for the experienced parenting coordinator. The training programs meet the requirements established by state statutes.  In addition, the presenters are available for custom designed training in your local area.

Susan Boyan, LMFT and Ann Marie Termini, LPC are recognized leaders and innovative trainers.  {{and modest, too!}} As skilled parenting coordinators, since the early 1990’s, Ann Marie and Susan have facilitated many complex and highly conflictual divorce cases  {{With what results?  Highly conflictual [is that even a word?] = Probably many including domestic violence and/or child abuse, probably some with some serious money on one or both sides, too}}  They have drawn on their extensive experience, research and interactive approach to prepare professionals for the challenging {{But financially and very emotionally rewarding if you are into power over others}} role of a parenting coordinator {{a field created by AFCC for their non-judge members’ benefit, fought for in legislatures by their lobbying groups, etc.}}

(Also from the site:)

STANDARDS OF PRACTICE:  The first parenting coordination standards were written in 2003* by the Cooperative Parenting Institute as part of their training model for parenting coordination. The AFCC recognized the importance of developing their own guidelines and did so with the assistance of parenting coordinators in 2005. For more information on the AFCC standards visit http://www.afccnet.org.

(Georgia Corporations Search records:)

COOPERATIVE PARENTING INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 08010511 Non-Profit Corporation *Formed 2/6/2008, Admin. Dissolved 9/26/2010

Georgia Corporations search by “officer name” on “Boyan” shows these:
Susan Boyan BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
SUSAN BOYAN BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
  NATIONAL PARENT COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION, INC.

The “National Parent Coordinators Association, Inc.” was formed in Feb. 2002 and Admin. Dissolved in May 2008, with officers Boyan & Termini (you can look yourself at Georgia’s Secretary of State site which (unlike California’s) at least allows a search by Officer or Registered agent, too.  They are doing this business in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas and have in Illinois, and apparently churning out people (on a referral list) with the label “LPC” behind them — yet, where is a single 990 tax return (if nonprofit, an EIN#) or if not a nonprofit but some sort of corporation or LLC, or LLP — in which state?  Notice the training fees.

If CPI or ParentCoordination Central is a registered name owned by a different company, which one? Reader Comment invited. They “dominated the field of parenting coordination” since 1997, which had no standards of practice til 2003?  Those standards were allegedly written up by a corporation which didn’t exist at the time.  The National Association was functional in 2008, and (like CPI) dissolved probably for not filing.  And people trained by them are paid to control the futures of kids??   But never mind – -not today’s main points.

 

 

1. The OFFICE:  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Serving Children, Families, and Communities

Serving Children, Families and Communities” — isn’t that what the local, county & state courts are already supposed to be doing, plus our legislators, governors, and county commissioners, etc.?  The motto sounds like something out of a healthy marriage grantee  playbook:

Mission:  The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. OJJDP supports states and communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families.

AMBER Alert | National Sex Offender Public Web Site

(sounds like diversionary type programs — prevent & intervene, yet hold offenders accountable, provide treatment and rehabilitative services).

LEGISLATION:  Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act (Pub. L. No. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.) in 1974This landmark legislation established OJJDP to support local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system.    {{Why were local and state efforts failing or in need of support?}}  On November 2, 2002, Congress reauthorized the JJDP Act. The reauthorization (the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758) supports OJJDP’s established mission while introducing important changes that streamline the Office’s operations and bring a sharper focus to its role. The provisions of the reauthorization took effect in FY 2004 (October 2003).

Not to the topic of my post except to note that the reauthorization happened during the administration of Pres. George W. Bush and a year after 9/11.

2.  The Coordinating Council of this Office:  “CJJDP”

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

The Coordinating Council—an independent body within the executive branch of the federal government—coordinates all federal programs and activities related to juvenile delinquency prevention, the care or detention of unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited children. It has a number of other mandated responsibilities and also engages in activities such as building collaborations and disseminating information. Part of the Council’s mandate is to make annual recommendations to Congress regarding juvenile justice policies, objectives, and priorities. To help shape these recommendations, the Council holds quarterly meetings open to the public that provide a forum for the exchange of information, ideas, and research findings.

The Council has nine members representing federal agencies and nine practitioner members representing disciplines that focus on youth. The Attorney General serves as chairperson and the Administrator of OJJDP as vice chairperson. For additional information, visit the Coordinating Council’s Web site.

When I hear the word “practitioner” coming from an official source any more, I just about shudder.  Is a judge a “practitioner? now?  Anyhow, here are the 3 CJJDP members

Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives

Adele L. Grubbs 
Judge
Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia

Pamela F. Rodriguez
President
TASC, Inc. (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities)

Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Associate Justice
Massachusetts Trial Court

It turns out Judge Grubbs is British and has a British law degree!  This is about half her bio, and if I had a custody case in Georgia, I’d look up every single one of these organizations:

The Honorable Adele Grubbs began serving as a Superior Court Judge for Cobb County in January 2001.

Coinciding with the inauguration of President George Bush and his signing of the first two executive orders, inviting in the Faith Based Orgs.

Prior to her election to the Superior court Judge Grubbs served as Judge of the Juvenile Court of Cobb County for 5 years. She handled delinquent and troubled juveniles, heard custody cases, and assisted the Superior Court of Cobb County. She presided over criminal and civil jury trials, including domestic, family violence, and custody cases; divorces; and civil and criminal motions. She was previously copartner in a private law practice for 26 years and served as Assistant District Attorney of Cobb County. Judge Grubbs was elected to the Board of Governors for the State Bar of Georgia, where she has served for 11 years on the Consumer Assistance Program, Children and the Courts, and Child Support Committees.

… continued:

She is past president and current trustee of the Cobb Bar Association and past president of the Cobb Division of the Georgia Association of Women Lawyers. Judge Grubbs has served as a volunteer juvenile probation officer and as an attorney for the Fraternal Order of Police. She helped establish the Guardian Ad Litem Program in Cobb County. Judge Grubbs lectures at the State Family Seminar, the Indigent Defense Seminar, and the Cobb County Guardian Ad Litem Seminar. She is founder of the Cobb Justice Foundation, in which more than 100 lawyers offer legal aid to residents of Cobb County. She has served on the boards of Cobb Children’s Centers, Inc. the Marietta High School Foundation; and the American Heart Association. She received the 1997 Cobb County Woman of Achievement award. A native of England, Judge Grubbs holds a British law degree, L.L.B. from the University of Manchester, England.

I would get — definitely — a printout from the county of payroll, statement of conflict of interest (with so many corporations and boards she’s on involved), and as a matter of fact, across the nations, GALs, though I can see the need, have been problematic for women attempting to leave abuse.  Just a minor reminder — Georgia is Bible Belt, it still has issues with racism, and no doubt sexism.  Moreover, I would like to know when this judge began to reside in Georgia, or the US — just for a little reminder, the USA was originally colonized by Great Britain and there remain certain constitutional differences, like the Bill of Rights.

Cobb Children’s Centers, Inc.  (I cannot find this name in the Corporations Search)

I looked up these three also:

Appointed by the President of the United States

Laurie Garduque –
Director, Juvenile Justice
MacArthur Foundation

Byron Johnson
Professor
Baylor University – a Texas Baptist University.

Trina Thompson
Presiding Judge
Juvenile Justice Center

GEORGIA & BRUCE & NANCY SCHAEFER:

The commodity is human lives (and the real estate and assets formerly attached to them), particularly children.  The commodity is in talk which pries loose kids from parents for a fee, which former (late) Senator Nancy Schaefer was dilligently addressing shortly before she became a murder victim.  Allegedly (I don’t believe it for a moment, and am not alone in this) of her husband.

Her report, from “fightcps.com”

Report of Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer on CPS Corruption  (posted Feb. 2008)

Links to similar reports & discussions

From Wikipedia on “Nancy Schaefer

She had also sought to wrest the Republican nomination forGeorgia’s 10th congressional district from Paul Broun in 2008, but withdrew her candidacy before the primary election.[7] Throughout her career as an activist and politician, she was a champion of Christian conservative causes, opposing abortion and gay rights and promoting the display of the Ten Commandments in public places.[3][2] Upon her death, fellow State Senator Ralph Hudgens eulogized her as “almost like a rock star of the Christian right”.[7] She was a senior official in the Baptist church, having served as a First Vice President of the Georgia Baptist Convention.[3]

Schaefer died at her home near Turnerville in Habersham County on 26 March 2010 with her husband of 52 years, Bruce Schaefer. Police concluded the deaths to have been a murder–suicide perpetrated by her husband.[8][9][2]

Not everyone buys the “murder-suicide” (which brings into question, should we buy others that show up so much?).  She had been exposing the federal incentives to the states to traffick in separating children from their parents.

The Strange Death of Nancy Schaefer (2 items), from which:

I feel led to make an exception and bring to your attention another non partisan subject: The high profile investigation that has been initiated into Friday’s death of a former Georgia state senator.

Garland

Saturday March 27, 2010

On Friday, former Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband were found dead in their home in Habersham County. Even before a GBI investigation could be initiated, media outlets began pronouncing that their death was a “murder-suicide” and shut off most public comment posting on their web sites. The “murder suicide” theory implies that Sen. Schaefer’s husband shot her and then killed himself (or vice versa). Both Habersham County and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation began investigating the case as a “murder suicide” rather than the more obvious murder made to look like suicide”. Like so many people, I have known former Sen. Nancy Schaefer for 15 years and spoken to several people who know her better than I do. They believe that the “murder suicide” theory is highly unlikely for any one of the following reasons:

I never knew this woman, nor heard any of her short, concise videos (I hope still available) on the child trafficking through DCFS topics.  Yet mothers from around the country — and yes, fathers — know that there is indeed a going business in children for sale — and more, or less, literally, depending on the circumstances, and yes, absolutely — by virtue of the courts and judicial systems as we know them.  As bribery, extortion and slavery often go together (and require a similar mentality, a “user” mentality), this is one reason I am so hot under the collar about FINANCIAL improprieties as evidence and tracks often (not always, but often) pointing to serious human rights abuses.  I mean, do people abuse others just for fun, or is there usually some profit in it?

So, now there is a one-year follow up on this death, and I believe we (meaning WE — you here?  You can tolerate my writing?  then check this out, whether you are a perp, participant, or protester) should look at it, and think about this — it was a U.S. Senator.    There have been Presidents assassinated and shot at; we have also had – this past year — another (female) Senator shot and seriously wounded.  These are not all by crackpots loners.  What was the reason for them?

This 15 minute YouTube (I haven’t watched it, but saw the first frames) and another apparently respond to “Nancy Schaefer High-Level CPS Crimes Investigation,” and are the context for what’s below:

From “POLITICAL VINE – Insider Politics in Georgia.  A dose of political caffeine   with no sugar added” (I like the banner)

One Year Follow-up on the Death of Senator Nancy Shaefer & Bruce Shaefer

by PV

Introduction

It has been one year and one day since Former State Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband Bruce were found shot to death in their Habersham County home. Now, Garland Favorito has written a report that follows-up the investigation by the GBI into the claimed “murder-suicide” causation of the Schaefers’ deaths.

NOTE: Normally, Garland Favorito covers issues of voting machines and elections in Georgia through his 501-c-3 organization called VoterGA. However, in this case, Garland knew Senator Schaefer personally. And, as he did last year, he has put together a report laying-out the GBI investigation (or, perhaps, lack thereof) into the deaths of the Shaefers.


Release Date: March 26, 2011

SCHAEFERS KILLED WITH MYSTERIOUS GUN, GBI DESTROYS EVIDENCE, CLOSES “SUICIDE” CASE

THE GBI INVESTIGATION

It has been exactly a year since former Georgia State Senator, Nancy Schaefer, and her husband Bruce, were found shot to death in their bedroom. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) completed its work in December and recently made the case file summary available under Georgia Open Records Request laws.   The conclusion was based primarily on extensive suicide notes that contained specific instructions to the family and could have only been produced by Bruce or someone with first-hand knowledge of the family. There were also no visible signs of forced entry. The hand printed notes that were found in the bedroom indicated that financial problems were a motive…

THE MURDER WEAPON

The findings in the case file would be highly convincing except for one major problem never before reported. The Schaefers were not killed with the small caliber gun that the family knew they owned. They were killed with a higher caliber, untraceable weapon that no family member had ever seen before. The weapon was originally shipped to a dealer in a remote part of southern Florida in 1982 and the ownership records have since been destroyed, possibly as a result of a natural disaster. The case file was unable to establish how the Schaefers, who lived in Georgia during the 1980s, acquired the murder weapon . . .

HE AUTOPSY REPORT

The GBI autopsy report found that the wounds of Bruce Schaefer were consistent with a suicide finding but the report was unable to rule out the possibility that he was murdered. The autopsy report and initial investigative case summary did not find any difference in the times of death for the couple. They imply that that the times of death were the same, which is a virtual impossibility. The notes show that Bruce wrote them after shooting Nancy and it would have taken hours for him to write and assemble the material for the notes before he shot himself.

THE SUICIDE NOTES

The final investigative summary cites the extensive, detailed suicide notes found at the scene as the most overwhelming evidence of suicide. But the case file shows that the GBI performed no handwriting analysis to authenticate those printed notes as originating from Bruce Schaefer. The multi-page, extensive suicide notes are also strange in the sense that there is no mention of the 13 grandchildren who Bruce loved so much.

THE ALLEGED FINANCIAL MOTIVE

The suicide notes contain a foreclosure letter and precise details for settlements involving over $25K of credit card debt, but they provide little or no information on the Schaefers’ assets and income. Although containing many other instructions there are no instructions on how to liquidate any retirement accounts, stock investments or uncollateralized property that the Schaefers owned. Only a couple of insurance policies are present but it is unclear what value, if any, that they would have in a murder-suicide. The Schaefers already had put their house on the market and showed virtually no concern about any pending foreclosure right up until the night before their death. They still had roughly $100,000 of equity in the home even after reducing the sale price. They were advised by one of their sons, who is in the real estate business, that it was unlikely they would lose the house.

In other words, the “financial motive” was on shaky ground.  Perhaps someone is projecting their own motive onto the Schaefers and hoping it would stick.  I wonder who owns their house now. (It could be looked up).

This is going to relate more to my post, below (i.e., assets transfer in Georgia circles)

THE VIDEO

Most Georgians are unaware that the metro Atlanta area has been nationally ranked as the largest center in the country for child sex trafficking. Most are also unaware that Sen. Schaefer was a national leader in the fight against related child abuse and perversion in government run, Child Protective Services (CPS). The GBI was repeatedly informed that Nancy was wrapping up a video documentary, a possible book and other supporting references on the subject. She told friends that this work would expose corruption in Georgia’s Department of Family and Child Services (DFACS) and that several high profile, powerful Georgia politicians would be implicated. These people would have the means and incentive to prevent her work from being produced. While the GBI documented case inquiries from the general public there is no documentation of the inquiries received from government officials.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, any Bureau of Investigation.  Moral? Think — and get your information into other (unknown if possible) hands before you talk.

The GBI collected little information about the work that Nancy Schaefer had done. They interviewed only one person who was involved in helping to produce the video documentary. They did not obtain a copy of the video or interview its producer, William Fain. They also did not attempt to retrieve the documentary from the producer even though the Schaefers had arranged funding for the video and the producer was not necessarily entitled to ownership rights.

THE THREATS

The GBI was aware that Mrs. Schaefer had received threats and warnings as a result of her work. She had already begun taking security precautions. The information she collected was believed to be so sensitive that she could be targeted for professional assassination. Close friends still fear that someone befriended her and committed the crime. The GBI investigation did little to rule out that possibility.

A former federal investigator I contacted told me that a double killing with an untraceable gun should have automatically triggered a normal murder investigation that would have considered all possible scenarios. But, In spite of the threats, Mrs. Schaefer’s high profile work and the mysterious gun, the GBI made an immediate initial conclusion that the couple committed a murder-suicide. . . .

DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

During the time from June to December of 2010 individuals, including myself, filed open records requests for reports but the requests were denied because the case was still open. When Special Agent Whidby wrote the Final Investigative Summary in December of 2010, t he GBI had destroyed all items that were seized or created at autopsy. They then completed closing the case in February of 2011 and made the file available.

Garland then lists 13 unanswered questions, and I’ll end with #13 and thank him for some fine work. As I say, we know that the family law system – not just the CPS — also separates children from one — or sometimes eventually both — children, and that the system which then would support them — namely the child support one — has a reputation now for huge “black holes” of expenditures and increasingly expansive (and evolving year by year) “diversionary” programs, which aren’t monitored properly.  Thank you sir (I assume it’s a he) for the work, and know that one mother I spoke with (one of those who had to pay to see her sons) called me in alarm originally at the news and wanted a nationwide day of recognition from our blogging circles; i.e., women whose children have been given to their former batterers or the children’s molesters, and are still fighting in the courts to stay housed, fed and in contact with those kids.  I would not often go all out for someone of such conservative (let alone Baptist) persuasion (see blog), but this couple seems to have been the genuine article.  I hope people read this site often and think about what their own priorities are — entertainment, or stopping child trafficking with their own taxes they provide the IRS to distribute to the states (etc.).  I wouldn’t have posted this much (today), but am moved by it, which a proper investigation or report will often do.

13. Why would the GBI be unwilling to properly investigate and rule out the possibility of a professional assassination given the circumstances and high profile nature of the case?

CONCLUSION

GBI spokesperson, John Bankhead, initially promised Fox 5 News “there will be a thorough investigation” given the high profile circumstances of the case. That thoroughness obviously never materialized. The Final Investigative Summary contains only one paragraph to summarize the findings of murder-suicide, relying on the suicide notes for that conclusion. There is no rationale in the summary to explain how the conclusion was reached, what other scenarios were considered or how other scenarios were ruled out. While the GBI may have come to the correct conclusion, the only thing consistent with a “thorough investigation” seems to be the amount of time that the case was left open.

The limited investigative scope is appalling considering the high profile circumstances surrounding the Schaefers’ deaths. Case file evidence mentioned in this report illustrates that the GBI was unwilling to investigate the case to the point where they could rule out professional assassination. They also destroyed all items seized or created at autopsy so now their actions can never be reviewed or questioned. Their conduct raises a legitimate question as to whether or not they could have been compromised or manipulated by officials implicated in former Nancy Schaefer’s documentary and materials. Their investigation may even become more questionable than the killings themselves.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED

Garland Favorito
404 664-4044

REFERENCES

Regardless of how the couple may have died, former Senator Nancy Schaefer lived the last couple of years of her life dedicated to helping children and families who were victimized by the very government agencies that were supposed to be helping them.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GEORGIA & THE PHOEBE FACTOIDS

Georgia is where the Phoebe Factoids came from — and the publication of which was used to set up two men who were exposing the corruption in “Nonprofit” hospitals which had huge offshore profits  –and overcharged uninsured customers.  I blogged this (“The Profit in Nonprofits, and 2 Men in Georgia“) , as my understanding of the word “nonprofit” and “set-up” increased in depth.   Actually — this case  just recently hit the Supreme Court:

Phoebe Factoid Suit Argued in Highest Court

(by By Jennifer Emert – bio | email posted 10/31/2011, updated 11/04)

[[a video shows here ]]

WASHINGTON, D. C. –

The U. S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Today in an Albany case that could decide whether government officials are entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits if they knowingly provide false testimony to a grand jury.

Charles Rehberg was charged with assault, burglary, and harassment for sending anonymous faxes known as Phoebe Factoids that criticized how Phoebe Putney Hospital conducted business.

Then District Attorney Ken Hodges and Chief Investigator James Paulk subpoenaed phone records to figure out who sent the faxes.  Rehberg filed suit saying they violated his constitutional rights and accusing Paulk of lying to the grand jury.

The suit against Hodges was tossed out, but the suit against Paulk is going before the nation’s highest court.

(It is offensive for any one to provide false testimony to a grand jury, but particularly offensive if a District Attorney does, as they are to prosecute criminal behavior, not engage in it!)

To bring a false indictment, people kind of think well that’s not that big of a deal, but I can assure you it’s a big deal. It costs a lot of money to defend criminal cases and we don’t have insurance for that kind of thing and in my case I spent a lot of money putting those charges aside and proving them to be false as did Rehberg, so bringing an indictment has consequences for the defendant,”  said Palmyra Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato.

Copyright 2011 WALB.  All rights reserved.  {{NOTE:  My understanding is, this is Fair use, see below link}}

These appear to me to be two VERY brave men, and honest ones — and we need to have a culture and legal climate that supports, not attacks, this.  Clearly, we don’t.

GEORGIA LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.  REMIND ME TO VISIT SOMEDAY:

 
  1.  – Report images

GEORGIA AND ITS FATHERHOOD PROGRAM:

It was created as a division with the DCSS in 1997:

(from “Redwardslaw.com“)

In 1997, the Division created its Fatherhood program to further that mission. Through this initiative, parents unable to meet their court-ordered child support obligations are provided with employment assistance.

The largest state-run program of its type in the nation, the Georgia’s Fatherhood Program has served more than 15,000 non-custodial parents {{yet, it’s called a FATHERhood program}} in the past decade. It takes three to six months to complete the program; it helps parents {{fathers, principally}} receive vocational training, obtain General Education Diplomas (GEDs), and acquire full-time employment.

The Georgia initiative is similar to other programs in sister states. District of Columbia and Rhode Island programs work with non-custodial parents, mainly fathers, to obtain job training and placement. In Alabama’s incarnation of the Fatherhood Initiative, parents are provided counseling, education and training, as well as employment opportunities.

Child support obligations can create frustration and stress for unemployed non-custodial parents. However, many states, like Georgia, have found a way to help. Initiatives like the Fatherhood Program do more than save taxpayer dollars: they help break the cycle of poverty that threatens our nation’s children.

(sure … towards end of post we look at a state auditor of another fatherhood program)

From “Fatherhood.Georgia.gov” you can get a fine description:

Where fatherhood program customers come from:  under threat of, or having been, jailed for failure to be able to pay child support:

From a Cobb County Divorce firm, “Marsh & Wolfe” posted Sept. 2011:   Georgia Fatherhood Programs Suffering Due to Budget Constraints:

A prominent Georgia-based fatherhood program will be discontinued after 15 years of operation due to decreased funding from the Department of Labor. The program was meant to help fathers obtain an education, a job and success in their career. It was originally implemented to help fathers who were delinquent on child support payments or had lost visitation rights, but the program eventually opened registration to mothers as well.

This is the eleventh such closure of a fatherhood program in Georgia due to decreased funding, including one at Chattahoochee Technical College in Marietta.

The public side:

Resources

The following links contain interesting and informative materials which are related to the efforts of the Georgia Fatherhood Program:

Child Support Enforcement
The mission of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) is to reduce the public and private burden of raising financially abandoned children to adulthood. Its goals is accomplished through the location of absent parents, the establishment of paternity, the establishment and enforcement of support obligations, and the distribution of payments. In collaboration with the Department of Technical and Adult Education, Special Services Division, CSE began the Georgia Fatherhood Program to enhance the recovery of child support from non-custodial parents by offering education and skills training to the parents.

Recent modifications to Child Support in Georgia show complex formulas, which basically show that yes — children are a commodity and a parent’s time with his/her own offspring post-separation is a marketable timeshare, pro rata (shared income model).  Then again, whatever the court says is in the best interests of the child.  Or any other number of formulas which the court may — or may not — choose to apply.

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership
NPCL is a nonprofit organization created for charitable and educational purposes. The mission of NPCL is to improve the governance and administration of nonprofit organizations and strengthen community leadership through family empowerment. It assists community-based organizations in better serving young, low-income single fathers and fragile families.

Sounds nice.  The President of this Washington, D.C. nonprofit, Jeffrey M. Johnson, runs “Master Trainer Institutes” on fatherhood; such licensed trainings for proprietary curricula are all over the field.    I’m getting tired of this — fatherhood is an ideology.  Run these classes as a for-profit, and don’t engage people who prey on captive (sometimes, in the case of prisons) audiences, literally.    Make’em pay taxes!

 He is regularly invited to testify before the United States Congress on matters pertaining to low-income fathers and strengthening families. He played a principal role in passage of the first national fatherhood legislation in Congress, The Fathers Count Bill Dr. Johnson is also the author of several publications including Fatherhood Development: A Curriculum for Young Fathers.

For thirteen years Dr. Johnson was an adjunct professor of Educational Administration and Leadership at Trinity University (formerly Trinity College) in Washington, D.C.

He is also the 1999 and 2003 recipient of the President’s Award by The National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families. This award annually recognizes outstanding leadership in the promotion of responsible fatherhood.  Dr. Johnson is a member of The Peoples Community Baptist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland where he serves as President of the Men’s Fellowship Ministry.

This man is off the deep end — there are woman in urban neighborhoods too.  His trained trainers branch out to other states with this cult and run “Train the Trainer” things, according to doctrine.  Here’s one in Ohio — which has its own Fatherhood Commission, and its Office of Faith-Based BS as well, which began with a bang — by squandering grants money, after steering it to a Bush-associated organization “WeCare” (out of state), and as SLIGHTLY rescued in reputation by a glowing report from Byron Johnson — who turns out to be on the CJJDP (above).

Ohio recently had a horrible scandal in a supervised visitation facility at Trumbull County.  A woman whose child had already been removed into foster care AT BIRTH — and was killed by blunt force trauma and asphyxiation, by a foster mother before age 2, then was with the father of a (now 13-month old little girl) engaging in “supervised visitation” inside a public — state/county-funded facility (check details) — after having taken parenting classes for the privilege! — and used this access to the little girl to sexually assault her (including penetration), captured it on a CELL PHONE, and a relative that noticed this (no official did!) — on reporting it, lost HER 2 year old son also to the state.  Parents were naturally shocked and outrage, and I was in phone contact with some of these (as I have been watching Ohio recently, meaning, on-line).  They attempted to visit a meeting where a discussion of this (outrage) was being held — it was a public meeting, or should’ve been.  They were turned away at the door!   The group was going to self-investigate, and eventually the executive director of this outfit (Trumbull County Children’s Services, or something similar) rather than getting a reproof — got a promotion!  (Nick Kerosky).  The FCFC model which it is part of comes under “Fatherhood” commission — emphasizes “flexible funding” to get around some of the restrictive rules, and this particular facility — which got a new building shortly after the nonprofit running it? was formed — was funded:  Get this!    about 50% by a statewide “Children’s Levy” — and about 22% Federal.

In other words, the citizens of this state, and others, are participating financially (whether knowingly or willingly is another matter) in setting up situations to torture young children, sometimes have them killed, and most of the time, remove them from their biological mothers.  I don’t know what I would’ve done as a mother, if after labor someone took my child.  Who would that NOT drive insane?  The media has been notably silent on WHY these children were removed.   . . .  There’s more.  I actually looked at the mother and father’s criminal dockets in the case (not that they didn’t deserve to be in jail a long time for such crimes — and they’re in their 20s) . . . and the father had a pro-active attorney (who is paid per action, apparently) and the mothers action docket was blank.  Even in public defense, there is a gender gap.  The father, moreover, had been a juvenile sex offender.

This is the outfit, and you can look up the rest yourself:  Look at the PR piece, from the Executive Director Nick Kerosky (photo of white male):

October 31, 2010 marked the end of an era here at Trumbull County Children Services. On that day Marcia Tiger retired after 34 years with our agency and I assumed the reins as Executive Director. I have big shoes to fill certainly and change in leadership can be challenging, but change can also be energizing. It brings new ideas, a fresh perspective and opportunities for growth.

At the same time, there is change in Columbus. We have a new Governor who has made it very clear that he wants to reduce an $8 Billion budget deficit. In order to accomplish that, we know there will be major cuts in state funding. These will certainly impact all state funded agencies and the families we serve, but, there is also opportunity.

We have a great spirit of community here in Trumbull County. Our community is like a sturdy oak tree providing protection to our families and children. Children Services anchors strong roots of hard- working people and diverse traditions here. The leaves of our tree are the many community partners who we work with and who help care for our families. Our long, healthy branches are collaboration and teamwork. Compassion, energy and enthusiasm nourish our roots.

Actually, public monies do.  Lots of them.

My vision for child protection in Trumbull County is community-based, family-centered and prevention- focused. We provide quality services with compassion. We are accountable to ourselves and our community, as well as the state.

The actual story, in part:

CSB File: No reprimand given to manager after abuse cases

October 22, 2011
By ADAM FERRISE – reporter

WARREN – A department head at Trumbull County Children Services who oversaw the cases in which one child was killed by her foster parent and another child allegedly raped during a supervised visit inside the agency’s building by a known sex offender was never officially reprimanded by superiors, according to a review of her personnel file obtained by the Tribune Chronicle.

Marilyn Pape, a department manager at CSB, who answers directly to the agency’s executive director, had been promoted to a newly created position that oversaw foster care placement about a year before 21-month old Tiffany Sue Banks was killed by her foster mother that CSB placed her with.

Two calls and a message left seeking comment from Pape were not returned. Marcia Tiger, the former CSB executive director, who promoted Pape and gave her glowing performance evaluations, said she would not comment because Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins advised current CSB Director Nick Kerosky not to speak to reporters.

Kerosky defended Pape’s employment history Friday, pointing out the excellent performance evaluations done by his predecessor.

Pape works directly under Kerosky and oversees several CSB functions. She earns more than $77,000 a year plus fringe benefits. {{bringing it up to $129K, the article adds later)

”She’s been an employee here for 26 years and has received nothing but glowing recommendations,” Kerosky said.

Kerosky also responded Friday to Watkins’ call for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation to determine whether any employee was criminally negligent when two relatives recorded themselves performing sexual acts on a 13-month-old girl in CSB’s care inside the agency in mid-July. Watkins made the recommendation after attorney David Engler, representing a relative of the two children who were related to one another, called for Watkins to ask for an independent criminal investigation.

Two relatives, Cody Beemer, 22, 332 Austin Ave. S.E., and Felicia Banks Beemer, 21, were charged with rape and a slew of other charges. Both pleaded not guilty to charges and are being held in the Trumbull County Jail. They were also charged with allegedly making a similar recording of them performing sexual acts on a different 18-month-old male relative. That boy was not in CSB’s care, but after police found the evidence of the video, CSB took custody of him.

…NOTICE:   “Beemer, according to court records, was serving probation after he pleaded guilty to assaulting Banks Beemer in March.

See notice for upcoming CSB meeting if you are a local resident:

Next Public Children Service Board (CSB) Meeting in Trumbull County, Warren, OH is Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm – Dear Citizens,

Please keep your eye open to any last minute changes, which MUST be published and notice given to the public in a timely manner.
This is a public meeting on 11-15-11 and the public does not have to sign in to attend.  CSB and their staff are on the Public Payroll – we pay them and the employer has all rights to attend a meeting to see what their employees are doing!  FYI – The Trumbull County Commissioners appoint the Board Members of Children Services in Trumbull County.  There is already an injunction filed against CSB for denying citizens access to a public meeting on 10-18-11, which is to be heard on Friday, 12-2-11 at the main courthouse by Judge Stuard at 9 am

What this notice tells us is that the people that showed up at the previous board were put out and/or required to sign in to attend.  Other links claim it’s systemic and not just in one county the the CSB (this outfit) is not following rules for removal of a child from the home.  These nightmare situations were facilitated by a statewide system called  fcf.ohio.gov, which leads to links (on the left) that all have lovely names:

  • *The OCTF was created in Ohio law in 1984. OCTF funds primary and secondary prevention strategies that are conducted at the local level and activities and projects of a statewide significance designed to strengthen families and prevent child abuse and neglect. The county FCFCs serve as the OCTF local advisory boards and receive funding for primary and secondary prevention strategies…
  • (More:) “Anything we do to strengthen and support families in our community helps to reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect.”
  • (Grants:)”For April 2011, the Ohio Children’s Trust Fund (OCTF) is providing nearly $45,000 to twelve county Family and Children First Councils (FCFCs) to support their April Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention activities and events”
  • Trumbull County got $2,000 to hold an event reminding parents that it’s important to play with their children
  • OH Job & Family Services (which funds TANF, OCSE, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, Medicaid, Access Visitation, etc. — has a huge incentive to adopt out and get kids into foster care.   It should be looked at: here’s a link.  This centralized agency manages a LOT!):
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES  COLUMBUS OH 43215 FRANKLIN 809376072 $ 13,576,468,286

Despite all those wonderful-sounding names — “Youth, Partnership, Care, Child, Family Grow, Help Me, Trust Fund” —  bottom line is here, through some of this [at least] one child was murdered (supervisor salary — $77K, public funding) and another from the same Mom, raped, and now the same public that paid for this to happen, and the salaries of people that let it happen, will pay also for jail, and two public defenders, not to mention the foster care of a surviving young male victim (removed from another home) and so forth.  Not to mention the personal cost.  So I recommend taking a look at “flexible funding” here — because in state after state, these philosophies and initiatives are exactly that — real “flexible” when it comes to rules & laws.

Flexible Funding Pool:

The OFCF Flexible Funding Workgroup was formed in January 2010 with the purpose to identify opportunities and provide flexible funding to local public agencies in order to better meet the needs of children, families, and adults.  {{Of course that’s what its about}} The group included staff from the OFCF Cabinet agencies.

Local public agencies will now have the flexibility to transfer specific State General Revenue Funds (GRF) to the local flexible funding pool managed by the FCFCs. Although State GRF allocated to various local public agencies have requirements on what the funds can be spent on, the State GRF transferred to the flexible funding pool sheds those requirements.  Therefore, even if counties currently “pool” funds, those state funds must still meet its requirements for spending.  This new FCFC Flexible Funding Pool removes all of those requirements and can be used to meet the needs (prevention, early intervention, treatment) of children, families, and adults in the community.

To understand any association or organization, one really needs to understand its funding, its corporate structure and who pays the salaries of its staff.

END of “OHIO” SECTION

triggered by the awareness of NCPL (again) and its CEO’s agenda

(BACK TO REFERENCES FROM GEORGIA FATHERHOOD)

National Fatherhood Initiative
The National Fatherhood Initiative was created in 1994 to counter the growing problem of fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority. With the help of many notable Americans,

Just grants with the actual word “Fatherhood” in them from Georgia.  Just Grants, and just from HHS:
notice the recipients — DHR, a children’s shelter:
Program Office Grantee Name City Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ACF GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ATLANTA PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants RUSSELL EASTMAN $ 310,000
ACF GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants NANCY F FRIAUF $ 474,640
HSB PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. DECATUR FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION 93600 Head Start BRENDA E TAYLOR $ 375,000
OFA GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ATLANTA PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants RUSSELL EASTMAN $ 592,367
OFA GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants JASMINE MCCOY $ 250,000
OFA GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants NANCY F FRIAUF $ 250,000
(yeah, well, this one has connections with technical colleges and relates in 2011 that their funds, which apparently were in good part ARRA funds (see my last post on the GAO report on ARRA grantees) were drying up.
Georgia Fatherhood Program Loses Money

On behalf of Hill / Macdonald, LLC posted in Child support on Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Several Georgia technical colleges have lost funding for their long-running fatherhood programs, which provide education and support services to both father and mothers with the goal of strengthening families and serving the low-income community. The colleges are working to find alternative funding for the programs, but until that happens, this underserved population may again fall through the cracks.

In Georgia, fathers and mothers who are unable to make their court-ordered child support payments have relatively few options. Most fly under the radar in order to avoid being found in contempt of court and either forced to make payments through wage garnishment or some other means, or sentenced to jail. In response to this no-win situation, the fatherhood programs were created in 1996 to help noncustodial fathers who were facing contempt charges for nonpayment of child support.

The program was later opened up to mothers, and its goals were broadened. Now, the fatherhood programs at Chattahoochee Tech in Mariette, Athens Tech, Atlanta Tech, and 9 other technical colleges throughout Georgia focus on providing support services for parents to help them achieve education and career goals. A major component of the program is increasing participants’ ability to make money so they can more easily support their children and their family. The fathers who are enrolled in the program have an average of three children each.

The last few years of the program were funded by the American Reinvestment Recovery Act.

Well, earlier they were funded through TANF:  From an ACF SITE (I’m simply referring to this, not explaining in full obviously):

Section 1115 Waiver Projects
These grants provide matching federal monies for demonstration projects that expand on current child support programs. The projects are funded using the child support formula grant matching rate of 66% Federal and 34% State or private non-IV-D funds; the projects are authorized by waiver provisions of section 1115 of the Social Security Act. Though varied, all projects emphasize the importance of healthy marriage to a child’s well-being, as well as financial stability, increased paternity establishment, and child support collection.

. . .

  • Georgia Department of Human Resources (Various Cities, GA).
    “Georgia Healthy Marriage Initiative: The Georgia Family Council is directing a project to provide marriage education integrated with child support information and motivation. The marriage curricula will vary by cities and organizations. Local coalitions will provide outreach through existing community, faith-based and public organizations. Project Period: April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010.

    Mission


    Georgia Family Council (GFC) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) research and education organization committed to fostering conditions in which individuals, families and communities thrive. Carrying out that mission is a challenging endeavor that requires a multi-faceted approach. So GFC is organized under three Centers:

    GFC Receives Grant to Curb Domestic Violence

    Georgia Family Council has been awarded a $10,000 grant from the Verizon Foundation to train teenagers about healthy relationships and avoiding domestic violence.

    GFC has been hosting marriage and relationship training classes in communities throughout Georgia for years. This grant will bolster our efforts to specifically reach young people ages 13 to 18 to help them prevent and avoid domestic violence. Classes will be held in Gwinnett and DeKalb counties and in inner-city Atlanta.

    Healthy marriages and families begin with healthy relationships. GFC is committed to helping individuals learn the best ways to form and maintain strong relationships through our training classes in local communities.

Logo2

A GEORGIAN “IP” WAS ON MY SITE TODAY

ON A POST TALKING ABOUT MAIL FRAUD AND CON MEN.

(IP means simply internet address identifier).  They spent almost an hour on the Michael Anthony Nelson post — part of which relates to yesterday’s monster post on the expansion of TANF.

I wrote then:

Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives

by Karin Martinson and Demetra Nightingale

February 2008

odd — wasn’t that around the time Nancy Schaefer posted her statement?  No, just shortly after, her report was November 2007

Prepared for:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) [* * *]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

(Intro paragraphs:)

The role of noncustodial fathers in the lives of low-income families has received increased attention in the past decade. As welfare reform has placed time limits on cash benefits, policymakers and program administrators have become interested in increasing financial support from noncustodial parents as a way to reduce poverty among low-income children. Although child support enforcement efforts have increased dramatically in recent years, there is evidence that many low-income fathers cannot afford to meet their child support obligations without impoverishing themselves or their families. Instead, many fathers accumulate child support debts that may lead them to evade the child support system and see less of their children.

To address these complex issues, {{that rained down from the sky, and that we don’t want to directly attribute responsibility for….}} states and localities have put programs in place that focus on developing services and options to help low-income fathers find more stable and better-paying jobs, pay child support consistently, and become more involved parents. In part because of the availability of new funding sources and a growing interest in family-focused programs,

Could it BE any more evasive??? Interest in family-focused programs is, just, well, like crops, just so happening to coming up through the fertile ground of mega-farms (no one bought seed, plowed, planted seed, watered, or even conceived of the idea of farming. This interest does NOT, we repeat, does NOT have anything to do with any of the founders of the National Fatherhood Initiative, or any other visionaries who foresaw a real crop of grants with a constant stream of clients, and is not, we repeat, NOT, a backlash to feminism. It just kinda sorta, you knew, “GREW.” We here, are just dispassionately reporting on what happened. (Give me a break…. )

this area is experiencing dramatic growth, with hundreds of “fatherhood” programs developing across the country.

Coincidentally, and surely not causally, related to the fine funds that are available here, and the replicatable business model that is being taught, or their close associations with — child support agencies, attorney general’s offices, welfare offices, and so forth. Those fatherhood programs just plain out developed, like a young girl entering puberty. Entirely unpredictable. It just happened.

Under the expanded purposes of Title IVA, authorized in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193, also known as PRWORA), states have been able to use some of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to provide services to nonresident fathers, including employment-related services. PRWORA also authorized grants to states to assist noncustodial parents with access and visitation issues, and it required states, as part of their Child Support Enforcement Program, to have procedures requiring fathers who are not paying child support to participate in work activities, which may include employment and training programs. The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which contains a reauthorization of the TANF program, also authorized funding to states and public and nonprofit entities for responsible fatherhood programs.

_ _ _ _ _ __ From my above post, with red font marking points I was making on the last post.

The Deficit Reduction Act (“DRA” to us) apparently opened the door wide for applying TANF funds to non-TANF families.  HOWEVER, a February 2008 regulation (HHS regulations can restrict or focus the law further) apparently said, well, no, keep it to TANF families — EXCEPT for marriage & fatherhood activities.

Now that was a BIG Exception — and it widened the door, seems to me, for more of the same nonsense.  Have we not had ENOUGH of this yet?

Where is all this money coming from and – more to the point — where is it going?  For what identifiable REAL (not just alleged) public benefit (tie the benefit to the authorizing legislation to the distributed dollars – if you can) should we continue authorizing TANF as is – and ignore not just the amount of the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood fundings — but the consequences of them.

Should we just throw up our hands and say “oh well?”  because there are other worse emergencies and crises all around us?

Who (which specific sets of people) have just about copyrighted how to create a crisis, and take advantage of it?  I am not looking for scapegoats — (don’t like the practice) — I’m looking for where to put up the “STOP” sign, and how — the next time more of it is proposed. As it will be, pointing to past successes which have not yet (to my awareness) actually been reliably documented AS successes.  In relationship to program purpose.

The main program purpose of TANF is assistance to needy families so children can be cared for in their parents homes or homes of relatives.

The main program purpose of “Access Visitation” program (which FYI was a last-minute earmark not run by public scrutiny) is allegedly to increase noncustodial parenting time — actually as the Feds are not allowed to dominate state courts, the phrasing is “facilitate and support PROGRAM THAT” (facilitate and support, yada yada) increased noncustodial parent access and visitation.  And to do this because of the evolving nature of the child support system, and because enough Presidents felt that their interpretation of their oaths of office put “uphold and defend the Constitution” should be placed before program production for personal supporters.

Yeah, anyhow.

The publication above, “Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiative,” produced by the Urban Institute under contract (not grant, contract) from HHS — is policyspeak, quoting often times its own kind, among policymakers.   It’s also formatted as a 3-color, tri-fold mailer bearing the Urban Institute information, and is clearly PR to support this initiative from whoever is on whomever’s mailing lists.

As it says, or said in 2008

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation, under contract number 100-01-0027. The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and comments provided by their project officer, Jennifer Burnszynski. Helpful comments were also provided by Linda Mellgren of ASPE and by Margot Bean,

Eileen Brooks, and Myles Schlank of the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Administration for Children and Families/HHS. The authors also benefited from comments by Burt Barnow and John Trutko and editing by Fiona Blackshaw.

Yesterday, towards the end of a long, laborious (and duplicate-pasted) post, my key discovery in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative — i.e., who jumpstarted this? — found (distressingly, from my point of view) that the HHS Cabinet member at the time, “Jeffrey Reiger” was a Bush man.  Bush 1, Bush 2, and even later (after OK), Governor Jeb Bush in Florida, where he apparently continued tearing up the place, giving contracts to cronies in appropriately (per “voice of freedom”) and making life worse, not better, for children in need of having their abuse STOPPED and poor families.

THEN, apparently by 2006, he ended up back, presiding over a glowing report of (his and others’) work at Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (as though — see above — it weren’t in some major ways, his project initially) — he shows up in the exact same office at HHS/ASPE.

If the American public (whoever that beast is) wishes to stop remaining so gullible and malleable  — we (especially those in — or rapidly exiting — the working middle class, yet not yet fully under control (through extortion — someone has your kids) as many “low-income” families become  — it’s time to judge not only who is speaking and not only what is said, but to learn better how to compare the two.

I’ve read so much, the dialects are becoming intelligible.  People from the same circles speak like each other.  ADD to this a little background on who, what, when, where, and why (or, for how much) — and you’re a lot less gullible and malleable.  ANYHOW — (the way my mind works) — the information I had on OMI (other than it was basically reprehensible) and WHERE it fit in the larger context of marriage, fatherhood, and turning America from a process-based to an out-come based, closed society — was lacking.

I didn’t have all the pieces.  But something in the picture had my attention.  What connected the dots was the key personnel in the HHS Cabinet for Governor Keating, which happened to be this person whose name I didn’t know and hadn’t noticed before, Mr Reiger.

OK, let’s break this grant contract, above, down some:

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute

under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)

at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation,

under contract number 100-01-0027.

In looking up (for readers’ sakes) “Partners for Fragile Families” — a term which by now any noncustodial mother in a custody BATTLE should know translates to “foundation-sponsored, OCSE-enabled Fatherhood Project” — I found another report, under the same contract, which says it for me:

https://childsupport.state.co.us/siteuser/do/vfs/Read?file=/cm:Publications/cm:Reports/cm:_x0034_11567_pff_outcomes.pdf

(intereting URL, eh– Child Support.State.Co.  )

Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects:

Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends

Introduction

In recent years, policymakers and programs have paid increased attention to the role of noncustodial fathers in the lives of low-income families.

You betcha– it’s been a good livelihood for some! and with no end in site, as more noncustodial fathers happen every time there’s a split-up.  Some of these will be either behind in their child support (which could be by their choice, their ability level — or I’m sure it could  and has at times been “arranged” by ridiculously unreasonable child support orders.  They do this for mothers, I’m sure it can be done as easily for fathers, depending on the desired “outcome” in a case) — or disgruntled about not “accessing” more of their children (possibly through previous restraining order of some sort) — or they may not have been actually that interested in their kids. Anyhow, they have as a group DEFINITELy hit the radar of “POLICYMAKERS AND PROGRAMS.”

And this manner of PolicySpeak (the artificial third person, I call it — because it’s a report by a program participant to a policymaker.  It’s like a kind of code they speak to each other, not expecting noncustodial fathers (and certainly not mothers) to be listening in.  However, thanks to the internet, we can and, and now do).

With welfare reform placing time limits on cash benefits, there has been a strong interest in increasing financial support from noncustodial parents as a way to reduce poverty among low-income children.

Well, I don’t agree with that either, but as it’s not the main point here, I’ll bite my tongue (this time).

Although child support enforcement efforts have been increasing dramatically in recent years, {{hard to prove of disproof, and none offered here in the intro…}} there is some evidence that many low-income fathers cannot afford to support their children financially without impoverishing themselves or their families.

Meaning, presumably their new families?

To address these complex issues, a number of initiatives have focused on developing services and options to help low-income fathers become more financially and emotionally involved with their families and to help young, low- income families become stable.

Well, this is 2007, and National Fatherhood Initiative was formed in 1994 (from whence a lot of this) so yeah, the administration has an interest in regulating the emotional involvement of “low-income fathers.”  Just as a reminder, from DRA (year, 2005) forward, it didn’t have to be actually low-income fathers to qualify, and so forth.

Sponsored by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Ford Foundation,1 …

Sponsored by US Govt HHS branch and a wealthy foundation influencing LOTS of sectors of the US, such as higher education, Media (the link is to a segment on who’s behind WOrking Assets, a private telecommunications firm in SF), and of course, most aspects of American life & business.  If you haven’t thought much about the concept of “FOUNDATION” yet, now might just be the time, let alone individual ones.   They are intentional social change agents that work through almost every facet of life you daily may be dealing with.

http://www.fordfoundation.org/#  (in its own words — click on, for example, “issues” to get a scope).

Ford Foundation

Motto:   “Working with Visionaries on the Frontlines of Social Change Worldwide

QUESTION:  Suppose you don’t share this vision or approve of the “social change”??  Does your life matter, then?

(Yep and funding them, steering study to or away from various topics according to the foundation’s overall purpose(s))  THis is just one type of support they deal with:

  • Established in 1936  (AKA BETWEEN WORLD WARS I & II.  BEFORE WOMEN IN THE US GOT THE VOTE).
  • First regional office opened in 1952 in New Delhi
  • Provide grants to organizations in the United States, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia

“To date, the foundation has committed $560 million for program-related investments, and sets aside annually an average $25 million for new investments.”

“More than $16 billion in grants distributed worldwide”  2010 Fiscal assets around $10 billion . . . .

OTHERS feel differently about the Ford Foundation.  I just found:

The Ford Foundation and the CIA:
A documented case of philanthropic collaboration
with the Secret Police
by James Petras
15 December 2001
Rebelión

This is too much to handle now, but just so we know we are not playing with small pitt bulls, but the big dogs, when something says “Ford Foundation,” here’s a chunk of that article.  In the SMALLER context of the complete disintegration of due process in the United States through the proliferation of what I write about (them grantees pushing marriage as the answer to society’s problems, and pocketing the profits in doing so)   .  here we go.  This is for my learning too, not just readers:

Introduction

The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA’s intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activities by the principal foundations were funded by the CIA (Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders, Granta Books, 1999, pp. 134-135). The CIA considers foundations such as Ford “The best and most plausible kind of funding cover” (Ibid, p. 135). The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund “a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions” (p. 135). The latter included “human rights” groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important “private foundations” collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation.

This essay will demonstrate that the Ford Foundation-CIA connection was a deliberate, conscious joint effort to strengthen U.S. imperial cultural hegemony and to undermine left-wing political and cultural influence. We will proceed by examining the historical links between the Ford Foundation and the CIA during the Cold War, by examining the Presidents of the Foundation, their joint projects and goals as well as their common efforts in various cultural areas.

Background: Ford Foundation and the CIA

By the late 1950s the Ford Foundation possessed over $3 billion in assets. The leaders of the Foundation were in total agreement with Washington’s post-WWII projection of world power. A noted scholar of the period writes: “At times it seemed as if the Ford Foundation was simply an extension of government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The foundation had a record of close involvement in covert actions in Europe, working closely with Marshall Plan and CIA officials on specific projects” (Ibid, p.139). This is graphically illustrated by the naming of Richard Bissell as President of the Foundation in 1952. In his two years in office Bissell met often with the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other CIA officials in a “mutual search” for new ideas. In 1954 Bissell left Ford to become a special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954 (Ibid, p. 139). Under Bissell, the Ford Foundation (FF) was the “vanguard of Cold War thinking”.

One of the FF first Cold War projects was the establishment of a publishing house, Inter-cultural Publications, and the publication of a magazine Perspectives in Europe in four languages. The FF purpose according to Bissell was not “so much to defeat the leftist intellectuals in dialectical combat (sic) as to lure them away from their positions” (Ibid, p. 140). The board of directors of the publishing house was completely dominated by cultural Cold Warriors. Given the strong leftist culture in Europe in the post-war period, Perspectives failed to attract readers and went bankrupt.

Another journal Der Monat funded by the Confidential Fund of the U.S. military and run by Melvin Lasky was taken over by the FF, to provide it with the appearance of independence (Ibid, p. 140).

In 1954 the new president of the FF was John McCloy. He epitomized imperial power. Prior to becoming president of the FF he had been Assistant Secretary of War, president of the World Bank, High Commissioner of occupied Germany, chairman of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, Wall Street attorney for the big seven oil companies and director of numerous corporations. As High Commissioner in Germany, McCloy had provided cover for scores of CIA agents (Ibid, p. 141).

McCloy integrated the FF with CIA operations. He created an administrative unit within the FF specifically to deal with the CIA. McCloy headed a three person consultation committee with the CIA to facilitate the use of the FF for a cover and conduit of funds. With these structural linkages the FF was one of those organizations the CIA was able to mobilize for political warfare against the anti-imperialist and pro-communist left

You scared yet?  Or don’t want a life responsible to think about your role as an ant (or not as an “ant”) in some of this?  OK, then….

However, after tracking and reporting (to the dismay of some fellow-bloggers) the Heritage Foundation & Unification Connection in these Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grants, I happen to be right in that matter.  Yesterday, I tied one of the founders of the organization that helped support the Heritage Foundation (DeVos) to Blackwater, so I suggest y’all in the court-reform/pleading business, listen up some!  Time willing, I’ll do this again today.

Here’s another one, “Swans Commentary” by Michael Barker.  I’m putting this one out because it mentions Naomi Klein, whose work I’ve seen some of and I think makes sense, i.e., “Shock Doctrine:  the Rise of Disaster Capitalism”  and here are the opening lines of this (2010 Piece) — notice the last paragraph.  Obviously, yes, the writer is thinking progressive/leftist, but do we (who does) know what that means, where it comes from?

(Swans – January 25, 2010)   While most progressive writers have failed to document the power of liberal philanthropy to co-opt the processes of social change, Naomi Klein, in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Random House, 2007), provides a rare counter example.

This historical anomaly — for her and other radical writers — revolves around her description of the support that liberal foundations provided for training the intellectual elites that seized the reins of power in both Chile and Indonesia in the 1960s and 1970s. In Chile, she observes how this elitist co-optive project was the brainchild of Albion Patterson, who was director of the local US International Cooperation Administration (which became the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID) and Theodore Schultz, the chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago.

The University — Government Agency connection, which I found (tracking it backwards & upwards) in these fatherhood grants, obviously….

With tuition and expenses paid for by US taxpayers and US foundations, Klein notes how between 1957 and 1970 some one hundred Chilean students pursued advanced degrees at the University of Chicago in an environment “where the professors [like Milton Friedman] agitated for the near-complete dismantling of government with single-minded focus.” In 1965 this neoliberal project “was expanded to include students from across Latin America,” courtesy of a grant from the Ford Foundation, which “led to the creation of the Center for Latin American Economic Studies at the University of Chicago.” Yet despite the best efforts of the Chicago school’s “intellectual imperialism,” there “was, however, a problem: it wasn’t working.” (1)

By Chile’s historic 1970 elections, the country had moved so far left that all three major political parties were in favour of nationalizing the country’s largest source of revenue: the copper mines then controlled by U.S. mining giants. The Chile Project, in other words, was an expensive bust. As ideological warriors waging a peaceful battle of ideas with their left-wing foes, the Chicago Boys had failed in their mission. (p.73)

OK, so we have the Ford Foundation helping US corporate (here, mining) interests simply control another country — and undermine that country’s insistence on NOT being controlled by the US (Corporate interests) by sabotaging nationalization.  Notice:   “near-complete dismantling of government with single-minded focus.”

Now I love America, I was born here, and one and two (respectively) generations of my family were not.  I love the Bill of Rights and the fact that we have a First Amendment which EXPRESSLY forbids the Congress from establishing a national religion (but it will take basic, universal alertness to prevent one from being established administratively & economically, and I know its name, too).  I love the positive IDEAS in the Declaration of Independence, and how our Presidents must swear a public oath to uphold and defend it (not that the last several have. . .  ).   I also, as shoddy as local K-12 US School history tends to be (and I’m a public school grad), I do know (from later reading, and interests) something about the differences between Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Locke and — say, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Bishop Stallings, Bishop Eddie Long (recently a keynote speaker at an African American Healthy Marriage Institute event, or was it the National Parenting Center kickoff at Hampton U, I DNR), and former Presidents George Bush (plural), and Wade Horn & Friends.

Yes the founders were slave-owners and dominated other human beings wrongfully.  See yesterday’s link to a 1997 or so speech by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr., saying no, we will NOT go back (as some want us to), @

PROMISE KEEPERS — WATCH AS WELL AS PRAY  By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.:

Recently, hundreds of thousands of religious American males were on display at the PromiseKeepers‘ “Stand In The Gap” rally in the nation’s capitol. What could possibly be wrong with men bonding, praying and pledging to be better Christians, with the goal of becoming better and more responsible husbands and fathers, and active in their local church? Nothing that I can see.

There is certainly nothing wrong with men exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and religion. . . .

The Promise Keepers deny the legitimacy of most, if not all, of these theological and biblical interpretations that have grown out of experiences of oppression, and resent our commitment to not go back –theologically, biblically, socially, politically or culturally. . . .

(7) Finally, we must watch where the Promise Keepers raise the money to pull off their ambitious future plans and activities. What is its source? Promise Keepers is a $117 million operation. Where did this money come from? They said most of it came from the nearly two million people they have attracted to their past stadium rallies where they charged $60 per person to attend. But the future rallies are going to be free? Assuming future free rallies will be bigger than past paid rallies, who will be picking up this $117 million-plus price tag? Now that they have clearly established their preeminence for religiously-based mobilization, and their surveys show the rallies to be attracting overwhelmingly Republican-oriented men, look for the really big Republican supporters and political donors to ante-up.

In light of the personal exposure that many individual and corporate donors have received during the 1997 congressional campaign finance committee hearings, these contributors will have one additional advantage with the Promise Keepers over the political hard money, and some soft money, they usually give to political candidates, campaigns and parties– it will be tax-deductible soft money to a religious organization. This unlimited money — cash, checks or in-kind contributions from private individuals or corporate donors — will be eligible for politically-supported and government-supplied tax write-offs. Finally, since such contributions are in the private sector their names will not even have to be publicly revealed.

Who are the Promise Keepers? A political Trojan Horse? Genuine religious and spiritual leaders who are wise as serpents, but harmless as doves? Or wolves in sheeps clothing? Watch, as well as pray!

Here is a theologically-based warning at this spectacle and if you hover the URL, it shows he protests unity with Catholics, abortion-rights activitist and gay/lesbian elements primarily.  And also says, how can the unredeemed stand in the gap for anyone (and quotes some scripture that talks — and I happen to agree — about unity of the spirit, and not “of design by man” which is the wrong kind, wrongly applied in too many cases.  We go (USA) for LIBERTY– United States, but what we “unite” under is either those ideas of liberty, allowing for individuality — and separation of powers of government — or we are not “united” at all under anything else worthwhile (my opinion).  The entire premise of the constitution and declaration was to PREVENT exactly what is happening now — taxation with out representation, and attempts to establish a monarchy (in idea) and with it, theocracy.  i do not use those words narrowly either; I am no Tea Partier. (I’m female….)  This (doctrinally oriented person) wrote of a few questions he asked attendees, or that they were asked:

6. How important is it to you that there is little doctrinal agreement among the members of Promise Keepers?

Almost every person interviewed quickly answered that it was of no consequence to them that there was no agreement on Bible doctrine among members of the Promise Keepers. Most took great pride in the ability to ignore Bible doctrine for the cause of forging an ecumenically styled unity.** The one surprisingly pleasant answer to this question came from the only woman interviewed. {{it was a rally of MEN specifically}} She was a 27-year-old volunteer handing out some of the one million free Stand in the Gap Contemporary English Version New Testaments. She answered that she was very concerned that there was not much emphasis on doctrine.

7. What do you believe the Bible says about the importance of doctrine?

Many answered with the question, “What do you mean by doctrine?” Others said the Bible teaches that there are only essentials to which all Christians must subscribe and that there is great freedom beyond that. The female PK volunteer was the only one who answered that the Bible treats the subject of doctrine seriously

**also true in the multiple boastings about coalitions and collaborations that I blog on, specifically in TANF and COURT-related areas.

For Bible doctrine – in our case, read Constitution, Law, Bill of Rights etc. That’s OUR doctrine, or should be (Some believe otherwise, and the issue has to be decided….)  To clarify (in case you think I agree with the above writer), it goes on:  “Will God not judge those who follow a man who denied the deity of Christ, who spent his last night on earth in the same adulterous pattern he had lived through the last years of his life, and who preached not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather the gospel of social reform?”

I don’t believe in the deity of Christ (but I do in his resurrection– which is my privilege.  I also know that in the late 1600s in the Colonies, not to believe in the deity Christ and say this openly, was dangerous — although not so dangerous as having the wrong color skin).  No, Jesus Christ (as I read the record) upended the social order — with his LIFE — in part by failing to conform to it.  And I know by personal experience that any country whose residents are ONLY concerned with and wrapped up in their spiritual status do not make good neighbors, and to not stop their brethren (usually) from some heinous crimes against their wives, children, or others.  Why?  Their heads are somewhere else….  that’s why.

(OK, I just dumped off another diving board into various reactions to this 1997 Promise Keeper’s event.  Well, the water’s warm).  My disclaimer:  I don’t know all where this site is coming from.  I’m just pointing out that there shouldn’t be silence on groups like Promise Keepers, so let’s learn from some earlier alerts!

Confronting Christian Crusaders

What does Promise Keepers’ popularity mean for Jews?

By Mik Moore & Udi Ofer


The Promise Keepers, a new evangelical Christian men’s movement, follows an agenda that many Jews feel is antithetical to Jewish values and corrosive to constitutional safeguards of religious liberty. Yet the Jewish community has been relatively unresponsive to the exponential growth and mainstream embrace of this volatile young organization. During the Promise Keepers’ “Stand In The Gap” rally in Washington, DC, on October 4, 1997, Jewish organizations‹including politically active groups like the Reform Movement’s Religious Action Center‹were noticeably absent from the assorted liberal groups who showed up to protest. Other Jewish watchdog organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, have kept their usually humming faxes at bay. And while the Jewish press did cover the rally in Washington, they have largely ignored the Promise Keepers and their founder, Bill McCartney. After demonstrating a fearless approach to activism in recent decades, has the American Jewish community reverted back to 1950s era timidity? Or is an organization that many believe is mounting a ferocious attack on the wall separating church and state really just an innocuous religious movement?

(it seems that the URL it’s posted under probably doesn’t share the same views.  No matter, here’s more):

Just as Patricia Ireland {{NOW}} has been the most forceful voice speaking out against Promise Keepers, the strongest response from Jews has come from the Jewish feminist community. Susan Weidman Schneider, editor of the Jewish feminist magazine Lilith, is taking Promise Keepers seriously. “Promise Keepers represents a danger to Jews in their frequent assertion that this is a Christian nation.” Schneider also believes that the Jewish community should be aware the Promise Keepers’ “dangerous stand towards women.” Traditionally attacks on feminism become attacks of “Jewish feminists”, or on the “un-Christian” nature of feminism. Lilith is planning to run a substantial article on the Promise Keepers in an upcoming issue.

Michael S. Kimmel, a scholar of men’s studies at State University of New York at Stony Brook, agrees with Schneider’s assessment. In a recent article in Tikkun magazine, Kimmel criticized the Promise Keepers attitude toward women. Kimmel writes that, “the resurrection of responsible manhood is really the Second Coming of Patriarchy.” According to the Promise Keepers, men have abdicated their responsibility as the head of the household. At home, husbands are “not giving their wives the support they need,” and are absent from the lives of their children and friends. The Promise Keepers ‘remind’ men of the ‘power’ they are born with, and make it clear that the husband should be the head of the household.

I am going to translate that last bolded phrase (from my point of view) for the liberal, progressive, atheist, or agnostic among us.  Or, for whomever.   I know this mindset, I am a Christian who was raised “unbelieving,” by parents who have voiced their disbelief in God, Jesus, resurrection, and distrust of people who do believe in that . . . . . and I had PK BS in my marriage, not that I’d married someone with pre-existing connections to the movement, or any other like it. . ….

What this means it that the TAKE CHARGE theology — and those attracted to it for whatever reasons*  to it — is that, to have an EQUALITY-BASED (REALLY equality -based, as they actually have processed and intend to act on their own Bible verse, Galatians 3:28 (where the apostle Paul — latest convert of all the apostles — takes the legalists to task, and earlier in the chapter confronted apostle Peter’s shape-shifting according to who he was with at the time) — is to be (in their company) emasculated, and have betrayed this God.”

(*morally or intellectually, emotionally, weak — or from personal grudges or previous experiences, receptive)

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slaveg nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

And just for a chaser, the chapter begins “O foolish Galatians, WHO hath bewitched you” i.e., from their birthright, which is to stand up before God and not have to earn access to Him through fear of man (ok I won’t elaborate).  The TIKKUN person points out — correctly — that the Promise Keepers type of guys . . .

WHICH IS who THE FATHERHOOD PROMOTERS TYPE OF GUYS COUNT ON APPEALING TO, IN GOOD PART (whether or not the leadership, as leadership goes, actually believe what it preaches. We are talking mass rallies, for PK, and major social change agents including some fairly large and frequent “rallies” also, in the latter).  The theme TAKE BACK YOUR MANHOOD is a great means to also justify “take over this emasculating US government, with its institutions, and have our way with it.”  And that is how due process, transparency, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and the undermining of BALANCE in government is happened.  It virtually got raped by a domination theology.

People that do not think through even their own scriptures will not think through their own Bill of Rights, and are not even interested in doing so.  I do believe this is the mainstream “Christianity” now prevalent, and historically (like over a millennium ago) it became standard through force – -not reasoned debate.  I would love to know the entire story sometime of the years 300 – 400 but from what I can tell, the essence of any gospel Jesus was involved in (assuming the assembled canon of the NT gospels, coming out of the OT, bears a nominal relationship to him) — if it survived, survived in pockets and in the diversity of beliefs that happened until they became State Doctrine which is to say, Emperor Doctrine.  (If you have the time, A.D. 381, “Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State.” )

TRANSLATION: – the same sentiments that shut down discussion and freedom of worship (varieties of Christianity, paganism, Judaism? too), THEN (A.D. 381) when within the same century there had been an Edict of Toleration — will continue to shut down debate, discussion and start declaring dissidents “insane heretics” in our time.  And have been.  The short review I linked to says it well.

Reviewed by Israel Drazin – March 16, 2010

Charles Freeman presents an excellent, readable, and surprising history of Christianity, filled with many unknown facts, that focus around the events of the year 381 when the Roman Emperor Theodosius issued a decree mandating that all Christians believe in the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, an idea not contained in the New Testament and rejected by most Christians at that time. Theodosius called those who refused to accept his view “demented and insane heretics.” . . .Freeman shows how many early Christians enjoyed a diverse spiritual life.. . .It is one of the tragedies of western thought that this approach was, in effect, suppressed as a result of Theodosius’ decrees against ‘heretics’ and pagans in” 381. As a result, countless thinking men and women lived under the continual threat of excommunication and the promise of eternal punishment in fiery hell, a concept and threat that had not existed previously. It was not until the seventeenth century that religious toleration was reinstated, and then only partially.

It closed down and lowered (and, presumably drove underground) the level of debate, for a long time…

Freeman shows how emperors and clergy with non-religious motivations brought about many Christian innovations (??). Besides the court decrees of Constantine and Theodosius and other government officials for civic reasons, to assure peace, priests pushed ideas to help their advancements and the money and freedom from taxes that accompanied it. **”The high level of religious violence (to secure higher level priestly posts) has been largely ignored by historians…almost every vacant bishopric gave rise to murder and intimidation as rival candidates fought for the position.”

I haven’t completed this book yet, but one thing seems evident — that Theodosius needed to consolidate his rule and that dealing with fighting factions wasn’t helping.  This was the stage at which there still remained some who proclaimed that Jesus was not a deity, and the argument (which seems silly to my mind, which grew up about 1700 years later) was in the finer points (let alone ramifications) of just how separate was Jesus from the Father, and did all start at the same time, or one come first.  Different names were given for the different beliefs (and none of which could probably be definitively decided anyhow), but one point I picked up on.  Those who did NOT believe Jesus was co-equal with God, and in fact divine (and incapable of feeling suffering, being humiliated, etc.) — would be naturally favorable to an interpretation of this man’s life as a social and authority-defying revolutionary who was humiliated and died on the cross.

I didn’t say that too well.  In short, it’s more politically expedient to focus the public mind on the unity of earthly authority with divine dominance in one human representative.  The more logical (at least from scriptures) concept does not include the thought, “the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,”  (the word “Trinity” isn’t in there) an idea not contained in the New Testament and rejected by most Christians at that time.”  Rather than connecting on a human level with a man like (us) — but whose sacrifice made possible access to God (and no more sacrifices!), it instead became expedient politically to instead make the object of worship more distant and demand allegiance  submission NOW (right now) to an earthly representative.

“Freeman’s book has many other insights and whether one agrees with his history or not, it is worth reading since it offers many facts and is thought provoking.”

** Sound familiar yet?  Think about churches, today, as the nonprofit corporations with religious exemptions (from publishing their 990s for the rest of us to read)!

We have to process United States history, OUR REALITY, figure out a place to stand, at least for now, anchor it somehow, and not have our dialogues turn into a moderated-from-on-high dogma with political motivations. But I wish to say — that those who will submit to authority as their chief indicator (and I have to say that — with all due respect for lives, creations, handiwork in other fields) in religious spheres — are not — not really — fit to stand up for their neighbors and fight to preserve this republic, and the ideas that go with it.  A MIND IS  A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE!  

There may be many flaws and imperfections on other ways of doing things than to let the Ford Foundation, and those in HHS, DOJ, DOE, and DOD decide how processed our information is, and which thoughts and behaviors are — or are not — acceptable (LIKE, divorce, birth control and refusal to sit through inane psychoeducational classes run by dogmatic training-oriented cultists (I refer to therapists of many kinds and particularly a certain sort) for profit.  I personally have looked at some of these — and one set is run by an outfit who literally defended the “high priestess of Satanism” in a palimony suit against the originator of the group (Anton LaVey) — or a SIMILAR SET OF PROGRAMS could be run by some mainstream Christians who really, really believe that people who divorce may be going to hell; or another set who don’t confess to any deity but are very adept at behavioral science and transformative changes through group psychology. I’ve seen just about all of them when looking up AFCC personnel (or outfits) and the TAGGS grantees.  I mean, come on, look at this one!

(that’s only 3 out of 52 grant awards with the word “DADS” in them, and a smaller one.  But even so– is this information so necessary?)

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2011 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 0
2010 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 25,000
2009 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 25,000
Results 1 to 3 of 3 matches.

Do we really need this type of Child Support Research and Demonstration Project (CFDA 93601) award?

Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 1 08/09/2005 93601 NEW HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 2 08/17/2006 93601 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 3 08/06/2007 93601 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000


Halbert Sullivan is the CEO of this group, and (it says on the site) an MSW.

Agency Profile

The Fathers Support Center St. Louis (FSC) was incorporated as a federal 501(c)3 organization on December 10, 1997.

Which is as much to say as, it knew about TANF 1996 welfare reform, access visitation grants, and that a new day was dawning . . . . .

When FSC opened its doors in May 1998, we were the first organization of our kind in the State of Missouri and remains the primary organization within St. Louis to provide a comprehensive array of services for men.  FSC is recognized nationally as an authority on father involvement and has received a number of awards including the:

{{“The National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, Inc., (NPNFF), is the national individual membership organization whose mission is to build the profession of practitionersworking to increase the responsible involvement of fathers in the lives of their children}}  “Through publications, conferences, training events, technical assistance, advocacy, collaboration with other fathers and families organizations, and networking opportunities, NPNFF seeks to strengthen practitioners in their day-to-day work with fathers and fragile families.”

the “Fragile Families” wording comes from the OCSE & Ford Foundation Grant-funded project….. THe “Fathers Support Center St. Louis” got their TAGGS help, too.  I remember posting this set of misspellings — for the 2011, triple-sized grant.  (previous ones were small).  They must have been real good boys to get that reward.  Notice the apostrophe in “CENTERS'” is also misplaced — it’s a singular center and should read “CENTER’s” besides which the grantee is Fathers’ Support Center already — so why put the name in the award, and then somehow manage to misspell “Fahtergood”??

howing: 1 – 5 of 5 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90FK0052  FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD 1 00 ACF 09-26-2011 023296192 $ 1,530,190 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 1,530,190


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 3 0 ACF 08-06-2007 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2006 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 2 0 ACF 08-17-2006 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2005 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 1 0 ACF 08-09-2005 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2005 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2004 90XP0057  UNSOLICITED – SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME MAINTENANCE RESEARCH 1 0 ACF 04-26-2004 23296192 $ 99,410 
Fiscal Year 2004 Total: $ 99,410


Total of all award actions: $ 1,929,600

  

This group is EIN# 431804267.  In 2003, their one executive director — and only director listed —  (Halbert Sullivan) was paid a very reasonable $50K and it is  membership organization teaching:  “Fatherhood, Parenting, Mentoring, socialization, employment skills” (Cost $268K).

On the 2009 tax form (990), it states (page 1) the program purpose is “TO PROVIDE NONCUSTODIAL FATHERS [with] A PROGRAM THAT PREPARES THEM TO TAKE FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARENTING THEIR CHILDREN.”    Contributions & revenue include $1.18 million gifts and contributions — and $200K program service revenue.  There are 23 voting members in the governing body, 29 employees, and 54 volunteers.  The tax form (for some reason) has no “slot” to show which portion of income was government grants or contracts).

Under Part II (Program Service Accomplishments) line 4a, it reads:

FATHERHOOD TRAINING, TEACH PARENTING, OFFER MENTORING, ESTABLISH FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIALIZATION (=?), JOB DEVELOPMENT AND LEGAL SERVICES TO NONCUSTODIAL FATHERS. 

(LIKE HOW TO BECOME CUSTODIAL, OR GET CHILD SUPPORT ABATED???)     Program service EXPENSES:   $992,674; this particular program’s REVENUE:  $1,250,178.  In other words, a slight profit of about $258K (give me a break on the math, OK?).    Most of which was written off — Professional Fees, Training Consultants, Grants to individuals etc. $54K (???), Miscellaneous.

Anyone who from St. Louis area who wants to check out the Board of Directors (and if any is employed by the courts or was on your case), tax form is here.  I wonder how many noncustodial MOTHERS there are in the area these days, and where they go for any access & visitation help, if they are not having fathers cooperation with court orders, or if they wish THEIR child support arrears reduced and to tweak custody back towards some contact with Mom..  (FYI, these programs were not designed with that “outcome” in mind.  Remember, it’s fatherlessness, not motherlessness, that is the national social curse and plague that must be corrected).

More, from the Fathers Support Center site admits it gets support at the “LOCAL STATE & FEDERAL” levels.

Since its inception, FSC has served more than 8,800 fathers and their families (including 22,000 children), transitioning the nonparticipating father to a position of involvement and equity in the life of his child (over 2,300 of those served have child support orders and 65% were either ex-offenders or had long histories of incarceration – the cost per client to complete FSC program is $4,500 per year compared to $16,000 per year for incarceration).

Define “equity” and also please define “his” child — who else’s child is it?

 FSC provides a comprehensive, holistic fatherhood development project.  Adult clients participate in four programs: The Employment Development and Placement Program, Family Formation Program, the Legal Clinic and Fathers’ Rap Program.

Activities include: parenting education, child abuse prevention training, conflict resolution skills training, job placement, job retention skills training, support groups, counseling, father/child bonding activities, visitation advocacy, placement with mentors and male healthcare education and legal services.

ANYHOW — speaking of (far above) the Urban Institute & HHS/ASPE report done by a certain project from HHS which I’m going to look up (since they gave me the contract number so nicely), it goes on to explain the FRAGILE FAMILIES thing:

the Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) demonstration program intended to effect systems change, deliver appropriate and effective services, and improve outcomes for both parents and children in low-income families. By making lasting changes in the way public agencies and community organizations work with unmarried families, the initiative aimed to increase the capacity of young, economically disadvantaged fathers and mothers to become financial, emotional, and nurturing resources to their children and to reduce poverty and welfare dependence. The PFF demonstration, which built upon lessons from programs and demonstrations that operated over the past two decades, was implemented over a three-year period beginning in 2000 at 13 project sites in nine states.

Someone must have had a lot of clout to start so many projects — at this time (by which time all child support agencies were suppose to have centralized their distribution units at the state level, remember?) — and nationwide.
Looking up “Halbert Sullivan” there are two press release type articles (year, July 26, 2000, both came out on the same day) in “Riverfront times.”  This one is revealing:

Support Structure

Financial woes can separate fathers from their children. One innovative program helps get the situation under control.

A A AComments ()By Wm. Stage Wednesday, Jul 26 2000

Over in a corner of the Fathers’ Support Center (FSC) classroom, at a desk behind a partition,Eleanie Campbell sits with a sheaf of forms and a legal pad, talking in low tones with Leo Taylor-Bey. Campbell is a case manager with the Missouri Department of Social Services‘ Division of Child Support Enforcement (CSE).

Part of being in the FSC program is attempting to get caught up on child-support payments, a goal that CSE hopes to facilitate with its Parents Fair Share, a program that workswith noncustodial parents having trouble making their payments. “We encourage our guys to sign up,” says the center’s Halbert Sullivan, “to sit down and negotiate a compromise between what you’re supposed to pay and what you can reasonably afford to pay.”

> > > >The MOTHERS ARE NOT INVITED INTO THIS PROCESS< PARTICULARLY IF THEY WERE ON WELFARE…. < < < <

And that is exactly what Campbell and Taylor-Bey are doing. “Our program with their program works very well,” says Campbell. “Fathers’ Support Center gives them self-esteem and parenting skills and places them in the job market, while Parents’ Fair Share gives help in shoring up the financial obligations.” * * *(SEE BELOW, MDRC site describes the scope of this project)

> > > ADMINISTRATIVELY ABATES THE ARREARS, AGAIN — ARE THEIR COURT HEARINGS TO INFORM THE CUSTODIAL PARENTS ABOUT THIS “DEAL” THEY CUT?

Donnell Whitfield, director of Prince Hall Family Services, was instrumental in getting the Family Support Act enacted, from which Parents Fair Share grew.

And the other article (which is anecdotal and long) mentions yes, these are felons trying to turn it around:

The Hard Knock That Won’t Stop

Determined to make a better life for themselves and their children, students at the Fathers’ Support Center make a go of parenthood in the ‘hood

A A AComments ()By Wm. Stage Wednesday, Jul 26 2000

Craig Ransom raps on a pretend door. Come in, says Charles Barnes Jr., a large man partial to print shirts. Ransom shuffles in. He leads with a handshake. Brief, but firm. Very good. Don’t make that mistake of the unprofessional soul-brother handshake, Barnes will later caution. Barnes sits, but Ransom still stands. He hasn’t been asked to take a seat. He addresses this point of etiquette: “May I sit, or do you prefer I stand?”

"I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter," Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. "Problem was, I didn't really know how to be a father."Prince Hall Family Support Center (Separately on web:  “Prince Hall Family Support Center”) mentioned in the story…  appears to be a “one-stop-shop” model….
Jennifer Silverbergphoto by Jennifer Silverbergpho
“I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter,” Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. “Problem was, I didn’t really know how to bea father.”

"I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter," Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. "Problem was, I didn't really know how to be a father."

Jennifer Silverberg
“I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter,” Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. “Problem was, I didn’t really know how to be a father.”

Propriety doesn’t necessarily come easy for Ransom, who has spent the last 10 of his 29 years with felons who were far more familiar with Miss January than Miss Manners. But here he is, aspiring applicant for a pretend position in the shipping department, trying to impress a pretend human-resources specialist with politeness and humility.

@@ (One of the men profiled had done 10 of 19 years for murder, but his little girl was being cared for and brought to visit by his side of the family.  It was noted, is girlfriend (the mother) didn’t come visit him.  Possibly this relates to his being a murderer, but the topic wasn’t handled in the article.  Ronald, below, is his brother …..

Additional income would help Ronald achieve a goal that at present is out of reach. Unlike the others in the program who seem content with or resigned to the role of noncustodial parent, Ronald hopes to gain full custody of his children — Tamara, 6, and Ron Jr., 8 — with whom, along with their mother, he lived for three years. For that, he’ll have to get an attorney and go to court. “I’m getting around to that,” he says, “but it’s kind of expensive.” Meanwhile, the arrangement he has with his common-law ex is out-of-court and unofficial: He gets visitation “most weekends” and contributes financially when he is able. He picks the kids up at her house in a sort of hit-and-miss fashion because, says Ronald, “her phone is off right now.”

The men are paid $75 a week to attend, and approximately 6 to 8 fathers graduate per session, it said. The other person involved is / was a police officer and operates ? Prince Hall Family Support Center.  This program also deals with “PARENTS FAIR SHARE” which is a program name I’m familiar with.

(MDRC site):

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE

An early and particularly ambitious attempt to help such men become better fathers was Parents’ Fair Share (PFS), a national demonstration project authorized by the Family Support Act of 1988. A key goal of that law was to enforce more vigorously the child support obligations of noncustodial parents, most of them fathers. Recognizing that tougher enforcement would not work for fathers who could not pay, the law allowed some states to assign such men to programs designed to help them find jobs and play a more active role in their children’s lives.

{{Translation: bargaining — with the men, not the Moms — more time with kids for lowered child support obligations.  }}

The PFS demonstration tested the effectiveness of this pathbreaking approach.

Agenda, Scope, and Goals

Targeted at underemployed or unemployed noncustodial fathers who owed child support and had children receiving welfare, PFS aimed to increase child support payments, employment and earnings, and parental involvement.

The program depended on local partnerships among child support agencies, employment and training providers, and community-based service organizations to implement its diverse set of services and features, which included:

  • Peer support groups
  • Employment and training services
  • Mediation to improve relations with custodial parents
  • Enhanced child support enforcement
  • Reduced child support obligations during the period of program participation

The program’s effects were assessed using unemployment insurance records, child support agency records, and surveys of a subset of fathers in the study and the custodial mothers of their children.

# of hotshot foundations behind this one, and the resulting publication:

Featured Publication

The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children 
Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share

FundersU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Pew Charitable TrustsW. K. Kellogg FoundationCharles Stewart Mott FoundationU.S. Department of Agriculture

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

U.S. Department of Labor

Ford Foundation

The McKnight Foundation

Northwest Area Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

How does enhancing child support enforcement go with reducing it during program participation?  Anyhow the results were less than stunning:

Some of the findings (published on this link):

Funded by the organizations listed at the front of this monograph, PFS provided employment and training services, peer support groups, voluntary mediation between parents, and modified child support enforcement.

Besides designing the PFS demonstration, MDRC evaluated it

MDRC does LOTS of business with HHS ….

 PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities.

PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children.

Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

 In other words, the profile-based assumption that those low-income fathers weren’t paying because they couldn’t, was wrong. How they planned to improve it next time around:

How to increase parental involvement: Increase fathers’ access to their children by involving custodial mothers in the programs and providing the fathers with legal services to gain visitation rights. Be aware of the potential for increased parental conflict.

How to increase child support payments: Mandate fathers’ participation in employmentrelated activities to increase payments among low-income caseloads. Encourage active partnership of fatherhood programs with the child support system.

Let alone as measured by results, there are several red flags that this 2004 Missouri State Auditor’s report of the PFS program.

REPORT# 2004-90 prepared by Claire McCaskill

Improvements are needed in the management and oversight of the Parents’ Fair Share Program

The program’s goal is to help non-custodial parents (NCPs) obtain jobs and become involved in their children’s lives, including paying child support. In order to meet eligibility requirements, the NCP must have a current child support obligation and be unemployed or under-employed. A NCP’s current child support monthly payment is temporarily lowered to an amount the NCP can pay while participating in the program. Participants may receive financial assistance from the program for three activities: training, transportation-related expenses, and work-related expenses. Training costs will be paid for up to a year.

Impediments exist in referring eligible NCPs to the program

In April 2003, the Department of Social Services (DSS) had caseworkers stop referring NCPs to the program during the transfer of program management from DSS to the Department of Economic Development – Division of Workforce Development (division). DSS restarted the referral process in July 2003; however, program referrals have not rebounded to the levels prior to the transfer for several reasons. DSS staff said high caseloads prevented caseworkers from having time to identify and refer NCPs to the program. Additionally, the DSS program coordinator said caseworkers may not refer NCPs to the program because many of the NCPs referred chose not to participate once they understood the program’s requirements and that the child support order is not eliminated. Also, child support caseworkers are no longer required to refer NCPs to the program before referring them to the Attorney General’s office or prosecuting attorneys for prosecution. (See page 4)

This audit is from Missouri — where this Fathers’ Support Center is.   NOTE:  child support caseworkers HAD to refer NCPs to the program before referring them to the attorney general’s office or prosecuting attorneys — prosecuting for child support nonpayment or arrears!  This is why some of us (moms) call the programs a form of “extortion.”  Dads could either go to the program and play by its rules — OR they could go face the D.A. (at this time anyhow) and possibly go to jail for nonsupport.  (or perhaps these NCP’s had other prosecution matters involved too?) (how did DSS get involved with the young men to start with?)

It gets more interesting:

Key provisions of agreement not met

The [Workforce Development] division has not complied with key provisions of the division’s cooperative agreement with DSS for management of the program. The division did not prepare any of the required reports because the computer software used to manage the program does not maintain the information necessary or the reports were not available in it. DSS staff has been compiling this information from manual records.   (it goes on to say they hope this was corrected by 2005).

In addition, program officials lacked data on job related training by participants because of software limitations. Division program officials said software revisions expected to be operational by spring 2005 will address these problems.

The payments to participants depend on participating in training, right?  WHICH program officials?  Sounds like a case of “blame the software” to me.  why transfer to a department which didn’t have the wherewithal to maintain enough information to report on it?

(VIOLATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF USER DATA)

Access to program information in the division’s computer tracking program was not limited to individuals associated with the program as required by the cooperative agreement. As a result, about 1,800 system users had access to confidential data on program participants. Only 24 of these users should have had access to PFS program information, according to division staff. Division officials were unaware of this problem and corrected it once we reported it to them.   {{how long between the time the auditor reported to division officials and the compromise of confidential data?}}

In the detailed section (page 5) of this same topic, it reads:

Data access not restricted

Access to program information in the division’s computer tracking program was not limited to individuals associated with the program. As a result, about 1,800 system users had access to confidential data on program participants. Only 24 of these users should have had access to PFS program information, according to division staff. The computer software storing the program information is also used by other training program staff.8 The cooperative agreement requires information maintained for the program be kept confidential and only accessible by individuals with a legitimate professional “need to know.” Our review determined all users with system access had rights to view and change PFS participant information, including authorizing payments.

Want to see who is in footnote 8?  

Other programs using the same computer software as the Parents’ Fair Share program include the Career Assistance Program, the Missouri Employment and Training Program, the Veteran’s training program, the Workforce Investment Board, the Full Employment Council and various vocational technical training programs throughout the state.

! ! !

The information in the fathers’ files probably also tied to the mothers’ information, including potentially where they lived (supposed a R.O. was on?) and what her income level was, and subjected her / them to potential harassment or even danger, or having — without their knowledge — a mis-use of social security numbers or other potential fraud.  I hate to bring this up, but we have found cases like this, repeatedly, surrounding the child support system.

! ! !

There’s more.  The whole report (not that long) is HERE and I’m not page-citing every quote:

Participants may receive financial assistance from the program for three activities: training, transportation-related expenses, and work-related expenses. Since July 2003, there is no limit to the amount that may be paid for training.3  [Under DSS there was a yearly $2,000 limit for training.]

. . .

Missing validation checks include:

• Identification of payments being authorized for overlapping time periods. This check ensures a participant is not paid for the same day more than once.

A limit to the number of days paid for transportation-related expenses to no more than the number of days in the pay period. This check ensures the pay period may not be from May 1, 2004 to May 5, 2004 when the payment is for 10 days.

Identification of payments being authorized for individuals no longer active in the program.

The payment mailing address does not have to be the address on record for the program participant. Approval or review should be required for any change of the mailing address for payments. Currently, a program workforce specialist can change the mailing address without notifying anyone of the change.

And . . . (on page 8)

Expenditure review process is needed

Division program supervisors performed limited or no review of transportation-related expenses and work-related expenses during fiscal year 2004 because division procedures did not require it. Transportation-related expenses and work-related expenses nearly tripled from $59,000 in fiscal year 2003 to $169,000 in fiscal year 2004.11     Most of the transportation-related expenditures occurred in the last seven months of fiscal year 2004.

No limit to training expenses, which includes transportation.  OK, this was taken advantage of:

OK, roughly speaking — $60K/12 months = $5K per month (for the program).   Versus $170K /7 months = +/- $24K/month in 2004.  It more than tripled, then it almost quintupled.  So much for not monitoring!

Our analysis of transportation-related expenses disclosed one program workforce specialist approved 25 percent of all transportation-related expenditures during fiscal year 2004. Our review of nine case files selected for this employee disclosed he approved transportation-related expenses12 that a program participant reported occurred on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

It’d be nice to get a name…..

This program workforce specialist said when he received work search logs, which documented transportation-related expenses, he did not review them closely and did not check the accuracy by contacting some of the businesses reported. He said he only glanced at the number of days on the log and entered the transportation-related expenses payment information into the computer system. He also said he authorized payments for the majority of his cases for the maximum transportation-related expenses possible and tried to pay as much as possible.

. . .

Division personnel have not attempted to track participant success rates.  

…Then what was the purpose of the program, if not participant success?  to pay participants as much as possible, whether or not expenses were valid?

 

CONTRAST THIS AUDIT WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE MDRC-moderated review.  Consider how many foundations went into pushing the PFS.  What does “Parents’ Fair Share” MEAN, anyhow?  

Now ask why the public should be doing this.  The purpose of the project was to get some participant success.  Money from it (and the report from MO shows how much) came from TANF.   That money might have been better spent on food for the fathers’ kids than inflated transportation expenses.  What a screwup!

Here is “Prison Talk – Parents’ Fair Share”  Listen to these women talking about how it works with their ex’s or boyfriends on the inside and knowing about PFS and trying (having power of attorney for this) to get the state to stop running up someone’s arrears while he’s incarcerated — or, knocking it down to $1 a month.   Totally different perspective… It’s in Missouri DOC, also:

Not sure what I can do besides call parents fair share and talk with them, but has anyone helped their loved one with this? I know my ex as soon as he got locked up got his child support payments dropped to $1 and he never paid me anything to begin with.My husband on the other hand has been paying child support and has incurred $2500. in back child support since he has been locked up. They havent set him up on the $1 per month like he has requested. Now they just took all the money he had on his books and will continue to do so until it is all paid. Anyone ever heard of them making the $1 per month retroactive? and returning the money. Yeah I thought that would make most of you laugh. I am so frustrated. Everythig was going so smoothly I guess satan had to find his way in and mess something up. So husband is cranky and I have to hear it (which is better than someone annoying him and him taking it out on them!!) Anyways just thought I would see if any of you wonderful ladies had some insight on this before I go calling them tomorrow!Thanks!
http://www.dss.mo.gov/cse/pfs/index.htm866-313-9960 #2 will transfer you to DFS customer service. They will require a power of attorney in order to speak with you. You will have to fax it to them then call them back in 5 business days. They are open 7am to 6pm. You do have to explain to them that his INCOME DECREASED TO $8.50 a month or whatever they have him set up with. They will tell you that prison/jail is not sufficent to reduce payments, but they will tell you that through a letter and it takes forever to go back and forth so it is best to talk about the income decrease. (They will know why without you even telling them). This is as far as I have gotten so far. And will update when something else comes to light!

Here are some more official descriptions of the PFS program over the years (not just MO and not just 2004)

http://www.researchforum.org/project_findings_35.html  I notice that Abt Associates was the subcontractor.

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE like many other “FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS” — their funding is obviously not dependent upon their effectiveness, as the Missouri Audit of Parents Fair Share shows.

ANYHOW, near the top, I mentioned a Georgia Superior Court Judge on the CJJDP, right?  (Judge Adele Grubbs of Cobb County)

As to (last post) Jeffrey Regier, Wikipedia shows that prior to his time in Oklahoma (spearheading the OMI) adn Florida (Causing Voice of Freedom to protest and speculate why Gov. Jeb Bush didn’t fire the rascal — and in which it develops that the Oklahoma Governor Keating just happened to have sat on the board of a group getting a work contract which Regier had some influence on, and then back to HQ, on the board of the HHS ASPE (where a glowing report on the OMI was written, with Regier as the main HHS official on the document) — he too had a connection with this DJJDP:

He is named by Bill Coffin (then “Special Assistant for Marriage Education,” now apparently getting more help to sell HIS curriculum package, as well as referring business to former grantees, like Dennis Stoica, etc.) — as instrumental in the “Healthy Marriage Initiative”

MARRIAGE.GOV -a PROMISING PUBLIC POLICY

Bill Coffin Special Assistant for Marriage Education, US HHS/ACF (undated; we can guess at least post-2006….)

This paper will summarize the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI). The HMI was begun in 2002 to help couples who have chosen marriage for themselves gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative/public policy has been run by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

This 2001 declaration by then-HHS man, Wade Horn, is dishonest:

Often when discussing the HMI, Wade Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Chil- dren and Families, would add that this initiative is not about coercing anyone to marry or remain in unhealthy relationships; withdrawing supports from single parents, or diminishing, either directly or indirectly, the important work of single parents; stigmatizing those who choose divorce; limiting access to divorce; promoting the initiative as a panacea for achieving positive outcomes for child and family well-being; running a federal dating service; or an immediate solution to lifting all families out of poverty.

It is doing most of the above, especially the first two!

Just in case we are unclear, yes, it is taking from TANF– The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act specifically and intentionally exempted marriage & fatherhood promotion from TANF requirements (i.e. the services are actually for needy families)

What are the “allowable activities” in the 2005 legislation that reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program?

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), amends Title IV, Section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) and authorizes competitive funding for demon- stration projects that promote healthy marriages through any of the following programs or allowable activities  (and, see at this link, chart showing which parts of HHS jumped on this exception):

Mr. Coffin cites CHMC (which got its corporate status suspended) as a stellar example of marriage education:  ”

In 2006 The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received $11.9 million, the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.

2nd up for congratulations is the OMI:

The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative began approximately eight years ago and serves as a national program model of programmatic design and delivery. The OMI currently offers training in two curricula: the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), which targets couples in a workshop setting; and Within My Reach (WMR), which targets singles. The OMI designed and completed the first comprehensive statewide survey on marriage, and has been featured in The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, the Houston Chronicle, and The New York Times

and thanks are due to — here’s a nice Who’s Who of the list of (cronies). By now, we should recognize many of these names.

In addition to benefiting from a supportive President, this initiative was possible in 2002 because of an accumulated body of work, writings, conferences and websites contributed by policy makers, researchers and practitioners, including: Wade Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of ACF; Chris Gersten, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of ACF; Diane Sollee, Founder and Director of The Coalition of Marriage, Family and Couples Education (“CMFCE,” SMARTMARRIAGES.COM in other words); David Blankenhorn, Founder and President of The Institute for American Values; David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Co-Directors of The National Marriage Project; Governor Keating, Jerry Regier, Howard Hendrick and Mary Myrick [PSI] in Oklahoma; Robert Rector and Pat Fagan of the Heritage Foundation; Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite, co-authors of The Case for Marriage**; Ron Haskins, Brookings Institution; Theodora Ooms, CLASP; Bob Lerman, Urban Institute; Scott Stanley and Howard Markman of PREP; Mike McManus, Co-Founder of Marriage Savers; the work of Fragile Family researchers**; the early work of The National Extension Relationship and Marriage Education Network; David and Vera Mace, Founders of The Association for Couples in Marriage Enrichment (ACME); Julie Baumgardner, Executive Director of First Things First (TN) ; Jeff Kemp, President of Families Northwest; Ron Mincy at Columbia University; and others.

**funded by the Ford Foundation, and others….

Good Grief!!  Linda Waite’s group in Colorado is/began as an abstinence promotion group, has a scandalous incorporation record (which I tracked), and was at one time called “WAIT” training (pun on the name, much?), had partial association with a kill-the-gays movement in Uganda, and just happens to be in on the in crowd, evidently.  They got grants in 2011, under “Center for Relationship Education” which name change, I can’t find actually happened legally in Colorado.

If the Marriage Initiative couldn’t happen right without these individuals, then we should be aware of who they are, how they act, and what they are doing, to this day.

. . .I just found out that former Gov. Keating of Oklahoma is Roman Catholic, went to a Tulsa Prep School, Georgetown, was an FBI employee and is a member of a duckhunters group which has many politicians on it (including former Pres. Bush).  The last may be less than relevant, the first three items, in this context, are.

High School: Cascia Hall Preparatory School, Tulsa, OK (1962)
University: BA History, Georgetown University (1966)
Law School: JD, University of Oklahoma College of Law (1969)

Cascia Hall (when he attended) was all-male accepting boarders (til 1986); it is Augustinian and located on a 40-acre campus in the Middle of Tulsa.  It began admitting females in 1986.  Not that most readers aren’t aware of Georgetown, but a few unique facts (from wikipedia, where else):     Founded in 1751, the city of Georgetown substantially predated the establishment of the city of Washington and the District of Columbia. Georgetown retained its separatemunicipal status until 1871, when its city charter was revoked by the United States Congress.

The area reached the height of fashionability when Georgetown resident John F. Kennedy was elected president. Kennedy lived in Georgetown in the 1950s as both a Congressman and a Senator. Parties hosted by his wife, Jackie, and many other Georgetown hostesses drew political elites away from downtown clubs and hotels or the upper 16th Street corridor. Kennedy went to his presidential inauguration from his townhouse at 3307 N Street in January 1961.

Georgetown is now one of the most affluent neighborhoods in Washington and home to many of the city’s politicians and lobbyists. Current inhabitants include Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, past Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee, Washington Post Watergate reporter and current assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Montana Senator Max Baucus, among others. High-end developments and gentrification have revitalized Georgetown’s formerly blighted industrial waterfront. The District’s old refuse incinerator and smokestack, preserved for years as an abandoned but historic landmark, was redeveloped in 2003 to become the most pronounced feature of a new Ritz-Carlton Hotel.[30] Georgetown is home to a variety of luxury retailers and boutiques.

The Governor had a fine education, no doubt, and a very privileged and male-centric one in a male-centric religion from Prep School (all-male) through the completion of of a B.A.  Georgetown is  Jesuit University right in Washington, D.C., (and an excellent one, obviously):

Aerial Shot of Campus

Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States. Jesuits have played a significant role in the growth and evolution of Georgetown into a global research university deeply rooted in the Catholic faith. Georgetown’s Jesuit tradition also promotes the university’s commitment to spiritual inquiry, civic engagement, and religious and cultural pluralism. The Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, an international religious community which was founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century. Today, Jesuits continue to enrich the university through their work as scholars, researchers, administrators, chaplains and counselors.

This absolutely has to be taken into account when considering a man who became Governor and decided that it was all right to skip the legislature to push for marriage (odd, given the celibacy that Catholic priests still are supposed to maintain, and over which major schisms have happened (see Archbishop Stallings .. .. !)

Given the religious makeup of Oklahoma, it seems interesting to have a Catholic Governor — here’s a breakdown, showing the Southern Baptists have the Catholics about 9 to 1, and Jews can forget it (they’re outnumbered — among people who claim any religion) 10 to 1.  This also is revealing in why OK might just be a GREAT place to force a marriage initiative statewide.  (It also makes me wonder whether the high divorce rate, the predominance of “women submit” Southern Baptists (in fact most Evangelical Protestants qualify  as such), and high poverty rate just might be related.  That’s just speculation:

Evangelical Protestant groups predominate in Oklahoma with adherents representing about 41.4% of the total population in 2000. This group was influential in keeping the state “dry”—that is, banning the sale of all alcoholic beverages—until 1959 and resisting legalization of public drinking until 29 counties voted to permit the sale of liquor by the drink in 1985.

The leading Protestant group in 2000 was the Southern Baptist Convention with 967,223 adherents. Other leading Evangelical Protestant denominations include the Assemblies of God, 88,301 adherents; the Churches of Christ, 83,047; the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), 53,729; . . .

(extremely controlling denominations, I’ve had experience with the second & third listed and known a middle-aged single adult male who felt he had to ask permission to switch churches from the pastors of both old and new.  From my acquaintance with the guy, he probably knew more Bible than either one of them, too.  One thing about “walking by the spirit” groups — there’s hardly a appeal to law or scripture outside of leadership choices….  The Southern Baptists (just a reminder) was the convention that former President Jimmy Carter and his wife felt they had to leave – based on their views towards women.

Which apparently Jeffrey Regier — who’d obtained high (cabinet) authority in the state government — shared…

and the Christian Churches, 42,708. Free Will Baptists, Nazarenes, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and those of various other Pentecostal traditions are also fairly well represented. The largest Mainline Protestant denominations are the United Methodist Church, with 322,794 adherents, and the Presbyterian Church USA, with 35,211 adherents. In 2000, there were 168,625 Roman Catholics, 6,145 Muslims, and about 5,050 Jews throughout the state. About 39.2% of the population did not claim any religious affiliation.

Oral Roberts, a popular minister, has established a college and faith-healing hospital in Tulsa, and his “Tower of Faith” broadcasts by radio and television have made him a well-known preacher throughout the United States.

HERE’s a 2002 blog (posting a news article) on the pivotal influence of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, referencing many of the above people, and Regier, and acknowledging that Wade Horn was indeed present at the 1999 Governor and First Lady’s Conference launching this statewide initiative.  The article is written pretty well:

The Ross News – February 28, 2002:  The Oklahoman

. . .In the White House budget plan sent to Congress last week, the Bush administration offered no new money to encourage job advancement. However, it proposed more than $100 million for experimental programs aimed at encouraging women on welfare to get married, The Associated Press reported.

Two years ago, Keating became the first governor in the nation to set aside Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to strengthen marriages and reduce the divorce rate. Those funds are block grants provided to each state through the 1996 welfare reform act.

Fortifying marriages was a major goal of welfare reform, but few states have acted on it, said Ron Haskins, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former staff director of the U.S. House Ways and Means welfare subcommittee.

Nobody has done as much as publicly and conspicuously as Oklahoma has,” Haskins said.

Diane Sollee, founder of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education in Washington, said, “All eyes are on Oklahoma, that’s for sure.”

FYI, many healthy marriage grantees incorporate and then going to a conference run by Sollee becomes a deductible expense.  The money and information circulates around as to how to mass-market curricula presented at the conference.  Those profiting the most are those who run the trainings and most of all, probably, any for-profit that gets to — unlike most of us regular people who may be targeted for taking such classes, or our kids may be — utilize pre-existing pubic institutions (such as welfare, child support, and the Department of HHS) + some new institutions they or similarly minded people pushed for or ran (such as Governor’s Offices of Faith-Based Organizations — and there are several — or statewide Fatherhood Commissions, or etc.) to also do, basically similar activities.

Praise for Oklahoma

Now, it appears that President Bush would like other states to follow Oklahoma’s lead.

“I think it’s quite exciting,” administration official Wade Horn said of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. “I think Governor Keating has shown real leadership and creativity on this issue, and we’re looking forward to seeing the results.”

Some Leadership.  He followed HHS directives and his Cabinet Member and NFI advocates, and (as prompted strongly by them, it seems) “Creatively” stole TANF moneys directed towards children in needy households in one of the lowest-income states in the union and pushed it towards marriage promotion instead.  It already mentioned that one potential reason for the high divorce rate was Oklahomans marrying too early!  So, to solve this, — marry them off MORE?

Testifying last year before a congressional subcommittee (the link in my last post I think), Jerry Regier, Keating’s former health and human services secretary, said Oklahoma spends millions on foster care, child abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, out-of-wedlock births, juvenile delinquency and many other problems. Regier characterized those problems as “primarily… the result of either families not forming through marriage in the first place or because of absent parents due to divorce.”

And not of course of lack of viable options outside welfare for single mothers.  Regier was formerly President of the very, very conservative Family Research Council, too, one of whose board members (as I said) includes the mother of the man behind the notorious Blackwater (militia, Iraq, etc.)

Horn, former president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, spoke at the Oklahoma conference on marriage hosted by the governor and First Lady CathyKeating in March 1999. As assistant secretary for children and families in the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, he’s a key figure in efforts . . . . (etc.)

And pushing for covenant marriages, too….

Since 1997, three states – Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas – have passed covenant marriage laws.

Under such laws, couples can choose a covenant marriage license or a standard marriage license.

A covenant marriage license requires premarital classes, mandates counseling for marital problems and makes it more difficult for a couple to divorce. On the other hand, a couple with a standard marriage license can skip the counseling and divorce for virtually any reason.

This is starting to remind me of problems in Coptic Ethiopia  . . .  .

MEANWHILE, “The Democratic Underground” gave Jerry Regier (now in Florida) spot #1 in the Top 10:

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 81)
August 26, 2002
Biblical Spanking Edition

Some top quality shenanigans in the world of conservative idiocy force Dubya from his number one position this week, although the Chump-in-Charge does manage two more entries this week at numbers 4 and 10. But this week’s top slot is reserved for Jerry “Biblical Spanking” Regier, Florida’s new head of the Department of Children and Families. Nice. Nudging up against Jerry Regier’s mudflaps we find Bob Barr (2) to whom we can only say, “You lost! Get over it!” And man, does it feel good to say that. Elsewhere, Judy Woodruff (5) is now having her TelePrompTer fed directly from the White House – no, she really is – and the head of Miami-Dade’s Christian Coalition, Antonio Verdugo (8), is just a big ol’ fraud (allegedly). Enjoy, and as usual, here’s the key.

1Jerry Regier religious nut religious nut
Florida’s Department of Children and Families managed to get on the list last week (see Idiots 80), and now their new boss has made it on – in his first week on the job. Last week Jeb Bush named Jerry Regier to be the new head of the DCF. Hours later it was revealed that Mr. Regier had previously made some, shall we say, “insane” comments. See if you can guess which ones they are!

A) ”biblical spanking [that leads to] temporary and superficial bruises or welts do not constitute child abuse.”

B) Christians should not marry non-Christians.

C) Wives should view working outside the home as ”bondage.”

D) The ”radical feminist movement has damaged the morale of many women and convinced men to relinquish their biblical authority in the home.” The answer? Yep – it’s all of them of course. The man who is to be charged with the welfare of Florida’s children and families thinks that keeping your woman indoors and beating your kids is just the right thing to do.  

 

 

Wikipedia on Jerry Regier (of Oklahoma) a vis a vis the composition of the current Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (see top of this page) can get a little frightening, almost:

 

Gerald P. “Jerry” Regier (born 1945) is an American businessman and politician from Oklahoma who is best known as first President of the Family Research Council.

Regier has previsously served in numerous positions within the Administration of Governor of Oklahoma Frank Keating, including Keating’s Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services (1997–2002). In addition to his service as Secretary, Regier served concurrently as the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.

Family Research Council

Regier, in cooperation with Dr. James Dobson, founded the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organization, in 1983. Regier served as that organization’s first President from 1984 until 1988. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor under President Ronald Reagan, succeeded Regier as President.

[edit]Federal government career

President Ronald Reagan appointed Regier in 1988 to the National Commission on Children, an advisory body in the United States Department of Health and Human Services on children’s issues. Reagan’s successor,George H.W. Bush, reappointed Regier in 1991. Regier continued to serve on the Commission until 1993.

In 1992, President Bush appointed Regier as Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and as Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Regier served in both of those positions until the end of Bush’s term in 1993.

[edit]Keating Administration

[edit]Office of Juvenile Affairs

When RepublicanFrank Keating, a former Reagan Administration official, was elected Governor of Oklahoma in 1995, Keating appointed Regier to serve as the Deputy Director of the newly created Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA) under Executive Director Ken Lackey. Regier served as Lackey’s principal juvenile justice advisor to Lackey in his position as Keating’s Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services. When Lackey resigned as Executive Director of OJA, Keating appointed Regier as his successor.

[edit]Health Secretary

Lackey served as Health and Human Services Secretary until 1997, when Keating appointed him as his Chief of Staff. Keating appointed Regier to succeed Lackey as Secretary. As Health and Human Services Secretary, Lackey served as Keating’s top health policy advisor and provided oversight to theOklahoma State Department of Health, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services, and the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.[1]

Regier resigned as Secretary in 2002 to pursue a campaign to succeed the term-limited Keating as Governor of Oklahoma. Keating appointed the head of the Oklahoma Department of Human ServicesHoward Hendrick, to succeed Regier as Secretary.[2][3]

Jeb Bush Administration

When Regier dropped out of the Governor’s race, Keating recommended that Governor of FloridaJeb Bush appoint him the head of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Bush acted on Keating’s recommendation and made Regier his Secretary of Children and Families. He remained in that position until the end of Bush’s term in 2007.[5]

 

 

Don’t mock Wikipedia.  For example, through it I learned of this OJJDP, that:  

The office is headed by an administratorJ. Robert Flores, since April 2002.

As of May 2008, Flores and the OJJDP were under congressional investigation for how $8.6 million was awarded to programs combating juvenile delinquency. The controversy involves money granted to programs with ties to George W. Bush. 10 grants were awarded. The organization, Best Friends Foundation, run by founder and president, Elayne Bennett, wife of William Bennett, ranked 51st out of 104 applications, was awarded $1.1 million over a three year period. The organization promotes self-respect, abstinence and rejection of illegal drug and alcohol use.

Similarly, The World Golf Association, with George H. W. Bush speaking at one of hat group’s functions, was awarded grant money because it was the highest ranked applicant with sports as their primary function. Of the 104 applicants, only one other applicant had a sports bid. A one-year grant of $500,000 was awarded for the organization’s “First Tee” program. The World Golf Association was ranked 47th among all the bids.

Henry Waxman (D-CA) sitting on the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform leads the congressional investigation into wrongdoing.

From the Site of this Committee:

HERE is a copy of his March 2008 letter to the then-Attorney General soliciting information on the Grantmaking processes and stating why:

Responding to concerns raised by Rep. Timothy Walz about questionable practices by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in awarding grants, Chairman Waxman wrote to Attorney General Mukasey to request documents detailing the grantmaking process at OJJDP:

According to a recent article in the trade publication, Youth Today, recent OJJDP grants have been awarded in a noncompetitive m¿rrner, in some cases with highly ranked applicants rejected in favor of lower ranked competitors.’ In one example described by Youth Today, the OJJDP awarded $500,000 to the World Golf Association, even while its grant proposal was scored lower than that of 38 other applicants in the technical review.

In order to examine these allegations, I request that you provide the Committee the following information :  (etc.)

 

A Congressional Hearing was held (the next June, 2008) on this, and I’ve linked to some documents.  The opening letter by Sen. Waxman is eloquent and speaks clearly to Mr. Flores’ behavior in ignoring recommendations (scoring of applicants) by his own staff to grant certain organizations, and detaling of their connections to the (Bush) administration and personal contacts between applicants and Administration prior to getting them.

he Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing titled, “Examining Grantmaking Practices at the Department of Justice” on Thursday, June 19, 2008, in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

The hearing examined how the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded grants in fiscal year 2007. A preliminary transcript of this hearing is now available.

The following witness testified:

    • Mr. J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention


 (excerpts and better viewed on-line):

  • This Committee has held many hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse in federal contracting. We’ve also held hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse in other types ofprograms, such as crop insurance and workers’ compensation insurance.But we have held few hearings on abuses in federal grants. In 2006, the federal government spent $419 billion on federal contracts. It spent even more – $488 billion – on federal grants. So examination of waste, fraud, and abuse in grant programs is a high priority.
  • Instead, Mr. Flores chose to give the majority ofthe grant funding to five programs that his staffhad not recommended for funding. One was an abstinence-only program. Two were faith-basedprograms. Anotherwasagolfprogram. What’smore,theyappearedtohavespecial access to Mr. Flores that other applicants were denied.
  • Mr. Flores awarded a $1.1 million grant to the Best Friends Foundation, an abstinence- onlyorganization,thatranked53outof104applications. Thecareerstaffwhoreviewedthis application said it was “poorly written,” “had no focus,” “was illogical,” and “made no sense.” Documents provided to the Committee show that while the grant was being developed and competed, Mr. Flores had multiple contacts with Elayne Bennett, the founder and chairman of Best Friends and the wife of Bill Bennett, who worked in the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
  • And Mr. Flores awarded a $1.2 million grant to Urban Strategies LLC, a consulting firm, and Victory Outreach, a “church-oriented Christian ministry called to the task of evangelizing.” This grant application also received a low ranking: 44 out of 104 applications. But the head of Urban Strategies was Lisa Cummins, who formerly worked in the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Documents provided to the Committee show that Ms. Cummins had several high-level meetings with Mr. Flores and other Justice Department officials before and after receiving the grant.
  • On the other hand, the Justice Research and Statistics Association was the top scoring group out of the 104 applicants. It scored a 98 and was universally praised by career employees for its effectiveness and good work. It provides training and technical assistance to state juvenile corrections workers. But it was not selected or funded.
  • There is no question that Mr. Flores had discretion to award grants. He is entitled to use hisexperienceandjudgmentindeterminingwhichgrantapplicationstofund. Buthehasan obligation to make these decisions based on merit, facts, and fairness. And the reasoning for his decision must be transparent and available to the public.
  • Nearly every official the Committee spoke with, including the Justice Department peer reviewers, the civilservice program managers, and the career official in charge ofthe solicitation, told us that Mr. Flores’s approach was neither fair nor transparent. Mr. Flores’s superior, the Assistant Attorney General, told the Committee: “I am for candor and clarity, especially when dealing with the people’s money. And that did not happen. And I am upset that it did not happen
This blog article JUVIENATION  (3/31/2008), commenting on the investigative article that finally got some Congressmen’s attention — and eventually Waxman’s is a good read.
While I mostly research HHS cronyism, this shows that at the top of the heap appointing grants (Flores, in position 2002-2006), was a Bush lackey.
That has not been done, and has no appearance of so being done.

Special Report: OJJDP Grant Making Scandal

July 03, 2008 by Patrick Boyle(Includes related documents) Youth Today’s ongoing coverage of questionable grant making by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Detention and Delinquency Prevention.

Flores’ Chief of Staff pleaded the Fifth Amendment during the Oversight Hearing!
NOW — if someone will do a similar series for the HHS as well
We may just have another shot a real justice in this country!

1996-2010: How “Ending welfare as we know it” morphed to [so far…] Statewide Marriage and Relationship Education –for Everyone

with one comment

Some of my friends scold me for showing too much and not just telling.  They’re right.    But as I like to SHOW (and then TELL, too) — posts run to triple-length size,  then I split them up with new — and long — titles.

(Those of you who know me — this is a “Conversational Public Data Dump.”  You are forewarned!)

(see also my comment — it has a major double-pasted section in it, too.  I will printout & purge the duplicates….  The value of this post is in the narrative, plus the links).

This post began as a TANF introduction to another one on a specific Healthy Marriage Grantee.

You may not think this information relevant — but, it has already landed in your back yard; it is restructuring the United States; it is a financial issue with global ramifications.  The story of HOW this happened (and through whom) will help us pay better attention in the future, and should rule out certain distractions — such as choosing which battle to fight, and which diversionary propaganda to ignore.

However, someone has to protest the incremental removal of civil liberties going along with incremental spending down of public dollars, diverted to . . .. for lack of a better word . .. Bush appointees, and Obama cronies.  And when it comes to THIS category, I don’t hear a lot of specific protests.

Want to Occupy Something?  Occupy This — your senators and representatives voted welfare infinite expansion, for private profit actually, into being through public laws.  How could that be?

Well, we have  public school systems that still (apparently) teach U.S. Mythology, not Accounting, that are places for Values & INdoctrination Wars.  Somehow, the importance of the House Ways and Means Appropriations Committee — let alone about how corporations and government actually interact, were not considered pre-requisites for graduation. Meanwhile,  people LIVE in neighborhoods where they can observe this discrepancy, know that the common explanations do not hold water, but may not have a coherent explanation of what does, of what happened (historically).

Moreover, there is a digital divide and closed-doors deliberations.   We are not [certainly anyone ever on welfare is typically not] given or pointed to the best tools to finding out how things work. The cult is of the experts — who teach the uninstructed and presumably not smart enough to “get it.”

The tools available to the unfunded public (like TAGGS) have been also tinkered with, obfuscated and otherwise screwed with, to beyond credibility (accuracy) – although they do reveal traits and patterns to a degree.  TAGGS cannot be reconciled with USASPENDING.gov (and isn’t) even when just looking up HHS grants only on the latter.  I have not made up my mind yet which is more in error, but USASPENDING.gov already has its accuracy critics –and so few people seem to ever USE TAGGS, that leaves me.

Name me ONE other blog or public website that began posting those HHS grantee & project charts before this blog did (earliest, 2009) and recommending their use.  Yet its data goes back to 1995.

Now a point has been made, by the structure AND content of this resource — well read, clearly understood — that this information is NOT reliable; moreover that it’s not reliable — or in really useable form — is no accident.

For example — a big stink since 2001 has been made about laying down the red carpet for (and building capacity for) the faith-based organizations to go help the poor hungry, under-educated slobs get some jobs and visit their sons and daughters, and be taught how to “relate” better to the other parent.

YET — TAGGS has no designation (or classification) for  Faith-based organization.  It’s been 10 years since Bush Executive Order, and the word “faith-based” is all over government (federal state, and nonprofit groups, such as CNCS), other sites — and yet no field has been added to the database to designate “Faith-based” or NOT Faith-based.    The same goes for the fine distinction between “Marriage” grantees and “Fatherhood Grantees.”  yet there is one CFDA (93086) for both — and, moreover, marriage and fatherhood activities could be in, literally, almost any category of federal domestic assistance, such as social welfare research and demonstration, which are NOT under “93086.”  Or in Head Start.  So what’s that about, eh?

Is this really about promoting responsible  “Fatherhood”?  I don’t think so.  Responsible Fathers (note:  this does not include Glenn Sacks or Nicholas Soppa!) like some accountability here and there, and deserve resources to get it, just like others do, and can come to a debate that is not predetermined, and occasionally lose a point or two (i.e. humility).  I don’t know any decent father who’d advocate stealing from the public under false pretenses, and attempting to cover one’s tracks, yet this IS what’s happening.  Or a responsible father helping set up any systems which, after about 53 failures, are still going full force, in the same manner – which many faith-based groups are.  Or which INTENTIONALLY undermines separation of church & state, OR the separation of powers in the federal government — and does so for personal sense of power, fame (or for profit).  Responsible fathers are willing to sacrifice, not specialists in sacrificing others, or what’s right.

this entire responsible fatherhood movement is, essentially (to quote Liz Richards/National Alliance for Family Court Justice, in testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Appropriations — in June 2010) – An Expensive Solution looking for a Legitimate Problem:

Protective Mother’s Response to Ways & Means Income Security & Family Support June 17, 2010 hearing for re- reauthorizataion of Responsible Fatherhood program funding.

AN EXPENSIVE REMEDY IN SEARCH OF A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM!

The June 17th 2010 “Responsible Fatherhood” hearing testimony supporting the administration’s reauthorization request for $150,000,000 for a program which has failed to offer any verifiable data on program implementation or specific outcomes, such as the easy to verify job skill training and improved child support compliance factors. Program promoters have become defensive, or hostile, when their operations or intent is questioned. They reject complaints from protective mother advocates who describe serious systemic problems occurring with divorcing and “absent” fathers. In short – the Responsible Fatherhood program advocates have never shown any interest toward the very people who they purport to be helping- divorced or separated mothers of the fathers enrolled in their programs..

Responsible Fatherhood programs have been funded since 1996, but have yet to offer any outcome data or analysis verifying positive impact on mothers and children. Instead they rely on vague claims of involvement of domestic violence specialists to claim [their] activities are not causing mothers any problems. HHS ACF officials confirm they do no requirement for collecting or reporting program enrollment or outcome data.

{Heck, HHS/OIG/OAS can’t even keep track of millions of undistributed child support already collected at the state level, and eschews responsibility for doing so — after all, isn’t it TANF blocks to the states, for flexible use? so long as federal incentives are met for their $2 of ours for $1 of yours, and they get some back, who’s going to rock that boat?  Yet in part it’s from child support enforcement funds that Fatherhood Promotion is done!}

Why should they be getting millions more if they won’t verify the millions already spent are producing positive results, or any other performance or outcome information? Why don’t the fatherhood promoters know anything about the protective mother movement, or show any interest in the concerns of divorcing and separated mothers?

(actually, some of these DO know about this movement and viciously attack it in print and on on-line forums — see Peter Jamison, SFWeekly earlier in 2011)

We believe their data omissions are done deliberately to cover up another agenda – which our members observe and are negatively affected by – which is recruiting dead-beat and abusive men into lucrative high-conflict litigation. I alone have over 2000 victim intake contacts from nearly all US states. NAFCJ has state leaders, in over 15 states collaborate with other protective mother leaders. I have been communicating with fathers’ rights and fatherhood leaders and activist since as early as 1992, have attended their conference and have determined the two movements are one [and] the same.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LGH Note:   Since last June 2010, I have seem more influences than just the fathers’ rights upon these grant series, but still believe it a valid factor nevertheless at the “street” and HHS etc. level)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I note that this 2010 testimony (filed on-line) also refers to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:

The US Senator who sponsored the earlier $150,000,000 Responsible Fatherhood earmark in the 2005 deficit Reduction Act has been a fathers rights supporter since he was a state legislator and has been collaborating with the fathers right leader and founder from his state from state since the start. This fathers’ right founder also has collaborated with Dr Richard Gardner on specific case litigation. Gardner’s writings included heinous remarks – such as ( in paraphrase): “mothers who complain about father’s sex abuse of children should be told to get a vibrator and become more sexually responsive to her husband so he won’t have to seek sex from his daughter.” This and other sick and deviant opinions from Gardner and other publish pro-incest men (e.g Ralph Underwager and Warren Farrell) are the reason why Responsible Fatherhood promoters conceal their relationship with the father rights people.

In order for the Responsible Fatherhood promoter to conceal their history of collaborating with the deviant fathers rights movement, they use domestic violence counselor as a “heat shield” to make themselves look pro-woman. But our movement of litigating protective mothers, many of whom have been in domestic violence shelters, have never observed any officially designated fathers representatives collaborating with domestic violence representative or producing and positive actions or outcomes for them. What we do hear from d.v. victim mothers who have gone from her home into shelter with her children – only to be arrested and put into jail a few days later for “kidnapping” the children. Most not allowed any contact with their children, because they are then deemed to be a flight risk. An ex- parte sole custody order is establish for the father is without any notification or hearing for the mother. The d.v. shelter people refuse to support them or testify for the mother and ignore her concerned about the father’s abuse of the children. Many of these falsely arrested mothers don’t see their children again for months {{or years…}} on grounds she is a flight risk. Unfortunately our movement is very dissatisfied with the d.v. movement and believe they also need reforming. However, some of their leaders are working with us to correct this part of the system failure

If I get the rest of the follow-up post out — there is a demonstration of this “heat shield” phenomena — at the “Domestic Violence Coalition” level, typically.

and she also wrote:

All the evidence I’ve observed indicates the Responsible Fatherhood programs are merely a cover for recruiting bad dads with offers of child support abatements into high-conflict litigation, giving sole custody of the children to the father and getting the mother out of picture and forcing her to pay excessive child support obligations to him

Then there are (I learned through the Kentucky example:  “Turning It Around”) the times fathers in arrears were, literally, extorted into participating in programs such as fatherhood classes, parenting skills, self-esteem, ABSTINENCE education (for a father?), and more — which have their promoters throughout the system, usually with a for-profit organization selling the materials behind any nonprofit group.   These are not so many or varied that they are hard to locate and recognize the presence of, any more…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _OK, enough of that particular angle . . . . . . .

Personal:

My interests and activism took another “sea change” after documenting (some, at least) of the Sea Changes at for example California Healthy Marriage Coalition, which boasted on outset of its programs of THE largest HHS marriage promotion grant yet ($11 million over 5 years).

Again, at the corporate level (California Secretary of State) a search of the words ‘Healthy Marriage” (singular) produces this chart:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2629035 11/08/2004 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CHRIS GRIER
C2896098 06/01/2006 ACTIVE FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911 03/07/2001 DISSOLVED HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898 06/23/2006 SUSPENDED ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473 10/04/2006 SUSPENDED RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745 05/12/2004 ACTIVE SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304 05/29/2009 ACTIVE SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238 03/02/2006 ACTIVE STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354 08/13/2007 ACTIVE YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT WILLIAM F JENS

and “Healthy Relationship,” this one:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3073670 01/16/2008 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528 05/13/2005 ACTIVE HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA PATTY HOWELL
C2790720 06/09/2006 ACTIVE OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS ** RESIGNED ON 06/20/2011
C2494811 01/06/2003 DISSOLVED THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC. TAMARA ILICH

Meanwhile — as far as the 990 finder (which uses IRS filings) is concerned, the Sacramento Group has indeed changed its name by 2010, and there IS no “California Healthy Marriage” nonprofit around.

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Dba Relationship Skills Center CA 2010 $64,938 990 31 13-4280316

Now, on TAGGS, this ONE EIN (13480316) pulls up a slightly smaller set of grants, but two different DUNS# — why? (I put these here for readers to click on)

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO CA 95821 SACRAMENTO 147288935 $ 2,446,593
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO CA 95821 SACRAMENTO 827612631 $ 1,148,512

  

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recipients


Searching by Principal Investigator “Curtis” (within California) we see some — not all — of the grants:

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project NON Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN CURTIS $ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project NON Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN R CURTIS $ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Other Social Services Organization 90FE0015 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 93086 CAROLYN R CURTIS $ 1,647,768
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Other Social Services Organization 90IJ0205 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 93009 CAROLYN CURTIS $ 50,000

and of course the last one, a new award, goes to — “CAROLYN CAROLYN” (i.e., FN FN)

Grantee Name City Recovery Act Indicator Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project SACRAMENTO NON Other Social Services Organization 90FM0059 FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM 93086 CAROLYN CAROLYN $ 798,825

SO, this $3 million plus is going to an organization in Sacramento (California State Capitol) that is not maintaining is nonprofit status with the state of California — is this affecting our budget?  Please also note that of these 5 awards, two are “Recovery” (ARRA) awards — totaling $1,647,768.  In another OMB or GAO report, we found that ARRA awards specifically have been tagged as notoriously NOT paying their still-due payroll and other taxes (even were the nonprofit legitimate):

(posted July 14, 2011 at Patton Boggs, LLP, with the alert that this is general information — and not legal advice)

Federal grant award recipients should carefully review their own federal tax compliance and use vigilance when engaging subrecipients and contractors, based on recent Senate testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

On May 24, 2011, a GAO representative testified before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that thousands of contract and grant recipients under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) owe hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid federal taxes. The testimony summarized GAO’s April 2011 report of its investigation of 15 entities that had collectively received some $35 million in ARRA funds despite federal tax delinquencies totaling roughly $40 million. GAO referred all 15 entities to the IRS for possible criminal investigation.

ARRA grant award recipients may face risks to their projects stemming from federal tax delinquencies even though, as the GAO acknowledged, federal law does not generally prohibit applicants with unpaid federal tax debts from receiving federal grant awards. With federal debt continuing to climb, and federal spending far outstripping tax revenues, Congress may at least examine changes to the law to impose new restrictions in this area. In addition, in many cases, the tax delinquencies stem from  unpaid payroll taxes, meaning that even entities exempt from federal income taxes may be affected.

The GAO accounts.  It has no teeth.  Congress has to act….  More from the GAO site indicates that groups such as these may be included, i.e., if they don’t includ amounts from groups that have not filed federal tax returns 

At least 3,700 Recovery Act contract and grant recipients–including prime recipients, subrecipients, and vendors–are estimated to owe more than $750 million in known unpaid federal taxes as of September 30, 2009, and received over $24 billion in Recovery Act funds. This represented nearly 5 percent of the approximately 80,000 contractors and grant recipients in the data from Recovery.gov as of July 2010 that we reviewed. The estimated amount of known unpaid federal taxes is likely understated because IRS databases do not include amounts owed by recipients who have not filed tax returns or understated their taxable income and for which IRS has not assessed tax amounts due. 

(Back to TAGGS and our HM grantees)

And the $15 million went to an organization incorporated by Dennis Stoica (in Leucadia) that had its corporate status suspended, as well as the OTHER two organizations he formed, around the same time.   Patty Howell’s nonprofit, who carried on the name — is still associated with the bad behavior (by association) with CHMC’s originals.

Yet the only one of the BUNCH that I can see actually filed (with California, where they are) with the OAG — as required to — was the Sacramento Healthy Marriage (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.)

The California Healthy Marriage (Stoica, Suspended) became, somehow “Healthy Relationships California” (Howell) — think Leucadia, San Diego Area.

Meanwhile, the SACRAMENTO HM group (Curtis) — not that its ‘charitable status is, er, current — at least created one with the OAG, which looks like this

(on the actual site, the headings background color would be BLUE).  I am coding it GREEN, to match the PATTY HOWELL group – and indeed, the letter on this site (From the OAG) saying’ hey whassup, is addressed to “Sacramento Healthy Marriage”

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA CT0149740 Charity Delinquent LEUCADIA CA Charity Registration Charity
1

TAGGS grant for This one, EIN# 6806790  (which I believe I’ve gone over before, at some length) shows:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 003664535 $ 7,883,475
California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA CA 92024-2215 SAN DIEGO 361795151 $ 7,142,080

Or, in the latest ACF announcement (just to make life a little harder for the novice in all this) as:

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

Which is it not called, any more — on the TAGGS  – – – OR, on the website itself, because Patty Howell’s  actual organization “healthy Relationships” apparently subsequently bought (or, at least claimed) the registered name “California Healthy Marrriage Coalition.”

Website — not that this group is current as a charity in California any more, but at least Ms. Howell’s nonprofit founded JUST a bit earlier than Mr. Stoica’s, saved the day and kept the name — it’s still showing up as:  California Healthy Marriages Coalition and (I see) features a “Dads & Kids” relationship education initiative, …

stating that this is funded in part by:  “Partial funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FE0104. “

ward Number: 90FE0104
Award Title: HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1
OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization: OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (OFA)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

Award Abstract

Title Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1 
Project Start/End  /
Abstract Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1
PI Name/Title Howell, Patty   Vice President of Operations
Institution

There are 7 award actions (4 of which read “$0”) and the other three (discretionary) $2.3 million & $2.4 + $2.4 million from 2006, 2009 & 2010= $7,142,080.  The grant is labeled “healthy marriage” and “FE” and the use was for Dads & Kids relationship building — which just so happens to be another business Ms. Howell is in.

Quite honestly, I don’t remember now (or feel like checking) whether it was Howell, or Curtis — on both nonprofits, receiving $32K for work on the one, and $7K for work on the other.

HM/FR GRANTEE BEHAVIORS

I am now learning that their behavior is typical — not atypical– for the healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grantees.  As such, I am starting to comprehend that the entire system wasn’t even nominally set up to promote marriage, but to deconstruct the lines of authority between federal and state, to divert welfare funding SPECIFICALLY from single mothers (who, even when under attack are still a force to be reckoned with) towards fathers, and change language acknowledging us as both mothers and citizens (individuals) with equal rights under the law — which, by the way, we DO have.  But not safely enforceable.

The Child Support monster is just that — and as it feeds gas in to county & state agencies, and (diversionary programs) — it has been spilling, and some of these spills turn into conflagrations where people get hurt.  Men, women and children.   Other than that, it often drains an economy — but DRIVES the bureaucratic economy.  Whatever it may have been, it is now a monster.  It recruits, it solicits — but it does not produce and does not contain viable checks and balances.

WHO VOTED THIS AGENDA IN?  AND WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE?

I am gradually understanding that it was THE United States Congressmen, and some (not many) women that voted for these laws, from TANF (1996/Clinton), through DRA (2005/Bush) through ARRA (2009/Obama) and through 2010 Claims Resolution Act (also Obama).  It took me a while to realize that these years paralleled the hell extended nightmare of a marriage, followed by what at this point, I’d call worse — because it destroys hope of an off-ramp, EVER, and has definitely altered my family line’s wellbeing — in EVERY measurable category — for the far worse, since we first met the courts.   And people who go through this marginalization tend to listen to others who have; mine is no isolated instance; it’s a systemic situation.

This is relevant history to current history, on its course.   Don’t we want to know who helped set what in motion, and how?  Particularly when history tends to run over the very families (and economy) it is pretending — or purporting — to help?

Normally, this subject matter wouldn’t be on my radar.  It only got there when I demanded a reasonable explanation for a clear double-standard based on gender in what I assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) to be courts of law, i.e., “family courts.”   Of course my opposite gender’s proponents have been saying for decades that these courts are biased against THEIR gender, and must be adjusted to compensate.  They have now (far’s I can tell) been saying this with impunity for FAR too long.

SO — in some detail, and FYI  —

PRWORA 1996, DRA  2005, ARRA 2009 and 2010 Claims Resolution Act.  Slippery slope to evolving definitions of welfare and child support enforcement – incremental tipping of the purposes of TANF from Purpose #1

(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives

towards Purpose #4 — and then expanding the application of Purpose #4 beyond anyone who might have actually needed the resources from Purpose #1.

(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. . . .

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.

The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed:

Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce
Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young people
  • Covenant marriages
  • Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
  • Making laws more “family friendly”
  • e laws
  • The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
  • Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
  • Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKCDean BlevinsOKC Music,Oklahoma City AlumniOklahoma City MediaOklahoma City RadioThe Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …

Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.1 Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways2 intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal.  (and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit
So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too, this being 1974;
So in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues.  But wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

Is sponsoring a meeting/conference with the Governor which then results in him intentionally bypassing the Legislator to get this Marriage Promotion Process going — “Christian”??

From OMI site:

  • Governor Keating was aware that his support of a marriage promotion agenda was controversial and would not be immediately popular.
  • As evidence of his serious commitment to this issue, Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  (after committing funds from HHS)  In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts advised various aspects of the Initiative. {{We showed who some of these were, including Wade Horn of National Fatherhood Initiative}} This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. 

At the legislative level, they might have faced a fight, and been forced to justify — TO OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS — the diversion of TANF emergency funds to marriage promotion!

I looked up Jerry Regier, and Voice of Freedom (albeit a gay rights publication?) says “Gov. Bush’s Appointment Of Jerry Regier For The Dept Of Children & Families Is More Than A Right-Wing Extremist; He Leaves A Record Of Increased Child Abuse & Neglect” (apparently from OK he was going — courtesy of the brother of then-President George Bush — to FL).  Look at the commentary: (color:  TEAL)

And what we found is not good for the children and families of Florida. Here is what Oklahoma Governor did not tell Jeb:

August 24, 1999: Secretary for Health and Human Services Jerry Regier is violating both the spirit and the letter of a new state law in his zeal to hasten the downsizing of Eastern State Hospital in Vinita

Sept. 20, 2000: Health and Human Services Secretary Jerry Regier is trying to dodge responsibility for recent problems

April 11, 2001: Associate Press: State Office of Juvenile Affairs charged the state and federal government $1.2 million more than it was eligible to receive during a period of 19 months. Jerry Regier, secretary of HHS, said that once a program is in place, an acceptable error rate would probably be 5 percent or less. Last fiscal year, Oklahoma County had an error rate of 59.2 percent. Tulsa County’s error rate was 26 percent

April 12, 2001: Regier Skirts Competitive Bidding Laws – A controversial political consultant was awarded more than $1.2 million in state contracts without having to compete for the business, according to state records.

(this seems to be a hallmark of certain faith-based groups; I’m thinking of the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based (whatnots) in Ohio, re:  Krista Sisterhen.  It’s all over the web; she was there 2003-2006; eliminated otherwise qualified groups to get a contract to a group (formed only in 2000 and not in-state) called “WeCare” which then screwed up.  And — had ties to Bush Administration. )

Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Fact Book 2001:
     Reveals that 2 key benchmarks tracked worsened when compared to data from a dozen years ago:

  • Child abuse & neglect
  • More than fifteen thousand (15,518) are abused or neglected
  • More than two hundred thousand (210,470) Oklahoma children live in poverty an increase since 1998 (Regier took office in 1997)
    This brief synopsis points to an administrator whose track record is not favorable for the task at hand. Although he received honors as a good administrator, the fact that child neglect and abuse increased while he was HHS Director demonstrates a lack for a sense of priorities, in this case the welfare of our children. Florida does not need more scandal; downsizing or political mismanagement in the Department of Children and Families, Regier has got to go! 

By

  • Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. {{YES — as I said, of the four purposes, it as purpose #4 only}} The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

TANF was at this time FOR low-income populations.   FOR helping children be cared for in their own households, as much as possible.  For leaders to say “well TRY to offer them to low-income populations” while targeting the entire state of Oklahoma — NOT the needy populations  (not all of who is poor, but obviously many of who have been divorcing) is OFF-purpose.   $10 million is a LOT of money to set aside, to some families.  How many mouths would’ve been fed, for sacrifice of rhetoric?

  • Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today.

More on REGIER — guess where he was in December 2006?  Sitting as “US Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC 20201

Jerry Regier, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation” {{ASPE == a Program Office or OpDiv of HHS }}and writing a glowing recommendation of the OMI.  In this brochure (which has his name on it), it says that Jerry Regier — as Cabinet Head of HHS — prodeed the Governotr to get this started, citing specifically 1996 TANF reform.  The economic studies were secondary…. 

Nearly eight years ago, Oklahoma’s then-Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, encouraged then-Governor Frank Keating to take action to strengthen Oklahoma’s families, in response to emerging research and the increased emphasis on two- parent families in the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation.

So the REAL question is — where was Regier before this, and how did he get to be in the Cabinet Position in Oklahoma?

This Brief is a good (short read) showing that when the TANF-Reformers come to town (carrying NFI-ideas), they are going to force system change.  For example, the system change in Oklahoma was definitely focused on pushing MARRIAGE to people from ALL sectors of life — not alleviating poverty and helping poor or needy families.  Moreover, there was a connection somehow, to the Denver Crowd (who produced PREP).

The brief comes right from ACF.HHS.GOV/healthy marriage site. In the flow chart, a central square reads ” PRIORITY 2:”  BUILD DEMAND FOR SERVICES”

and from that, arrows to 3 boxes, the top one of which reads:  “TRAIN AGENCIES (like child support!) TO MAKE REFERRALS”

OK (I think I have it).  First, Jerry Regier was formerly president of the ultraconservative “Family Research Council” prior to Oklahoma

But this report (2004) from Florida — where it seems he went next — is scathing, and — in short — read it.    I can’t say it more emphatically.

  • How could Bush not have seen this mess coming? Regier was a GOP party
    hack in Oklahoma with an undistinguished track record in the family
    services bureaucracy. An ultraconservative Christian, his byline had
    turned up on two published papers that espoused spanking kids, even if
    it caused “welts and bruises.”
A scalding report by the governor’s chief inspector general has
revealed that high-ranking DCF officials handed out fat and dubious
contracts to pals and political cronies, and accepted gifts, favors
and lodging from outside contractors.

As a result, three of Regier’s top administrators have quit, and
Regier himself has been reduced to defending his own outrageous
socializing with a DCF contractor.

It’s much more than the mere “appearance of impropriety.” It is the
greedy, rotten essence of impropriety — profiteering at the expense of
Florida’s neediest and most vulnerable children.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been spent hiring
more caseworkers and investigators were instead doled out to
well-connected firms as part of Regier’s rush to “privatize”
child-welfare services.

In recent weeks, the Miami Herald’s Carol Marbin Miller has documented
the DCF gravy train in infuriating detail. A few of the lowlights:

  • A $21 million contract to fix DCF’s computer system was awarded to
  • American Management Services, although another company had been ranked
  • first after the initial screening process.
  • The lobbyist for American Management happened to be Greg Coler, a
  • former chief of the state child-welfare agency and a close friend of
  • Regier. Sitting on American Management’s board of directors was former
  • Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating — the man who recommended Regier for the
  • DCF job in Florida.

—DCF Deputy Secretary Ben Harris gave out a $500,000 no-bid contract,
split between two of his friends, for computer ‘‘kiosks’’ that
dispense food stamps.

ACTUALLY — WIKIPEDIA pretty much lays it out.  Jerry Regier worked for the elder Bush administration.  Best read in sequence:  (and I now have a 20,000 word post, too….)

Includes this section:

Family Research Council

Regier, in cooperation with Dr. James Dobson, founded the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organization, in 1983. Regier served as that organization’s first President from 1984 until 1988. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor under President Ronald Reagan, succeeded Regier as President.

Federal government career

President Ronald Reagan appointed Regier in 1988 to the National Commission on Children, an advisory body in the United States Department of Health and Human Services on children’s issues. Reagan’s successor,George H.W. Bush, reappointed Regier in 1991. Regier continued to serve on the Commission until 1993.

(SIGH — I looked up “Family Research Council” and found among its board members, the mother of the man tied to Blackwater, and a board member of

The Council on National Policy among other things — here it goes, a 2008 “Muckety Site” (visual diagram of relationships).  This relates to tracking down a single person influential in starting

the “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” (Jerry Regier), learning of his former Bush & FRC connections, and looking up FRC.  WHich just goes to show, when is it time to stop!?)

Story by Laura Bennett, Oct. 2008, posted at “Muckety” under “Erik Prince’s Mom gives $450,000 to stop same-sex marriage in California

I’m less concerned about that than the Blackwater connection, who else this woman is funding.  See Diagram:

Focus on the Family (one of the followers) figured in my life personally, exacerbating already virulent abuse, to the point that I ended up quitting a FT night job, that had been supporting our family.  I’m talking WHILE I was married.  My husband loved James Dobson, and listened to his stuff also

Speaking as a heterosexual Christian — I don’t know WHO these guys are — they do not do a resemblance of what I see in the Bible; and in person, and in influence are virtually terroristic to women.  If I’d NOT been a Christian, I’d probably have bailed out of the marriage much faster — and this might (not sure, but MIGHT) have been better for our kids.  When I hear WHO is behind some of these groups (years later) it somewhat validates the personal experiences (not mine only) that they are essentially domestic terrorists — unless one submits willingly.

Two Voices from a while back warn us on this movement:  Patricia Ireland, (NOW) and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Both are responding to the Promise Keepers’ “Stand in the Gap” rally on the Washington Mall.  Listen to them!  ”

We are talking, 1997!….(I don’t have the date of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s speech).

Recently, hundreds of thousands of religious American males were on display at the Promise Keepers‘ “Stand In The Gap” rally in the nation’s capitol. What could possibly be wrong with men bonding, praying and pledging to be better Christians, with the goal of becoming better and more responsible husbands and fathers, and active in their local church? Nothing that I can see.

There is certainly nothing wrong with men exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging that we have done wrong, we recognize our weaknesses,confess our sins before God and the public and vow, with God’s help, to change our ways, to do better and to be better men in the future. The genuineness and validity of the religious experience for any of the participants, and any long-range good that comes from it, must be affirmed and respected.

There is nothing wrong with any of that, if that’s all there is to it.

(and he goes to accurately characterize the group):

Women now want to be priests, pastors and preach in pulpits. These demands come from a feminist and womanist theology and biblical interpretation born of experiences of denial and oppression from conservative and non-liberating Christian men.

As Christians, we all read the same Bible, but our biblical interpretations are born of our varied life experiences. It was Martin Luther’s experiences with Roman Catholicism that led to a critique (95 Theses) that began the Protestant Reformation. Similar experiences have led to modern critiques and new interpretive contributions of scripture and theology that run all the way from the birth of our nation — a theology that gave us a liberal democratic and constitutionally-based government to replace a traditional, conservative and God-based Monarchy— to a Latin American-oriented liberation theology; to an African American-originated “Black” theology; to a female-led feminist and womanist theology; to a gay and lesbian theology; all of which respect all religions, advocate for human rights and equal protection under the law for all regardless of race, national origin, sex or sexual orientation, and all of which are liberation theologies reflecting a God of the oppressed.

The Promise Keepers deny the legitimacy of most, if not all, of these theological and biblical interpretations that have grown out of experiences of oppression, and resent our commitment to not go back –theologically, biblically, socially, politically or culturally.

QUITE FRANKLY — this is where a lot of “Christian Domestic Violence” (contradiction in terms – the false term there is “Christian”) comes from — it is an outraged insistence on previously inherent male dominance.  Enforced physically and all other kinds of ways, and acknowledged by the male bonding in surrounding institutions, and well-tamed females in them also.  This is why I no longer frequent — or even darken the door of — churches, if I can help it.  Maybe for a music event — not for worship, not for socializing, and not for any form of support.  Life is too short.

That which, in the past, has been identified as “religious” and “Christian” has not always been liberating and quite often has been oppressive. In South Africa it was the Dutch Reformed Christian Church that provided the religious foundation for apartheid. In the United States’ South it was the Southern Baptists and other mainline churches that practiced and theologically justified slavery and Jim Crow. The Ku Klux Klan identifies itself as a Christian organization. It was white Christian ministers who attacked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Birmingham, Alabama for fighting racism that brought forth his “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.” At our foundation, good Christian men owned slaves and defined African Americans as three-fifths human in our Constitution, they committed genocide against Native Americans and stole their land, and they denied women the right to vote. In Congress today,many who call themselves religious and Christian, vote against laws to provide food, health care, housing, jobs, education and an equalopportunity to millions of Americans. There’s an old Negro Spiritual that speaks to this point. It says, “Everybody talkin’ ’bout heaven ain’t goin’ there.”

The Promise Keepers’ answer to that very real problem is not to look to the future with hope and confidence, confronting the changes needed and reinterpreting male identity in terms of gender equality. Instead, Promise Keepers try to give men identity and, therefore, security, by returning to a familiar past. Their preaching and teaching, mostly subliminal, though not exclusively so, was to reveal a fear of that future. The Promise Keeper answer is to retreat and recapture this biblical past.

SO NOW HERE COMES THIS REVELATION — OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (Types) and BLACKWATER.  I  can’t say I’m really surprised.

And I do believe — especially seeing the Bush/Regier/OMI/FRC (etc.) connections that when we are looking at any Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood grant, program, or initiative — even though there may be innocent and sincere participants — this is the essence of what we are seeing — which is the intent to dominate, control, force to submit, and (this being a necessary means to dominate in a country with a Bill of Rights — to force institutions to line up, removing the due process and civil rights, permanently.

(to be continued)

(ELSA PRINCE) Broekhuizen is the mother of Erik D. Prince, founder of Blackwater Worldwide, the controversial operation that provides security services to federal officials in Iraq and other countries. Her daughter, Betsy DeVos, is a former Michigan GOP chair and wife of failed gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

Broekhuizen’s first husband, Edgar, founded an auto parts company that was sold after his death for $1.4 billion. She later married her pastor, Ren Broekhuizen.

An assistant told the Grand Rapids Press that Broekhuizen gave to the campaign because the issue is “very important to her. It’s near and dear to her heart. She likes to give from her heart and not for public recognition.”

Broekhuizen heads the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, which had assets of more than $42 million in 2006 (the last year for which tax returns are publicly available). The foundation and Broekhuizen personally are longtime supporters of religious organizations and conservative political groups such as the Haggai Institute, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

BURBRIDGE FOUNDATION — A CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION — helped this happen, then.  Make a note of it, because this was wrong!

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”
Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):
Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

Strata Leadership, LLC.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:
OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"
* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%
Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

 Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS [Congressional Research Service — you see their bill summaries also at Thomas.loc.gov) report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk, Social Policy Specialist):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.
The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed: 

Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young
people
Covenant marriages
Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
Making laws more "family friendly"
Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce laws 

The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKCDean BlevinsOKC Music,Oklahoma City AlumniOklahoma City MediaOklahoma City RadioThe Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.1 Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways2 intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal[ed].

(and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]”Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit”
So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too.  This being 1974; so in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues, but wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…
(Is this the same Burbridge Foundation as in Oklahoma, or that sponsored that Governor’s Leadership Conference?  Possibly.  I’m not going to stress over this today.)

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths {{REALLY?  I’d like to see that — because the  “SALT & LIGHT LEADERSHIP TRAINING” below indicates non-Christians need not apply, and the carefully balanced photo on there  (with middle-aged Caucasian an at the front of the pyramid) doesn’t even contain a single African-American woman — does Oklahoma not have any?  There is an African-American male, at the back of the triangle, too….}} and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”
Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):
Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

Strata Leadership, LLC.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:
OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"
* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%
Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

 Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

Here’s a 2010 (June 24, 2010, to be specific) Heritage Foundation article complaining about increasing entitlements Obama’s escalation of welfare roles (true) and how the “success” of TANF should be applied to other federal programs.

Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements:

Principles of Reform and the Next Steps

June 24, 2010

  • Do you know who the Heritage Foundation is?
  • Do you know who funds them? or where to find out?
  • Do you know who they fund, or where to find out?
  • Could you participate pro or con in this argument, supporting it with any facts?
  • Do you agree or not?
  • Can you put those arguments in a different context than they do?

They proclaimed:

Abstract: The growth of welfare spending is unsustainable and will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue. President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request would increase total welfare spending to $953 billion—a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in FY 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration. To bring welfare spending under control, Congress should reduce welfare spending to pre-recession levels after the recession ends and then limit future growth to the rate of inflation. Congress should also restore work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and apply them to other federal welfare programs.

They also said of TANF that it was a success.  Yet — in reality — it is the means by which expansion of the welfare state — particularly after faith-based organizations were invited in — was assured.   The track record is that MANY of these are not just incompetent — but chronically dishonest, and when caught (as I tend to stay) in one state, simply hop over to another.  I can name names and organizations and dates, sometimes States, of the “hops.”   They obtain web resources through HHS “compassion capital” or other grants, and this last season, our government just gave over $1 million GRANT to ICF International, LLC (or whatever it’s proper current name is) a group currently doing $1 BILLION business with the Feds, and with an agenda to transform communities through (basically, media domination).

Listen to this:

Reform should be based on five principles:

  1. Slowing the growth of the welfare state. Unending government deficits are pushing the United States toward bankruptcy. The U.S. simply cannot afford the massive increases in welfare spending planned by President Barack Obama. Welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.[1] Congress needs to establish reasonable fiscal constraints within the welfare system. Once the current recession ends, aggregate welfare spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. After this rollback has been completed, the growth of welfare spending should be capped at the rate of inflation.
  2. Promoting personal responsibility and work. Able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or to prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Food stamps and housing assistance, two of the largest programs for the needy, should be aligned with the TANF program to require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work for a minimum of 30 hours per week.  (see ## my footnote)
  3. Providing a portion of welfare assistance as loans rather than as grants. Welfare to able-bodied adults creates a potential moral hazard because providing assistance to those in need can lead to an increase in the behaviors that generate the need for aid in the first place. If welfare assistance rewards behaviors that lead to future dependence, costs can spiral out of control. A reformed welfare policy can provide temporary assistance to those in need while reducing the moral hazard associated with welfare by treating a portion of welfare aid as a loan to be repaid by able-bodied recipients rather than as an outright grant from the taxpayer.
  4. Ending the welfare marriage penalty and encouraging marriage in low-income communities. The collapse of marriage is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of children in the U.S. were born out of wedlock; today, the figure is over 40 percent.[2] Most alarmingly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African–Americans is 72 percent. The outcomes for children raised in single, never-married homes are greatly diminished.Current means-tested welfare programs penalize low-income recipients who get married; these anti-marriage penalties should be reduced or eliminated. In addition, government should provide information on the importance of marriage to individuals in poor communities who have a high risk of having children out of wedlock. Particular emphasis should be placed on the benefits to children of a married two-parent family.***
  5. Limit low-skill immigration. Around 15 percent ($100 billion per year) of total means-tested welfare spending goes to households headed by immigrants with high school degrees or less.[3] One-third of all immigrants lack a high school degree.[4] Over the next 10 years, America will spend $1.5 trillion on welfare benefits for lower-skill immigrants. Government policy should limit future immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The legal immigration system should not encourage immigration of low-skill immigrants who would increase poverty in the nation and impose vast new costs on already overburdened taxpayers.

**Never mind that this has been done now — for years — and at statewide level.  Can we reasonably assume that no one at the Heritage Foundation knows this?

##FN2 — how about requiring recipients of diversionary programs from child support and TANF to document that THEY worked at least 30 hours a week?  And have incorporated, and that their incorporations have actually been proper, are current, and if required to, filed a 990?  I’ve seen dropped loose ends of $50K a pop (SolidSource in Van Wert, OH comes to mind) or others have found dropped loose ends of $227,000.  MOreover, we have child support privatized to outside organizations, such as MAXIMUS — themselves caught in fraud and overbilling — and THEY continue to receive government benefits from the US in the form of renewed contracts, even after paying, for example $30 million in settlement fees over these matters.

So I say, let’s put the focus on the MACRO-ECONOMIC trends — namely allowing corporations and HHS / DOJ /DOE to get in bed with them to determine whether future employees of these corporations eat, have safe drinking water, and have access to decent educations (not just skills training for globally noncompetitive jobs in the same corporations!)

POINT 4, above:

. . .encouraging marriage in low-income families.   The Collapse of Marriage is the Major Factor in Child Poverty Today.

No it’s not.  That’s a single-source, single-interpretation of the causes of poverty.

Now, I could debate that at least logically, following the words “Sez who?” and “Who Sez those are the only experts?” and then poke some holes in the rhetoric.

Could You? Should You?  Or don’t you care about the use of taxes and public policy any more?

Go to the actual laws:

THE LAWS IN QUESTION:

PRWORA link:

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA,Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With Americaand was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”.[2]

(Wikipedia note — TANF Reauthorization was contained in this);  
 The reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was also contained in the bill, as was the provision for the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. Part of the TANF reauthorization reduces the threshold for passport denial for child support arrearages under 42 USC 652(k)to $2,500.
 
 

Senate bill S. 1932 passed the Senate, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice PresidentDick Cheney, and House bill H.R. 4241 passed the House 217-215. The Senate bill was signed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush on February 8, 2006.[2]

[Dispute over legal status

A dispute arose over whether both houses of Congress had approved the same bill. Those contending that the bill is not a law argue there were different versions of the same bill, neither of which was approved by both the House and the Senate. They argue that the document signed by the President would not have the force of law, on the ground that the enacting process bypassed the Bicameral Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  (For what wikipedia is worth, find this interesting….)

 

P.L. 109–171, Approved February 8, 2006 (120 Stat. 4)

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SECTION 1. [42 U.S.C. 1305 note]  SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005”.

Has sections on TANF & Child Support.

SEC. 7101. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS FUNDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010.

(a) [None Assigned]  In General.—Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (adjusted, as applicable, by or under this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005[275]) shall continue through September 30, 2010, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through fiscal year 2010 at the level provided for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2004 (or, as applicable, at such greater level as may result from the application of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005), except that in the case of section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority only through fiscal year 2010[276] and in the case of section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, no grants shall be made for any fiscal year occurring after fiscal year 2005.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SEC. 7301. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

 (etc.)

The Deficit Reduction Act also reauthorizes welfare reform for another 5 years. Welfare reform has proved a tremendous success over the past decade. By insisting on programs that require work and self-sufficiency in return for Federal aid, we’ve helped cut welfare cases by more than half since 1996. Now we’re building on that progress by renewing welfare reform with a billion-dollar increase in child care funding and new grants to support healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.

One of the reasons for the success of welfare reform is a policy called charitable choice which allows faith-based groups that provide social services to receive Federal funding without changing the way they hire. Ten years ago, Congress made welfare the first Federal program to include charitable choice. The bill I sign today will extend charitable choice for another 5 years and expand it to the new healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. Appreciate the hard work of all who supported the extension

of charitable choice—including the good- hearted men and women of the faith-based community who are here today. By reauthor- izing welfare reform with charitable choice, we will help millions more Americans move from welfare to work and find independence and dignity and hope.

The message of the bill I sign today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and respon- sible at the same time. Spending restraint de- mands difficult choices, yet making those choices is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. One of our most impor- tant responsibilities is to keep this economy strong and vibrant and secure for our chil- dren and our grandchildren. We can be proud that we’re helping to meet that respon- sibility today.

Now I ask the Members of the Congress to join me as I sign the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

NOTE: The President spoke at 3:31 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. S. 1932, approved February 8, was assigned Public Law No. 109– 171.

{{He also began by distinguishing between DISCRETIONARY and MANDATORY spending:

At the same time, my budget tightens the belt on Government spending. Every American family has to set priorities and live within a budget, and the American people expect us to do the same right here in Washington, DC.

The Federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary spending and manda- tory spending. Discretionary spending is the kind of spending Congress votes on every year. Last year, Congress met my request and passed bills that cut discretionary spending not related to defense or homeland security. And this year, my budget again proposes to cut this spending. My budget also proposes again to keep the growth in overall discre- tionary spending below the rate of inflation

AND ARRA:
Wikipedia:

 (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion ofunemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

TEXT of the LAW:

(thomas.gov)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – (Sec. 5) Designates each amount in this Act as: (1) an emergency requirement, necessary to meet certain emergency needs in accordance with the FY2008-FY2009 congressional budget resolutions; and (2) an emergency for Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles.

TITLE II (Commerce, Justice, ….)

Makes supplemental appropriations for FY2009 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for: (1) the Office of Inspector General; (2) state and local law enforcement activities; (2) the Office on Violence Against Women; (3) the Office of Justice Programs; (4) state and local law enforcement assistance; and (5) community oriented policing services (COPS).

. . .

Subtitle B: Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals – (Sec. 2101) Amends part A of title IV (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) (TANF) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish in the Treasury an Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs (Emergency Fund). Makes appropriations to such Fund.

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make a grant from the Emergency Fund to each requesting state for any quarter of FY2009-FY2010 if the state’s average monthly assistance caseload for the quarter exceeds its average monthly assistance caseload for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year. Requires the amount of any such grant to be 80% of the excess of total state expenditures for basic assistance over total state expenditures for such assistance for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year.

. . . .

(Sec. 2102) Extends TANF supplemental grants through FY2010.

(Sec. 2103) Makes technical amendments to the authority of a state or Indian tribe to use a block grant for TANF for any fiscal year to provide, without fiscal year limitation, (carry over) any benefit or service that may be provided under the program funded under the block grant, including future contingencies.

(Sec. 2104) Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to suspend for FY2008-FY2010 the prohibition against payments to states with respect to their plans for child and spousal support collection on account of amounts expended by a state from support collection performance incentive payments received from the Secretary of HHS (thus allowing such additional payments during such period).

(just pointing out, from the CRS summary, that certain parts affect TANF & Child Support, I.e., TITLE IV-A, IV-D of Social Security Act. 
 
CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT OF 2010 (passed one year ago — 11/19/2010!)(you may need to re/search from Thomas.loc.gov)  111th Congress, H.R. 4783
Title VIII: General Provisions (AND YOU”LL SEE WHY FATHERHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, PLUS MARRIAGE EDUCATORS, WERE REJOICING OVER THIS ONE):

Sec. 802) Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to require an employer to report to the state Directory of New Hires, in addition to other information, the date services for remuneration were first performed by a newly hired employee.

Subtitle B: TANF – (Sec. 811) Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]) of title IV of the Social Security Act to continue grants to states for temporary assistance for needy families programs through September 30, 2011.

(WONDER WHERE WE’RE AT ON THIS NOW …..)

Requires preference for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood grants to be given to entities that have previously: (1) been awarded funds; and (2) demonstrated the ability to carry out specified programs successfully.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES, DO YOU THINK, THAT (2) WILL BE MONITORED?

Directs an entity seeking funding for both healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood promotion to submit a combined application assuring that it will carry out such activities: (1) under separate programs; and (2) without combining funds awarded to carry out either such activities.

Revises the definition of “healthy marriage promotion activities” to include marriage education and other specified programs for individuals in addition to nonmarried pregnant women and nonmarried expectant fathers.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REALLY EXIST.  FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTHY MARRIAGE GRANTEE (I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.) was characterized in a recent AZFFC.org publication as the “Sacramento affiliate” of this fathers and families coalition — although the title then said “Healthy Marriage” and recently reads something like (last I heard) “Relationship Education Institute” or such.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) for FY2011: (1) $75 million for healthy marriage promotion activities; and (2) $75 million for promotion of responsible fatherhood activities. (Current law authorized $150 million, combined, for both programs in specified fiscal years.) Limits appropriated funds awarded to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community entities, including religious organizations, for activities promoting responsible fatherhood to $75 million (current law has a $50 million limit). Requires amounts awarded to fund demonstration projects testing the effectiveness of tribal governments in coordinating the provision to tribal families at risk of child abuse or neglect of child welfare services, and other tribal programs, to be taken in equal proportion from such separate appropriations for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) to the Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs such sums as necessary for payment to the Fund in a total not to exceed: (1) for FY2011, such sums as are necessary for amounts obligated on or after October 1, 2010, and before enactment of the this Act; and (2) for FY2012, $612 million. (Current law reduces such appropriations by specified amounts.)

Well, I may regret hitting “PUBLISH” on this one, but here goes. . . . .

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

with 6 comments

No, that’s not a joke.  I’m serious.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karen Struening

Abstract

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

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

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

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

$4,000,000,000

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

(Federal) 

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

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

and paragraphs like this:

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

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

Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liz Richards

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“OCSE”:  CLEAN IT UP OR SHUT IT DOWN:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bio:

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

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

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

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

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

NEXT QUESTIONS:

HOW MANY FOUNDATIONS DOES IT TAKE

TO ELIMINATE THE US CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS?

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

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

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

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

CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

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

NOT a good idea for women…..

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Compare:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UNIFICATION CONNECTION:

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

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

Then come back here.

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

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

THEY SAY:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

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

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

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

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

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

Published on September 16, 2010 by Robert Rector

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, May 28. 2009

Maximus signs $49M Tennessee child support deal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By Scott Deveau, 3 Dec 2004, TheTyee.ca

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

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

 U.S.-based giant

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

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

Discriminatory Practices

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

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

2001 Prospecting Among the Poor- Welfare Privatization~ Berkowitz

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

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

….

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

…CHARITABLE CHOICE:

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

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

 …

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Benefits of Marriage 


Benefits for Adults

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefits for Children

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q&A to the above presentation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which is just too big and too entrenched.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOUNDATIONS AND WELFARE POLICY:

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

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

All the World’s a Stage. Or, is it Classroom? Or, is it Human Laboratory?

with 2 comments

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…

<< 1 Corinthians 13 >>
King James Version

1Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

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…

 

This is not kindergarten any more.  See my Shady Shaky Foundations page, look at other sources, connect the dots, and don’t believe everything said in FRONT of the curtain. Become a Toto (Wizard of Oz) and bark, and keep on barking .

 

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.htm

Family 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!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Reader Quiz — What Decade Were These Stories? About Fathers..

with 2 comments

My last post (Luzerne County) was at least a triple-header, ending with some emotion over a mother of three who has taken her case to the international level in disgrace at the U.S. treatment of her civil rights.

I am changed as I blog also. Maybe it’s just another bunch of incidents to you, but to me, I learn and expand the context of this system, look at its history, reflect when compared with my immediate reality and acquired readings.

What I learned — yesterday — is this: Restraining orders are not enforceable, and probably never were. IF a police officer wishes to arrest, or needs to, the RO may make his job easier. But if he or she witnessed a violation of it, and does NOT wish to arrest, the protected person has no entitlement to that arrest, no matter whose life is at risk. Now that “Castle Rock v. Gonzales” has gone to the Supreme Court and been turned back, it is being quoted in similar cases to protect the officers (not the women or children). While most of government’s operations are self-justified on providing services and protection to the populace, who they are diligently training to expect this from them (and not from within or their local communities). This is closer to feudalism, serfdom, and monarchy.

U.S., Rome, or the British Empire?

It’s time to expose the truths that in the United States of America, and have moved from being “the colonies” (with the colonized populations that came along, or were removed from their lands during westward expansion) to being colonized (if not virtually cannibalized) by our own elected leaders, many who have some real “bad attitudes” towards those they are supposed to represent and serve. Power tends to congregate with power, and unless it’s kept in check, will simply continue to do so, justifying it with manipulation and manufactured “needs.”

  • (#1) we are closer to monarchy then ever before, and willingly/passively in more denial of it also, and
  • (#2) that this emperor has no clothes has been known for a long time; but the tacit “Bread-and-circuses” agreement to pretend we don’t know, is wearing as thin as the “social services” provided by the superstructure. and
  • (#3) in a country such as the U.S., with this Constitution elected officials are sworn with an oath to uphold, the pretense that in practice we are actually OPERATING as a republic (not democracy) is even more deceptive.

Who has the bread, the weapons, and the supply lines to the decision-makers? Who’s issuing the propaganda? That’s the power base. As of about 1980, 1991 (creation of the Health & Human Services/Administration for Children and Families Dept./Operational Div. in the Executive Branch of Government of which the CEO is our President), the fields of propagation (family design) and the downward to Head Start & Home Visitation (education) up through university (foundations sponsoring studies and institutes, often regarding fatherhood and marriage, and the entire work force) have gone from idolizing motherhood (while tolerating beating mothers) and, in response to mothers getting OUT of some of that (feminism/violence against women movement, battered shelters, etc.) to scapegoating single mothers on welfare (for being on welfare), (see bottom of my post), to simply eliminating the word mother from association with the word “family” or “children.”

This is starting to resemble the planned production of human beings from womb to tomb, with the aide of pharmaceutics, apparently, and mental health professionals to categorize and drug the dissidents, which any mother in her right mind would be when she’s been beaten in the home, or terrorized there (or for attempting to leave it) and has noticed — which is what mothers do — the effect of this on her children. They are educated to subjugation and only to the level of their intended place in a fully managed society.

When I say “womb” to “tomb,” I do mean just that . . . . It’s being studied and categorized, and one major database is at ICPSR below. Fertility, lethality, and population studies in 3 urban centers (Chicago, Boston, San Antonia, TX).

Those “in” and cooperate on the planning and distribution of this will prosper, while the supply lasts, and receive government grants and contracts in abundance, which will then compromise them from informing the subject matter (human beings) what the overall plan is. For example

  • HQ in Denver: PSI (“policy-studies.com” is the URL, “Performance, Services, Integrity” is the motto)
    • Under Child Support Enforcement (one of the 3 major “solutions” area they outsource):
      • Noncustodial Parent Programs (“Through our innovative approach, PSI can help increase your collections and improve results for families. Our NCP program expertise extends across the following areas”)
        • Case management and community resource referrals
        • Enhanced child support services
        • Employment and training assistance
        • Peer support for NCPs
        • Parenting and conflict resolution classes
        • Access and visitation services
        • Mediation services
        • Mental health and substance abuse referrals
        • Legal referrals
  • HQ in Los Angeles: AFCC (“Association of Family & Conciliation Courts“)
    • AFCC brings together members of multiple disciplines in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, from all over the world. As a nonprofit professional association, AFCC is unique because members do not share a common profession. Instead, AFCC members share a strong commitment to education, innovation and collaboration in order to benefit communities, empower families and promote a healthy future for children.
    • “History of Innovation and Positive Change”For more than 45 years, AFCC and its members have served as a catalyst for generating major reforms. Dispute resolution processes such as child custody mediation, parenting coordination, and divorce education are just a few of the innovative ideas developed by AFCC members. AFCC developed Models Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediators, Child Custody Evaluators and Parenting Coordinators. Task forces and special projects address the ongoing challenges faced by AFCC members and the families they serve. AFCC actively disseminates innovations and ideas {“Parental Alienation, anyone? Mandatory mediation, anyone? Shared parenting, presumption anyone?”} to its members. The ripple effect can be seen in courts and communities throughout the world. {ONE of those stories I copy at length, below, in blue. The ripple effect was most definitely felt, and you can read about it, below.}
  • HQ in Denver: what I call “CPR” (Center or Policy Research) [Since 1981, 6 women, only!]


Did I mention that Jessica Pearson is also (per some sources) a founding member of the AFCC, if not also CRC?

  • In fact AFCC, CRC, CPR, PSI, HHS funded studies, and conclusions that MOST of our nation’s real poverty, inner-city, crime & juvenile delinquency problems is simply the ration of sex/conception/marriage, i.e., too few fathers (as opposed to, poor-quality fathers) in the home, and that the solution to this is through seamlessly blending mental health services with child support services, with the legal process — tend to congregate around similar key players.
  • Don’t believe me? See RandiJames’ “The List or Liz Richards pointing this out in 1993 “Fathers Rights and corrupt judicial cronies,” or again, in 2010, to the House Ways & Means Committee (found at House.gov, this committee, June 17, 2010 hearings, on left side), or an indignant “Fathers Battling Injustice” 2001 complaint “Liz Richards Hates Fathers with a Passion, which provides (if you scroll down) a good listing of key players and their interrelationships — including those on the CRC (Children’s Rights Council) 501(c)3 incorporation papers, and tying into others pushing mediation and Gardner’s “PAS” philosophies through the courts. I’ll try to upload that listing….

Around 1998, a disgruntled grandfather — and CPA — started tracking some of the founding documents of this AFCC, and has something to say about the money trail related to Jessica Pearson of CPR, and AFCC, who weems to be (with others) women of some real foresight and planning, and ingenuity in desgining systems — and evading tax accountability. THIS is listed UNDER “Is Justice for sale in L.A.” a.k.a. at “johnnypumphandle.com”

    • :Mr. Bryer’s Tort Claim of 1998. You can hear his tone of indignation and upset, and he flat-out calls this Mafia, RICO, money-laundering, etc. The people he is talking about are listed in part, above. I doubt if he ever got justice, or compensation (let alone more discovery), but at least me blew the whistle!. People who want to “reform” the courts ought to at least read the material. OR, they could go back and try to reason more with a professional that may or may not be one of these type of conspirators from long ago. The system remains, I’m pretty well deducing at this point.
  • Another take on AFCC et al.: He’s not talking psychology or sociology, but money, IRS, EIN#s and incorporations…
    • DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED ( by this complaint) are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!

      I previously attempted to get this discovery – in the lawsuit BRYER vs PENTONEY – but 298 judges and commissioners in LOS ANGELES were disqualified on a ruse orchestrated by JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER – a ring leader of the scheme. JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER’S name is on the signature card of BANK OF AMERICA account listed under the name LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EIN 95-6000927.

      I was forced into the corrupt county – ORANGE COUNTY – where a co-conspirator named JAMES P. GRAY told me he would throw me in jail if I tried to make any more discoveries. FEARING FOR MY LIFE in a county that is FOREIGN to me – I dismissed my case without prejudice and continued to seek discovery away from the strength of ORANGE COUNTYCONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN. In California – the organization filed as a CIVIC LEAGUE – Revenue and Tax Code 23701g. A CONCILIATION COURT is NOT A CIVIC LEAGUE. The exemption certificate was mailed to a lawyer named Michael Aaronson at P.O. Box 1055, San Carlos California 94070. The STATE 3500 papers states the organization was to improve marriage counseling. However, conciliation court is a STATUTORILY mandated function of the COURT – not a private corporation for lying and thieving judges and their court staff. The income was alleged to be derived from dues and contributions. In reality, the funds came from laundering legal education money through the COURT CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT through the FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

      In an incredible BREACH – a Judge from Detroit Michigan was listed as the Second Vice President His name is Victor J. Baum. The corporation number is 576876. I have no record of what EIN they used.

      In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. [CPR, above, dates to 1981 also as a nonprofit] This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.

    • (WI, Colorado, L.A. and IL if you can keep up with that…)
    • I just found a strange, but possibly corroborating 1986 document, the “February 1986 Newsletter of the Alabama Court News, “Newsletter of the Alabama Judicial System” On page 3, it reads, under headline: “Federal Grant funds Sexual Abuse Study:
    • The Research Unit of the …(AFCC) and the American Bar Association have been awarded a grant from the federal dept. of Human Development Services* to study sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases. The goal of the study is to find how court officials [such as…?] are presently handling such matters, identify preferred procedures, and develop educational materials on the subject.” “Court officials [sic] desiring to participate in the study should contact AFCC at the following address:

    • [Wow… Preferred procedures for handling sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases, such as — Gardner’s theories? They want to educate judges how to rule?] Also – it says since 1981 — at that address:]
    • [*Note: the HUGE “HHS that now dispenses welfare, child support, medicare, head start funds, and sometimes is the largest (as to expenses) Exec Branch Dept — was formed in 1991, as I recall. This is 5 years earlier).

  • In fact the information arm is one of the most important, to quell rebellion before it gets going.

Maybe Rome went down because of lead in the pipes, or maybe some “karma” (or god) just got sick of all the slaughter for entertainment. Ever read about what happened in that Colosseum?

Back to this millennium — and the last decades

of the last one (1980-2010). In re: marriage, abuse, divorce, custody..

And the concept of “protection from abuse” or “restraining orders” as if they were NOT certifiably insane, as to fulfilling their supposed purpose of protecting or restraining.

While the literature tends to focus on, “it’s just a piece of paper and can’t stop a bullet,” the ones we REALLY can’t count on are the arresting officers. It’s an additional component of Russian Roulette that a woman can’t afford. And suing for any sort of damages on the basis of, they had a duty to protect, a procedural due process right to the victim, a substantive due process right to the victim, or in short, any consequences that “absolute judicial immunity” or the 11th amendment wouldn’t make LEGALLY protected (let alone the practical aspects) — they don’t, and probably never did.

Some judges are crooked — I don’t know how many. Some attorneys are also, and get nailed on RICO like the Luzerne judges did, RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations“) being a criminal enterprise. There’s a case I may post out of suburban Chicago (older) where the husband (an attorney) did murder for hire, but not until he’d conspired in advance to wire-tap (jealous), someone had been prepared to dispose of the body (i.e., of his wife) and someone had been prepared to obstruct the investigation. (Alan & Dianne G. Masters, West Suburban Chicago, 1982 she disappears~ 1988 RICO charges)

As RICO does require some organizational skills, and Masters had already been engaged in other forms of crime, all the players to add murder-for-hire to this were in place, and he didn’t resist the temptation to engage, showing us to drop our illusions that every person in public office, or in positions of power, influence, and with access to streams of $$ isn’t per se there for service. Some are, some aren’t. And the ones that aren’t would be normally attracted to people in compromised situations (like a troublesome traffic ticket, an illegal enterprise of their own, or divorcing with children from a frighteningly dangerous spouse who’s already committed some crimes against your body, or your child’s). This attorney was acting more like a pimp with a stable, and some affiliate marekting reps in uniform. Maybe he liked the thrill of the danger and risk (one sees definite business skills that migh twork just as well in legal activities) or maybe it was simple greed.

It didn’t save her life, and no one was ever charged for murder, but the three “perps” got caught on racketeering and put away for a good many years, and fined. Oh yeah, and he had a $100,000 life insurance policy on his wife also.

So are some officers. And some are good. – – – – that’s just life. Why, then, (though) when women come for help, were they then (1990s) and now (2000s) doling out protection from abuse orders as if they were reliably enforceable? They aren’t. They’re real good at getting men angry though.

~ ~ ~ ~I can’t put my story up (or too much of it). But it’s been so many years in this system here. My infrastructure is repeatedly broken down, year after year, and access to things like transportation, (sometimes food), internet, health care (uninsured presently) just shouldn’t be.

~ ~ ~ ~If you have not been in a situation similar to the one I’m about to post (the part below is summary of her judicial proceedings after deciding to leave– having gotten a real severe beating (while naked), a threat for another, having had a young daughter molested by a visiting stepson, her husband was no inner city young black male, but a nasty computer analyst who’d (it turned out) abused his first wife, too.

~ ~ ~ ~Sleep deprivation is a factor and technique of weakening someone (I know). Attack on personal private parts (ditto). Rules almost uniformly designed to remove one’s humanity, with severe punishment for falling short (and they’re impossible to fulfil) with no rule for him. . . . .Having to choose which child you can do more to protect, potentially sacrificing something important for the other. Having your strength or skills as a professional work against you post-divorce. Historic revisionism (no remorse or acknowledgement of injury, and of course the father was the real caretaker all those years). Health care professionals treating injuries and not really asking questions. Your kids watching the assaults.

I’ll pick up this story mid-stream. See if you recognize the characters: judge, psychologists, attorneys (#1, 2, and 3), theme of supervised visitation, and her knowledge that if she requested it, he’d go for custody, professionals continually minimizing the situation and playing their own games . . . all too familiar.

I want to say something about “stories.” THEY HELPED ME while I was in the abusive relationship. One of the cruelest things is the isolation and dealing with the man’s anger when he perceives you may be connecting with someone who might validate or connect with you, and to whom you might report. You might get out, but there also may (or may not) be retaliation for doing so. Or you might be put through hell beforehand, so you get out, in public, in trauma, shaking, or in shock. One trick pulled frequently in our home (with kids) was I’d have enough gas in the car to get there (when a car was available) but not enough to get back. Hearing of women who got out HELPED me. If nothing else, to feel less guilty.

I pick up the story mid-stream, and admit that I am exhausted today.

Overall, I found the lawyers and psychologists very self–promoting and egotistical. It seemed as if everyone was having a good time, playing the game of litigation and psychology. All the while, my life was on the line. My children and I did not matter. I also felt like the lawyers and psychologists were running a cash register business at my expense. They were a lot more interested in my money than my welfare. The first two years of my divorce proceedings cost me more than twenty–five thousand dollars.

As incredible as it might sound, the judge who heard my custody case had an outstanding protective order against him by his ex–wife. I also sensed very strongly that the judge did not like me. For these reasons, I told my lawyer I wanted to seek the judge’s recusal. My lawyer dismissed me, saying, “You’ll just get someone worse.”

@ @ @ @ @Z

I probably never would have gotten Daniel back, except that Russ’s live–in girlfriend (with whom he is still living) contacted the children’s psychologist to report that he was abusing Daniel. This was four or five months after Russ had gained custody of Daniel. I think the girlfriend made her revelation partly because I had told her that Russ was planning to seek full custody of Elizabeth, too. Russ was not really taking care of the kids; the girlfriend was. When she learned that he would be going after Elizabeth too, she said, “WHAT???!!!” I think she cared about the children and knew that Russ’s having custody would be harmful and dangerous for them, plus, I doubt she was interested in being the caretaker for both kids.

After learning about Russ’s abuse of Daniel, I immediately went to my lawyer (Lawyer #3), demanding an immediate petition for a change of custody. He said we could not seek a modification of custody because it was too soon. He said, “Let the ink dry on the judge’s custody order.” That was the last straw and I fired him.

I got a new lawyer and a new psychologist. I recorded a telephone conversation with Russ’s girlfriend about the abuse of Daniel. Russ’s girlfriend was subpoenaed, and because of the recording, I knew––and Russ knew––that the abuse of Daniel would come out. Even if Russ intimidated her into changing her testimony, I think he knew that the tape was credible.

Faced with a situation he could not win, Russ folded. He agreed to a modification and I regained custody of Daniel. I grabbed at the chance to get custody back, even though I had to agree that Russ could have unsupervised visitation with the children. I knew Russ would never agree to supervised visitation. I did not want, and could not pay for, another long, drawn–out battle in court. Besides, based on what I had seen, I did not want to risk what a judge might do.

As far as I am concerned, Russ agreed to the change of custody to save face. No one in authority ever held him accountable for his abuse. People in authority, like the judge and the psychologists, always supported him and held a good opinion of him. Russ wanted to maintain his good image at all costs. By giving up custody of Daniel without a fight, he could avoid the public humiliation of being outed as an abuser.

He portrayed the custody change to the children as a sacrifice he was making because he loved them so much. “This is what’s best for you,” he said. Once again, he took no responsibility for doing anything wrong in abusing Daniel. He showed no remorse.

Even after I had custody of both kids, Russ continued to engage in repeated violations of my protective order through phone harassment and stalking. Additionally, his son, Chip, was there unsupervised when the kids visited Russ. Apparently, though, Chip did not abuse either child further.

@ @ @ @

C. Attitudes Need to Change More than the Law

Domestic violence law is certainly far better than it has been in the past. We have seen progress in the legislative, [77] judicial, [78] and executive [79] arenas. Positive legislative reform is on–going, though there is a backlash as well, driven primarily by the Fathers’ Rights movement. [80]

Changes in the law are important. With better law, good people (judges, police, etc.) can do more and bad ones are limited in the harm they can cause. Law can also have an educational effect. A judge or police officer who initially resists laws and policies that are appropriate for domestic violence cases may ultimately come to see their value.

Mary’s story shows, however, that the primary problem is not with the law but with the human beings who interpret and administer it. The legal system betrayed Mary, but not because it lacked the power to act differently. The judges, psychologists, and lawyers could have protected Mary and her children. They could have understood woman battering, or made a point of educating themselves about it. They could have let go of their stereotypes about what batterers and their victims “look like” and how they act. They could have reexamined their values, under which abuse of Mom is irrelevant to Dad’s fitness as a parent. The list continues indefinitely.

Mary’s custody judge easily had the power to find that full custody with Mary was in the children’s “best interest” [81] and that Russ’s visitation had to be supervised. [82] The judge could have warned Russ, not Mary, that he had to be on his best behavior or he would lose even supervised visitation. The judge could have ordered Russ to undergo batterers’ counseling as a precondition for even supervised visitation. [83]

My point is simple: this did not have to happen. Without in any way ignoring or bending the law, Mary, the children––and Russ––could have been dealt with appropriately. Mary and her children, especially Daniel, may pay for the system’s sexism, ignorance, and indifference for a lifetime. And, as Mary says, society pays too when the aftermath of abuse spills out, as it often will, beyond the family.

@ @ @ @

F. Any “Solution” Not Based on Battered Women’s Experiences
Is Doomed to Failure

We cannot know what to do about domestic violence unless we listen to survivors’ stories. In them are the keys to solutions. Battered women and formerly battered women are telling us what works and what does not. People with professional training can help, but only if their actions and recommendations are based on what battered women and formerly battered women say. [116]

Women like Mary tell us that mediation, joint custody, and couples counseling can be terrible for battered women, [117] yet certain professionals continue to advocate for these things in domestic violence cases. [118] Their arguments, however, are from the viewpoint of the mediator or the system, not the battered woman and her children. [119] Women’s safety concerns are either not addressed or minimized. [120]

Proponents of mediation in domestic violence cases express a near–magical belief in mediation and mediators. They believe that the mediator can tell when mediation is not appropriate or when it should be stopped [121] (another example of the helper’s ego surfacing). Sadly, the only expertise that seems to count is the mediator’s. Battered women’s expertise does not seem to matter. [122]

Sometimes, it seems that battered women’s voices are getting more and more lost. The field has become professionalized, [123] semi–respectable, [124] and partially funded. [125] There has been a parallel tendency to turn the focus away from the victims and toward the professionals. [126]

I do not want to be misunderstood here. I have absolutely no nostalgia for the “good old days” when shelters did not exist or led threadbare existences, and when a professor who wanted to teach Domestic Violence would have been laughed off campus. I have been doing domestic violence work far too long for such foolishness. I relish the voice, the power, and even the respectability that our movement has achieved. But people who really care about battered women must remain ever vigilant against those whose solutions come from their own professional experience and not from victims’ lives.

@ @ @

As a mother and wife, I absolutely agree that families need rules. Nothing is sadder than a house where “anything goes” and there are no rules; everyone is unhappy, especially the children. [131] Nor do I think that every rule, even if somewhat imposed by one family member over others, is abusive.

But rules are different in a batterer’s house. They are never negotiated; they are always imposed. [132] And rulemaking is a one–way street: the batterer sets rules for other family members, while he does exactly as he pleases. [133] Russ ordered Mary not to watch comedies on television, just as he announced that he was quitting his job. Mary knew that even suggesting alternatives might result in violence. But Russ could be away for days at a time, and Mary was not to question his actions.

The rules in a batterer’s house are not just for his comfort and enjoyment. They are an integral part of his plan to control and isolate his partner. [134] As Mary said, the rule about no comedies on television meant she could not exercise her sense of humor, an important part of her self–image. Batterer’s rules also control matters such as whether and when she can leave the house, and how she can spend money. [135] Many rules reinforce the victim’s isolation, such as rules about not having any of her friends over or going out with other people after work. [136][137] She might hear something that made her feel good while listening to the radio, or she might hear a description of domestic violence and recognize herself and start planning her escape. Looking out at the world from her kitchen window (or having someone else look in and see what was going on) might decrease her isolation. Even “little” rules, like “don’t play the radio when I’m gone” and “keep the curtain in the kitchen down” are part of an overall pattern of isolation.

In the functional family, rules are negotiated and renegotiated. [138] One partner may give in to the other, but both partners engage in some give and take. The rules may not fulfill everyone’s needs, but they do not destroy family members’ self–esteem either. [139] In functional families, people are basically satisfied with the rules. [140]

Second, the batterer’s list of rules is ridiculously long and ever expanding and changing. [141] While his partner and children are struggling to comply with his existing demands, new and often contradictory rules are added. [142] This again is in marked contrast with the non–abusive “dinner at six” dad. We have all known non–abusive families where one member (usually, but not always, the father) must be catered to, but his demands are limited and stable. Further, the demanding but non–abusive family member is capable of being satisfied. “Just feed him on time and he’s a happy man” is not something an abused wife would say.

Finally, there is the punishment imposed for non–compliance with rules. [143] The non–abusive man does not beat or rape his wife or children if dinner is not on the table at six. He may pout for a while, or whine, he may even occasionally yell. His reaction may be unhealthy, but the other family members do not live in terror of what will happen if the rules are not met.

Identification protocols for battered women should include questions about rulemaking. [144] Something like this would be good: “Every household has rules under which it operates. Tell me about the ones in your house. What are the rules? How are they established? What happens when they’re not met?” With a sympathetic ear and a little prodding, a battered woman may quickly identify a long list of onerous and changing rules, imposed by the abuser and ruthlessly enforced by him. [145] If she is still in the relationship, or just getting out, she may describe the rules matter–of–factly, and may consider them normal. [146] One advantage of asking about the rules is that she may talk about them much more readily and with less shame than about the violence she has experienced. [147]

H. How Physical and Non–Physical Abuse Work Together:
Why Do We See It as Torture When [XxxxxXxxx] Generals Do It,
But Not When It’s the Guy Next Door?

People are still very ignorant about domestic violence and how it works. If you talk to people and read news reports, the emphasis is always on physical violence. [148] Mary encountered this ignorance when the psychologists, judges, and lawyers minimized her danger because the last severe beating occurred a year and a half before Mary left Russ for good.

~ ~ ~ ~

In other settings, we are well aware of how torturers combine physical and mental abuse to get and keep power over their victims. [154] Appendix B is one of my favorite charts, adapted from Ann Jones’s book Next Time, She’ll Be Dead. [155] In the left–hand column are non–physical torture methods that Amnesty International has recognized and cata

logued. [156] Totalitarian regimes often use these techniques against political prisoners. [157] In the right–hand column are battered women’s descriptions of how their batterers used these same techniques to control them. [158] I have added some examples from Mary’s story to what appears in Jones’s book.

Those who work with battered women must understand the interplay of physical and non–physical abuse. When seen in context, a “slap” is not just a “slap”; it is a warning that the victim must comply with the batterer’s demands “or else.” Repeated phone calls to her at work are not just a sign of a little insecurity. They are part of an overall scheme of isolation and control. Busting up the furniture at home, or throwing the cat against the wall are not unfortunate temper tantrums; they say, “you could be next.” [159]

We should recognize domestic violence as the human rights violation it is. [160] We should draw analogies between domestic violence and torture, [161] to kidnappers and hostages. [162]

READER QUIZ: WHAT YEAR WAS THAT STORY ?

(hover cursor above to find the copyright and which attorney related the story).

Hover over THIS and I’ll tell you when this woman married & got her RO.

It could’ve been a decade later, and wouldn’t have read much different. I found this story after, with curiosity, searching on the man who wrote the article below. I hope readers may go back (click on this link, the “READER QUIZ” link) and actually read Mary’s Story, which was an actual case (name changed), and too damn typical. I doubt a person who has experienced abuse would respond the same as one who hasn’t.

NOW, for comic relief, of the monotous drone of fatherlessness being the nation’s crisis (and we have JUST the solution to fix it . . . . ).

Fall of marriage seen linked to decline in domestic murders Drop in homicides called ‘ironic benefit’ of change

The decline of marriage and the breakdown of stable relationships have produced a paradoxical benefit: Domestic murders have declined, with the most dramatic reductions among African- Americans, a University of Missouri criminologist reported yesterday.

“We’re living at a time of dramatic changes in marriage, intimate relationships and family structure,” said Richard Rosenfeld, speaking in Baltimore at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Those changes have had an ironic benefit in reducing the number of intimate-partner homicides.”

Dr. Rosenfeld’s findings are the flip side of the much-reported increase in young men killing young men, which he said may be attributed in part to similar factors — family instability and lack of supervision by harried single parents

READER QUIZ — WHAT YEAR WAS THIS ARTICLE (ABOVE)?

(author date & cite show when cursor hovers over link)

OK, now that you know when Dr. Rosenfled (a criminologist, not a PSYchologist) found out that the decline in marriage rates among African Americans meant reduced DV homicides among African Americans (although young men were killing each other more, they weren’t apparently killing so many wives or “intimate partners.” )

Let’s say what the head-honcho elected mostly white men were saying about the same year:

I searched the 104th Congress (1995-1996) for the word “fatherless.”

As we know, fatherlessness has been for so long blamed on the nation’s troubles that you can barely walk somewhere in a government agency, or any social service community agency (after you come back from either a Catholic church, where the (celibate?) priests are called “Father” in direct disobedience to Jesus’s command in the gospels, “call no man Father.” Or, an evangelical Protestant, not quite mainline (or, megachurch) where, after the ranks were being drained to women, they are adding testosterone to the doctrine, and teaching men to be more sensitive (in men’s groups, of course).

If you want to go without the straight-up religious variety, there’s always “The Mankind Project” and one can get a seminar of the Robert Bly type. There are fatherhood practitioners everywhere one looks, practically.

All I really wanted was the conversation where a legislator expresses shock and dismay that African American boys and girls are waking up on homes without their fathers. (NOTE: The “Mary” story above happened in the late 1980s, and HER 3 kids were waking up with their father in the home. In fact, her little girl Elizabeth, at age 3, had gotten an early introduction to sex when her stepbrother came there for the summer and molested her, after which her mother had another job of making sure they weren’t left alone together. (That couple were white and suburban, so maybe they didn’t count in this topic).

I got a little more than I expected in this 104th Congressional record:
Beginning
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996–CONFERENCE REPORT

 

I met a man who was an administrator of one of the hospitals in my community in the 15th District of Florida, and this gentleman told me that, before he had moved to Florida, he had lived in Oklahoma, and he had taken part in a program where he would go into inner city housing projects and read to young children in those projects. This program started because it has been shown in research studies that, if you read to a child, you can improve their reading score. Actually there are some studies that show that, if you read to a child, you may actually be able to raise their IQ slightly, {{Noble cause. Some Oklahoman going to raise inner city kids’ IQs}} and he told me something that I will never forget.

So this anecdotal evidence of an unnamed Florida Hospital Administrator, about (how many years previous?) that administrator going into the projects (hence, he wasn’t from them) was not 2nd-hand but 3rd-hand hearsay — if the event ever indeed happened. The impassioned delivery is to state how Welfare is Cruel — listen up how this is done:

He was going into those projects and reading to those kids, and those children were, by and large, children of single parents on welfare, and he would ask, many of them 5, 6 and 7-year-old children, `What do you want to be when you grow up?’ And, yes, some of them would say I want to be a fireman or a nurse, but some of them would say:

`I don’t want to work. I want to collect a check.’

Not all of them wanted to be firemen or nurses (separate by gender; I don’t know how many female fire”men” there are these days, but we know there are lots of male nurses… And probably were in 1996, too..)

Mr. Speaker, a program that does that to millions of children is not a program of compassion and caring to children. It is a program that is cruel and mean spirited to children.

Here’s the process — a man in Florida heard a man in Florida talk about his experience trying to improve the iQ of little kids in the projects (did he talk to their Mamas?) in Oklahoma, and concludes that (although even in the story some WANTED a profession, others wanted a check) FEEDING such children was mean-spirited and cruel…

Today a young male being born to a mother, a single mother on welfare in the United States, has a greater likelihood of ending up on drugs or in the penitentiary than graduating from high school.

I showed in “Luzerne County” that you don’t have to be poor or (presumable here) black to be a crook. There’s a difference between being a crook and actually being jailed for it. It should be common knowledge now, and I bet then (1996) that America, being the largest jailor (per capita) has those jails disproportionately filled with black males. Some of them got their assaulting their mother’s attacker, too. He’s taking two statistics (if that) and creating a CASUAL connection rather than a CAUSAL one. Of course, how many poor black males — or females of any social status or color — were there in Congress in 1996 to comment on his reasoning process?

And the young females, (single mothers have both boys and girls, right?) — are THEY ending up on drugs or in jail?

The problem that we have with illegitimacy in our Nation today is a problem that has been created by the program that we are trying to change, and you cannot fix this problem by tinkering around the edges. The illegitimacy rate in this country has gone up from 5 percent to almost 25 percent in the white community. In the black community it has gone from less than 25 percent to, in some areas, as high as 70 percent.

If you look at what correlates best, what correlates in communities with problems like teenage pregnancy, drug use, illiteracy, juvenile crime, the thing that correlates best in those problems in those communities, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of illegitimacy, the amount of fatherlessness in those communities. A program that perpetuates and cultivates things like this is a cruel and mean-spirited program, and that program needs to be changed, and our bill makes a serious attempt at doing that.

We are not talking about tinkering around the edges. We are talking about promoting family unity, discouraging teen-age pregnancy and illegitimacy.

The fact that this program perpetuates it, Mr. Speaker, was driven home to me when I was a medical student working in an inner-city obstetrics clinic, and I had a 15-year-old girl come in to see me who was pregnant, and I had never seen this before, and I was so upset. I was grieved to see this. I looked at her and said her life is ruined, she cannot go to college, and I said to her, `How did this happen, why did this happen,’ and she looked up to me and told me that she did it deliberately because she wanted to get out from under her mother in the project, and she wanted her own place and her own welfare check.

Again, on the outside looking in, and one anecdote.

This program needs to stop. The people have asked for it; we are trying to deliver.

WHICH people? I mean, these are elected representatives, are they really speaking for their constituents?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Members of the minority to stop their partisan rhetoric and join with us in reforming welfare and creating a program for the poor and the needy that strengthens family, does not undermine them, that strengthens the bonds of marriage, because it is strong families that make strong communities that makes strong nations, and our Nation cannot survive with a perpetuation of a program like this.

Is it the lack of marriage, or the lack of fathers that counts? Because I tell you one thing that makes lack of fathers — WARS. Another thing that previously, broke up families in a callous manner is called slavery.

Who created ghettoes? Who created the two-tier school system, good for some lousy for others (a factor to this date). Who directed one populace into “jobs” and the others (elite ones) into how to run businesses and understand investments, political connections, foundations, and skills that would go along with that goal?

So if you want to know how much we (we WHO???) have invested in the old welfare program over the past 30 years, it is roughly the equivalent of the value of all buildings, all plants and equipment, and all of the tools of all the workers in the United States of America. No society in history has ever invested more money trying to help needy people than the United States of America has invested.

Yet, what has been the result of all of those good intentions? What has been the result of that investment? The result of that investment, 30 years later, is that we have as many poor people today as we had 30 years ago. They are poorer today, they are more dependent on the Government today, and by any definition of quality of life, fulfillment, or happiness, people are worse off today than they were when we started the current welfare system.

When we started the War on Poverty {{and another war in Southeast Asia to follow up on the Korean war I guess}} in the mid-1960s, two-parent families were the norm in poor families in America. Today, two-parent families are the exception. Since 1965, the illegitimacy rate has tripled.

I know that we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are going to lament the passage of this new welfare reform bill. But I do not see how anybody with a straight face, or a clear conscience, can defend the status quo in welfare. Our current welfare program has failed. It has driven fathers out of the household. It has made mothers dependent. It has taken away people’s dignity. It has bred child abuse and neglect, and filled the streets of our cities with crime. And we are here today to change it.

Grammar: Is this guy going to “own” the welfare program, or objectify it? First it was guilt trip, “we have created” and net thing it’s got an independent life, like a disease, perpetuating itself of its own accord, where it can be separated from the rhetorical bosom of the speaker, and be viewed running around tearing up the place. As an “it” it can now have stones thrown at IT first. And after the vivid picture of 5, 6 , 7 year olds wanting to collect a welfare check (“millions of them”) (Seriously, that’s the subliminal message — guilt trip first, it’s ours” and then relieve the guilt by blaming the same thing “we” created, and QUICK, call to action.….) Some action is needed to take away

Let me outline what our program does. I think if each of us looks back to a period when our ancestors first came to America, or back to a time when those who have gone before us found themselves poor, we are going to find that there are two things that get individuals and nations out of poverty. Those two things are work and family. I think it is instructive to note that those are the two things that we have never applied to the current welfare program of the United States of America.

This man seems totally unconscious of the fact that SOME ancestors came to America in the bottom of a slave ship; that a lot of wealth, including likely some of the wealth that helped put people in Congress, came from came from businesses that included plantation labor, sweat shops, and some very, very hard work. When he says “us” as to doling out benefits, he also seems to have forgotten that those taxes came from employees’ wages, courtesy a few reforms dating back to 1939. He seems to have forgotten everything about “Jim Crow” and era of attempting to turn back the clock on some serious industriousness by freed slaves.

The bill before us asks people to work. It says that able-bodied men and women will be required to work in order to receive benefits. It sets a time limit so that people cannot make welfare a way of life. It seeks to change the incentives within the welfare system. And I believe the time has come to change those incentives within the welfare system.

I admit I’m maybe sensitive to this because I know HOW HARD I worked over the years, and none harder than while in a battering relationship that could’ve been a variety of the one above (but a decade later). This relationship, within marriage shouldn’t be happening any more in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, but it is.

Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers

(SEPARATE TOPIC, above)) just saving the link).

White Guy Helps African American Marriages until He jumps ship on HHS….

with one comment

I’m resisting (almost) the temptation to call this post “Wade” in the Water, as it features the National Fatherhood INitiative, now I’m in HHS, oops now I’m NOT” guy helping African Americans talk about themselves. This is obviously a grassroots movement.

It would be filed next to “Wade Horn jumps ship,” so the water analogy is maybe appropriate.

(See below)

Bio Sketches of Presenters from the “Connecting Marriage Research to Practice Conference

African American Healthy Marriage Initiative Conference

Presented by the Administration for Children and Families and held at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Friday Center

September 12–14, 2006

Wade Horn—Since his 2001 unanimous confirmation by the U.S. Senate as the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Wade F. Horn has provided strategic leadership for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), overseeing a $47 billion budget and 65 programs that serve vulnerable children, youth and families. #

Among Dr. Horn’s achievements in implementing President George W. Bush’s policy initiatives include increasing the effectiveness of Head Start and early childhood education programs, promoting positive youth development and building partnerships with community and faith-based organizations in delivering social services to the poor.

He has also advanced the President’s agenda for reauthorizing the bipartisan 1996 welfare reform legislation by incorporating responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage services into the broad array of ACF programs. Also under his watch, ACF launched a mentoring program for children of incarcerated parents and a public awareness campaign to help rescue and restore victims of human trafficking.

Most recently, Dr. Horn has helped to spearhead the Department’s strategic response to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, ensuring the continued delivery of human services to displaced Gulf Region families. #

Dr. Horn’s results-oriented leadership as a federal official reflects a life-long commitment to the well-being of children, which he has demonstrated as a husband, father, child psychologist, college professor and public policy expert. Dr. Horn was president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, where he pursued a creative strategy using public awareness campaigns, research findings and conferences to encourage and support involved, committed and responsible fatherhood. He also was an adjunct professor of public policy at Georgetown University and an affiliate scholar of the Hudson Institute. #

In addition to having published numerous articles, essays and books, Dr. Horn has served on national panels, boards and commissions including the National Commission on Children, the National Commission on Childhood Disability and the U.S. Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators. But among his many accomplishments, Dr. Horn is most proud of his marriage since 1977 to his wife, Claudia, and his two grown daughters, Christen and Caroline.

Less than a year later,

this news on ALTERNET, a site concerned about civil liberties issues, or so it says:

The Bush administration’s point man for conservative — and often morality-driven — social policy, such as abstinence-only sex education, has resigned. But only time will tell whether his programs remain federal policy.

Last month’s resignation of Wade Horn, former assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and point man for conservative social policy, came just as support was crumbling and mistrust mounting for a costly and, many would argue, unsuccessful initiative — abstinence education.

“At this point we’ve spent more than a billion dollars on this program that was never proven in the first place,” said Heather Boonstra, public policy analyst at the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization specializing in reproductive health issues.

Horn left government in early April for a private-sector position at Deloitte Consulting LLP after heading the Administration for Children andFamilies (ACF), a division of HHS. There, Horn shepherded a host of contentious initiatives, for example: marriage promotion for poor women as an anti-poverty strategy, reduced access to higher education for welfare recipients, standardized testing of low-income preschoolers, programs to strengthen fatherhood by pushing matrimony and relationship skills, and chastity for 19- to 29-year-olds.

Many of these policies had come under fire over the years from members of Congress, feminists and advocates of low-income families — increasingly so in Horn’s final months at HHS. But it was Horn’s approach to sex education, with its prime emphasis on virtue, that drew the most opposition and suffered the most discrediting setbacks in the form of political defection and unfavorable research findings.

Did he miss a step after jumping ship? Probably not. After all, when it says in Genesis, “go forth and multiply,” if this cannot be down by sowing one’s biological wild oats (not if one is going to practice what one preaches re: marriage, and abstinence outside of it…), one can certainly “father” and “found” a lot of replicating fatherhood organizations, and set a system in place that they learn how to clone themselves, interbreeding with federal agencies, nonprofits, and faith-based institutions.

That’s why I say, we’re still “Wading in the Water” over this issue, only it ain’t water.

Perhaps he’d do better to think about more arts in the schools, giving kids something better to do than, well, fail to be ‘ABSTINENT” inbetween classes or after school. Butg how can we do that with the millions going to indoctrination about sex (and how not to engage in it) and marriage (and how to stay married even if it “kills” you or whatever things you were inspired to do outside the home)

Great Performances: Free To Dance – Biographies – Alvin Ailey

The Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater (AAADT) began as a repertory company of seven a ceremony of ritual baptism (“Wade in the Water“), a moment of

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/freetodance/biographies/ailey.htmlCachedSimilar

If you’ve not, somehow, seen this performance, or dance company, I’ll give you a hint. It’s a LOT more interesting than listening to sociologist discuss how to fix the broken system and playing matchmaker.
I’m being flippant, but the fact is, NYT Front page (TODAY) spells out how the Federal Goverment Jobs training program is a bust, for young people AND for middle-agers. Want to see? it?

Which just goes to show how smart it is to ask the originators of Abstinence Education and No Child Left Behind for more smart help:

  • Don’t want a job, even at Wal-Mart (see class action suit based on sex discrimination)? Join a federally based job training program.
  • Want a job? Figure out how to research unemployment, preferably with a conservative faith-based foundation that is GOING to get it right, one of these days.

Seriously, the extended family that writes policy briefs and conferences together, STAYS together.

The rest of us had better learn to pray, for real this time.