ABA, APA, AFCC, AAML, . . and others: Reconceptualize This!

Notice any progressions, any devolution, any connections among the language of conferences, commissions, task forces, projects and books about?

• Domestic Violence IN the family law system
• Protecting Children & Families (and animals)
• Batterers IN their families and in the family law system
• The Jargons of the Psycho-Legal-Sociologist Expert Collaborations

Explicate this:   January 2012, Springfield, Ohio.  A father teaches his son how to torture & punish his daughter:  bound with duct tape binding her hands and feet, locked in a dog cage and water poured over her.  Father forces brother to participate in this form of torture, including taking pictures of her, which are then posted on facebook.  Girl released, pours water on her father.  She is bound and placed back in, this time threatened with electrocution.   Grandma (probably his mother) finally releases her.  Dad is now in jail; news article is another “invisible mother alert.”  This looks like a custodial father. Reported didn’t see fit to mention Where’s Mom?

Explicate THIS:   Trumbull County, Ohio, 2011, child rape IN supervised visitation facility — a facility that’s one of a network funded almost 75% by taxpayers including a “child levy” imposed recently to set up the network.  I can’t even stand to review the details; have communicated with some of the parents protesting (who were shut out of a meeting when they showed up to protest the first time, in violation of the open meeting rights).  Last Fall, Ohio.  The same mother lost a baby to foster care — where she was beaten to death by about age 2 — the day the child was born.  However, the theme of welfare these days is “family reunification” so this was a federal/state funded supervised visitation (?) in which a toddler was molested, caught on cell phone.  The relative who reported this (probably in shock), was treated kindly by the system, and HER child removed as well:

The visits involved a child who allegedly was victimized during a visit at Children Services offices on Reeves Road on April 27, 2011. The biological parents are charged with raping the child, accused of sodomizing her.

Nick Kerosky, Children Services executive director, could not be reached to clarify whether Moon supervised the visits directly or whether she supervised employees who handled the visits. Kerosky confirmed earlier this week that one employee had been disciplined for her involvement in that child’s case but didn’t identify her until Friday.

Kerosky said an internal investigation of the incident is ongoing, so there might be additional disciplinary action forthcoming. Moon has a “good work record,” a letter attached to the form says.

The alleged sexual assaults, supposedly videotaped on a cellphone, have touched off criminal investigations of the parents and Children Services, as well two administrative reviews by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

Explicate THIS:   Logan, Ohio, January 2012 (This does not involve minor children or the courts here):

(Relates to a woman’s very poor choice of remarriage, but I put it here to explain that fathers PER SE are not all they are cracked up to be, and SOME fathers do NOT belong in children’s lives, based on their past abuse and violence.   I found this accidentally, but it also occurred in Ohio, and in 2012:

A man repeatedly shot his adult son and two sisters-in-law in his living room, killing them in front of his terminally ill wife, then fatally shot himself on the front porch as family tension about the cancer-stricken woman’s care apparently boiled over, authorities said.

An earlier dispute about whether the woman should have been fed tea and toast or the orange her husband had peeled for her apparently set off the shooter Monday, 63-year-old Paul Gilkey.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2012/01/10/national/a233132S39.DTL#ixzz1kDFlUnsG

The sick woman, 59-year-old Darlene Gilkey, who’s dying of cancer, witnessed the shootings from a hospital bed in her living room but was uninjured, Hocking County Sheriff Lanny Northsaid. . .

Killed inside the home were Darlene Gilkey’s sisters, Barbara Mohler, 70, of New Straitsville, and Dorothy Cherry, 63, of New Plymouth. Also killed was Paul Gilkey’s son, Leroy Gilkey, 38, of Columbus.

. . .Investigators say Leroy Gilkey had power of attorney over his mother, a fact that added to Paul Gilkey’s stress, according to Peggy Gilkey.

Paul Gilkey probably did not qualify for holding power of attorney over his (terminally ill) wife, seeing as he’d previously murdered a man, done 10 years for it, within 2 years of released assaulted someone else, etc.  In her great wisdom, his ex-wife remarried him; he repaid the kindness by wiping out her sisters, and his own son (so much for his “power of attorney”) who happened to be a schoolteacher, doing so by reaching over the shoulder of another man trying to protect him, who was spared “because he had kids.”  Then the man shot himself.  Indications are he’d bought extra cemetary plots in advance. He then shot himself on the front porch.  Three innocents plus himself.

The article goes on to quote his excusitis sister in law:  he was stressed out, and he did this because he loved her so much, and it seems that his own brother didn’t know him that well (or see fit to warn anyone):

She added: “He was really trying to take care of her, but he felt like people weren’t letting him.”

She said Paul Gilkey and her husband talked several times a week about the situation.

She said her brother-in-law probably let his wife live because he loved her so much

From:    Sheriff: Food dispute led to Ohio murder-suicide  By KANTELE FRANKO  The Associated Press (posted 1/10/2012 in the Atlanta Journal Constitution)

The fact is, men can be extremely dangerous, and when something goes off wrong, they can and do assault, torture, seek revenge, and sometimes kill (murder) several people at once.

BUT Ohio is “on it.”  The Professionals have it under control.  The Policymakers are on the job protecting people from themselves by making sure that when certain people read the danger signs and try to separate, in the name of (I supposed God and) Family, they mustn’t.  In the name of what’s good for society, they mustn’t.  Rather, leave it to the think tanks to figure out interventions, preventions, and how to distinguish real danger from false allegations of danger, most often to be coming from mothers, of course.

So, in typical manner, they are stemming the tide:  They have a Fatherhood Commission, which has Ohio divided up into 12 “Fatherhood” regions, with reports, trainings, and grantees, and of course in the report is the cost of father absence. They have also set up streamlined communications and flexible funding to reach out communities.  They have OHIO FAMILIES AND CHILDREN FIRST (nice logo!) “The purpose of Ohio Family and Children First is to help families seeking government services by streamlining and coordinating services, resources, and systems.”  And to help deliver services, and I suppose preserve moral ethics? they also have an “Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.”   Like all states, they also have a Coalition Against Domestic Violence (actually two groups listed at “NCADV” — see  http://www.odvn.org/  (“Increasing Safety for Ohio Families through Support, Advocacy and Education”) and  http://www.actionohio.org/about_us.htm  (“ACTION OHIO’s core services are resource/referral, technical assistance, professional education, public awareness, community outreach, and public policy leadership within the domestic violence community.”)

 and

If this weren’t enough, Ohio is now collaborating with the Battered Women’s Justice Project:

The Ohio IPV Collaborative Builds Competency Within Child Protective Services

The Ohio IPV Collaborative works to build Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) competency within child protective services agencies and fosters enhanced partnerships among child welfare, courts, DV/IPV service providers and other critical stakeholders, consistent with several recommendations in the Greenbook, a landmark 1999 publication.  The Greenbook set forth guiding principles and sixty-three recommendations from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

The Greenbook is another project called “Effective intervention in Women Battering and Child Maltreatment”  ALMOST everybody (and his/her mother) was on the advisory council, particularly people receiving grants from HHS or DOJ, plus representatives from a certain foundation, San Francisco’s giant (as to funding, in the field) “Family Violence Prevention Fund,” Oliver Williams, Ph.D. (IAADV, from a School of Social Work, known fatherhood proponent), and several superior court judges.  Conveniently, little was said about “parental alienation” the AFCC, and probably nothing about the fatherhood funding, access visitation, welfare diversions, or equal parenting movement within the family court.  It was classic “collaboration,” and assumed that the (HHS-funded) Domestic Violence Prevention organizations actually were listening to feedback from woment (with children) that they served.  No such women  - laypersons — were on the advisory board.

It was supported (funded) by a grant from HHS, and two grants from the Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs of the US DOJ, plus the David and Lucille Packard Foundation and the Johnson Foundation.

Seeing as once any case of battered women enters the Family Law System in any US District Court or court of common pleas (etc.) it’s no longer a crime — it’s a FAMILY MATTER — these funds are rarely available (I’ve never heard of a case where they actually did assist) in helping a woman survive a custody challenge by someone who has beaten or stalked her, or molested her children.  There seems to be a professional silence between the two systems of “justice” on these topics, no matter how much collaboration (without parent input) takes place.

Why is it so hard to accept?

There really are some people that shouldn’t be around families, minor children, vulnerable individuals.  And if women were doing this — arming themselves and trying to go out with a big bang to get even — including killing their own children, I’m sure the MSM would report it.  But they aren’t!  And it’s in the context of events like in Logan Ohio, or Springfield Ohio (THIS YEAR) — LOTS of them involving minor children — that the following rhetoric continues to surface, and this type of discussion take place:

It’s like, certain people just refuse to grasp the basics, and so struggle with renaming them in forms more acceptable to their viewpoints.

Year, 2009

Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations

SERIOUSLY?

(apparently, yes!) 

Battered Women’s Justice Project, Praxis, AFCC & NCJFCJ as paid for (funded) by the OVW and its May, 2010 workgroup moderated by a Canadian Sociologist.  (That seems “appropriate” for something funded by American taxpayers):

BWJP and its project partner, Praxis International, are expanding recent multidisciplinary efforts to more effectively protect the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents in the family court system by crafting a more practical framework for identifying, understanding and accounting for the contexts and implications of domestic violence in custody arrangements and parenting plans.

Why should there be ANY parenting plan after certain levels of assault, battery, death threat, or sexual abuse of minors?  I am sure it would send a very clear message to the nation if a solid rule would set up:  You beat your wife, you molest your kids, you don’t get second chances.   We, the public, are simply unwilling to finance your desire for second, third, fourth, fifth, or other attempts to create a warm family feeling for men (or women) who lack understanding of what’s criminal and what’s not, and what children are — and are not — for.  You will have to go find work, or someone else, who also will have the right to report your assaulting behind if you don’t get it straight.

But no — instead, the practitioners (networking with other practitioners)  apparently endorse the concept is that such parents are going to stay “IN” the family court system, despite domestic violence by (a parent), for a good while.  This is wonderful for getting along with organizations which profit from the same funding source — HHS, and DOJ — and avoids antagonizing those in the family law system by reporting on what they are actually doing! I mean, financially!

BWJP and Praxis staff  have formed a National Workgroup with representatives from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts(AFCC).  In consultation with leading researchers and practitioners, {{Not mentioned:  PARENTS}}  they have begun to examine the institutional processes by which family courts commonly reach and/or facilitate crucial parenting decisions, including the use of auxiliary advisors such as custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates.  The intent is to identify the ways in which current institutional practices produce both problematic and helpful results for children and their parents.

NOTE:  The head of NCJFCJ in 2007-2008 was Susan Carbon.  How, she is heading up the Office of Violence Against Women (if I got which title straight), i.e., the DOJ funding stream.  Get it?  Before that, she was a family judge in New Hampshire, where this nice parenting coordination association got started, and has a handbook adopted from the Indiana version of the same thing.  AND so, a project coming from a nice collaboration between two or three of these groups (NCJFCJ, AFCC & BWJP) is naturally going to be entail continuing involvement of the family IN the family law system, which two out of three of those organizations are involved with already (and AFCC helped create to start with):

Again;BWJP and its project partner, Praxis International, are expanding recent multidisciplinary efforts to more effectively protect the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents in the family court system by crafting a more practical framework for identifying, understanding and accounting for the contexts and implications of domestic violence in custody arrangements and parenting plans. They intend to find some positive results of such involvements when DV or Child Abuse has happened (which tend to be a great cause of “disputed custody” which then gives the courts/state jurisdiction over the parent’s children, even if one parent is completely innocent of any child abuse or criminal activity:

The intent is to identify the ways in which current institutional practices produce both problematic and helpful results for children and their parents.

 Sounds to me like a finding that involvement in the family law system is unilaterally dangerous and destructive for non-abusive parents and for their children, their communities, sometimes bystanders, let alone the economy (i.e., it impoverishes the families) is simply not on the map.  This is asking one of the “foxes” (AFCC) and one of the intervention promoters (BWJP, as benefitting from the funding to “MPDI” Minnesota Program Development, Inc.”) to report on the behaviors of foxes, and its effects on the henhouse.

RESULTS?

I am unaware of any “helpful results” for children or their parents to date; but am sure if enough funding is produced, some will be found.  (the “helpful results” site has a few “invisible mother alerts,” this last one being from Ohio, dating to YESTERDAY (referenced above):

Dad jailed for binding daughter, locking her in dog cage (Springfield Township, Ohio)

. . .a father is accused of binding his daughter’s hands and legs with duct tape, locking her in a dog cage, photographing her and having the images posted on Facebook. . . While the girl was in the cage, he dropped small amounts of water on her face. The child was trapped in the cage for about 20 minutes until her brother let her out. . .

To get back at her father, she began pouring water on his head and in his ear, according to police.

Tapke bound his daughter again with duct tape and stuck her back in the cage. Then, he ordered his son to go to the garage and retrieve the electrical jump pack so he could electrify the cage as another means of punishment for his daughter.

Tapke never actually attempted to shock the cage, but he threatened to several times. His son obeyed his father and brought the jump pack in from the garage, which was set in front of the cage so the girl could see it.

Finally, Tapke let the girl out of the cage and her grandmother helped her remove the tuct tape.

Once again, it appears that the father here is custodial. Notice that dad JAMES TAPKE is jail, but it isn’t “clear” who is caring for these kids. There’s no mention of a mother either–just a passing reference to a grandmother. 

It seems that BWJP, however, is on the job in Ohio also, collaborating to prevent domestic violence:

The Ohio IPV Collaborative Builds Competency Within Child Protective Services

Differential Response (aka Alternative Response) has emerged as an expanded continuum of child protection responses. The model recognizes that child protective service agencies receive broad variations in incoming reports and that an investigative response is not always the most productive for the family or most beneficial for the child. It differs from traditional responses in that it is more attuned to child and family strengths and their self-articulated needs. Most significantly, services are provided without the traditional requirement of a formal disposition (substantiated or unsubstantiated) of maltreatment or risk for maltreatment. Currently, a three year evaluation of Ohio’s Differential Response is being conducted by theHuman Services Research Institute.  (CLICKED ON, WE SEE THAT):

HRSI has a history focusing on people with disabilities and mental health problems.  Is domestic violence a mental health problem?  Or are so may people interested in “treating” it that now it’s been diagnosed as one?

With funding from the U.S. Children’s Bureau, HSRI is conducting a three-year evaluation of the Differential Response (DR) Initiative in Ohio, a best-practices approach to serving families reported for child abuse or neglect.** DR provides an alternative to the traditional child welfare investigative approach, rather offering families a more critical role in assuring the safety and well-being of their children. Ohio is one of three states who are implementing a DR model and the Children’s Bureau is funding a cross-site QIC evaluation of the three sites to contribute to the scientific evidence of the effectiveness of this approach; HSRI’s evaluation will significantly contribute to this effort.

**I’m a little unclear in the dog-cage incident whether someone read facebook, heard the noise, or whether the girl managed to get out and tell someone.  Anyhow, meanwhile, the theme is “reunification.”  The term QIC will come up again, below….

Moving on  . . . ..

Year, 2008:

Reconceptualizing Child Custody:

Past, Present, and Future—Lawyers

and Psychologists* Working Together

A Continuing Education Conference

(in other words, basically ABA & APA)*

Year, 2007

Changing the Culture of Custody  (Pennsylvania)

 (more on this, below, in fact most of today’s post is on this).

Year, 2006

Rethinking Domestic Violence (Donald Dutton, book)

Presents an analysis of domestic violence research that crosses disciplinary lines, including sociology, psychology, criminology, affective neuropsychology, and criminal justice.

&

U.B.C. Law Review

BOOK REVIEW: RETHINKING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE by Donald G. Dutton, Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006, 432 pp. ¹

June, 2008

41 U.B.C. L. Rev. 179

Excerpt

In Rethinking Domestic Violence, Donald Dutton opens his book with the stated aim of refuting what he describes as feminist “dogma preservation” ² in the field.** He seeks to dislodge the perceived dominance of this perspective by providing his own “more enlightened” ³ and “dispassionate” viewpoint, one which disputes the relevance of gender to domestic violence and foregrounds a gender-neutral and exclusively psychological account of its causes. Dutton argues that because personality disorders have not been acknowledged as the real cause of domestic violence, legal responses to domestic violence have been misguided and ineffective.Dutton extends these two primary themes throughout the entire book. Dutton designates the first seven chapters to explaining why feminist accounts that identify gender and gender inequality as relevant to domestic violence are wrong and he argues that “women use violence in intimate relationships to the same extent as men, for the same reasons, and with largely the same results.” ⁴

((**a review of the same book on Dutton’s site says the book is “distinctly feminist” in viewpoint.  ”He has gathered the latest work from multiple disciplines to create a volume that will surely be a cornerstone of a radical, distinctly feminist rethinking of domestic violence practice.”I doubt it…)

(Dr. Dutton teaches in the Dept. of Psychology at Univ. of British Columbia)

MEANWHILE:

BATTERERS INTERVENTION PROGRAMS ARE GETTING NICELY ORGANIZED, STANDARDIZED, Certified, etc.

BISC-MI Welcomes You!!!

Click for additional information

Click here for our letter of 
invitation to join

---

. . .

Year, 2002?

The Batterer As Parent:

 Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Family Dynamics /Edition 1

by Lundy Bancroft, Jay G. Silverman, 

Year, 2002

Batterers As Fathers:

Rethinking and Reconceptualizing Policy and Practice

~ ~ ~ How many people can actually “reconceptualize” a world in which the habit of battering automatically precludes the habit of parenting, of participating IN a family, and of having anything at all to discuss in the custody courts?

The truth of the matter is, too many believe that the sky would fall, government wouldn’t work right, and the economy would go under IF men’s (AND women’s including mothers, stepmothers, and new girlfriends) rights to be around children, or romantic partners, would CEASE, QUICKLY and PERMANENTLY – — over the crime of what would be a crime to a stranger.   AND if no spouse were allowed to totally control the economic assets or finances of another simply because one stayed home.

We have a society unwilling to admit that collectively, it is simply unwilling to stop beating up on whoever’s lower in the pecking order.  We KNOW that this behavior extends to the highest levels of government (LOOK:  SF’s Sheriff just got arrested for domestic violence; widespread child trafficking HAS been traced to the White House (not everyone in Congress, but SEVERAL in Congress), as the Franklin Coverup showed. A  photographer was used, and compromising photographs, by their sheer existence, enabled blackmail of legislators who might oppose certain things.  THis was about a credit union in Nebraska, ultimately (as well as child exploitation, including using children as mules to transport drugs).  It was nasty.      We just had Penn State Scandal and Kids for Cash (also in Pennsylvania) which happened right under the nose of

NOW LET’S LOOK AT SOME OF THIS PROGRESSIVE LANGUAGE CREEP, AS FACILITATED BY CERTAIN ASSOCIATIONS (see subject of post)

Year, 2007

(follow up from 2004 start of a Commission for Justice Initiatives to do exactly this type of activity)

Commission for Justice Initiatives in Pennsylvania PUBLIC RESOURCES In May 2004, at the request and with the support of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, then Pennsylvania Bar Association President Michael H. Reedestablished the Commission for Justice Initiatives in Pennsylvania. Guided by the basic tenet that the justice system needs to be responsive to the expectations and needs of the communities it serves, the commission identifies, develops and recommends the implementation of programs and practices designed to improve the administration of justice in Pennsylvania, educate the public about justice and the judicial system, and enhance the public’s trust and confidence in Pennsylvania’s justice system.

Changing the Culture of Custody  (Pennsylvania)

@@@

Also found at http://www15.brinkster.com/ncfcpgh/Report.pdf  (ALL font changes mine in the quote):

Chairman’s Introduction  (Chairman was The Hon. Thomas King Kistler)

The adoption of the Gold Standard Model set forth in this report, and the associated programs, will immediately change the course for the future of family separations and subsequent parenting arrangements. Children will be exposed to a far less contentious system, and will bear fewer emotional scars for the rest of their lives.

(Please note absence of parent representatives on the committee:)

Beginning in 2005, at the request of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, a Committee of experienced practitioners from many disciplines began the process of seeking a truly new and innovative way to resolve “custody” cases with less cost, delay and anguish. Through their dedicated and continuous efforts this Committee now offers the following report.

Over the last two years, the Committee has held 21 full day meetings, and conducted research projects and numerous investigative visits to courts to determine the best options for separating families.

Best according to whose definition?

Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D.,** brought great understanding of the dynamics of separation, as a clinical psychologist; Judy Shopp, {{Hover cursor for some of her qualifications & associations}} contributed vast knowledge on Alternative Dispute Resolution and mediation, and edited this report; Kathy Morrison {{PCADV}} represented the Domestic Violence community and their suggestions; Kim Nieves and Don Harris brought the expertise of the AOPC office, and its statistical gathering muscle; Maria Cognetti** {{AFCC presenter}} spoke for all of the family law practitioners {{??}}; Cindy Stoltz and Amy Ross added the perspective of Court Administration who will have to ‘run’ any system created; Gregg Warner illustrated the legislative interests and needs; Frank Cervone* spoke tirelessly on behalf of children and their needs; and Common Pleas Judges Manny Bertin (Montgomery), Chet Harhut (Lackawanna),** Katherine Platt (Chester), and Larry Kaplan (Allegheny) contributed their vast and varied experiences with family court matters over thousands of cases. This group was brought together and coalesced under the guidance and efforts of Marie Queen, of the Pennsylvania Bar Association. My sincere thanks and admiration go to each of them.

Some of the Personnel above:

SHIENVOLD appears to be lead personnel here, which basically says that AFCC’s standards are going to be the Gold Standard.

Dr. Shienvold’s name appeared on protests at the Lackawanna County Courthouse in recent months as a problem professional.  Nevertheless, his firm is part of a contract for expert witnesses hired by (don’t quote me, but I did look it up) the State of Pennsylvania.  Not mentioned:  He’s AFCC Board Member and I heard President-Elect.  Surprise, surprise, they recommend a Rule of Civil Procedure for Parent Coordinators.  Past models from Florida (where Parenting Coordination was successfully lobbied for, with the help of establishing a Florida Chapter of AFCC first, etc. Next up (if not there already) — pass a law in Pennsylvania (as in Florida) allowing judges to order parenting coordination over the objections of either parent.

You should read the report (I did).

**Ms. Cognetti — “Vice President of AAML” presenting alongside Dr. Shienvold at a JOINT AFCC-AAML conference, this past December, in Phillie:

ADVANCED ISSUES IN CHILD CUSTODY:  EVALUATION, LITIGATION & SETTLEMENT   “An exceptional, advanced-level training opportunity co-sponsored by two premier family law organizations”

• Learn the latest advanced practice skills and strategies • Earn continuing education credit • Expand your practice through unparalleled networking opportunities • An interdisciplinary faculty of leaders in the field • The latest research on children, custody, separation and divorce

Topics include:

Witness Preparation Direct and Cross Examination Child Development and Attachment Child Relocation Disputes Mental Health Consultation

Parental Alienation  Psychological Testing Domestic Abuse Bias and Opinion Formulation Ethics: Best Interests or Zealous Advocacy?

Cognetti & Shienvold  (Cognetti is probably also AFCC member, but I’m not sure):

Program Committee

Kenneth P. Altshuler, Esq., AAML President-Elect Nancy Zalusky Berg, Esq., AAML Fellow Maria Cognetti, Esq., AAML Vice President Gaetano (“Guy”) Ferro, Esq., AAML Past President Madeline Marzano-Lesnevich, Esq., AAML Vice President Arnold T. Shienvold, Ph.D., AFCC President Elect Robert M. Smith, Esq., AFCC Past President

Frank Cervone (I didn’t know the name) testified recently in re:  Penn State Child Abuse Allegations;

About Frank P. Cervone

Mr. Cervone currently serves as the Executive Director of Support Center for Child Advocates, the nation’s oldest and largest program dedicated exclusively to providing pro bono legal services for abused and neglected children. Since its founding in 1977, Child Advocates has trained more than 3,500 attorneys who contribute pro bono services valued at more than $4.6 million annually.

. . .

Mr. Cervone serves as Chair of the Pennsylvania Children’s Trust Fund. He chaired the Advisory Committee on Child Welfare Services and served as member of the Advisory Committee on Adoption Law, of the Joint State Government Commission, the research arm of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.. . .

He also serves as a member of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Juvenile Court Procedural Rules Committee, and as member of the National Advisory Committee for the National Quality Improvement Center {{“QIC” pops up later on this post; learn the term}} on the Representation of Children in the Child Welfare System. He is a member of the Board of the Philadelphia Children’s Alliance and member of the American Bar Association Section of Litigation Children’s Rights Litigation Committee Working Group. He is a founder and co-director of the National Children’s Law Network.

Mr. Cervone is a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania and Villanova University School of Law, and he has a Masters Degree in Theology and Ministry from LaSalle University.

Here’s an update on his RECENT testimony after the Penn State Abuse:

CHESTER HARHUT:

Well, here’s a 2008 article stating how concerned he is there aren’t more volunteer to protect the kids in the court:

Finding allies for children in court

For President Judge Chester Harhut, the idea of bringing in volunteers to help children in the court system has been a long time coming.

BY ERIN L. NISSLEY STAFF WRITER Published: Monday, May 5, 2008 1:00 AM EDT

For President Judge Chester Harhut, the idea of bringing in volunteers to help children in the court system has been a long time coming.

The county received grant money more than five years ago to launch a program that paired children in abuse and neglect cases with advocates who would spend time getting to know their needs. But Judge Harhut and other court officials had a hard time finding an agency that would take a leading role in the project, including screening volunteers and coordinating training.

I think what speaks most loudly for The Hon. Harhut is how the FBI has raided his court, after repeated complaints about abusive practices by the GAL, he appointed — it turns out, she is without lease, without contract, not an employee, and taking advantage of public property to work her magic on the families.  The community also expressed repeated concerns also about supervised visitation and parenting coordinator Ann Marie Termini, including parents being forced to pay cash, and in short, they are pretty well upset and picketing the courthouse weekly.

FBI VISITS LACKAWANNA COURTHOUSE   (Note:  Lackawanna County is just north of the more famous Luzerne County, where 3 judges went down in a racketeering scandal).

FBI Investigates Lackawanna Family Court http://www.wnep.com/videobeta/9893be53-7fd2-4196-ad18-62017cbb268c/News/FBI-Investigates-Lackawanna-Family-Court

PREDICTABLY (given who was on the Commission for Justice Initiatives, Changing the Culture of Custody Committee — a whole lot of AFCC) (incl. Harhut), the next order of business was pushing through PARENTing COORDINATION in Statute form.  Who better to “evaluate” this than some of the same folks, and here it is:

http://www.momjiananderer.com/articles_pdfs/steve_articles/article.pdf  A Task force of course has to issue a report.  Here’s who was on the Task Force (The document is only 15pp double-spaced, might as well read it, too!).  Notice:  Ph.D.’s, Ed.D.s (a few), Esqs & JD’s, and Judges.

• $$$  Steven J. Anderer, J.D., Ph.D. – $$$
• Rachel L. Baturin, MPH, J.D.
• The Hon. Robert J. Bigham
• $$$ Steven Cohen, Ph.D.  (see 2006 article cowritten by 3 members of this task force:  Cohen, Orlow & Iannuzelli)** (see his ad/link for PC’s, below)
• Kimberly Cox, Esq.
• $$$ Mark B. Dischell, Esq.
• John C. Howett, Jr., Esq.
• $$$ Jane Iannuzelli, M.Ed.D., M.A.
• Samuel Knapp, Ed.D.
• The Hon. Robert J. Matthews
• $$$ Eve Orlow, Ed.D., M.S. {Member of PA State board of Psychologists)
• The Hon. Katherine B.L. Platt
• $$$ Arnold Shienvold, Ph.D.
• $$$ Michele Southworth, J.D., LMFT**
• $$$ David J. Steerman, Esq.  (List reads “David Michele Steerman” @ PCCentral)
• Cynthia K. Stoltz, Esq.
• $$$ Anne Marie Termini, Ed.D., M.S., LPC ** (and why I bothered to type out this list!)
• The  Hon. Jeannine Turgeon
• The Honorable David N. Wecht

$$$

For Comparison, Several of the Above are already listed at PARENTING COORDINATION CENTRAL.  Marked with $$ signs next to their bullet, above!

So, those on the task force have been found:  writing together, training as parent coordinators together, presenting at AFCC/APA conferences together, and etc. , and their websites are pretty uniformly pushing HARD for parenting coordination, which I’ll spare you here (but have seen enough of!).  Whether or not all those makred $$ have taken their trainings with Boyan/Termini, I don’t know — but here are the elaborate details of how much participants will be charged to learn what:

http://www.parentingcoordinationcentral.com/pg91.cfm.   To register, go to the amazing, the invisibly incorporated (that I can see) http://www.cooperativeparenting.com/:

Susan Boyan and Ann Marie Termini are co-founders of the Cooperative Parenting Institute (CPI). The CPI is an organization {{WHERE??}} whose mission is to promote the healing and enhancement of family relationships. The Institute offers a wide range of services and resources to assist families as well as professionals with a successful transition from a one to two home family. The professionals at CPI are dedicated to educating the public, judges, legal and mental health professionals on the effects of divorce and time-sharing arrangements on the development of children.

Family Law Judges and Attorneys don’t know this already?   Hey, but if it’s tax-deductible as CLE or something, bring it on!

As I read the references to this short piece (found at Anderer site, above), it’s clear they are basically AFCC professionals citing AFCC professionals, in typical language:  Other states have done it thus (not mentioning, which AFCC professionals were involved IN those other states).   By this rationale, we should just “go with the flow.”

What happened to the concept of independence of the Judicial and Legislative Branches?  The report rationalizes:  We already have a civil rule that allows this and “Judges in at least 15 counties have appointed parenting coordinators”  -(see the list.  I wonder how many are AFCC members!).   A THIEF could use the same rationale:  ”But I’ve already been in the habit, shouldn’t you decriminalize theft?  All this debate over it is causing undue conflict for the parties in question!”

None of the august assemblage seemed to think that an actual layperson (they’re apparently the priesthood, so I call others “laypeople”) to keep them honest, among other things, or inject a little new blood into the deliberations!  Particularly as Ms. Termini has an obvious conflict of interest, being a parent coordinator already, and advocate of it.

***Steve Cohen, Ph.D. Page promoting Parent Coordination as if it were just something that “just happens” bcause of litigious parents.. It’s addressed to attorneys, to handle families that “just don’t want to change”:

Attorneys:  why should you consider a parent coordinator for your client?

You have probably heard the old joke: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb? One — but it really has to want to change.

Many family law clients don’t really want to change . .  (etc. . ..  )

Speaking of Mandatory Services Ordered:

For Dr. Orlow’s link (above) I notice that the link to Center Psychological Services also talks about Montgomery County’s Mandatory Parent Education Services “Our Children First” (cf.  KidsFirst out of some other counties, which I blogged on plenty, see “Muklewicz”).  $60 a pop or not custody modification hearing for you!  The Montgomery County Parent Seminar Registration site doesn’t even tell viewers who the provider is — it’s a website contact form, and parents “will be contacted.”

Center Programs > Our Children First Program
OUR CHILDREN FIRST is a county mandated parent education program aimed at assisting divorcing parents in ameliorating the disruptive consequences of divorce on their children. Utilizing videos, discussions and role plays, parents are sensitized to children’s view of divorce and taught to remain a stable force in their children’s life. In this four (4) hour seminar, parents are informed about child development which may serve as a basis for planning parenting time, potential pitfalls to avoid and skills to help their children cope with the many adjustments required of them and parents through the divorce process. This program emphasizes that children need both parents; divorce does not change a child’s need for an ongoing relationship with a mother and a father. Divorcing parents are taught how to co-parent their children during this painful and chaotic time.

Enclosed form (same link) says:

Pursuant to Montgomery County Local Rule N. 1915.3, in an action for custody, partial custody or visitation, both parents must attend an approved educational seminar on the general responsibilities of separated and divorced parents.

About The Seminar

OUR CHILDREN FIRST seminar is a four-hour workshop in which instructors and participants will explore the potential social, emotional, psychological and economic implications on children during the divorce process. This seminar is for adults only; no childcare is available and children are not permitted to attend.

PRE-REGISTRATION IS REQUIRED. To Register:

1) Complete the form below; 2) Enclose your $60.00 check or money order, payable to CPS

Dr. Orlow’s blurb on Center for Psychological Services:

Eve Orlow, Ed.D., M.S.

Areas of Interest/Specialty:
Individuals; couples; Families, Individual Psychotherapy; Parenting issues;

Parenting adolescents with adjustment issues.

Separating parents, divorcing parents, Parenting coordination.

Ardmore

Was this blurb the same before she was assigned on the task force as to whether to mandate parenting coordination?

ABA, APA, AFCC & AAML — so far (above), right?

Lackawanna Bar site highlights Termini’s PC operation:

Cooperative Parenting Programs

ADMINISTRATOR:
Ann Marie Termini, Ed. S., M.S.
Lackawanna County Family Court (963-6512) -
and Clarks Summit, PA (586-5669)

HISTORY: 
In effect for three (3) years in Lackawanna County

COMMISSION ON JUSTICE INITiATIVES (etc) says, “Bring it on! for high-conflict families!”

But:

PARENTS + FBI in LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA, see it a little differently.

Here is selected feedback from “Scranton Political Times” on the Co-parenting/Termini thread!

Lackawonderful wrote: Let me see if I have this straight…. Ann Marie Termini lists her credentials as Ed.S. (Education Specialist), M.S. (Master’s in Education) and L.P.C. (Licensed Professional Counsellor).  She does not have her Ph.D. and she is not a psychologist! From the invoices for this year, through August 2011 she has billed Lackawanna County for consultation and as the CoParenting Coodinator (???). over $44K! Basically, we, the taxpayers, will be paying (based on her billing so far this year) $80k + to a Social Worker…. Someone in the county should take a walk up the street to Scranton Counselling and see what a social woker position in Scranton really commands, and I assure you it is no where near $80K…. Again the taxpayers are getting the raw end of the stick!!!

or, by “resignation please” (Oct. 2011)

Are we going to find out what Termini did to earn all that cash?  Funny how that job didn’t go out for advertising every year.  Most contract work is supposed to be bid out, isn’t it? This stuff pisses off everybody who reads it.  Everybody who works at 200 Adams Ave is so disgusted they want to walk out.  That Court Administrators Office run by Claire is a shinning example of deplorable work ethic and professional conduct. More like a barn full of fat animals if you ask me.

or, by “redrider” (oct. 2011):

no not bad day at the office  anne marie terminni testified in another county during a custody case she was just a consultant for lackawanna county i was ordered in wyoming county court to attend coparenting with terminni i started getting bills in the mail from lackawanna county but my case has nothing to do with lackawanna county how can someone whos seeing you in her private practice  all of a sudden start sending you bills from lackawanna county courts and she would only accept money orders for payments i think that something fishy goin on

Why don’t we just centralize it — one class, one idea, nationwide — and at least cut down on the opportunities for overbilling.  This guy from California seems to have the concept down– get certified with the court, get the classes online, pay people $45 per referrals, and sit back with the on-line ATM machine!   (found when i looked for the Wyoming class — good SEO placement, Dr. Ari!)

(PROBABLY UNRELATED TO OUR Ms. TERMINI, HERE>>>)

http://www.onlineparentclass.com/About-Online-Parent-Class.aspx

The OnlineParentClass.com class was designed for individuals who need to take a parenting or co-parenting course for a court order, as part of a custody agreement, other legal or probationary reasons, or simply to just improve parenting skills for personal growth. It was designed by Ari Novick, Ph.D. He is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and expert in anger management and family relationships. Dr. Novick is probation and court approved parenting class provider as well as anger management provider.

About Dr. Ari J. Novick, Ph.D. Ari J. Novick, Ph.D, is a practicing licensed psychotherapist, anger management and parent educator in Southern California. He can be reached at (949) 715-2694, on the web at www.ajnovickgroup.com or by email: ari@ajnovickgroup.com. Dr. Novick’s is an approved provider of the Orange County Probation Department for both Parenting and Anger Management. He is also an adjunct professor of psychology for Pepperdine University’s Graduate School of Education and Psychology.

(What this really is all about is professional expansion for educationists and psychologists anyhow….)

he OnlineParentClass.com class was designed for individuals who need to take a parenting or co-parenting course for a court order, as part of a custody agreement, other legal or probationary reasons, or simply to just improve parenting skills for personal growth. It was designed by Ari Novick, Ph.D. He is a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist and expert in anger management and family relationships. Dr. Novick is probation and court approved parenting class provider as well as anger management provider.

(CONT’D @ Here is selected feedback from “Scranton Political Times” on the Co-parenting/Termini thread!)

or by Joe Pilchesky summarizing her earnings — which he took the time to ascertain:

\

Termini is on pace to earn nearly $100,000.00 this year as a Family Court consultant. It’s just unclear who she consults and why.

SOMEONE ELSE, taking it from the receipts which Joe posted: Is this just a coincidence or was there a natural huge spike in Termini’s income with the county? January of 2008 is $2,320.00 total for her services. January of 2009 is $3,220.00 January of 2010 is $4,110.00 January of 2011 is a huge increase to $7,050.00 Isn’t 2008 when Chet started appointing cases like crazy to Ross? And all of a sudden Termini sees over 300% increase in business since Ross got all those case?  Did Termini get all of Ross’ cases.  Wow, if that’s the case Termini sure got lucky. Coincidence?  I think not Mr. Fed.  I think not. How about LiBassi? Did he get lucky, too?  Thank you, Mr. P.  What a treasure of information. I hope the investigators note the luck and the coincidences.

And finally, here’s the image of a “Right to Know” letter (from Mr. P.) re: Termini.  Images of the payment vouchers are on the same thread.  How many other people in ANY other counties have even asked?

Summarized from images above (and his responses from the RTK), he writes:

I sent a right-to-know letter to Lackawanna County asking for documents regarding Family Court’s Co-Parenting Coordinator, Ann Marie Termini.  I received a response a few days ago, so I’m able to share some information with you.  The RTK letter and the response thereto are posted below. {{above, here}} * I asked for copies of contracts between Termini and the County.  Response: None exist. That’s question 6 in the RTK letter. * I asked for documents to support what the scope of her duties are as a contractor. Response: None exist.  That’s question 2. * I asked for documents to support that a lease agreement exists relating to the space she occupies on county property.  Response: None exist.  That’s question 3 * I asked for agreements relating to Termini using utilities, office equipment and furnishings. Response: None exist. That’s question 5 * I asked for copies of any complaints about Termini. Response: None exist. That’s question 8. * I asked for copies of any court orders directing that Termini is appointed as the Co-Parenting Coordinator.  Response: None exist.  That’s question 9 * I asked for any documents to support the creation of the Co-Parenting Program. Response: None exist. That’s question 10. * I asked for a copy of any advertising relating to seeking persons to fill the position of Co-Parenting Coordinator. Response: None exist.  That’s question 12

However, it seems that the Hon. Chester Harhut (see “Commission for Justice Initiatives” “Changing the Culture of Custody Committee”) DID by court order (not contract bid out, not competitive process, that we can see) appoint GAL Danielle M. Ross for this county, in approximately 2008.   When Joe Pilchesky discovered this information, he filed the civil suit against those who hired her improperly — it’s a good filing — and after the FBI came in and said, “We’ll investigate!” that apparently removed his standing to sue!

From the payment vouchers, for example, January 2011 (link = image), “Services to Lackawanna Family Court,” part was “consulting specialist” ($20/hour) and part, parenting coordinator ($60.00/hour) for  total of $7,050 (hours for the month — 163.50).   I’d sure like to see the county payroll disbursing this.

Which just goes to show that if the right people say “parent coordinator” often enough, they will be well-rewarded for the repetitious talk by the creation of a new income stream, at taxpayer/parent cost.

Year, 2008:

Reconceptualizing Child Custody:

Past, Present, and Future—Lawyers

and Psychologists Working Together

A Continuing Education Conference

Seminar topics include, but are not limited to: • Representation of children’s interests in matters of disputed custody

• Admissibility of expert testimony • Parent coordination • Effective interventions with high-conflict families • Considering allegations of abuse and neglect in contested cases • Crafting visitation, access, and parenting time • Alternatives to the adversarial process (Other planned activities include a mock trial involving expert psychological testimony . . .. )

This was in Chicago and Cosponsored by:  American Psychological Association (APA) & American Bar Association Section of Family Law (ABA)

This was big news — if you knew enough to frequent parenting coordination sites, or had picked up the phrase among colleagues.  Here’s Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D., Parent Coordinator (etc.) advertising on his site, right opposite the link to “Child Alienation” and an ad for the AFCC conference 2012:

Reconceptualizing Child Custody:Past Present and Future- Lawyers and Psychologists Working Together, co-sponsored by the American Psychological Association and the Family Law section of the American Bar Association. Dr Sullivan will be one of numerous presenters at this amazing collaborative effort of Legal and Psychological professionals. The conference will take place in Chicago. Please see the preliminary brochure below:

And, prior to this:

Year, 2002

Batterers As Fathers:

Rethinking and Reconceptualizing Policy and Practice

Believe it or not, this is an idea posted at “VAWNet”

by David Mandel for the Non-Violence Alliance (2002)

This paper describes an approach to intervention and prevention with children exposed to domestic violence that enforces the concepts of batterer accountability and change. The author asks and addresses a series of questions about holding batterers accountable for their behavior by utilizing existing legal and social work processes, making recommendations about systems change that may best enhance the safety of battered women and their children.

Clicking on the “Non-Violence Alliance” (“endingviolence.com”) one sees “DMA (David Mandel Associates, LLC), which, a nice 2011 link to the left, leads to:

Newsletter: January 2011

Launch of the Responsible Fatherhood Initiative

READ MORE »

Which again asserts that it’s better to keep the abusive parents WITH their families than to risk separation, and lack of work for Batterers Intervention Providers:

I am pleased to announce the launch of new DMA Responsible Fatherhood Initiative (RFI).** The RFI will provide training and consultation focused on improving the capacity of systems to understand and respond to the role of all fathers, particularly fathers who are perpetrators of domestic violence, in the lives of their families. The RFI will be directed by Mark Larson, who brings to the position an extensive background working with men who batter, fatherhood, the Safe and Together model and providing training and consultation to intervention systems.

As part of the Safe and Together model, we routinely highlight the critical importance of intervening with domestic violence perpetrators who are social or biological fathers. We believe there is a direct connection between the safety and well being of families and the capacity of communities and organizations to implement effective interventions with abusive fathers. Developing these interventions requires an increase in the capacity to work with all fathers, not just fathers who have been violent.

The “new” part of it here, being DMA’s jumping on the bandwagon, and not even bothering to re-phrase the concept which pre-dates welfare reform of 1996.  The Safe and Together blogspot then hauls out several other “collaborators” in keeping everyone safe by keeping families together, no matter what the cost to either the families, or the communities.  Battered Women’s Justice Project, and OHIO DV collaborative, and Connecticut as well….

This mentions the American Humane Association.  Here’s it’s concept on preventing child abuse:  ”The Front Porch Project.”  ”Suprisingly,” they, too, believe that individuals will not stop child abuse unless trained to recognize and encouraged by professionals to do so; the CPS is simply overwhelmed, that’s why it’s failing:

(Note:  Not mentioned, for protection of women or mothers.  FYI, animal abuse is often ritualistically symbolic of ‘who’s next’ in line for the same treatment.  (Ask me how I know that…..).   Wouldn’t it make more sense to separate the abuser from the abused?  Not in this group’s views:

Using a capacity-building approach involving training, technical assistance, and evaluation, American Humane Association helps local organizations implement and sustain the Front Porch Project in their communities. The Front Porch Project is a standout national prevention initiative because of its unique focus on educating and empowering concerned citizens on the role they can have in protecting children and supporting families. {{WHERE have I heard that phrase before? }}}   Evaluation results have shown that 95% of participants who participated in the Front Porch Project Community Training, the heart and soul of this initiative, agreed that they feel more comfortable intervening with struggling parents or families and are more likely to intervene than before the training. Empowering everyone to intervene early, the Front Porch Project helps ensure that all children in our communities will grow up with the health development they need to become stable, contributing adults.

 And on the same, main page website, here’s their fatherhood initiative  with the highly “original” concept:

Fatherhood Initiative

Bringing back the dads

Today, too many of America’s children—both inside and outside the child welfare system—are growing up without a father in their lives. At least 65% of children placed into the child welfare system were not living with their birth fathers at the time of placement, and even after placement their fathers and paternal relatives are not involved in planning their cases.

These fathers and paternal relatives can be a great, untapped resource for children. That’s why American Humane Association’s Fatherhood Initiative is dedicated to supporting children in regaining important and lasting connections with their fathers and paternal relatives, and to help fathers understand and carry out their role as parents. Studies show that children who have a father-figure in their lives are more likely to do better in school and less likely to commit crimes as adults.

Let’s look a little bit at whose money goes into this one — because the AHA tells us, right here:

http://www.americanhumane.org/children/programs/fatherhood-initiative/about.html

The federal Child and Family Services Reviews and the What About the Dads? report indicate there is very little meaningful interaction between fathers and the child welfare system. The Children’s Bureau funded the American Humane Association and its partners, the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, and National Fatherhood Initiative, to create a quality improvement center {{QIC}} on non-resident fathers (father who do not live with their children). The center was designed to gain more knowledge on engaging non-resident fathers and their children who are involved in the child welfare system.

SEE?  they even have a logo:

ADVISORY BOARD Of the “QIC-NRF” says it al, if you’re paying attention (for example, note Michael Hayes, who is on public payroll also):

NOTE: I just looked up a few of these individuals, and in the process of an unsolicited ‘windows reboot” lost all my work, including specific details (a LOT of them, including tax returns) on the person on Washington State (Susan N. Dreyfuss) and her organizations’ association with another nonprofit started by a Washington State Judge, (Justice Bobbe J. Bridge).  The manner in which the groups interacted, dates back to Ms. Dreyfuss, Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson, and the start of welfare reform in 1996.   It is clear enough to me (and I hope will become to you) who is running which shows, nationally, and implementing them at the state level through a multitude of nonprofits.

I lost a LOT of information — and a lot of time — unfortunately, but will return with this information, I hope, before the end of January.   t speaks to the further segmentation of society into the top echelon — which simply prefer to bypass the legislative process in favor of SPEED — and who are funded by corporations, enabled by nonprofits, and a revolving door of CEOs of nonprofits with positions — often within the state or federal HHS.  What this means for individuals, and particularly individual WOMEN, is absolutely frightening.

The presence of Michael Hayes on this task force, but I encourage others to look up the background on Susan N. Dreyfuss, who is approximately my age — but as she did not have to file a protective order on spouse, apparently, or be dragged footfirst with dependent children into the domestic relations courts, as they continued to evolve (thanks in part to fatherhood organizations inspiring federal grants to produce ‘out-come-based” court processes– she has continued uninterrupted, it seems, to multiple income streams in the lands of behavioral health nonprofits, plus groups like “Families International.”  The families in question (despite title) are actually families of nonprofit organizations with similar themes — namely, expand behavioral health services.

The EX-Officio CEO of an organization she came from (to head up Washington state DSHS) was in 2010 earning over $500K from three different sources; $368K.  Similarly the retired Washington State Justice (who also was presenting at AFCC in 2005 and probably previously), formed a  nice nonprofit ‘Center for Children & Families Justice” and earning around $130K there.  She also has a jewelry chain store (personal jewelers) that I think she and her husband started, “Ben Bridge Jewelers” and so forth.  The CCYJ is simply a nonprofit to transform Washington State’s entire child welfare and juvenile justice (etc.) and turns out to be simply funded by three major foundations (see their tax return) and is implementing a model from out of state.

But this will have to be posted another time, as I cannot re-create it today.

NOTE:  You CANNOT understand this information if you WILL NOT look up nonprofits and take a glance at their tax returns, and notice who is on which one.  Personnel, Nonprofits, and Tax Returns.  With time & attention, it  really does get easier if this isn’t your background!  Also, the more one looks at, the clearer the patterns become.  I cannot intravenously inject this information including the understanding that goes with it).  My purpose is to post enough proof to sound an alert, and attract others to pay attention to the subterranean fault lines in what remains of our civil rights, and individual liberties.  The process of no taxation without representation is simply a done deal– but only addressing that issue is likely to stem the dissolution of individual liberties in this country, no matter what the ethnicity.

Of all people that should understand this, women should — however, many of the leadership gladly selling out the rest of us are women who have risen to the top of government and private industry (this includes many attorneys), and simply either believe that this means they are indeed superior human beings, worthy of determining how and where to manage, manipulate, and/or warehouse (or, force to consume unnecessary mental health services or medications, when it comes to foster care) — and as such, do not need to bother getting feedback CONSISTENTLY from those served.  They simply collaborate with the practitioners, and pat themselves on the back for a job well done.

I do not mean to minimize these men and women’s qualifications — obviously, they are talented and experienced in what they are doing.  It’s WHAT THEY ARE DOING and HOW THEY ARE DOING IT that I question.  We have to insist that the systems of patronage simply stop!  I know equally qualified — but repeatedly job-interrupted — individuals at many levels of society, who cannot buy their way out of these systems, simply because they are not the super-rich, super-connected, uninterrupted so-called “cream” of society.   What does it mean if people rise to the top of society, when society is itself pretty darned corrupt?

QIC-NRF National Advisory Board Members

The national advisory board brings together representatives from numerous disciplines, including law, fatherhood, child welfare and child protection services, courts, front-line practice, research, policy and academia. Ten members were selected for the board and approved by the U.S. Children’s Bureau. Board members assist the quality improvement center in identifying issues and barriers to involving non-resident fathers in child welfare cases; guide the selection of research focus, requests for proposal and site selection; and act as a resource regarding multidisciplinary issues and methods that may contribute to comprehensive assessment and experimentation.

The board members are:

Scott E. Cade
Deputy Commissioner
New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

John Chacon
Independent Community Programming Consultant  (FOR WHAT?)

Richard T. Cozzola
Supervisory Attorney of the Children’s Law Project
Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago

Susan N. Dreyfus
Secretary
Washington Department of Social and Health Services

http://www.modelsforchange.net/reform-progress/96

Michael Hayes
Director of Family Strengthening Initiative
Office of Attorney General, State of Texas

Mark Kiselica
Fellow and Former President
Society for the Psychological Study of Men and Masculinity, American Psychological Association
Professor, Department of Counselor Education
College of New Jersey

Erwin McEwen
Director
Illinois Department of Child and Family Services

Fernando Mederos
Director of Special Projects, Fatherhood
Massachusetts Department of Social Services

Maurice Moore
Program Associate
Annie E. Casey Foundation (has its fingers in almost every fatherhood or children’s project around)

Stephen M. Rubin
Judge Pro Tempore
Pima County Superior Court (Arizona)

MISCellaneous post came up alongside another one:

CUTE.  From Pittsburgh Live

Victim of domestic violence detained because she was late
by Bobbie Kerlick, today (1/21/2012)
Read more: Victim of domestic violence detained because she was late – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

A woman’s boyfriend breaks and entered her home, laying in wait, assaults her & friend, pouring bleach on their faces, beats them with crutches (whose?), pours more bleach on.  She is over two hours late for a hearing, and the judge puts her in jail.    The woman is a FT student, works nights til 8am; she went home and showered after work, and, taking bus, went to the courthouse.  Judge doesn’t care, and orders her held until after the assailant pleaded guilty.  he young man, who had been in jail for 8 months, was sentenced to time served, plus 2 yrs probation, and released.  I hope she has a Taser or something at home now, and better locks….

Read more: Victim of domestic violence detained because she was late – Pittsburgh Tribune-Review http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/pittsburgh/s_777744.html#ixzz1k9AMJjcI

Some Pretty Strange HHS Grant Titles under “Diversionary” Special Interest Child Support Funding.

Notice:  There are a few heavy issues going around (at least in my thoughts).  I’ll name ONE, TWO, THREE below, and simply tell us that today, I am avoiding the heavy-duty thinking and instead am reporting (below ONE, TWO, THREE sections) an odd assortment of what the heck is happening with our Child Support Enforcement $4 billion annual budget, including some very strange ways of labeling: Grantee, Principal investigator (when there is one), DUNS# (required for federal purchase and absent on too many HHS Grant awards) not to mention the name of the AWARD itself.

I promise this will be interesting, IF this is your cup of tea.  If you don’t have a sense of humor, Lord help you, and quit now, this post will irritate you!

Retranslated, that little intro tells you I’m not feeling well (given these contexts, and psychologically) today, so you get offerings, and that’s it.  Then again, I’ve been studying these topics long enough, and have a unique enough viewpoint, they might also be worth considering under Who moved The Cheese and “You did WHAT!?$#@?? with my money, Congress?”

ONE

including a recent significant ruling from Orange County, California (mother was awarded damages, including some punitive, of $4.9 million for social worker abuses causing in appropriate removal of her children.  It took her six years to get them back, and supervised visitation and child abuse allegations — by the child, not the mom — threats, and all kinds of horrible events were involved in this case.

In other words, it was a fairly typical situation when molestation crops up as a topic.   Father is put on supervised visitation, monitors begin threatening the girls AND the mother when one girl (autistic) resists, and they follow through on the threat, and stick the kid in foster care.  To add to the interest, this is a mother from Seal Beach, where another allegedly “fairly typical” divorce ended last fall in an 8-person massacre.  If these are “typical” we are in serious trouble.  I commented on this in another forum:  If you care to read it, see my 2nd & 3rd comments on this thread, today:  (About the Nonprofits Front Groups that help traffick kids (and just exhaust their parents to get an “unfit” declaration).   I started this thread to stop irritating people on the other threads who preferred banter and in-fighting to strategizing based on analysis, which possibly helped keep both sets of blood pressures down a notch.  I can ignore them and they can more easily ignore me.

In my comment I reminded us that this was such a major issue that a Georgia Senator and her husband were (possibly) murdered while she was in the process of exposing it; there are a number of individuals who simply don’t buy that Nancy Schaefer’s husband murdered her, then committed suicide.  Among these is Garland Favorito, who says he was close to the family and gives a year-later follow up.   So it was  rather heavy-duty morning.

TWO, San Francisco’s New Sheriff was just arraigned on DV charges.

Some details here — I don’t know how “national” the coverage on this one is.  I haven’t followed this one so closely, but for women in certain situations (yes, me, too) who have in the past hoped that sheriffs might help them stop a crime in progress, or report one just committed, the sense that the head of the place has issues with it himself, and problems with women, is naturally disturbing.  There have been also in various places, allegations and lawsuits against district attorneys or their employees surrounding rape, etc., by coworkers, and of course i’ve already blogged “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys.”  These men and women, some of who have given their lives in the line of duty, including literally to protect victims in a ‘domestic dispute” in process (and involving bullets, also have the capacity to sit back and do nothing with impunity.  The cumulative effect of, between family law and criminal elements, wonder where to go for justice — or assistance — gets discouraging year after year.  Here’s some news on this matter:

Also, in San Francisco, an incoming sheriff, Ross Mirkarimi, is now on the spot for domestic violence against his wife:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-sf-sheriff-domestic-violence-jpeg-09ad6.jpg-20120113,0,4587269.photo

San Francisco County Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi and his wife, Eliana Lopez, leave City Hall in San Francisco. The newly sworn-in sheriff has been charged with misdemeanor domestic violence after a New Year’s Eve fight with Lopez.

SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco’s new sheriff is scheduled to appear in court on allegations he mistreated his wife in front of their toddler son and told her not to tell anybody about it.

Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi (meer-kah-REEM’-ee) is expected to plead not guilty at his arraignment Thursday afternoon in San Francisco Superior Court.

Mirkarimi’s lawyer, Robert Waggener, says he will likely ask for a speedy trial.

Prosecutors have charged the 50-year-old sheriff with domestic violence battery, child endangerment and dissuading a witness. The three misdemeanor charges come after a New Year’s Eve incident with his wife, Eliana Lopez, at their home.

This is not just any old sheriff (no offence, men and women serving on the forces!) but a former SF Supervisor;

Former Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi

District 5

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi
Ross Mirkarimi (pronounced Meehr-kah-reem-e), was elected San Francisco District 5 Supervisor in 2004, and reelected in 2008.   In 2009, he was appointed by the State Senate to the California Coastal Commission, one of the most powerful land-use bodies in the United States. Ross has lived in San Francisco for 25 years.

Supervisor Mirkarimi has authored more than 80 ordinances that have had both citywide and national impact. Apart from his reputation for sponsoring cutting-edge laws, he is also well known for his 24/7 focus on issues that chronically challenge his district and the City.

. . .

• Reentry for Ex-Offenders: Formation of the Safe Communities Reentry Council to help reintegrate the formerly incarcerated — recognizing the reentry process as a critical opportunity to break the cycle of crime and violence and reduce California’s worst-in-the-nation recidivism rate.
• Ross was born in Chicago to an Iranian father and mother of Russian descent.Ross spent most of his youth in Rhode Island, obtained his undergraduate degree from St. Louis University (Political Science and Russian Literature), and earned Master’s degrees from Golden Gate University (Economics) and the University of San Francisco (Environmental Science/Management). He is also a graduate of the San Francisco Police Academy, where he was class president.Prior to being elected Supervisor, Ross served as an investigator with the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office for almost nine years, specializing in economic and environmental crimes.Community organizing and activism have always been a significant part of Ross’s life, as student body president of St. Louis University, president of the Missouri Public Interest Research Group (MOPIRG), and co-founder of the California Green Party.

He would seem to be well-educated and well-qualified, unless the charges are true.  Per enotes.com, he’s very progressive, and was even a member of NOW

Reparations bill

Mirkarimi also authored a piece of reparations bill, which would give descendants of those displaced by the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency from the Western Addition priority in obtaining affordable housing. During the 1960s the city tore down much of the historic Fillmore district, most of whose resident’s were permanently removed. Two-thirds of those displaced were African American.^[27]

Makes sense to me….  He also was in favor of public (not private) regulated medical marijuana dispensaries (controversial enough?) and

On April 21, 2009, Ross Mirkarimi became a father, as Eliana Lopez, a Venezuelan TV star whom he met at an environmental conference in Brazil, gave birth to his son, Theo Aureliano Mirkarimi.^[7][8]

I do note:

He grew up inJamestown, Rhode Island, where he graduated from the Catholic, all-male Bishop Hendricken High School in 1979.

Here’s some SFWeekly on the issue, with plenty of links, including one showing Eliana denying the abuse  and speaking about her neighbor’s insistence on prosecution.  Me, I’m noticing the size differencene (husband/wife), don’t have enough facts to make a call (and it’s not my call), but if it’s true, it sure is a matter of concern, and — sorry — attending an all male Catholic high school (even though sounds like a good one) says something to me.

Ross Mirkarimi Update: Eliana Lopez Admits She Talked to Neighbor, But Denies Abuse

(from SFweekly blog).

By Lauren Smiley Wed., Jan. 18 2012 at 6:00 PM

(Check out article and related links here).  Here’s one account from the warrant, article title contains the word ‘Ballistic,” it says:

Police Interview Second Witness In Domestic Violence Incident 

A copy of Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi’s arrest warrant was released to the media today, painting a disturbing picture of what allegedly took place between Mirkarimi and his wife, Eliana Lopez, during a reported New Year’s Eve domestic dispute.

According to the warrant, Mirkarimi was taking his family to lunch on Dec. 31 when Lopez asked him if, after his inauguration, she could travel to Venezuela to visit her family with their 2-year-old son, Theo. Mirkarimi reportedly lost his cool, and began screaming “fuck you,” to Lopez.

“Fuck you, fuck you, you are trying to take Theo away from me,” Mirkarimi reportedly said. He then allegedly turned the car around and told her that he wasn’t taking them to eat, saying something to the effect of “she didn’t deserve to eat.”

The fight escalated when the couple returned to their Western Addition home, where Mirkarimi allegedly pushed, pulled, grabbed, and verbally abused Lopez, according to the document.

Lopez ran outside the house, telling him that she would call the police. The couple’s son was screaming and crying, too. Mirkarimi repeatedly apologized to his wife and begged her to come back into the house, per the warrant.

The next day, Lopez visited her neighbor, Ivory Madison, and told her about the domestic violence dispute. She was in tears and asked Madison to video the bruise on her arm, explaining that she wanted all of it recorded in case Mirkarimi tried to take their son away.

On Jan. 12 — after the incident had been reported to police — officers contacted “another neighbor” who claims Lopez told her about the New Year’s Eve fight. She reportedly told the witness that it was the second time in 2011 that Mirkarimi had abused her. She showed her the bruise on her arm, which was a “pretty big” brown injury that appeared to be a hand or finger marks, according to police.

One of the women reporting him actually helped host a fundraiser to get him elected:

Ross Mirkarimi Update: Neighbor Who Reported Domestic Violence Fundraised for New Sheriff

By Erin Sherbert Mon., Jan. 9 2012 at 8:00 AM

Comments (3) 

Categories: Politics

But a quick Google search shows that it’s not exactly his political enemies, but rather his political allies who are “the forces at work” in this ongoing case. Ivory Madison, the neighbor who called police to report the alleged domestic violence, is also the same woman who helped get Mirkarimi elected.

According to ActBlue, a democratic political action committee, Madison hosted a fundraiser for Mirkarimi on Oct. 15, 2011. Here’s what the invite said:

Please Join Us In Support of Ross Mirkarimi For Sheriff!

Spend some quality time with Ross, his wife Eliana Lopez, and their son

Hosted by Ivory Madison & Abraham Mertens, Jane Morrison, Thea Selby, and Gladys Holder Soto

etc.  This ain’t over yet.  

THREE:

Will show in next few posts, I hope.  Have been seeing the need to incorporate and address the different angles that come up when Juvenile Justice Diversionary programs (i.e., help them, don’t jail them) run into the family law’s approach, which is the more diversions the better, and the dangers of being a mother in this day and time, once physical assaults have occurred and jumpstarted some legal action.   Family Court is a great place for batterers (that’s what the DV orgs call such people, as does the book’ The Batterer as Parent”) aka “parent” as the father-friendly AFCC groups like to call them.

The problem the Juvenile Justice groups confront is very, very real — which is racist incarceration practices.  It’s a large and wide-ranging topic, so I can’t say a whole lot more, just now.

I also have been feeling, not just seeing, the influence of the outfits that are able to operate with more freedom because they are under-reported; they are rarely front-page news, although they help create it and censor it in times, through simply buying out media.  I’m talking about nonprofits like ALEC, or The New American Century.

Really, these are tough times, and it requires sound thinking.   I’d love to just ignore all this and put my nose to the grindstone again, but year after year of doing exactly that (while children in the home, or after they were — overnight, and again right on the cusp of success for them and me both — NOT in my home) one knows better than to just charge off as IF one were totally free to choose, when in context, one is not.

Years of disruption of income for women without supportive families is particularly worrisome.  We have no job stability or social stability, and quite frankly, recreating onesself in relationship to the communities where one has fought the courts and or one’s ex for so long, after which discovering the means of betrayal (within supposedly supportive government institutions) — how’d you like to do this for approximately 20, 30, possibly 40, possibly til the day you die, years?    Particularly when you know you can contribute and have in the past, when it was possible to work for a few years in a row on single projects, or at a single line of work?

This experience actually is better preparation for war (or, as such, business startups) than for any professional occupations or things one can do in a time of peace, which this isn’t.  My experience of marriage AND family (of origin) has been one of nonstop tribal-style warfare, and most of the war appeared to be over shutting down basic expressions of sentient life, use of one’s mind, and humanity.  Things like choice.  Or seeking to protect the fruits of my own efforts for a season or maybe even two in a row.  and I know my case was better than many, although perhaps not for the length.

Yesterday, I spent time (hours) with an acquaintance who had a social worker set her up and remove children without any order, or due process, while a restraining order was on.  (Munchausen’s by Proxy).  I looked up the social worker who did this thing, by name (not my state) and found she had barely completed a bachelor’s in social science (it took maybe 5 years), worked briefly for an entity which got HHS block grants in the area, it doesn’t appear this person ever lived outside the immediate geographic area (which the mother had, as had the father in the case)– and suddenly this erstwhile social worker becomes Director of Family Court Services?

Not only does this particular mother have no contact with her kids, to speak of, she also has no LIFE outside fighting this case (now at the federal level) and for periods she also had no home.  The custody reversal kicked her out of her own home without somewhere to go, apparently deprived of community property, and for a time she was simply living in her car in a cold climate (not the first mother I know this has happened to).    And yet, the FR groups still say, the courts are biased against men?  WHERE?

The story is grindingly simple and I noted that the process again began with ordering supervised visitation to the mother, immediately.  Give us your assets, and pay to see your kids that you gave birth to.

Land of the free and home of the brave? ?   Brave yes — free, no.

Added to all this, one never really (?) gets over loss of relationship with one’s children, and particularly not when it was known to in violation of due process, and without a factual or legal basis on the record as to why, and suspiciously corresponded with one guy’s high child support arrears (through not working) and a few other middle-aged female’s known empty nests (one, opted for abortion + snatch someone else’s kids, the other, after two (at least) known failed relationships, needed to have some kids around possibly for church social status — and free housekeeping).  Women are no less complicit in these matters than men, although I do believe more equality in government (meaning, CONGRESS!) might bring out the best — not the worst — in human nature.

SO,  BELOW THIS LINE iS WHERE THE POST’S TITLE CONTENT BEGINS.  JUST LOOKING….

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

From the “90FD series” which apparently may represent the Partnership With Universities to Fix Things series:

1115 Grants Awarded in FY 2011

Section 1115 Grants: Partnership to Strengthen Families: Child Support Enforcement and University Partnerships

(check it out).

If one grant catches my attention, I often go look for similar ones on TAGGS.  Which means I often have two or three reports of various sorts to browse, scan and possibly check out, going at a time.  This helps me (i’m a scanner; hey– it takes all kinds!) to build a little mental database of what’s going on in the free money to help solve society’s problems by standardizing & circulating answers to almost every question  (similar to catechism, only supposedly not religious) business, which is what HHS is pretty well invested in.  Actually YOU are invested if you file an income tax return, or have it withheld.  Make that a “WE.”

It’s becoming clearer and clearer that TAGGS database wasn’t actually designed for human use outside the people administering the grants.  I mean:  The third column here is supposed to actually describe what the Award is about — it’s “Award Title”

 Check some of them out:

Results 1 to 305 of 305 matches.
Page 1 of 1	1

Grantee Name	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
AK

MI ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, BUREAU OF MGNT & BUDGET

90FD0181

RETOOLING MICHIGAN’S CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

1

09/27/2011

OTHER

NEW

MARILYN STEPHEN

$ 100,000

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	90FD0090	GEORGIA DEPT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES	1	08/27/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RUSSELL EASTMAN	$ 125,000
GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	90FD0101	STATE OF GEORGIA	1	09/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RONNIE BATES	$ 43,000

MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

90FD0089

STATE OF MINNESOTA

1

09/23/2004

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

WAYLAND CAMPBELL

$ 43,000

Well, that really narrows it down, thanks for the explanation.   One year’s salary (average administrative secretarial?) for “STATE OF GEORGIA” award.  Glad you found something to put in that field called “Award Title.”

Now we can start with the research:  Is it bigger than a breadbox?  Is it a consumable or an invisible intangible?   Can I link to it, and who is selling it?   Should I search for it at HHS or within the GA Dept of HUMAN RESOURcES?

MN is doing this kind of labelling too, obviously.  So is TN, only TN can’t make up its mind what to call itself in the Grantee Institution field . . . . .

“TN ST” or “STATE OF TENNESSEE” (depending on how it was entered) and CHARLES BRYSON (or “MR. CHARLES BRYSON”) are quite active, and I wonder if this too involves some ‘retooling” of the child support system.  Most grants have a partial clue to what’s going on, but some really do not:

STATE OF TENNESSEE	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/23/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 82,853
State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services	90FD0125	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-2)	1	08/23/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBBIE ENDRIS	$ 59,983
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	1	07/20/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,112
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0077	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 60,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0102	TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	09/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LINDA CHAPPELL	$ 62,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/31/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 101,427
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	07/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,688
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	03/06/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	02/24/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/20/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 54,612
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 52,034
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	05/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	09/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 50,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	05/18/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 71,240
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	3	08/08/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 47,500
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 85,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	2	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 75,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0177	INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE	1	09/24/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 55,000

Any particular reason why the name of an award is simply the name of the state, or the department within the state?   Hello, I am applying for a grant, my Company  is “BROKEN ARROW PROMISES”   I promise to XYZ.   OK, but the public needs to know what the grant is for, so we’ll just call it the  BROKEN ARROW PROMISES grant, which will explain where their taxes are going.

Here’s a simple search of all grants to this department, showing a few different DUNS#, some NO DUNS# (oops), and over $6 billion of grants, which we already know is going to include literal TANF (food stamps, cash aid) Child Support Enforcement, Medicaid, Foster Care and Adoption Assistance,, research grants to some hospitals surely, support of various institutes in a university here and there, no doubt, and of course it is going to include the ominpresent:  Marriage and Fatherhood promotion funding, I imagine, and possibly Access/visitation (if this department is the State Grantee).  This is a fraction of federal aid to TN, but it represents only grants from HHS to this agency within the state:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  (1)	NASHVILLE	TN	37203	DAVIDSON	000000000	$ 1,058,528,305
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	NASHVILLE	TN	37203	DAVIDSON	878556299	$ 167,988,641
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  (3)	NASHVILLE	TN	37219	DAVIDSON	098973790	$ 371,861
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  (2)	NASHVILLE	TN	37219	DAVIDSON	878556299	$ 5,977,898,624
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	NASHVILLE	TN	37219	DAVIDSON		$ 50,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	NASHVILLE	TN	37219	DAVIDSON		$ 40,000

(1) this amount relates to a very few award series, which i’m not going to look up just now, except that this is certainly an interesting award title for something representing $67 million of funding, don’t you think?

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2003	03B1TNLIEA		1	10	ACF	11-13-2002	000000000	$ 9,499,229
2003	03B1TNLIEA		1	24	ACF	01-06-2003	000000000	$ 7,864,797
2003	03B1TNLIEA		1	27	ACF	01-24-2003	000000000	$ 2,007,525
2003	03B1TNLIEA		1	38	ACF	03-06-2003	000000000	$ 918,778
2003	03B1TNLIEA		1	40	ACF	04-01-2003	000000000	$ 6,094,268
2003	0301TNSOSR		1	4	ACF	12-12-2002	000000000	$ 8,517,957
2003	0301TNSOSR		1	5	ACF	01-01-2003	000000000	$ 8,517,957
2003	0301TNSOSR		1	6	ACF	04-01-2003	000000000	$ 8,517,957
2003	0301TNSOSR		1	7	ACF	07-01-2003	000000000	$ 8,517,957
Fiscal Year 2003 Total:								$ 60,456,425

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2002	02B1TNLIEA		1	13	ACF	11-09-2001	000000000	$ 4,749,615
2002	02B1TNLIEA		1	26	ACF	01-01-2002	000000000	$ 1,899,846
Fiscal Year 2002 Total:								$ 6,649,461

the “TNSOSR” is labeled CFDA code 93667 which reads “Social Services Block Grant”

the “TNLIEA is labeled CFDA code 93568 which reads ‘Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program’ (LIHEAP).  Why were some awards labeled simply LIHEAP and this, LIEA?  I don’t know.

(2) — THE LARGEST CATEGORY (to this State Dept.) includes TANF itself, grants from OCSE, and other, plus a mere $182K to Access/Visitation.   So far in 2012 — just for reference — over $20.8 million has been distributed, or at least awarded, under the DUNS# 878556299

2012	1004TN4004	2010 OCSE	1	33	ACF	12-09-2011	878556299	$ 8,122,576
2012	1204TN4004	2012 OCSE	1	1	ACF	10-01-2011	878556299	$ 9,325,811
2012	1204TN4004	2012 OCSE	1	4	ACF	11-01-2011	878556299	$ 1,316,233
2012	1204TN4004	2012 OCSE	1	8	ACF	01-01-2012	878556299	$ 2,907,833
2012	1201TNSAVP	FY 2012 STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION	1	1	ACF	11-22-2011	878556299	$ 182,772

Another chunk of awards (a large chunk) is for Child Care, which it shows is part of TANF.  Makes sense that child care assistance helps people get to their jobs.  It’s a lot of money, isn’t it!

Fiscal Year	OPDIV	Grantee Name	Award Title	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2012	ACF	TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	2012 CCDF	93596	Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund	BLOCK	TANF	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 48,186,320
2012	ACF	TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	2012 CCDF	93596	Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund	BLOCK	TANF	NEW		$ 17,616,547

Results 1 to 2 of 2 matches.

STILL under the largest chunk if funding marked “(2)” above, here are the 2011 awards to this department, showing a variety of award purposes:

2011	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	1	ACF	05-18-2011	878556299	$ 0
2011	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	2	ACF	05-13-2011	878556299	$ 0
2011	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	3	0	ACF	08-08-2011	878556299	$ 47,500
2011	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	1	ACF	03-14-2011	878556299	$ 0
2011	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	0	ACF	08-14-2011	878556299	$ 49,300
2011	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	1	ACF	03-14-2011	878556299	$ 0
2011	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	2	0	ACF	08-14-2011	878556299	$ 75,000
2011	90FD0177	INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE	1	0	ACF	09-24-2011	878556299	$ 55,000

We see awards 90FD0129, 0139, 0148, 0171, and 0177 in a variety of budget years, (0177 being budget year 1).   FD0129 (Showing “zero” in 2011) began in 2008, is marked “discretionary” and disbursed $156K.  For what (??) who knows?  Click on any hyperlink to learn more about the award, like when it started.   FD0139 began in 2009 (recovery act year, not really good news, as recovery act awards have a reputation by now as not well monitored) and amount is $218,764 — for What?  WHAT “family services” — marriage promotion?

Charles Bryson is one of two listed IV-D contacts (Private Collection Agency Policy — though none listed for TN).

A few search results here — this is a NCSEA (National Child Support Enforcement Association) porta-conference flyer, i.e, products for sale.  The logo reads “Innovate, Collaborate, Communicate” and “Planting the Seeds of the Modern Family” which definitely seems to be how CSE agencies (local) see themselves anyhow.

NCSEA is excited to introduce our 2011 Annual Conference workshop recordings, the NCSEA Portable Conference–a great way to get the most from the 2011 NCSEA Annual Conference experience.

Six workshop sessions (listed below) were recorded–including audio and video recordings, synched to the Power Point Presentation--and made available for purchase in CD or Streaming format, requiring Microsoft Silverlight (www.Silverlight.net). Please be sure that your system can accommodate the streaming interface recording. No refunds are available for technical difficulties.

If you were unable to attend NCSEA’s Annual Conference, you can now share in the valuable information presented at the workshops.

NCSEA Portable Conference Pricing

The Portable Conference is available in a bundle including all six workshops. Individual workshops may not be purchased separately.

• NCSEA members $ 250 • Non-members $ 375

Don’t ever say your child support issues are “local” or your county is the most corrupt in the nation.  Strategies are nationalized.  For those of us non-members (and note — the public CANNOT become members – at least in California, you actually have to be a child support director to become a member!) So even if a parent had $375 to spare (unlikely in the days of expanding and innovating child support agencies), he or she would also have to have a friend in the agency.  Get a look at this! (Still from the portable conference site)

Collaboration & Communication -the New Face of the Innovative Child Support Agency

The role of child support agencies appears to be expanding to include innovations, more collaborations, and better communications. New ideas for programs to reach out to our customers and partners are being tested. Child support agencies are increasingly involved with new initiatives to help parents become more responsible and better able to care for their children and themselves… Work force and prisoner reentry initiatives in child support offices are becoming more popular nationally as we work with NCPs {{noncustodial parents}} to help them meet their responsibilities. Learn how your agency can better serve its community. We’ll discuss some new initiatives, how they started and how they are being funded at a time when we all have to do more with less.

Presenters:

Alicia Key, IV-D Director, Child Support Division, Office of the Texas Attorney General

Angela Anton, Assistant Jefferson (KY) County Attorney, Child Support Division {{REmember, Kentucky has the “Turning It Around” extort your Dads into fatherhood program participation once they’ve been arrested for nonpayment?}}

Kimberly Dent, Human Services Program Administrator 3, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services

Amy B. Gober (Moderator), Senior Associate, Center for the Support of Families

{{Sure, that’s really helping….Children don’t need food, they need better relationship skills classes for their parents, etc.}}

Here’s our Mr. Bryson as participant.  Notice all the grants he’s overseeing in TN:

Reducing Adversarial Relationships: How Child Support Agencies Take On Access and Visitation

Enjoy a frank discussion on how and why to improve the access and visitation program in your state/office. Best practices are shared on how to work with both parents in developing communication tools and conflict resolution ideas for the betterment of the child. Presenters:

Russell Eastman, Manager, Georgia Division of Child Support Services Charles Bryson, Director, Tennessee Child Support Field Operations and Management Gerry White, Compliance and Program Development Manager, Families First.** Ann Russell (Moderator), Program Specialist, OCSE

**Families First is a major Atlanta-based organization, I’ve actually had a mother ask me to investigate this one, and began to.  Anyhow, Mr. White shows up at a nice fatherhood conference here:

Families First Presents Workshop at 10th Annual International Fatherhood Conference

The National Partnership for Community Leadership held its 10^th Annual International Fatherhood Conference June 10-13^th in Washington DC. The goal of the conference is to build strong family relationships, and this year’s theme: “Reconnecting Fathers to Families: At Home & Abroad” emphasized the need to educate the world about the importance of responsible fatherhood.

Dr. Gerry White and Freddie Wilson represented Families First at the conference and presented a workshop entitled “Quantitative Study of Factors that Impact Parental Involvement Among African American Unwed Fathers.” This workshop identified key factors associated with father involvement through programmatic and research findings. It also provided specific strategies for assisting fathers with improving involvement, and detailed how responsible fatherhood involvement is multi-dimensional.

NPCL (above) IS about pushing fathers’ rights, period.   It has many ways of doing this, and its CEO, “Dr. Jeffrey Johnston” bio reads — in part –

Dr. Johnson is a nationally recognized authority in the areas of leadership, employment and training, urban poverty and youth employment.  A particular focus of Dr. Johnson’s work has been on the plight of African-American men and families.  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.

and I think we get the general emphasis here, right?  So this is a group Families First is advertising (its conference) and Families First is, among many other things, receiving support — or at least partnering with — two Georgia Counties (Cobb & Fulton) and Depts. of Human Resources.  Its Program leader — known to be associating with a major fatherhood promoter (Dr. Johnston, who holds 3 degrees from UMichigan), and has been given by way of NCSEA portaconference (and obviously the live NCSEA conference) — a nationwide platform alongside three other seriously heavyweight Child Support Personnel (Mr. Bryson of TN being the Title IV-D contact, and we can see from TAGGS a hint of the budget size this relates to).

This should further illustrate how HHS supported and Government-supported Nonprofits are being allowed to drive policy for the entire nation (which is, FYI, over 50% female) in places they don’t have access to, and often don’t know exist.

He currently serves as a member of the Board of Advisors for the Morehouse College Research Institute, The District of Columbia Commission on African-American Men and Boys, and the District of Columbia Neighborhood College wherein he serves as Chair.  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.  Dr. Johnson’s most recent project, the nation’s first Responsible Fatherhood Rally, was held June 20, 2009 at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. “The National Rally for Responsible Fatherhood on Behalf of America’a Children: A Call to Personal Responsibility” convened hundreds of Local Men and Father’s, and had a virtual attendance through live webcast of over 10,000. Click Here to watch “The Business of Fatherhood”, a documentary narrated by Dr. Jeffery Johnson featuring the preparation and launching of 2 signature Fatherhood events: The Annual International Fatherhood Conference, and ‘The National Rally for Responsible Fatherhood on Behalf of America’s Children’. (Email jjconferencecoordinator@gmail.com for the full version) www.fathersdayrally.com

re:

The National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families

I have blogged this before, use “search.”  I had somethings to say about the Ohio branch, and learned a lot researching it about how Ohio is put together these days, particularly its “Fatherhood Commission.”

“YOWSA!” — I don’t remember if I’d seen this particular little project by the Colorado Dynamic Duo of “center for policy research” (the 6 to 7-woman team whose leadership includes Jessica Pearson, whose origins date back to the beginning of AFCC) and “Policy Studies, Inc.”   This is from 2006 and is comparing Colorado (Small state) Tennessee (medium state) and Texas (large-state) versions of how to set up Access visitation programming.  Every parent should read it, and see how the ‘team” includes a mingling of the courts, child support, and often a third party.  in TEXAS this was simple — go to the fatherhood program administrator.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/DCL/2007/dcl-07-07a.pdf  This was funded by the OCSE, not through grant, but by task order.  Suggest look it up on USaspending.gov.  It also mentions assigning “parenting plan coordinator” and estimates costs, or reports them.  Acknowledgements show the trio in each state:

We wish to thank the following people for their invaluable assistance during this project:

Colorado:

Pam Hennessey, Child Support Enforcement Coordinator, Colorado Judicial Department Cindy Savage, Director, Office of Dispute Resolution, Colorado Judicial Department Pam Gagel, Family Court Facilitator, Denver District Court

Tennessee:

Elizabeth A. Sykes, Deputy Director, Administrative Office of the Courts Mary Rose Zingale, Programs Manager, Administrative Office of the Courts Charles Bryson, Director of Field Operations and Management, Tennessee Child Support Division

Texas:

Michael Hayes, Manager of Collaborations, Fatherhood and Family Initiatives, Child Support Division Alisha Key, Director, Texas Office of Court Administration Arlene Pace, Access and Visitation Coordinator, Child Support Division

This ACF site (year, 2004) itself shows where the major source of referrals is coming, and how the goal of the program (or at least measured criteria) includes “increased noncustodial parenting time.”  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pubs/2004/reports/prelim_access_visitation_grants/texas.html

State Access Program Coordinator:
Arlene Pace
Office of the Attorney General
Child Support Division
PO Box 12017
Austin, Texas 78711-2017

Internet: Arlene.pace@cs.oag.state.tx.us

Annual Federal Grant Award: $621,404
Minimum 10% State Match: $ 69,045
Number of Minor Age Children in Single (Biological) Parent Households: 721,702

This shows a “love” for supervised visitation outcomes in the A/V funding.  This gets interesting when A/V program coordinators happen to also be operating such centers (Google “Helen O. Page” for that one)

Services Provided

Mediation	Counseling	Parent Education	Supervised Visitation	Neutral Drop-off	Development of Parenting Plans
423	278	433	1,835	745	105

Poor people are particularly targeted for these services (and their Title IV-D cases or IV-A help justify it), plus, although so much of program literature pushing fatherhood programs loves to bring up race, and the plight of the African-American male and his disenfranchisement, true as this may be (though it seems to pale compared to African-American Females overall, who couldn’t even vote until the 1900s, and whose position in slavery in prior generations (for those whose genealogy this applies to) included being used by masters for breeding by way of rape as well.  But in the A/V programs in Texas, it’s mostly poor Caucasians getting these services:

Annual Income

Less than $10,000	$10,000 to $19,000	$20,000 to $29,000	$30,000 to $39,000	$40,000 & above	Unknown
5,246	907	863	42	40	55

Race/Ethnicity

Am Indian or Alaska Native	American Asian or Pacific Islanders	African-American	White/Caucasian	Hispanic	Other	Unknown
14	9	81	516	169	45	1,017

I also find it odd that being as there’s such an interest from the head of HHS to measure ethnicity, the system has more “unknowns” that actually identified customers…. If I had a program like this, I’d know by looking at results that there either wasn’t good measurements being taken, or that my categories needed adjustment. Nevertheless, in fy2012, there’s hope to expand A/V functionality even further.

Look at this:  Of the sources which the Feds seem actually interested in (columns, 1, 2 & 3) very little self-referrals are occurring.  Referals are coming from the courts and child support systems itself (2,724) which indicates it was NOT the grassroots desire for these services.  Moreover, 2,724/3,779 “other” indicates that referrals are coming from outside the main anticipated sources — so where were these coming from?  Fatherhood groups?  Who really knows?

Source of Client Referrals

Self	Court	Child Support	Other
650	1,210	1,514	3,779

Outcomes

No. of non-custodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services

5,942

(etc.)

STILL footnoting the TENNESSEE grants above (the chart with several DUNS# and some amounts with no DUNS#):

(3)

TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  (3)

NASHVILLE

TN

37219

DAVIDSON

098973790

$ 371,861

Being curious, I went to the USASPENDING.gov site, and found over $93 million in 63 grants to this DUNS#, all starting in 2009.  Recommended to do.  OF these $90 million (50 awards were on the commission on aging, and the two awards/grants (for once, the amounts match with HHS) relate to Medicaid, and are not on this blog’s lists of topics.  Just FYI.

Here’s one from WV that parallels the descriptive powers of the TN one in red font above:  Award is named after Grantee Institution; they are one and the same:

WV ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES

90FD0103

WV DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

1

09/22/2004

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

ELIZABETH JORDAN

$ 43,000

and I wonder what’s the difference between HEALTH HUMAN RESOURCES and FAMILIES SERVICES? in West Virginia.  Why is one a Resource (implies tangibles to be drawn from) and the other a Service? (implies good deeds, actions what is served).  Either way, the resources of HHS are going to both departments:

WY ST DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES

90FD0061

SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA I)

3

09/23/2003

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

JOANNE VERMEULEN

$ 71,967

Or here are some from Texas, which got a lot of this OCSE Section 1115 Waiver grants, which (I think) the whole 90FD series represents anyhow:

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0134	OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER	1	09/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 703,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	1	08/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAMMI SIEMENS	$ 100,000

In other words, in the OCSE Research Grants 1115 Waiver, one would like to know What Research for What Purpose is said new grant.  Particularly when it’s for $0.70 million in a year of economic recession nationwide!  So, we are told, hello, it’s a 1115 Waiver.  (the CFDA category — I didn’t include in printout– would tell that).  Then it’s in support of a PAID INITIATIVE.  I get the idea it entails payments — but which initiative?  Does anyone have a clue how to pick the main words out of a very long title, and stick them in a short data entry field?  Appparently not.

So viewers can call up a VERY busy Michael Hayes (possibly on a plane to the next Fatherhood Summit; last year it was in MN), and ask him?  And who’s Kammi Siemens?   . . . . Here are some more:

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 85,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	08/29/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000

This is hardly a surprising award title, given the field, but does make me wonder why — IF the idea is to help the children — it might not be a better idea to help build the assets of the household they are living in, and cut down on the middlemen and brokers.  And, if there are Urban Mothers now paying child support to their custody-switched kids, is there a parallel program to help them build THEIR assets?  Or is the process just to jail them if they get in arrears based on the concept that it’s wilful, and not “inability to pay” as is assumed with so many fathers (at least in the program literature supporting fatherhood via OCSE).

Here’s a similar one in Washington STate, this time through a different agency:

WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES

90FD0172

BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES

1

09/26/2010

OTHER

NEW

MICHAEL HORN

$ 85,000

Here’s another in washington that, on it ssurface, would appear to be an efficient way of locating hidden assets from noncustodial parents and doing something about it — and this was defunded.  In Year 1 of the budget.

WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	90FD0031	EXEMPLARY COLLECTION PRACTICE THROUGH USE OF INTERNET-BASED LIEN REGISTRY	1	03/12/2004	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	ELLEN NOLAN	$- 47,987

Whoever thought up the family court system sure was brilliant.  It is a system for STRIPPING assets (including real estate) via stripping parents of access to their children, and sitting back placing bets on the winner when said parents tries to get time or even a glimpse of the absentee children.  Then the fight is, of course, somewhat “fixed” through Access/Visitation funding, which only one of the players is informed of.

Here’s some from Wisconsin — which is the home state of the Inter(?)national branch of AFCC:

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT	90FD0105	PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS	1	07/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SUE KINAS	$ 108,400
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT	90FD0105	PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS	1	09/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	TODD KUMMER	$ 0
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT	90FD0105	PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS	2	07/31/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TODD KUMMER	$ 108,400
WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT	90FD0105	PRIORITY AREA 1: IMPROVED SERVICES TO NON-CUSTODIAL PARENTS	3	09/26/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TODD KUMMER	$ 108,400

How much more improvement is possible than providing pro-bono legal help (and encouragement) to sue for custody modification orders, help which is not available to the custodial (mother) to defend from; and/or all kinds of programs to Compromise Arrears on the basis of altered custody situations, or other change of circumstances, such as perhaps finding out that there are compromise of arrears programs around?

Here’s what a simple google search of “Grant 90 FD” blew in the door:

SOURCE:  Another Nice report from Jessica Pearson & Center for Policy Research (date, maybe 2006)

COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM LOW-INCOME NCPS: WHAT COLORADO HAS TRIED AND LEARNED

• An Evaluation of the Responsible Fatherhood Program of El Paso County, Colorado
• (OCSE Grant #: 90-FD-0004/01)
• FORGIVING ARREARS: An Evaluation of the Colorado Arrears Forgiveness Demonstration Project (OCSE Grant #: 90-FD-0028/01)

  This presentation will discuss various interventions to promote child support payment among low-income NCPs in Colorado. They are: (1) referring unemployed or underemployed NCPs to the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Project (POP), a responsible fatherhood program offering assistance with employment, child support, and child access (August 1998 – April 2001); (2) referring NCPs who were paroled or released from a state prison to the Denver Work and Family Center (WFC), a one-stop center offering assistance with employment, child support. and family reunification (August 1999 – March 15, 2001); (3) offering NCPs with child support arrears the possibility of reducing or eliminating arrears owed to the state by making complete and timely child support payments over a ten-month period of time (May 2001 – February 2002); and (4) reducing the child support burden by dropping debt and retroactive support obligations for a random sample of NCPs with new child support orders (February – December 1998). These interventions were implemented and evaluated under several demonstration and evaluation grants awarded by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to the Colorado Division of Child Support Enforcement.

Hopefully you get the gist of the program, 1, 2, 3 & 4, which you helped pay to demonstrate and evalute (OCSE did):  In order, responsible Fatherhood, help with access (increased access to one’s kids).   Helping reunite men coming out of prison with their families, reducing arrears, and dropping retroactive support for some people with NEW orders.   OCSE was awarding these grants to Colorado “Division of Child Support Enforcement.”

Remember, the Demo States were Colorado (small), Tennessee (medium) and Texas (large).  COlorado, I found out, has many trade names, some of which sound like an arm of government when they aren’t.  For the record, here they are, past, present and trade names.  This is just FYI: (I just searched ‘child support enforcement”)

Found 11 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1. # ID Number Document Number Name  Event Status Form Formation Date 1 20031200845  20031200845 AMERICAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT INC. Articles of Incorporation Name Changed DPC 06/20/2003 2 20031200845  AMERICAN CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT INC., Dissolved November 30, 2004 Batch Event Administratively Dissolved DPC 06/20/2003 3 19931046695  19931046695 CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT OF COLORADO Register a Trademark Expired TM/L0035 05/04/1993 4 20021159113  20021159113 COALITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT Articles of Incorporation Name Changed DNC 06/11/2002 5 20021159113  COALITION FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT, Delinquent August 1, 2005 Batch Event Delinquent DNC 06/11/2002 6 20091675201  20091675201 CSE Child Support Enforcement Co. Trade Name Withdrawn FO 12/29/2009 7 20041071101  20041071101 CSE CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENTCO. Trade Name Expired FPC 02/26/2004 8 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Trade Name Effective DPC 10/27/2000 9 19991113541  19991113541 EL PASO/TELLER COUNTIES CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT ADMINISTERED FOR THE DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES BY MAXIMUS Trade Name Effective FPC 06/15/1999 10 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Trade Name Effective DPC 10/27/2000 11 20111041261  20111041261 U.S. Child Support Enforcement Inc Articles of Incorporation Good Standing DPC 01/20/2011

Whatever . . .  let’s go find some more “90FD” grant expenditures.

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH

DENVER

CO

80218-1450

DENVER

149387185

$ 997,740

Now, while the projects listed above, that Dr. Pearson helped evaluate, had 90FD grants, it apepars that this small, but very influentional nonprofit, is specializing in SPECIAL INTEREST grants along the “90FI” series, (at least when it comes to grants received from HHS — this doesn’t include contracts, or anything from other arms of government) if you click on the link above.  Here they are:

RECIPIENT INFORMATION

Printer-friendly Version

Recipient:	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH
Address:	1570 EMERSON STREET DENVER, CO 80218-1450
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	DENVER
HHS Region:	8
Type:	Research Institution, Foundation and Laboratory
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 21 of 21 Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2011	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	2	ACF	02-15-2011	149387185	$ 0
2011	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	2	ACF	03-31-2011	149387185	$ 0
2011	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	3	ACF	06-15-2011	149387185	$ 0
2011	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	3	ACF	06-20-2011	149387185	$ 0
Fiscal Year 2011 Total:								$ 0

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2010	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	0	ACF	08-02-2010	149387185	$ 50,000
2010	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	1	ACF	10-23-2009	149387185	$ 0
2010	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	1	ACF	09-25-2010	149387185	$ 0
2010	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	2	ACF	09-18-2010	149387185	$ 0
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:								$ 50,000

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2009	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	0	ACF	09-01-2009	149387185	$ 124,863
2009	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	1	ACF	02-22-2008	149387185	$ 0
2009	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	1	ACF	06-30-2009	149387185	$ 0
2009	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	2	ACF	06-26-2009	149387185	$ 0
2009	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	0	ACF	07-24-2009	149387185	$ 50,000
Fiscal Year 2009 Total:								$ 174,863

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2008	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	0	ACF	08-04-2008	149387185	$ 124,829
2008	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	1	0	ACF	06-26-2008	149387185	$ 99,908
Fiscal Year 2008 Total:								$ 224,737

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2007	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	1	ACF	09-03-2007	149387185	$ 0
2007	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	0	ACF	08-24-2007	149387185	$ 124,820
Fiscal Year 2007 Total:								$ 124,820

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	0	ACF	08-25-2006	149387185	$ 24,730
2006	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	0	ACF	08-24-2006	149387185	$ 198,664
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 223,394

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2005	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	0	ACF	08-31-2005	149387185	$ 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	90FI0059	EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT	1	0	ACF	06-16-2004	149387185	$ 99,926
Fiscal Year 2004 Total:								$ 99,926

Total of all award actions:

$ 997,740

SO, while 90FD0004 was Evaluating the REsponsible Fatherhood Program, and the 90FI grant series probably helped Center for Policy Research produce a nice report talking about the responsible fatherhood program, let’s look at the extent of “Responsible Fatherhood Program” grant (this ONE award) in Colorado, which apparently started in 2006, so let’s figure Dr. Pearson’s report gave it a thumbs-up?

$10 million: – that’s a nice chunk of change, right?

Fiscal Year	Grantee Name	Grantee Address	City	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2011	CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1575 SHERMAN STREET	DENVER	90FR0085	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	4	DAN DAN	$ 0
2010	CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1575 SHERMAN STREET	DENVER	90FR0085	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	5	DAN WELCH	$ 2,000,000
2009	CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1575 SHERMAN STREET	DENVER	90FR0085	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	3	RICHARD BATTEN	$ 0
2009	CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1575 SHERMAN STREET	DENVER	90FR0085	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	4	RICHARD BATTEN	$ 2,000,000
2008	CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1575 SHERMAN STREET	DENVER	90FR0085	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	3	RICHARD BATTEN	$ 2,000,000
2007	CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1575 SHERMAN STREET	DENVER	90FR0085	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	2	MARY E ROBERTO	$ 2,000,000
2006	CO ST COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION	1525 SHERMAN STREET, ROOM 719	DENVER	90FR0085	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	1	MARY RIOTTE	$ 2,000,000

Mary E. Roberto is also president of a nonprofit called NAWRS, which is mentioned in this handout.  Relating to “Colorado Works” (which relates clearly to TANF reform), this link also shows how many fatherhood programs were are talking about here (that year).  From a “Colorado Works” newsletter from last June, 2011

For further information, please contact me!

Mary E. Roberto, President National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics (NAWRS)  (MORE ON ThIS ONE< BELOW***)

Mary.Roberto@state.co.us

COLORADO FATHERHOOD PROGRAM UPDATE

^ Top

We are drawing near the end of the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Grant that has funded 63 fatherhood programs over the past 5 years. These programs are in all parts of the state and have provided parenting, healthy relationship education, economic stability services and mentoring to fathers.

This month, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families is expected to release new funding opportunities to continue many of the goals of the previously funded National Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives. CDHS Colorado Works intends to seek new funding and will provide updates as this process unfolds. Stay tuned!

Mary Roberto’s position, listed under NAWRS (below) is:

Mary Roberto (303) 866-2641 mary.roberto@state.co.us

Colorado Department of Human Services Program Development and System Innovation 1575 Sherman Street Denver, CO 80203

Regarding NAWRS — it has membership from across the country.  Take a closer look! You really need to get a grasp of the extent of HHS networking here.  I also notice a name, Demetra Nightengale (see my blog) from The Urban Institute.  You’ll also see her name under the Mary Roberto link in the chart — on report contracted by “The Lewin Group” to report on COloradoWorks.

I am glad our nation is so well-”organized,” but sad I went fully 10 years in the court system with not one person IN it, nor one person in a domestic violence advocacy group I contacted (locally) for help or support, in the entire time — in fact NO ONE in the Bay Area made a mention of the fatherhood movement taking money from HHS — at all — until I happened to in desperation call a feminist organization in distress about police lies on reports following an exchange in which the immediate concern was a threat of parental abduction.  Which later happened.  I cannot tell you how many conferences I attended (mostly for free) in the area also, including one or two hotshot ones, and at least one where i functioned as a “fly on the wall” — and none of THEM mentioned this either!

Hard to find an EIN — but two states seem to admit it exists, as far as tax filings are concerned!

 

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
National Association for Welfare Research A	AZ	2008	$208,325	990	18	64-0673365
National Association for Welfare Research A Dba Nawrs	CA	2009	$184,323	990	21	64-0673365
National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics	AZ	2007	$187,223	990	17	64-0673365
National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics	AZ	2006	$256,337	990	18	64-0673365
National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics	AZ	2003	$189,922	990	13	64-0673365
National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics	AZ	2002	$179,654	990	12	64-0673365
National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics	AZ	2005	$246,944	990	15	61-0673365
National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics	AZ	2004	$228,743	990O	13	61-0673365

A quick check of Arizona — I don’t see the organization. . . . Go figure.

 

OK, the California Group (Venice, CA) earns almost nothing and spends $115k on the conference.  Its books are in the care of someone c/o Oklahoma Child SUpport Office . . . ..

 

Ron Haskins keeps showing up (see end of post):   Now there’s a welfare reform academy???

 

Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins is ((in 2012??)) the staff director for the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives. Prior to becoming staff director, he was welfare counsel for the Republicans on the Ways and Means Committee. Previously, he was a research professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, a lecturer in history and education at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, a high school social studies teacher in Charlotte, North Carolina, and a non-commissioned officer in the United States Marine Corps. After completing his undergraduate degree in history, Haskins obtained an M.A. in education and a Ph. D. in developmental psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Haskins has published books and articles on intellectual development, illness and day care, day care policy, education policy, divorce and child support, federal expenditures on social programs, and federal budget and tax policy. In his 12 years in Washington, Haskins has worked primarily on welfare reform, day care, child support enforcement, foster care, unemployment, and budget issues. He is remarried and has four children ranging in age from 9 to 30.

 

 

 

In searching for NAWRS, I ran (again) across an interesting site at “legistorm” which shows congressionally approved privately sponsored travel (if I have that right).  For Republican Bill Archer of Texas, I note that Ron Haskins (WHO WAS AN ARCHITECT OF THE ACCESS/VISITATION PROVISION OF WELFARE REFORM, AND WE HEARD, SNUCK IT IN PAST THE 11th HOUR, WHICH allegedly STUNT HELPED GET HIM RELEASED FROM THE HHS — AND HE HAS SINCE HUNG OUT ELSEWHERE (BROOKINGS INSTITUTE, MOSTLY, IT SEEMS):   was paid $822 to travel to a NAWRS CONFERENCE, PLUS THIS LIST:

 

 

 

Rep. Bill Archer (-Texas, 7th) – Privately Financed Travel

His “top staff traveler” with 6 trips, was Ron Haskins (total costs, $7,063).  My point is, look who’s paying for the conferences to figure out how to spend public funds, without input from the public affected by them, OR for the most part, the taxpayers themselves:

No.	Cost
Trips Approved	35	$68,052
Top Staff Traveler	6	$7,063	- Haskins, Ronald T.

•  

  View Details / PDF	Traveler/Dates	Sponsor	Destination/ Purpose	Cost
  	Haskins, Ronald T. (Ron) 11/30/00-11/30/00	MacArthur Foundation	Chicago, IL To attend a foundation urban policy meeting	$1,419.83
  	Haskins, Ronald T. (Ron) 11/12/00-11/13/00	American Association of Public Welfare Attorneys	Scottsdale, AZ AAPWA 33rd National Training and Continuing Education Conference	$1,107.00
  	Haskins, Ronald T. (Ron) 11/03/00-11/03/00	Annie E. Casey Foundation	Seattle, WA 22nd annual Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management research conference	$1,493.00

   

  
  

  	Haskins, Ronald T. (Ron) 07/28/00-08/02/00	National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics - National Child Support Enforcement Association	Phoenix, AZ - San Diego, CA To discuss welfare reform and child support enforcement issues at annual conferences	$822.00
  	Haskins, Ronald T. (Ron) 07/16/00-07/16/00	National Conference of State Legislatures	Chicago, IL Welfare reform reauthorization session at NCSL’s annual meeting	$762.43

  Haskins, Ronald T. (Ron) 01/09/00-01/11/00

  Texas Governor’s Business Council

  Austin, TX - Houston, TX Visit Texas’ child support enforcement program

  $1,459.00

   YES

  WELL, that’s ALL FOR TODAY, FOLKS!A

Does It Matter Who Baked the Pie, so Long as It’s Eaten? Well, That Depends on the Cook(s).

What About that 66/34 effect?

Several times on this blog (and another forum or so), I have promoted the “AbuseFreedomLive” blogtalk Tuesday Night radio show, (and been on it once, called in sometimes) because there are simply so few people around actually that actually seem to understand the role played by the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system.

And to understand this to get a pretty good measurement of where this country is overall.  It’s a HUGE issue.   It is also part of how the well-to-do and corporations exert control over the poor (and make sure there are plenty of poor around) to help regulate the middle class and employ (for now) a large sector of said middle class, including white AND blue-collar professionals, in regulating and administratively studying, tabulating (etc.) the huddled masses that either started in the US, were imported in the bottom of ships for free labor (see “corporations”), or fled bloodshed, famine incited by theocracy and religious prejudice, in other countries.  And their descendants.

As the rich tend to understand money (and more forms of it, and more ways of accumulating it, and more ways to not pay income taxes, and more ways to write off taxes, and more tax shelters) than people raised, drilled, and limited to ONE form of (above-the-radar) income production called JOBS, which the rich are supposedly always creating more of, which is why Congressmen should continually give them more tax breaks.  And let them pass adjustments to welfare requiring the poor to get and/or stay married (etc.).

MSM agrees with this on me.  I didn’t hear it on  Dr. Phil (because I don’t watch Dr. Phil), however, for once I agreed with Michael Moore (on Tavis Smiley, recently) a show with about a dozen guests that I caught a fragment of.  Mr. Moore pointed out that, f the wealthy wished to get rid of poverty, they could — however it’s handy to have the poor around to keep the middle class in line (and vice versa — my opinion).    So no, this is not too esoteric a subject.  It cuts to the heart of “whose kids ARE they?” and for that matter, “Whose am I?  Do I belong to myself?”  Most people would say yes — or wish to say it, which then puts them in conflict with others who have.

So when I am talking about federal incentives, meaning what the IRS distributes, to something as basic as the States and what they do with it to handle the poor (which allegedly is what welfare and child support are THERE for), I am cutting to the heart of the American experience, and to any matter dealing with child custody, visitation — including visiting by parents when the state has the child, or visiting with parents when parents don’t cohabit, and so forth.

This 66/34 matter has so many influences on our culture, it qualifies as PRIMAL .

And we know which sectors of society baked up:  once married always married, joint custody recommendations, and the pro-marriage/anti-feminazi movement– and how.  Well, at least I do and if not totally, at least the picture is fairly clear, and these are father-friendly organizations, so-called.  The “few prominent thinkers” and “Close to Washington D.C.” and Think Tankers.  The Heritage Foundationers, Family Research Council-ers, Focus on the Families-ers, and so forth, plus the parallel on the progressive side (there IS a parallel to the fatherhood movement in the non-faith-based sector).   AFCC/CRC etc.

These are the “Expensive Remedy In Search of a Legitimate Problem” that certain mothers (primarily) groups have been protesting for years, and protested again in front of the ways and means/ appropriations subcommittee in June 2010 (Liz Richards article, re-blogged recently here).

• Typically fathers protest VAWA and Some mothers protest Fatherhood Funding/Access-Visitation/Marriage (etc. promotion).  You do not have, typically, fathers groups PROtesting the fatherhood funding — which sometimes comes with pro bono help to increase noncustodial (father) parenting time.  More typically, while vigorously protesting bias against men in the family courts –and doing something about it — these are standing in line to form groups to get more grants to preach this gospel.  Or just evangelize in general, when it comes to “faith-based” only through marriage counseling and relationship classes.  etc.
• Activist Fathers’ groups also lobby alongside conservative groups (married women and second wives as well) against anything removing children from their home, or forcing them to, in their eyes, pay exorbitantly to support the mothers of their departed (or in some cases abandoned) exes.  That’s the general breakdown.
• Although some of us (I’m never quite sure where my “us” begins and ends, but I have a flexible concept of the juicy center of it) wish to inform some of the fathers’ groups who’ve been extorted (for real, not for “if I can’t see my kids I sure as heck am not going to support them” group) that there is a middle ground here, and we have more in common in wishing to eject program fraud from ALL sectors, and in fact to reduce, curtail if not STOP TANF diversions to Designer Family Building programs.
• In other words, not every father is a Jeffrey Leving, a Glenn Sacks, or a Warren Farrell (or, for that matter, a Richard Warshak, although I don’t know if he’s a Dad).  Some Dads are simply living their lives, or trying to, and are not out for blood & guts fame in reforming government.

 I’ve blogged plenty on the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system, and on the Federal/State % incentives built into it.  I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed’s ex), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups.*

(*I’ll repeat the italicized part several paragraphs later to connect this point below to my concerns, below):

This post addresses a concern — or question — I have about the direction of the 66/34 Effect show, and particularly one section of it seen in today’s news alert.   I think it’s relevant, because it’s showing up as new light on a difficult situation; high-profile speakers from various industries (not only court-related, although that’s the focus) are producing a lot of information and food for thought.  And in an information age — no information is neutral, it all has values attached.  And above all, it should be honest.  No one is 100% accurate (and I try to correct my factual mis-speaks when I see them or it’s brought to my attention.  Not typos, but where I got my facts wrong, due to error in recall, or error in attribution — but never is it intentional.

I don’t state the issue until near the bottom of the post; scroll if need be, or read the post for context, reasoning, explanation.  Then again the troublesome part is at the very, very bottom of the email alert, and probably most people missed it.  But it seems to be a clue.

And while here, I’ll drive home this two-thirds/one-third (66/34) matter, which I think bears teaching, re-teaching, and explaining the import of, weekly (at least) until people get it:  Stop Federal Incentive Welfare-related Diversionary Programs (in order to stop widespread waste &  fraud) and Face It — this is Fascism in the Making, if not just about ready to come out of the oven!

(“Fascism” meaning, the combining and centralization of government by degrees — hey, Obama wants to merge agencies, but ALL agencies are already to encourage fatherhood promotion (Clinton, 1995), pay for more noncustodial FATHER involvement in the families (Welfare reform 1996, see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative for how to jumpstart a statewide program) and Faith-based Inclusionary Activities (see Bush, 2001 January).  Don’t ever forget, Hitler considered himself a Christian, too. So did pastors on BOTH sides of the Rwandan massacre (see “Left to Tell” or the book on which “Hotel Rwanda” was based).  Christian groups from United States –including some on the marriage movement take — had to quick, dissociate themselves with a “kill-the-gays” law in Uganda, but I assure us (and it’s seen) that some of these US evangelical groups love to test their material on sub-Saharan Africa, or other places too distressed to properly resist. . . .I distinguish “fathers” from “fatherhood” the way I distinguish “religion” from spirituality, which is a lot closer to ethics and what’s in the center of a person.)

This phrase (and its position, likely not to be noticed, on the very bottom of the email alert) really concerns me:

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out or mission to improve the way the family courts do business. He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

Which then shows the link to a “Change.org” petition posted by a noncustodial MOTHER who is now paying her ex child support; this petition (I also have the link on blogroll, or did for quite a while) was originally assembled by Athena Phoenix (prior to that username which is associated with the blogtalk radio show) anyhow — who is also female, not male and not a father.

http://www.change.org/petitions/cut-tanf-title-iv-d-programs-which-represent-4billion-of-waste

This is an excellent petition, and speaks in detail of some of the areas of consistent program mismangement and waste.  I feel it is very well written.  However, it’s not whichever responsible father hosted the show’s petition — it was written by a very smart woman who’s become famliar with this material through research.

It goes, in part, like this (no link to the budget is provided, but people can look the data up) (in pink font):

Why This Is Important

This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry—no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:

1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)

2. ID Code 75-1552-0-1-609, lines 0005 and 0009 [$990 million] (p. 473)

3. ID Code 75-1501-0-1-609 lines 0002, 0003 [Access and Visitation] [$1.7 billion] (p. 474)

4. Discretionary “Child Support Incentives” to States [$305 million] (p. 475)

5. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Healthy Families” [$1.7 billion] (p.476)

6. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Abstinence Education” [$1.7 billion] (p. 477)

7. Line 0129 “Faith Based Initiatives” [$1 million] (p.479)

Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.

Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.

Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.

This petition was posted by Liora Farkowitz on Change.org, who also presented at the last BMCC conference (July 2012):

See “Cut TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4Billion of waste.”  While Ms. Farkowitz may be very responsible, it’s evident she’s not a father.  Was this just a mistaken link?

The wording indicates that a responsible father asks people to sign “this” (not “his”) petition.  Yet no mention is made of the responsible mother who posted it or its actual author, who also is female.  The programs they re protesting specifically are stated to target and help noncustodial fathers increase custody share (whether or not this actually takes place); is it more true and more credible in the eyes of men if a man points to it?  Well, probably — but is that the important message?

Is anyone on the program tonight (which includes a number of nonprofits in the juvenile corrections and preventing human trafficking practices, with an emphasis on Georgia) receiving possible program funding from HHS?

Possibly:  And in fact two posts (from the last two days of blogging) I’ve been drafting in regards to the organization ALEC, showed me how that even in this matter of very legitimate problems related to racist lockup policies (harsher sentencing for males of color) and the attendant (multiple) nonprofit juvenile justice foundations focusing on DIVERSIONARY programs — has some overlap, but a lot of conflict — when the same principles affect custody courts — which they do.  And they affect custody courts the MOST when it comes to matters of attempted separation from abusive parents, including some parents in lockup rightfully, from violence.

For example (see program flyer for tonight, if you’ve received on, or if my last link was accurate):

LOCKING UP KIDS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME COULD COST GEORGIA MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDS,   By Jim Walls, JJIE Journal, 1/12/2012 Original content found here.    Every week, Georgia locks up juveniles who’ve committed no crime. A new study contends Georgia risks losing millions of dollars in federal funding if it continues doing so at the current rate.   They are runaways, truants, curfew violators, underage smokers and drinkers. They’re called status offenders because their actions are only an issue due to their status as juveniles; if an adult did the same thing, it wouldn’t be a crime. Now, a report commissioned by the Governor’s Office for Children and Families warns that the practice could cost the state about $2 million a year in federal funding, particularly if Congress follows through with plans to tighten guidelines for placing status offenders in secure detention.

Let’s look at the HHS grants to this office:  I see two streams, one which has no DUNS#.  Although I suspect that the funding they are referring to is more likely to be DOJ funding, let’s see what the same office is getting, here:

 

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	DECATUR	GA	30032	DE KALB	000000000	$ 4,045,342
GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	DECATUR	GA	30032	DE KALB	828115951	$ 3,946,786

If you click on both those, you’ll see grants that (I’ll wager — and see if I can check quickly here) sound like “AE” Abstinence Education and FR (Fathers Rights), one from a FYSB (Youth bureau) and the other from CB (Children’s Bureau):

Program Office	Grantee Name	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0802GAFRPG	2008 FRP	1	05/21/2009	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 862,805
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAFRPG	2009 FRSS	1	09/17/2009	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,091,492
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1002GAFRPG	2010 CBCAP	1	09/09/2010	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,073,087
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1102GAFRPG	2011 CBCAP	1	09/02/2011	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,017,958
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAAEGP	2009 AEGP	1	05/21/2009	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,100,934
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAAEGP	2009 AEGP	1	07/30/2010	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 824,398
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1002GAAEGP	2010 AEGP	1	09/27/2010	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,810,331
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1102GAAEGP	2011 AEGP	1	09/01/2011	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,859,919

Results 1 to 8 of 8 matches.

 

Going to USASpending.gov with the one DUNS# we have here, it seems that this DUNS# could refer to either the above office, the office of “Children and Youth” (see “Abstinence Education”) or simply the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.  The DOJ/OJJP projects show up there (some, close to $2 million) under delinquency prevention.  ALSO clear is that this DUNS dates to 2009 and no earlier (on this database anyhow).  For example (that’s just one award):

1.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States

$1,897,000

Or, a slice of these grants (26 in all, total receipts $23 million, with largest sector in 2009 — which tells me, “ARRA” or “recovery.gov”

Transaction Number # 24

Federal Award ID: 2010JFFX0026: 00 (Grants)

Recipient: GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET 270 Washington St. S.W. Room 8095 Room 8095, Altanta, GEORGIA Reason for Modification: Program Source: 15-0405:Juvenile Justice Programs Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs CFDA Program : 16.540 : Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States Description: FY 2010 Formula Grant Porject-GA

Date Signed: July 13 , 2010  Obligation Amount:  $1,897,000

 

While the AbuseFreedomLive 66/34 Effect host show claims  (clearly) it may not share all the viewpoints of the guests, the host also selects the guests.  I take it with a grain of salt — the HHS also disclaims some of the viewpoints of groups it links to on its site, but it still links to them!

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page

Notice the paragraph at the bottom, following all the various ways readers can get to fatherhood promotion pages:  This is just for reference, if you don’t like it, caveat emptor – don’t blame us!

Responsible Fatherhood Grants The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 provides funding of $150 million in each of five years for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood.  Each year, $75 million may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.		Healthy Marriage Healthy marriage services 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.
Effective Parenting Involved fathers provide practical support in raising children and serve as models for their development.  Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior compared to children who have uninvolved fathers.  Committed and responsible fathering during infancy and early childhood contributes emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills.		Economic Stability Resources for helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities, such as Work First services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, and job enhancement; and encouraging education, including career-advancing education.
Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father.  The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but the Federal Government does provide states with funding to assist in the development of programs that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.		Incarceration The Department of Justice has estimated that over 7.3 million children under age 18 have a parent who is in prison, jail, on probation, or on parole. Given these numbers, it is important to understand how children and their caregivers are affected by the criminal activity of a parent and their subsequent arrest, incarceration, and release.  Additionally, it is important to know which services and assistance might be available to those under criminal justice supervision to help them be better parents and to return successfully to the community.
Research, Evaluation, & Data Good research and program evaluations assess program performance, measure outcomes for families and communities, and document successes.  Information on previous and current research and evaluation efforts can help programs and researchers to direct limited resources to where they are most needed, and most effective, in assessing results.		Program Development The principal implication for fathering programs is that these programs should involve a wide range of interventions, reflecting the multiple domains of responsible fathering, the varied residential and marital circumstances of fathers, and the array of personal, relational, and environmental factors that influence men as fathers.
Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation ASPE is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on policy development, and is responsible for major activities in policy coordination, legislation development, strategic planning, policy research, evaluation, and economic analysis.  Pertinent Fatherhood topics found there include: Child Welfare, Employment, Family and Marriage Issues, andViolence.		Other Research Resources Federal information relating to fatherhood research is spread throughout multiple departments and agencies.  This area includes other websites that have federal sponsored research related to responsible fatherhood.
Disclaimer: This website contains links to fatherhood and related websites created and maintained by other public and private entities.  This information is provided for the reader’s convenience.  The Department of Health and Human Services does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information.  Further, these links do not intend or imply endorsement of any views expressed or products or services offered.

Nevertheless, this is a US Government Agency page, and its sustenance paid for by the public.  The same standards also go for MONITORING the program funds and effectiveness after it’s distributed.  The GAO, or the HHS/OAS/OIG gets in their sporadically, but basically once started, they’ll sample audit, they’ll report back, but there’s so little teeth — that this black hole of (for example — only one example) program fraud and “undistributable child support collections” is –unknown in extent.  Don’t blame us — we’re only overseeing.

This “we’re only overseeing” rebuttal has also (call and ask) been used repeatedly to people investigating grant usage as individual citizens, i.e., particularly members of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice.  I’ve seen some of the letters discussing how to deflect inquiry on the funds usage; they may show on a discussion group (yahoo) or you can contact the website owner for more info.   The point is – NO ONE is really responsible, which is bad news for John and Jane Doe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The “66/34″ reference refers to the Federal/State relationship towards programs.  This excerpt comes from a brief written (years ago) by an attorney (I think it’s the same one, at least) found receiving a diversionary child support award in California.  The brief explains:

PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SURVIVES SUPREME COURT’S BLESSING V. FREESTONE DECISION by Leora Gershenzon

The United States Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in Blessing v. Freestone1 that custodial parents may not sue in federal court to force a state to comply substantially with the general requirements of federal child support law found in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.2 Significantly, however, the Court refused to limit in any way the right of individuals to sue government officials who deprive them of statutory or constitutional rights while acting “under color of state law.” The right to bring such lawsuits, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is commonly referred to as a “private right of action.”

The plaintiffs in Blessing v. Freestone had filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona’s Department of Economic Security, the state’s child support agency, contending that it operated the child support program in violation of federal law

Statutory Framework

Under federal law, any state that receives federal funds to operate a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program3 also must operate a child support enforcement program. To be in compliance with statutory requirements, states must locate noncustodial parents and their assets; establish paternity; and establish, modify, and enforce child support orders. These services must be provided to families receiving TANF benefits and, for a nominal fee, to all other families who choose to participate in the program.
The detailed statutory and regulatory scheme contained in Title IV-D sets strict time limits for performance of the specific duties imposed on the state child support agency. For example, states must open a case within 20 days of an application or a referral from the welfare office, use appropriate locate sources to search for a noncustodial parent within 75 days and repeat every three months, if necessary, and, within 90 days of locating a noncustodial parent, establish paternity and obtain a support order or attempt to or complete service of process on that parent.

The federal government pays over two-thirds of the costs of the program in every state, and up to 90% in some states. Due to welfare savings resulting from child support collection as well as to other factors, more than half the states experience a net gain from their child support collection programs

[{OTHERWISE EXPRESSED: THIS WORKS IN BARELY OVER HALF THE CASES, DESPITE FEDERAL SUPPORT APPROACHING 2/3 OF THE COST. TRY AND RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS LIKE THIS, AND YOU'D BETTER HAVE PLENTY OF CAPITAL FOR START-UP. WHICH OF COURSE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, IT JUST EXERCISES ITS PRIVILEGES TO INCREASE FEDERAL DEBT LOAD, HENCE WE ARE NOW TALKING IN TRILLIONS, WHEREAS THE CHILD FAMILY SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM COSTS "ONLY" IN TERMS OF BILLIONS, AT LEAST THE PART THAT WE'RE COUNTING...}]
.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is responsible for reviewing and evaluating state child support programs to ensure compliance with federal law and regulations. In general, a state will be found to be in substantial compliance if it provides necessary and timely services to 75% of the families (90% in some instances) who seek child support assistance. If a state is found to be out of compliance, the Secretary can impose a penalty of up to 5% of the state’s TANF block grant. However, a state can avoid the penalty by submitting a Corrective Action Plan, and only a couple of states have ever been penalized.

The Arizona Litigation

By any objective standard, Arizona’s child support program has been failing children and parents. Between 1985 and 1991, the state failed every federal child support audit. With each failure, the agency submitted a Corrective Action Plan and the Secretary waived any penalties

Child Support itself if a highly contentious issue, with some damaging afterglow when pursued, or modified:

Sometimes they kill, sometimes they just abduct, sometimes they engage in prolonged custody litigation, and sometimes (far too much and far too often), the money is collected, held (collecting interest for the agency — not the household the child support is for) and for each and every scenario, there is an option which profits court-connected professionals, including judges, and increasingly impoverishes families.   Having thus collected sufficient funding (and being salaried, without judges causing THEM to lose their jobs with unfair or frivolously ridiculous rulings), these court-connected professionals have a system enabling them to fly around the country to various vacation locales to communicate with each other about how to do it better next time.

Some of these tax-write-off, public-funded (i.e., dues for the professional membership AND travel/hotel can be written off under one from or another of education, including continuing CLE education (providers and or participants, probably).  For example, I read (and yes, it’s on the blog here) about a Task Force or commission in Indianapolis which was considering flying their membership out to an AFCC conference.  The decided instead to simply approach AFCC about holding a nice conference IN Indianpolis next time, saving the air fare, and putting it into hosting.  I believe this has already happened.

One of the most demonstrative states around in pushing parent education, fatherhood promotion, all kinds of diversionary programs around openly on the website, and I’ve repeatedly referenced it here, is the Kentucky Courts.  On examination of SOME of their 11 divorce education programs (which is only part of the offerings), we can find one company based in Scranton, PA area (where the FBI is examining case-steering, overbilling, or whatever evidence they hauled off for Lackawanna County) marketing through Kentucky books written (many of them) in California, and some in Massachusetts, or recommended by a nice AFCC Massachusetts Judge.

California, where much of this baloney originated, IS truly the “Golden State” if you’re in control and in the right profession (or three) within government.  Ask Mr. Gwinn, the Lockyers, the Thorns (Kids’ Turn), Dr. Carolyn Curtis (Sacramento Healthy Marriage, or whatever its current title), the Past, Present, and Future Boards of Director Judges of some of these Access Visitation Subgrantees (Kids Turn San Diego being one), ask almost anyone in the Los Angeles Court System, and ask those cycling between positions in the legislature, and CEO of domestic violence organizations.  Ask the heads of Futures Without Violence, etc.

The system is FAIRLY straightforward in operation, though diverse in execution.  Form a nonprofit.  It’s not necessary to completely stay incorporated, file tax returns with the IRS OR the State annually, as required by law.  To fire up the ignition a little further, call yourself Faith-Based, and connect up with the NARME or other chameleon organization to study how to Take the Money and Run.   For an example, see Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Initiatives, which is still around, and see how the original staff did it, and got some CYA report from Baylor University Texas, from a person who just also happens to be a member of the nationwide “CJJDP.”

For an example of how to double-bill and wipe your mouth saying, “I see NOthing,” even after you’re caught at it, this has been going on so long, we can now reference old-school and new-school versions of this, most of which involves switching a child from a known decent parent to the other one, often abusive, thereby causing the decent one to fight for custody, rather than simply abandon the child.  I’m naturally thinking of situations of over-billing and program fraud such as is reported in:

Visitation Fraud Reported in Amador County(Complaint filed 9/7/99)

The following is a copy of a complaint filed to the Judicial Council of California regarding federal funding fraud by Amador County Superior Court. It exemplifies how federal “family” programs are mis-used to protect incest offenders/batterers in the family law courts. Liz Richards, of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice has contacted you regarding these abuses in the courts. These family programs, and those who abuse them, need to be fully investigated by competent persons who have no vested interest in protecting any involved in the abuses. . . .

(the Karen Anderson case) . . .

Through an initial contact with Senator Jackie Speier’s office, I was directed to Lee Mohar (sp?). During my conversation with Mr. Mohar, I explained to the best of my ability my concerns about how the public funds of the state Family Law Facilitator Program (hereinafter “Facilitator”) and the Federal Access to Visitation Program (hereinafter “A/V”) were directly involved in my private family law matter before Amador County Superior Court (“Court”). At Mr. Mohar’s request, you contacted me about this issue to more fully understand my concerns.

During my conversation with you, I explained the following: The Program Director for the federal Access to Visitation grant, Helen O. Page, represents my ex-husband in my private family law matter 98 FL 0084, and continued to do so through all of the dates inclusive, in which the Court was accessing A/V funds through this program. I have obtained records from the county auditor, as well as from the Court, in the form of payment vouchers, the grant application, and the grant contract. These documents declare that that the intent of the A/V program is to “encourage contact between children and both parents,” to “facilitate contact between non-custodial supervised parents and children” with a criteria for a “step-down” in supervised visitation.

{She then goes on to relate how custody was reversed to her, and she was put on Supervised Visitation based on “PAS”, the collusion of a minors’ counsel with a supervised visitation business owner, and how she was forced to pay cash for it! To see her kids!}}:

During the term of the A/V contract, the program director, Helen O. Page, under the authority of the Court, violated the entire intent of the program and specific terms of said contract for the gain of her private client, who is my ex-husband. Payment vouchers to herself and to other participants who are/have been involved in the private litigation of case 94 FL 0084, namely Larry Leatham, Marsha Nohl, and Nohl’s supervised visitation program A.F.T.E.R., prove that while mandated to comply with the terms of the A/V contract, all the forenamed have collectively engaged in accessing these public funds under a conflict of interest, thus violating the terms of the contract.

Here’s a few more of the players and the interrelationships – notice, some were made grant sub-contractors.  All of this comes under “Access/Visitation” grant programs — which are only a fraction of the other diversionary programs coursing through the system, and diverting parents from their primary purposes in life, which is to raise children, provide an inheritance of possible for them, and to be able to focus their lives on their kids — not on self-defense from abusive systems and program fraud by people working (some, as public employees aka “civil servants”) IN those system.  Remembering this is from 1999 — 12+ years ago!

The court orders which have obstructed my liberty interest in parenting my children and left my children at risk of continued molestation, along with the continual harassing litigation perpetrated by Page for her private client, cause the case to be categorized as “highly contested” for which Page/Court is able to access the A/V funds according to the grant application. While Page fights through private litigation for her client, my ex-husband, to keep me on supervised visitation, this also causes the case to fall into the category that provides the necessity for the A/V funds according to the grant application, which in turn personally benefits her financially through payments she receives from the grant. In order to maintain the case in the category that provided access to the A/V grant money, Page used Marsha Nohl (who Page made into a grant sub-contractor) and Larry Dixon (state funded minor’s counsel), as allies in support of the original grossly negligent evaluation and testimony of Leatham (who Page also has made a grant sub-contractor). I have been maintained on supervised visitation and the case itself is maintained as highly litigated, through acts of perjury, misconduct, intentional misrepresentation, willful obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, by Page, Nohl and Dixon

It’s known — and has been known for years, but not blogged enough for “the common women” (fathers’ groups tend to be told this) that the funding can come from BOTH the parent (in cash, as per Karen Anderson, and now parents in Lackawanna County, PA have been protesting the same issue, as I recall, with both supervised visitation, and/or parenting coordinator).  They had to pay cash for services.  To a decent parent, not seeing one’s offspring after removal from the home is NOT an option, so they paid AND the federal government funding stream, which is OCSE diversion.

And I showed readers recently that for FY2012, the HHS requested that — in light of how important continuing to promote “fatherhood” (whatever this is), they want mandatory access visitation orders for EVERY child support order, which then moves custody and visitation matters further out from a judge’s decision based on facts (allegedly, or at least potentially) to an administrative boilerplate (generally speaking) managed by a court-connected program manger or designated professional.

This is called Double-Billing.  ”Don’t Ask.  Just Do it for your Kids.”

In years since, others have continued to research the same topic upwards and downwards, namely, taking it to the source:  The funds come from the HHS (grantees recorded in TAGGS database, and some other places), and child support TANF diversions.  At around the same time (post-1996, late 1990s, early 2000s) California along with other states was under a federal “centralize into a Statewide Distribution Unit (“SDU”) system for child support distribution — or give up your welfare assistance.  Of course, if you don’t need food stamps, cash aid, (Medicaid?) and other help from Big Brother, then don’t.  YOU put up 34$, we’ll put up 66% (not mentioned:  this 66% comes from funds previously collected through taxes etc. from the public, or interst/investment gains on it).

So yes, it does matter who baked THAT cake, because it’s got a little “leavening” in it which makes it a high-rise profit system for those in the system, and a debt production machine for stressed-out parents who eat from it.  How many people know going IN to the courts that any child support order, and EVERy child support order, and I’ll hazard a guess, in EVERY State and US territory, has as 66/34 effect called INCENTIVE.   In fact one of the hard lessons I learned (obviously) was to find out WHO is speaking to you whenever help or relief from injustice or danger is offered, in response to one’s cries for help, or without even those cries.

Who Bakes the Domestic Violence Group Cakes?  The same supplier — it may not be the 66/34 effect as to DV programs, but we’ve seen they are heavy into HHS funding (not just DOJ) and collaborating with fatherhood-oriented groups when protective mothers aren’t watching, while teaching them distracting information lest they DO watch.  See Loretta Frederick, who I’ll bet did NOT highlight her connection with AFCC (or teach women who AFCC was) at the last BMCC (“Battered Mother’s Custody Conference”).    In 2011, access visitation was mentioned from the podium by someone WITHOUT some product to market (after the conference was — like it appears to have been this year, too — well over an hour behind schedule on the last segment of the conference)  but as soon as the speaker went to the podium, a lunch break was called.  Un believably, I saw the same thing happen again this year — a break was called, and a woman’s voice at the mike (Ricky Fowler, search my blog) was surrounded by noise of coming and going, but when someone protesting what she said spoke up, another grabbed the mike and told everyone to quiet down and listen, because “this is important.”  (like the previous comment wasn’t?) and tried to counter it.

So, your Domestic Violence Advocacy and Protective Mothers Advocacy groups have, as it were, pre-baked cake mixes from pretty much the same source.  They have — amazingly coincidental — the same blind spots; which a little experience has shown is not blindness – it’s a “no-fly-zone.”    

My Para. from above:

I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed, ex-wife of D.C. Sniper, “Scared Silent” ca. 2002/John Muhammad, a Devoted Dad?
Connecting the Sniper case to family court corruption and federal fatherhood program fraud.  (Part 1)
by Cindy Ross © October 28, 2002), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups, plus trials that follow).

It is VITALLY important, in other words, that more people understand and protest the continued funding of a system of “evolving purposes” all labeled’ family” which are resulting in habitually increasing scenarios involving roadkill.  This scenario claims that the family is the basic unit of society, anything that threatens “family” is itself (by definition) a threat to society, and women’s right to live alone versus live with constant domestic terrorism based on the fact that they’re female, or vulnerable and happen to get paid less per $$ then men overall — and are not represented even halfway proportionately in our primarily white male Congress & Senate.  Sorry to put it that way, but one hellish marriage, and an equally long hell in the court system simply leads me rationally to acts of Congress designed to promote fatherhood.  I didn’t promote or pass these at the time, and am simply reporting their existence, and in part, their costs.  Plural.

This is the rationale which (if it’s bought & believed, or tolerated) which priorities “family” over Bill of Rights in EVERY case where there is a custody dispute.  That philosophy then enables passage of programs in which we find fraud, and incentives — which have zero (NO) place in promoting justice.  If courtrooms are not neutral — meaning, they are bribe-free — and they are “OUT-COME based” versus PROCESS-based” — they are kangaroo courtrooms.  So we need to report honestly — Let’s get Honest — about this facet in particular.  At the annual price tag of approximately $4 billions, and for the Jessica Gonzales’ the Dawn Axsoms, the Catalina Torres’, and the Officers shot in the line of duty during domestic dispute hostage situations, let’s defuse the need for the Federally Sponsored (with corporate help) “Special Interest Resource Centers” Publish, Design a Logo, Link to GroupThink, or We Perish industry.

It’s important.    Look at the site (probably not most current, for general idea only):

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

[HHS/ACF -- and ACF is one of the largest OpDivs [Operational Divisions] of HHS)

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2012

BUDGET PAGE APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 269

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270

APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… 271

AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION ………………………………………………………………………… 273

OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 274

SUMMARY OF CHANGES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275

JUSTIFICATION:

GENERAL STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ……………………………………………………… 276

BUDGET REQUEST……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278

OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES TABLE ……………………………………………………………………………… 280

RESOURCE AND PROGRAM DATA ………………………………………………………………………………… 282

STATE TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 287

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are selected states (fairly whimsical, but I tried to honor Republican Primary Candidates, and Kansas gets a mention because it so recently re-organized the SRS department (which gets the OCSE funding) and is recommending women marry their way out of poverty, too bad for domestic violence (see Topkea) and as advised behind closed doors by some ultra-conservative experts, i.e., Wade Horn, etc.  Marriage & Fatherhood promotion are diversionary programs enabled under welfare law, and typically recruiting or program enrollment often happens at the child support level).  Look at some of the program titles and which branch of government gets the funding (or most of it), which varies by state:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS	KS	11IAKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 535,121
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	0904KS4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 698,875
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	1104KS4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 27,012,837
Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services	KS	90FD0145	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MONICA REMILLARD	$ 15,469
PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS	KS	11IBKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 250,000

IOWA, TEXAS, UTAH

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	0904TX4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 1,735,514
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	1104TX4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 193,122,346
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	0904UT4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 446,019
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	1104UT4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 22,067,247

Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11ICMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 143,405
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	07IDMN4004	2007 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 14,098
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11IDMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 217,386
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	0904MN4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 490,616
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	1104MN4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 101,786,892
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 69,684
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR **	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED		$ 198,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0904OH4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,961,680
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	1104OH4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 111,207,241
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0142	OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0174	OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 75,000
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	0904PA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 4,560,291
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	1104PA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 150,800,949
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS	MN	11IAMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 403,801
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11BIMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 307,298
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11IBMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 230,371

Results 1 to 25 of 25 matches.

**This “demonstrates” that at least browsing where money from the Dept. of HHS/OCSE is going from time to time, can be illuminating.  When one sees an unexplained acronym, it may be worth a closer look.  I figured “HMHR” had something to do with “Healthy Marriage” and was right.  Here’s the rest of the Ohio “HMHR” grants (spent for What?  Ohioans should look up) and found $198K per year for several years.  I also figured this is going on in more than one state, i.e., it’s some federal policy — and was right:

OHIO only (see grant award number has “OH” in it)

Fiscal Year	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2011	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2009	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2008	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2007	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2006	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$ 198,000

Results 1 to 5 of 5 matches.

$1.194 million so for — hope it’s a good program!

From the web:

1. Chapter 2: Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids …

   www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/eval…/grand_ch2.html

   The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement … TheHMHR project proposes to reach at least 2500 people over 5 years with direct …*   
   

   
   

   
   

2. More Specifically (and predictably):

1. Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids (HMHR) is a community-based initiative that delivers relationship skills-building services intended to encourage healthy relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, and to increase the financial well-being of children in a low-income urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver in October 2003. The Federal funding required a non-Federal match, and HMHR received a private grant from the Grand Rapids Community Foundation in November 2003. Community needs assessment, recruitment, and relationship building with partners and service delivery planning led to the delivery of relationship skills-building services starting in June 2004.

(Grand Rapids is something of a faith-based community to start with, Dutch Reformed, I seem to recall.  But this could be done anywhere).

 

2.1 Project Goals

The HMHR project proposes to reach at least 2,500 people over 5 years with direct family-strengthening activities such as training in parenting and relationship skills. The initiative has established goals that are broad-based and comprehensive—they encompass improving couple relationships and the parenting skills of low-income parents in the community. Ultimately, HMHR aims to “enhance the financial and emotional well-being of children” (Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004a; Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004b). The specific goals of the initiative are to

• increase the number of prepared healthy marriages among low-income couples in Kent county.
• decrease the divorce rate among low-income couples in Kent county.
• increase the active, healthy participation of noncustodial fathers in the lives of their children.
• increase the responsible and effective coparenting skills of married and unmarried parentsto include improvement of the relationship between low-income adults parenting children.{{I.e., Marital Counseling = Child Support Enforcement (diversionary waiver…) philosophy — typical!!
• facilitate, in Kent county, the measurable increase in agreement with the perspective that healthy marriages, healthy relationships between parents, and responsible parenting are criticalto the financial well-being of children.***SERIOUSly?? ?????   Governor Gray Davis (abou 2002 or so) vetoed an attempt to endorse Kids Turn programs to help children navigate the rocky terrain of divorce on the basis that he (as Governor of California) didn’t feel — although the legislature (which probably had a better idea of how this system works) that it was the place of the California Judicial Council to measure mental health matters.  Obviously persistent program promotion works.{{I.e., brainwashing, excuse me, attitude adjustment, typical favorable to religious views of independent mothers as dangerous more as wombs than full-status humans.  ”HERE:  Take my classes, and afterwards sign this agreement (survey) saying you believe this stuff, so we can get our grant next year, too!  Hungry?  well, go to the childs upport office and seek a modification, or to get it enforcement; that’s not a service we offer (directly) here”}}

Taken together, achieving the above objectives are intended to support** the following Title IV-D child support enforcement goals:

• Improve compliance with support obligations by noncustodial parents, when needed.
• Increase paternity establishment for low-income children born to unwed mothers (HMGR, 2004a; HMGR, 2004b)

**the road to hell has always been paved with “good intentions.”  It’s only in recent times? that merely expressing intent to “facilitate” attitude adjustment in order to reduce poverty (i.e., by increasing sales of relationship skills programs has been so well (federally) rewarded with so little justification.  See “Smartmarriages.com” and acknowledge how very smart that corporation’s founder indeed was! (place of incorporation, Washington, D.C., which is where conferences are also held yearly, or were? from 2000-2010, as I recall).

About these SIP programs (from HHS) — This is another place for marriage/fatherhood programs to come in. For the novice, a marriage promotion program (as we’ve seen the HHS organizations doing this, not one of which is truly feminist) IS a FATHERHOOD program. the same is practically true of programs called “CHILD” any more.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support_past_projects.html
ACF-FUNDED HMI DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND GRANT ACTIVITIES:
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)

2003 SIP Grants  (see above link for active links to these).
2005 SIP Grants
2006 SIP Grants

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) facilitates State and Tribal development of programs that locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity when necessary, and obtain and enforce child support orders..

Special Improvement Projects (SIPs)

{{isn’t that “special”?}}
SIP grants fund faith- and community-based organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal agencies, to improve child support outcomes such as paternity establishment and child support collections and improve the well-being of children.

These grants are authorized through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. During 2003-2006, the following projects received funding to provide child support and marriage education services to improve outcomes for children.   

While it reads “to provide child support services” we can see the “roundabout” reasoning, meaning, Tour de Marriage Enhancement, and possibly — well, we hope — this will result in more child support payments.

Several States (award goes directly to states) got these awards, all are marked “budget year 1″ all are “Demonstration” and none have a “principal investigator” listed.   MOST of the funding is as “Administrative Supplement” and this has been going on since 2003 or 2004.   Here’s a list omitting grantee institution so it’s alpha by state, “NEW” only, which is 27 awards out of 68 (a little less than half of them):

All of these are under straightforward CFDA 93563, “Child Support Enforcement” (although a separate category even exists for “research and demo).  These relationship mongering skills are Special Project Waivers.

State	County	Award Number	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Sum of Actions
CO	DENVER	0604COHMHR	01/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 276,726
FL	LEON	0504FLHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
FL	LEON	0604FLHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
GA	FULTON	0504GAHMHR	05/27/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
GA	FULTON	0604GAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
IL	SANGAMON	0504ILHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 273,003
IN	MARION	0804INHMHR	07/16/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
KY	FRANKLIN	0504KYHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
KY	FRANKLIN	0604KYHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0404LAHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0504LAHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0604LAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
MA	MIDDLESEX	0504MAHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 324,939
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0404MNHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0504MNHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0604MNHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0704MNHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
OH	FRANKLIN	0604OHHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
TX	TRAVIS	0604TXHMHR	10/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 499,092
WA	THURSTON	0604WAHMHR	03/15/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0605WAHMHR	04/20/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
WA	THURSTON	0704WAHMHR	08/08/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0705WAHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000

Results 1 to 27 of 27 matches

For comparison — in ONE year (nationwide) 772 OCSE grants (including, but not limited to these), totalling:

Total of 772 Award Actions for 171 Awards

Total Amount for all Award Actions:

$ 3,176,826,043

This doesn’t include important federal programs like abstinence education, either. . . . . .

Anyhow, click around TaGGS some, look at CFDA 93564 and find out just how much experimentation is really going on — plus get at least a few principal investigator’s names together to figure out what’s up.   Here’s a segment (no years selected) showing just how active TENNESSEE & TEXAS are, not to mention showing that sometimes people write “TEXAS” or “TX” or “State of” when it comes to state name format and sometimes, unbelievably, the word “Mr.” is entered under the name category, as I found out as to California, “Principal Investigator” for a $29,000 grant to help connect Title IV-A (TANF) and Title IV-D (Child Support). I hope the person making all these clerical errors (?) isn’t earning much more than $29,000 of my money to do so. Who’s training the database submission personnel at HHS, anyhow?   Howsabout some basic filing protocol, eh?  For reference, see phone book.

http://www.certain.com/event/accounts/register123/judicialcouncil/cfcc/events/20080006/Descriptions_8.25.pdf

What this tells me is that these states are fairly busy in “Child Support Research and Demonstration”  These are all CFDA 93564 (not 93563, and not 93597, which is Access/Visitation — which also promotes some of the same things.

California:

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	90FD0003	PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYST	3	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	PEGGY JENSEN	$- 73,983
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0083	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4	1	09/15/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LEORA GERSHENZON	$ 60,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	1	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 150,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	09/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	08/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	09/09/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	10/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHY HREPICH	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0158	SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORATION	1	09/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR BILL OTTERBECK	$ 29,000

STATE OF TENNESSEE	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/23/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 82,853
State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services	90FD0125	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-2)	1	08/23/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBBIE ENDRIS	$ 59,983
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	1	07/20/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,112
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0077	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 60,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0102	TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	09/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LINDA CHAPPELL	$ 62,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/31/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 101,427
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	07/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,688
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	03/06/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	02/24/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/20/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 54,612
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 52,034
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	05/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	09/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 50,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	05/18/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 71,240
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	3	08/08/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 47,500
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 85,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	2	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 75,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0177	INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE	1	09/24/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 55,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0052	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III)	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	WILLIAM H ROGERS	$- 8,058
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0073	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-P.A. 2	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MICHAEL HAYES	$- 6,976
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0078	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 80,040
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0085	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	1	08/29/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WILL ROGERS	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	09/27/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA CAFFERATA	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	01/08/2005	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KAREN HENSON	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	3	08/16/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KAREN HENSON	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0092	TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	1	09/09/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL D HAYES	$ 125,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	07/27/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	03/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	07/31/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	06/27/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HAILEY KEMP	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	2	08/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	03/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	TED WHITE	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0134	OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER	1	09/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 703,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	1	08/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAMMI SIEMENS	$ 100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	09/07/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	01/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	09/25/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 85,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	08/29/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 99,348
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/19/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	1	09/01/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 150,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	09/26/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	08/10/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	06/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	08/31/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	06/22/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
UT ST DIV

RE:

 

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out o[u]r mission to improve the way the family courts do business.  He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

 

The shows bring up consistently valuable speakers, and it’s true some segments have featured the effect of the TANF budget, and the 66/34 effect.  The press-releases prior to show are jam-packed with links and information and shows in themselves.

My perspective and purpose differs somewhat, and I believe that given the urgency of the times, it is vERY necessary to locate people (particularly mothers) who are willing to blow the cover on the DV industry sellout AS MOTHERS in custody challenges, and FATHERS who are willing to blow the cover on how these program diversions are actually conceived with intent to divert profits to already profiting individuals in various institutions, and expand welfare until it blankets the United States with relationship education, whether or not this entails poor and needy families on the “take our program” side.  I have a general idea of what kind of people are drawn to the “give me a grant, I’ll push your product” side — whether at the professional level (the two professors from UDenver who have PREP, Inc. thing going), and other contracting organizations (MDRC, Maximus, etc.) who defraud (allegedly, judging by how often they get sued) and the judges etc. with their retirement plan & income supplementation at public expense plans (the Kids’ Turns and Family Justice Centers of the world) and the “let’s do a NICE conference business.

 

In recent days/weeks, I’ve had an absolutely wonderful looking, articulate, attractive intelligent mother (a widow) and grandmother in her sixties come up to me, at a loss regarding finding work.  She was downsized after twenty-nine (29) years in what sounds like very responsible, executive responsibility support staff in an engineering firm for a huge company.   What is she to do?  I looked at her with my court-custody-DV-strewn work life scenario and was thankful that at least this disaster prepared me for handling more of the same; my disadvantage working to my survival advantage in a rapidly changing world.

And I prefer to bake my own cakes at many points.  Years of having social / community relationships compromised by court filings and sudden disappearance of my kids (I don’t think a mother EVER gets over that, no matter what else she does in life), not because they served in Iraq, but because they were born in this country and in that decade of Jim Crow times regarding civil rights for women, too.

(and here’s the end of my 11,000 — so far — word post.  That includes the tables, of course):  A person working to stop child slavery in California is on:  here is the nonprofit description of HOW children girls are kept in line:

 

Director of this Chino, California organization, The Faces of Slavery, is “Juana Zapata.”  It’s site has tremendous graphics, and “FACES” is an acronym:  Fight Against Child Exploitation And Sexual Slavery    of AMERICAN CHILDREN.  ”Amber’s Story” deals with a runaway (my mind immediately thinks of reasons a child might run away, one of which is violence or abuse in the home, including molestation.    So why not do better at stopping that to start with?)

Please read this site.  The problem is real!  (see “Franklin Coverup” also)

 

The Problem of Child Sex Slavery, http://www.facess.org/problem.html     Today there are at least 20,000 slaves under the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Department of Justice, the average of these children is 13 years old. 80% of these children are girls and 80% of those girls are sexual slaves like “Amber”. The life expectancy of girls like “Amber” is 7 – 10 years from the time of their abduction and the start of their enslavement. Amber and countless other girls experience on a daily basis: Rape Assault Neglect Starvation Torture False imprisonment Exploitation Drugging Emotional, physical And mental abuse Slaveholders will send “testers” in to the girls to pretend to rescue the girl. If she engages with the tester she will be beaten. At some point the girl gives up and becomes resigned to her new life – her hell on earth. Survival mode will kick in and she will quickly become hardened, disconnected, hopeless, angry, and isolated – trusting no one, which is the slaveholder’s goal. Why Don’t These Girls Try to Escape? There are many different methods these slaveholders use to manipulate and control their slaves. These impressionable and dependent children want to be accepted by someone. The slaveholder is the only one they really know in their new reality. Between the abuses and in an effort to keep the children the slaveholder will also tell the girls he loves them, buy them gifts, and take them to exciting places in order to keep them submissive, producing a Stockholm Syndrome where the victim actually thinks they are being loved – thus skewing their concept of love. What Is Our Government Doing About Slavery? The answer to that question is, “Not much.” F.B.I. recovery numbers are 900 children per year. Typically, the recovery rate is less than 1% of the actual trafficked population. And what happens to a child like “Amber” when she is rescued? The Department of Justice has confirmed that care facilities specifically designed to support these trafficked children can give shelter to less than 100 of them. F.B.I. policy is to place these rescued victims into juvenile hall which sends the message to these children that they are criminals. The cost of a child in juvenile hall is $250 per day. Government agencies cannot give these children what they need most – love.

See the bullets above?  Sometimes many of those features happen WITHIN nuclear families — sometimes even within families that have biologically related Mom, Pop and Kids.   And yet still the building block of society has to be families?

for the healing process — imagine this:

 

How We Can Make a Difference

What does a child like “Amber” need to heal from the deep mental, emotional, and physical scars that have been inflicted upon her? She needs a warm, safe, peaceful, place. She needs to be surrounded by people who will gently guide her, support her, encourage her, and show her what real love is. We can provide these very things.

Our property in California is tucked away in a beautiful, quiet and safe place. We are surrounded by trees and ponds and mountains. We have the ability to provide fun and “normal” activities such as hiking, swimming, other water sports, museums, dining out, movies, playing games so she can regain her childhood.

 

Similarly, after severe violence IN the home — although surely this must be worse — children who grew up “Exposed to Violence” including watching one parent beat the other (adjust to accommodate step-parent, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.) — they too need a healing and detox period.

But they are not getting it for long — and primarily they are not getting this because the custody courts, with their AFCC, their Access Visitation (CRC theory), their incentives to prolong war (while claiming they stop it) and their assets-stripping, bone-chilling, never ending encouragement of the worse parent when “worse” is obvious — will not allow for, our society is just not ready to accommodate and SAY NO TO  custody — ANY type of custody and particularly not joint, and not shared — when one parent has already demonstrated assault and battery, threats, economic oppression & “pimping” (this happened to me.  I worked, he got the checks, I got threatened and slapped, kicked, choked, etc., sleep-deprived anyhow.  I provided the job reference for the credit application — he got the credit! etc.  Once you start one of these relationships, if you are not committed to IMMEDIATELY terminate it, it’s very hard to get out.

And in this climate, once you get out, here comes “conciliation code” and a bunch of people who are not “rich enough” yet to defraud people of their rights to exist, legally and simply live, as INDIVIDUALS in this country.   See “Ohio Fatherhood Commission” (targeting counties with single mothers) for a nice example.  It is ONLY going to get worse until this is stopped, and I know that I alone cannot stop this.

 

Here is a facebook page which states Government Agencies are looking to F.A.C.E.S.S. but we also need your donations

 

REGISTRATION, Secretary of State?  I don’t know:   I see these (after FACESS and “Fight Against” searches didn’t turn up a registration) or “FACESS” with or without the periods:

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

Results of search for “ F.A.C.E.S. ” returned no entity records.

Record not found.

As to those initials for Charities (i.e., nonprofits) in California, the only ones I see (both delinquent) relate to Autism, i.e., that’s what the “A” in the acronym stands for.  Our F.A.C.E.S.S. doesn’t show in California as a nonprofit:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type F.A.C.E.S. FOR KIDS, INC. 099503 Charity Dissolution Pending REDWOOD CITY CA Charity Registration Charity F.A.C.E.S. OF THE EAST BAY 116862 Charity Delinquent OAKLAND CA Charity Registration Charity 1

 (facebook logo’ FB shows 392 followers on the page)

These would be the corporate registrations.  Only one (formed about a year ago) is left standing here in California:

 

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2439255	03/01/2004	SUSPENDED	CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION	DAVID REPLOGLE
C1229360	10/12/1983	DISSOLVED	FAMILY AWARENESS OF CHILD EXPLOITATION – IN-TRUDERS	CHARMAINE DENNIS
C3367022	03/17/2011	ACTIVE	FOUNDATION AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION & HUMAN TRAFFICKING	ERIC BUSH
C1195950	03/06/1987	SUSPENDED	PEOPLE AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION	JAMES D DAVIES

So far, I see a facebook page.  The website direcst people to the Facebook page, and the law enforcement link (on the website) is by password only, understandably.

 

Just that if someone is seeking donations, we seek an EIN# and registration.  It’s that simple.  So perhaps I will call in and simply ask — is there an umbrella organization?:

There are “10 people” names Juana Zapata in California, and 1 (with 1 connection only) on LinkedIn.  There’s the mother of a young man whose car crahsed into and killed a police officer in Freson, listed as his 47 year old mother (the young man not living at home at the time, and being the youngest of 5 at age 19)

http://www.kristieslaw.org/fresno.htm  This is a hard story to hear, and probably a different woman involved, as apparently this mother needed a translator.  It’s undated.

 

Featured here, protesting (it seems) an “adult” page in a paper, or on-line, from “The Majestic Dreams Foundation”

http://www.themajestic.org/blog/2011/10/07/Press-Release-The-Daily-Titan.aspx

”The advocates of anti-slavery held signs that read, “Hey Ortega! Real men don’t buy girls” and “I am the key to free,” while protesting Ortega and the conglomerate which owns BackPage.com.Lizeth Sebastian, 21, pioneer of the anti-human trafficking club at Chapman University called Set Captives Free, said many people are unaware that sex trafficking is happening in local areas.Juana Zapata, from Faces of Slavery, said for the past three years her organization has been rescuing and protecting girls who have been victims of human trafficking and who were advertised on BackPage.com, averaging one girl every six weeks.“We are a permanent residential place for them (the victims),” said Zapata, who was invited to the protest by Cenedella. “For us it’s very important that the public knows that this is actually happening right here; it’s not international. Students have to be fully aware what’s happening with their generation and they are the voice.

This is a GRIPPING story of Aimee, and what happened after she reported abuse from the ages of 8 to 12 by a priest, a friend of her aunt.  She reported it at age 17 to a minister, then to law enforcement, and was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, a 51-50 psychiatric hold (without her mother’s knowledge) with resulting lasting damage, and in general was treated as the criminal  .

Her report went from minister to law enforcement to hold, to hospital in short order.  Her family which refused to believe the story are estranged — BUT she was able to make a film.

 

The Majestic Dreams Foundation is a  nonprofit organization located in Southern California.  It was formed and created byAimee Galicia Torres on January 8, 2010.

The Majestic Dreams Foundation aims to provide aide to sexually abused survivors as well as promote awareness for all forms of abuse. The Majestic Dreams Foundation teams up with film production company, Trinity Alliance Films to provide films that reflect this growing epidemic so that we as a society can bring about a change.

 

This day forever changed the rest of her life.  That very day, Aimee underwent hours of questioning by the local police department as the suspect, Honesto Bismonte, was placed immediately in jail.  After a long interview, receiving scrutiny from the police department, Aimee was sent to undergo a psychological evaluation by a county psychologist.  However, to her surprise, when she was being escorted by two police officers, they admitted her into the hospital without her knowledge.  She was placed on a 51-50, hold, which means she legally must remain admitted for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours. . .

When Aimee was 16,** she fell into an abusive relationship with her boyfriend of 3 1/2 years.  He would physically abuse her and attempted to kill her on various occasions. Through the numerous years of psychological, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse Aimee has received, she decided to turn everything into a positive learning experience.  She wanted to show abused victims and survivors, that despite any obstacle, you can succeed.  Aimee is proud to say, that throughout it all, she has never smoked or taken any drug of any kind. “Just because horrible things happen in our lives, we must be strong to not let it get the best of us.”

Relationship, much? from sexual abuse ages 8-12 by a priest, and from 12-1/2 through 16, sought “refuge” in another relationship with at least a non-priest, but another abuser?

Aimee has been a strong advocate for victim’s rights.  She is an avid supporter of RAINN (Rape, Abuse National Network), Rescue & Restore Victims of Human Trafficking, ACF Trafficking, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Perverted Justice and more.

This young woman is a graduate of the NY Film Academy, apparently her mother also was a producer?  Here’s a company she founded in “2004″ (January 2005).  I did not find the foundations, yet, but I see the high energy that sometimes people who get OUT of abuse have afterwards; they/we are simply so excited to be free, and creativity is at an all-time high, plus speaking to the cause.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
200501110252	01/10/2005	ACTIVE	AIMESTER PRODUCTIONS LLC	AIMEE GALICIA TORRES

?? Aimee is the registered agent; the “jurisdiction” (which street address I looked up — I always try to look up street addresses ) is for “New America Foundation” — the California Office.  this is supposedly where the LLC business is, and Ms. Torres’ address (or, Studio City, CA) is the “registered agent” address:

Main Office New America Foundation 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Map & Directions Phone: 202-986-2700 Fax: 202-986-3696

California Office New America Foundation 921 11th Street, Suite 901 Sacramento, CA 95814 Map & Directions Phone: 916-448-5189 Fax: 916-448-3724

This is a very interesting corporation (and not the subject of today’s post); ties to the council on Foreign Relations, and a board of 21 people, about 5 women, and some extremely high-achieving ones, too.  I am not sure how this ties into “Aimester Productions, LLC” of — as of yet — where “FACESS” actually resides as a corporation, other than on facebook and a website.  Such are the times we live in; we’d best deal with it!

one-half hour to the radio show, if you are planning to call in it’s 1-646-595-2134.  Again, I feel the focus is far broader than the pressing need in the family courts and child support (etc.) business entails at this point.  But it will be informative.

There is going to be a Judge from Georgia, we should ask what he thinks about (1) the Nancy Schaefer alleged murder/suicide while investigating CPS; (2) how nice to have a Georgia Judge on a Nationwide CCJJDP commission (“CC” standing for “Coordinating Council”:

These being the (appointed) “Practitioner Members” in addition to heads of various agencies:

Laurie Garduque
Adele L. Grubbs
Byron Johnson
Steven H. Jonesen
Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Pamela Rodriguez
Deborah Schumacher
Trina Thompson
Richard Vincent

The Hon. Adele L. Grubbs, as I recall, made an in absentia appearance on a previous show, when one of the callers related being incarcerated for 18 months around something regarding the sale of her home AFTER she’d been forced into bankruptcy (through custody matters, what else?) and it had already been foreclosed.  I can’t recall ALL the details.   I also know a woman in Georgia in terror in that her ex-kidnapper had done his time, and was stalking again.   And people in Pennsylvania have been made aware of the dynamic duo Parent Coordinators (Susan Boyan & Ann Marie Termini, the latter working out of Lackawanna County), with the expired associations their names are associated with, and the invisible (to me, at least) anywhere “Cooperative Parenting Institute” advertised at parentcoordinationcentral.com or whatever that site’s name is.

Georgia must be a beautiful (landscape Geography) state, I have a feeling.  It is also known in some circles for the (in)famous Georgia Fatherhood Initiative, a statewide deal organized out of the DHS, OCSE I guess:

The Georgia Fatherhood Program, created by the Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) in 1997, works with non-custodial parents who owe child support through DCSS but are unable to pay. Georgia’s Fatherhood Program is the largest state-operated fatherhood program in the country. Several thousands of non-custodial parents received services through the program during the past year. Gainful, stable employment enables these parents to provide regular financial support for their children. Fatherhood Program participants paid $18.7 million in child support during FY 2005.

Georgia recognized early on that many non-custodial parents wanted to pay their court-ordered child support, but lacked the economic capacity to do so. DCSS has partnered with other government and community agencies to develop a comprehensive network of services for this group.

The Fatherhood Program:
• Generally takes three to six months to complete.
• Serves both fathers and mothers who are non-custodial parents. . .

The Georgia Fatherhood Program is implemented by the Fatherhood Services Network, sponsored by the Department of Human Services’ Division of Child Support Services. The Network includes:
• Georgia Department of Human Services
• Child Access and Visitation Program
• Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program
• Georgia Family Connections Partnership** (a nice nonprofit including a Juvenile Court judge on its board…)
• DCSS, which contracts with:
• Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education
• Georgia Department of Labor
• DeKalb County Fatherhood Initiative Network

Anyhow, it sure should be interesting.

Repeat Until Enough Believe It, Then Pass a State-level Statute to Authorize: “Parenting Coordination, Parenting Coordination!”

See “THE NEW FRONTIER - Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts.”

I write this post to again advertise HOW — H-O-W — this organization, for one, is obsessed with promoting ITS self-interests at the expense of others’ safety, sanity, and of the truth.  And for at least a decade now, it has been REALLY obsessed with “Parent Coordination,” and less than interested in INcorporation of Parent Coordination Associations:

 

 

FOR EXAMPLE (from Georgia Secretary of State).

Business Entity Name Control No Type Status Entity Creation Date NATIONAL PARENT COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION, INC. 0207284 Non-Profit Corporation Admin. Dissolved 2/11/2002

(Street address is not the point here; it’s public record, but if you need to write someone, look it up yourself).

Entity Creation Date:	2/11/2002
Dissolve Date:	5/16/2008

Officers
Title:	CEO
Name:	SUSAN BOYAN
Address:	X X X X ATLANTA GA 30329
Title:	CFO
Name:	ANN MARIE TERMINI
Address:	X X X X ATLANTA GA 30329

They stopped giving annual filings in 2006, it just took 2 years to get administratively dissolved.  So the organization was around for almost (not quite) 4 years.

 

FLORIDA PARENT COORDINATION –

(This section got long because I found something and researched it.)

 

Here’s one in Florida that didn’t ever get an EIN# and lasted 1 year 7 months:

Was anyone billed for services under this name?  Where’s the receipts?

Detail by Entity Name

Florida Profit Corporation

PARENT COORDINATOR SERVICES INCORPORATED

Filing Information

Document Number P05000016833 FEI/EIN Number NONE Date Filed 02/01/2005 State FL Status INACTIVE Effective Date 02/01/2005 Last Event ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT Event Date Filed 09/15/2006 Event Effective Date NONE

Principal Address

282 SHORT AVE LONGWOOD FL 32750

Changed 07/25/2006

Mailing Address

282 SHORT AVE LONGWOOD FL 32750

Changed 07/25/2006

Registered Agent Name & Address

RUFIANGE, ANNE B 172 WARREN AVE LONGWOOD FL 32750 US

However the Ficititous name associated (“Parent Coordinator Services“) didn’t expire til 2010

Ms. Rufiange, LMFT (I just looked it up) is listed as an “Assessor” in various “Circuits” at Florida’s DCF, and associated with “Families Against Abuse” in google search, but I don’t see her name on the site.  By the way, this is a powerful statement here (although refers to Boston area, “How I Got My Daughter Back.”).  However, in Florida (at original street address, above) one can see some BIP (Batterers Intervention Programs) being run:

We are a DCF certified “Duluth Model” 26-week Men’s BIP program with three locations in the Central Florida area.  We offer Domestic Violence Assessments and groups by a certified staff of male and female facilitators.  All groups are one and a half hours once a week and are charged on a sliding scale.  Registration is free.  We offer classes on a variety of days and times (including Saturdays!) in different locations in order to accommodate your work schedule as best we can.  Our locations in Orange and Seminole Counties are:

1. Families Against Abuse @ 1510 E. Colonial Drive, Suite 230, Orlando, FL 32803

2. Families Against Abuse @ 4467 Edgewater Drive, Suite C, Orlando, FL 32804

3. Families Against Abuse @ 282 Short Avenue, Suite 112, Longwood, FL 32750

We also offer drug/alcohol evaluations by a certified addiction professional at your at our other company, Families in Recovery

 

These two (Different) sites illustrate the polar opposites of how to counter abuse.  ”FamiliesAgainstAbuse.com” is the mother’s perspective.  FamiliesAgainstAbuse.NET (see log) is the state’s.  Guess which one I prefer…

Now that Ms. Rufiange has my attention (through two nonprofits at one street address) I looked up her business incorporation history in Florida at Sunbiz.org (LOVE that site…):  I’ll comment on each of them quickly, below the list.  (There’s some duplication because it was a Document search, not a business name search)

Officer/RA Name	Entity Name	Entity Number
RUFIANGE, ANNE	A ABUSO ZERO TOLERANCIA, INC. (1)	P10000077630
RUFIANGE, ANNE	MCC INCORPORATED (2)	P95000050809
RUFIANGE, ANNE B	PARENT COORDINATOR SERVICES INCORPORATED (3)	P05000016833
RUFIANGE, ANNE B	FAMILIES IN RECOVERY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA INC. (4)	P05000098522
RUFIANGE, ANNE B	FAMILIES AGAINST ABUSE, INC. (5)	P99000038588
RUFIANGE, ANNE B	PARENT COORDINATOR SERVICES INCORPORATED	P05000016833
RUFIANGE, ANNE B	FAMILIES IN RECOVERY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA INC.	P05000098522
RUFIANGE, ANNE B	FAMILIES AGAINST ABUSE, INC. (5)	P99000038588

(1) 282 Short Ave #106.  Lasted 9/24/2010 – 9/23/2011, never got an EIN, involuntarily dissolved.  She’s officer, someone else registered agent.  No annual reports filed.

(2) 282 Short Ave, no Suite#.  Incorporated (effective) 7/1/1995, Admin Dissolut. for Annual Report, 9/15/2006. Actually got an EIN#:  593328214.  Checking two places by EIN#, I see no filings.  I doubt TAGGS would show any; someone should check Florida DCF, though.

Apparently only filed annual reports 2003, 2004, 2005! although plenty show on the system!   Dir. Rufiange resigned (stamped 11/2005), send all correspondence to (Suite #116) “Families in Recovery.” I linked to the image so you can read this.  Middle name doesn’t have a “B”??

(3) I have pasted, above.  No Suite#.  Overlaps with #1:  Effective 2/2005 through 9/2006 (1 yr 7 months) dissolved for failure to file.

(4) 282 Short Ave #112.  Formed 7/13/2005 EIN# 203134721.   “Annual” reports were filed in 2009, 2010 & 2011 only.  This is a For-Profit

Seems like she’s found her “niche” here — it’s outpatient substance abuse treatment (takes Medicare.  Note:  FLAG!).  There are a ton of websites advertising this, which doesn’t say anything about patients actually served.

Services Provided

• Substance Abuse Treatment (TX)

Type of Care

• Outpatient (OP)

Specific Populations Served

• Persons with Dual Diagnosis (CO)
• Seniors(SE)
• Criminal Justice Clients (CJ)

Forms of Payment Accepted

• Medicare (MC)

There is a husband?  Bob Rufiange, who also works at this two-person? counseling firm, above:

Families In Recovery 

282 Short Avenue # 116
Longwood, FL 32750-4916

map

Phone: (407) 841-2881

About:
Families In Recovery in Longwood, FL is a private company which is listed under counseling services.

Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $95,000 and employs a staff of 2.

“Families In Recovery in Longwood, FL is a private company categorized under Counseling Services. Our records show it was established in 1996 and incorporated in Florida”

(oh?  Sunbiz says in 2005).

THIS RFP extension of a $62,000 contract (youth counseling diversion project, Seminole County) was signed to extend from 2002 through 2003 (one more year) by six provider groups, including “Families in Recovery,” Anne Rew Ruffiange.  It explains better that she’s a service provider contracting (with  5 others) with the county, and possibly in other arenas also.  See #5.  Also, Orange County Business Tax Receipts listing (2010) has the company in two different categories (just FYI).  Apparently “MCC Incorporated” is “dba” Families In Recovery (?), per another Orange County site.

A publication of the Child Abuse Prevention Task Force lists Families & Recover and Families Against Abuse together under “Resources/Counseling”

Another list of providers has Families in Recovery as Suite 100 (see above), an Orange County “District 7″ provider list.  This shows her degrees as “M.Ed” and credential “CAP” (=?)

This is the Seminar:

503—“The Dual-Diagnosed Client: Linking Substance Abuse and Domestic Violence Treatment in Your Treatment Plans”

This workshop will assist in understanding the characteristics of batterers and emphasize the development of effective linkages of services between addiction and domestic violence programs. This is paramount if both agencies are to successfully achieve their mission. Each program has its own philoso- phies, terminology, treatment goals and objectives. Learn to successfully design and incorporate treatment for both important issues.

Anne Rufiange, LMFT, CAP

This is the “DV is a Pathology” (not a crime) viewpoint, which is helpful if you are providing intervention services for both pathologies.  It’s interesting, because the 10 year study at acestudy.org links physical & sexual abuse of kids  (as an “Adverse Childhood Event”) as putting people at risk for self-destructive behaviors (including substance abuse, obesity — which was where the study originated, prostitution, runaway, etc, as I recall) in adulthood.

I really wonder just HOW many other problems in the USA would be eliminated if someone began to take the abuse of women and children seriously with a view to STOPPING it, not just developing programs to TREAT it, or to TREAT professionals who choose not to identify and STOP it.  A great place to find these professionals is in the AFCC & CRC, by the way — who value “family” over protection for kids and whichever parent was the most endangered.

(5) Families Against Abuse –

Florida Profit Corporation

FAMILIES AGAINST ABUSE, INC.

Filing Information

Document Number P99000038588 FEI/EIN Number 593579747 Date Filed 04/28/1999 State FL Status INACTIVE Last Event ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT Event Date Filed 09/15/2006 Event Effective Date NONE

Principal Address

282 SHORT AVE. LONGWOOD FL 32750

This organization (at various addresses – see below logo) as far as I can see is STILL listed as a “Certified Batterers Intervention Provider” in Circuits 5, 9, and 18 (all 3 address remain on file) with  http://dv.dcf.state.fl.us/results.aspx?type=bip or “MY FLORIDA.COM ™ which is “The official portal of the state of Florida”

This is the most complete summary of who this (erstwhile, would-be) Parent Coordinator Services person is, by profession and interest:  She is listed as faculty on a 2005 (Cape Cod, MA) 18th Symposium on Addictive Disorders.  You should see the list of associations participating!

Anne Rufiange is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, Certified Addiction Professional, Florida Supreme Court Certified Family Mediator, Certified Assessor, Facilitator, Supervisor and Trainer in Batterers’ Intervention.

This 2007 revision describes varieties of  (Court-related) mediators, and what’s required to become one, plus who provides the training.   On the Court Site itself, the types of certification, and requirements, are listed.  Please note that the last statement under each kind says:

        (5)     be of good moral character.

SUMMARY of THIS DATA (FROM FLORIDA):

I have just showed (us) that a would-be, or current, or one-time “parenting coordinator” person has held a counseling contract with at least Seminole County, FL for a company called “Families in Recovery” prior to 2002 (see RFP request for extension which she signed), although this for-profit corporation, it seems (I have to qualify) did not incorporate until 2005.  This could be checked out.  She was part of a contract under a Youth Diversion program “PAY” with others.  This person has a history of multiple nonprofits at the same address, failure to file annual reports, and some dissolutions for failure to file.  One of the corporations “MCC” was a dba of another (“Families in Recovery”) according to some paperwork.  Her masters (we don’t see yet WHERE) is an M.Ed.D. (one of the easiest masters to get, out of all of them), and she is certified in almost anything which would take business, including Medicaid business, from the courts.   She subscribes hook, line and sinker to the DAIP (Duluth Abuse Intervention Program) way of life — possibly because it’s good income — and seems to have a lot of experience with substance abuse, enough to become “faculty” at a conference.

(Then again Danielle M. Ross of Scranton, PA was also faculty along with Termini & Harhut, at a conference.)

Ms. Rufiange may be a nice person, and she may be competent– is certified up one side and down the other in various professions that ALL take business from the courts, and some from MediCaid — except that she’s chosen to believe that batterers’ intervention actually works.  If it were not enough to also become a certified mediator, I also feel that to espouse parent coordination at all, shows a person that knows how to stay close to the faucet and likes to function as a counselor/patient relationship.  She knows HOW to do these things — including too busy to stay incorporated, doesn’t bother to get incorporated.   None of these (that I saw, above) is a nonprofit, so no one gets to see the tax returns without some kind of subpoena, if then.   Unless a former client or someone in the area sees fit to pull a few FOIAs, I doubt that this livelihood (including Medicaid payments for treatment) is going to click along nicely, whether or not her corporations ever get “busted” around the annual report failures to file.)

It does say something about Seminole County if they are taking business from an unregistered business, but that wouldn’t be new, either.)

NOTE:  There is an Anne RUEL Rufiange and there is an Anne BARRETT Rufiange.  (Don’t ask me to explain that.)

282 Short is an Office building:

How can a county fill out a contract with an entity which has a name, but isn’t incorporated?   I just don’t get that!

 

BACK TO THIS TOPIC; AGAIN:

See “THE NEW FRONTIER - Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts.”

I write this post to again advertise HOW — H-O-W — this organization, for one, is obsessed with promoting ITS self-interests at the expense of others’ safety, sanity, and of the truth.  And for at least a decade now, it has been REALLY obsessed with “Parent Coordination,” and less than interested in INcorporation of Parent Coordination Associations:

I can’t even deal with the content of that title, or I’ll never finish this post.

For example, for such a self-conforming group requiring the rest of the entire country’s family & conciliation courts to follow their pioneering efforts — simply because they are so well positioned, like membership includes State Superior Court Judges, quite a few people sitting on the top governing organization for the entire California Court System (which, FYI, is the largest in the nation’s — we have the most courts, apparently) — CA Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC — and a whole BOATload of superior court judges too, most of who tow the party line without veering, almost ever, from the founders’ vision of transforming the language of criminal, billing the counties for marriage counseling in an effort to turn back the clock on divorce, and in the process spawning a very profitable industry for people who are probably among the most overpaid people among white collar professionals to start with — and plenty of them working IN government as public servants — etc.

The landscape has “Changed” because certain people didn’t like it as it was — with separation of legal, judicial and executive power for the protection of civil and legal liberties of INDIVIDUALs.  In that realm, the mental health professional could still function — but was not the reigning operative, whose word was to become law, in accordance with a host of judges who could observe that the parents coming before them were indeed mentally disturbed — but not acknowledge WHY, meaning, someone forgot to inform them in advance that the law was in suspension, and psychology reigned supreme; and that this brilliant system need not read case files or collect facts, simply assign more personnel.

Parenting Coordination appears to be still high-priority, although the AFCC is racking up a series of state-level successes (it seems) in first saturation their own press with the word, then assigning parent coordinators, in practice, then continuing to push for it to be endorsed by legislation.  I know I already spoke about how AFCC in Florida managed to make this happen.

Meanwhile, in SCRANTON, one of the Dynamic Duo I keep reporting on (Boyan/Termini), with good reason, continues to apparently get business from the courts.  Joe Pilchesky asked to see her payment receipts and got some, finding out that she is paid on two scales, and also wrote got reimbursed (or requested it) for hotel fees for attending a conference at the “NACC” (National Association for Children’s Counsel), presenting alongside The Hon. Chester Harhut and GAL Danielle M. Ross.

So those receipts are still up and viewable, I believe, under the thread “Co-Parenting” at Scranton Political Times.  It is possibly the most valuable part of the forum, some of the paperwork that was obtained from the courts.  There’s be more, only the FBI swooped in and walked off with a lot of evidence, apparently.  I don’t think anyone has heard from them recently, and I”m not keeping my fingers crossed on what they’re going to report.  Hope is a pleasant emotion, but I try not to build anything substantial on it –at least in this world!

I GATHER IT MUST BE REALLY CRITICAL TO CONTINUED SUCCESS OF THIS FAMILY COURT CORRUPTION, HENCE I’M CONTINUING TO BLOG IT.  ALSO, THE TERM IS OFFENSIVE TO COMMON SENSE — HOW MANY PARENTS REALLY CAN’T “WALK AND CHEW GUM“?  THE PROBLEM ISN’T LACK OF COORDINATION, IT’S CONTEMPT OF COURT ORDERS, OR POORLY WRITTEN COURT ORDERS, THAT CAUSE THE ONGOING TROUBLES.

This appears to be the general idea retained by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (California Chapter), judging by the upcoming workshop at an upcoming conference.  Here’s the paragraph, which is workshop 2 of a full-day “Pre-conference” institute, upcoming in February.  Oh to be a fly on the wall there!

Let’s look at how many times we can say “parenting coordination” in one paragraph:

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

As budget cuts result in long waits for courtrooms, Consensual Dispute Resolution models like Parenting Coordination grow more attractive. This full day Institute provides an in-depth picture of Parenting Coordination in California for parenting coordinators (a.k.a. parenting plan coordinators, parent coordinators, child custody special masters or wise persons), and for the lawyers, mental health professionals and judges who refer families to parenting coordination, advise parents in parenting coordination, and deal with orders and recommendations of parenting coordinators. The program will address the history and legal underpinnings of Parenting Coordination in California; identifying the families who will benefit from Parenting Coordination; developing orders appointing parenting coordinators; best practices for psychologists and lawyers acting as parenting coordinators; compensation of parenting coordinators; and ethical guidelines, grievances and professional discipline.

Presenters: Lyn Greenberg, Ph.D., Alexandra Leichtner, JD, Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

• 13 times in 3 sentences plus one workshop title.  Pause, and see if you read it all aloud in one breath without stumbling.  If you can’t, and you’re a parent, you need coordination.
• Take that phrase out, see what verbs are left, and get an idea of any actual IDEAS in there.
• We should also be very comforted to know that one of the presenters, Ms. Shear, has 10 initials (in 3 segments) behind her name, and is the same person who (on a site, ACFLS*) described that a few hours of browsing the internet for the terms like “Domestic violence” would qualify her to advise The Public on the topic.  Perhaps she is not citing “ACFLS” here with good cause — it probably still hasn’t filed.    Even her own ACFLS team-mates took her on for trying to do some rabble-rowsing on the Frankie Valli case, before reading BOTH sides of the issue, but it must be nice to be a big fish in a small pond, and lead off the presentation there.

* the “A” in ACFLS stands for “Ass’n.” as I explained yesterday.  It does in AFCC also.  Since “FCC” stands for Family & Conciliation Courts, we should hardly be surprised when there is no respect for INDIVIDUAL’s rights when it comes to the group discussing absent parents.  They are a plural, they think in plural, and despite the talk (and the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, etc.) are a groupthink organization led by some prominent personalities which continue leading the pack, and having their publications sited, until they age out by simply growing old enough to die, which Meyer Elkin and I guess Jude Pfaff have by now.  Joan Kelly et al. have not.

While I”m here — I’m curious about what’s the difference between a FAMILY court and a CONCILLIATION court.  I hear they are different sets of codes.   Funny, one rarely pauses to think about it.  Either way, this ASSociation wishes to lead them both.

The “ACFLS” formed in 1980.  If you’re taking its word for when it formed.  Or, 1995, if you’re taking the word of the California Secretary of State.  Give or take 15 years, it’s family law, after all — close enough, right?

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1955108	12/04/1995	ACTIVE	ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS, INC.	LYNN MARIE PFEIFER

When I look at the Charitable Registry, it is labeled “Exempt Active” (Search HERE) and has no EIN# and no material up there.

OK — Mea Culpa — I don’t deal that much with “Exempt” nonprofit associations, so here’s the rules on that — and this ACFLS doesn’t HAVE to show its stuff to the public.  It’s a mutual benefit organization (i trust it’s not a religious organization, although generally speaking, I find AFCC policies line up neatly with conservative religious groups neatly; aka, see California Healthy Marriages Coalition):

Exempt – Active – Status assigned to religious and mutual benefit corporations,as both are exempt from registration and reporting requirements under the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act. “Active” reflects the organization’s status with the Secretary of State.

Exempt – Inactive – Status assigned to religious and mutual benefit corporations, as both are exempt from registration and reporting requirements under the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act. These organizations show as “Suspended” in the Secretary of State’s records.

Exempt – Dissolved – Status assigned to religious and mutual benefit corporations, as both are exempt from registration and reporting requirements under the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act. These organizations have completed the dissolution process with the Secretary of State’s office.

Now, the conference I’m quoting from (with the Parenting Coordination paragraph above, link below) is being held by THIS association (top row)

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1587819	05/15/1987	ACTIVE	ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS THE CALIFORNIA CHAPTER	LULU L WONG
C1091990	10/01/1981	SURRENDER	ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS	MARGARET LITTLE

I left an active search link on the bottom (AFCC) title, “Surrendered” so one can see that its Registered Agent address was 111 Hill Street, Los Angeles (which is the courthouse, last I heard) and its Jurisdiction, for some strange reason is up in Denver, in fact pretty near Jessica Pearson’s Center for Policy Research, etc.  A registration in another state (I forget whether it was IL or WI — but it’s blogged here) also shows Ms.  – or Dr. — Pearson’s name also; the groups are related.  This is known, documented history one can find several places, except not at the annual Battered Mother’s Custody Conference.  Empowered Battered MOthers can be a force to deal with, particularly after they find out what degree of withholding of information they’ve been subject to, particularly by groups from California which know better, but don’t care enough to talk about it.

So this is my public apology for lumping in ACFLS as a nonprofit in with nonprofits/charities  who ILLEGALLY don’t file with the SOS or OAG in my state, even if they, too, are also a little shaky on what decade they were formed in, such as RTI (see yesterday’s post for explanation of the R and the I)

PAUSE/INTERJECTION TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE & ITS CORPORATION TIME WARPs (again):

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

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE 129795 Charity Current SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity 1

If you repeat this search (HERE, EIN#470942805 — or use the “129795″ State Reg. number), we can see it was notified ONCE to turn its stuff in, apparently NEVER produced its’ STUFF” (IRS, RRF, Schedule B listing contributors, etc.) has with the OAG and retains “Current” status — which I think is just weird.  And unlike ACFLS, it’s not “Exempt” and is actually saying it’s providing a public benefit as a charity.

Website:  ”http://rtiprojects.org” states:

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

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

TRUE — it is a charity (inexplicably, given its filing history with the state), although “1986″ is either out of state, or stretching the imagination and sense of time even more than ACFLS (2004- 1986 start dates is an 18 year gap, about enough for one child, if parents separated shortly after birth, to age out of the family law, or foster care, system).  Also, perhaps this started in a different state (Arizona?) and moved to California San Diego (Enron by the Sea) as a domestic corporation.  My Secretary of State doesn’t privilege citizens of this state (or anyone else looking) with that information on the website.

On this site one can see he is also advertising for workshops with the Gottman Institute (I think — see site, and yesterday’s post).  I cannot locate the link to “institute for relational harm reduction” I used to see on this site.  Either someone alerted him and it was removed (to avoid further embarrassment) or it’s still up there on another page – I find the website a little difficult to navigate.

THESE groups, however, get discounted rates for taking workshops there, meaning at RTI.  As of today’s website view.

Allied Agency staff receives discounted rates for Training Workshops

• Brandman University College, San Diego
• Center for Community Solutions (I seem to recall as an A/V subgrantee from California Judicial Council site).
• Home Start
• IntraPsychic Clinic
• Jenna Druck Foundation
• Pacific Coast Counseling
• Paradise Valley Hospital, Bayview Behavioral Health Campus
• San Diego Domestic Violence Council
• San Diego Family Justice Center  (these 2 have common history, I believe)
• San Diego Phobia Foundation
• San Diego Psychological Association
• San Diego Youth & Community Services
• The San Diego LGBT Community Center

BACK TO TODAY’s TOPIC:

THE NEW FRONTIER – Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts.

Friday, February 10, 2012

8:00am – 1:00pm 8:30am – 12:45pm 9:00am – 5:15pm 10:30am – 10:45pm 12:45pm – 1:00pm 1:00pm – 5:15pm 3:00pm – 3:15pm

Pre-Conference Registration Morning Institute (1) All Day Institute (2) Coffee Break

Lunch Break Afternoon Institutes (3-4) Coffee Break

 

Apparently California Doesn’t yet have an actual statute legitimizing parent coordination by force (judicial order) over a parent’s objections.  Therefore, there remains work to be done, and new frontiers to be settled.  Let’s get down to BUSINESS, AFCC personnel!  Even if it means a pre-conference institute!  As we saw, the pre-conference institute was pretty intense about “parent coordination,” so here’s a nice workshop in the MAIN conference (upcoming) wherein professionals can see how, once entrenched at a COUNTY level, it could then be spread to other counties, and finally raise your voice loud for a necessary statute, and if possible mandatory parenting coordination for everyone, no matter what.  Maybe someone could add that to the access/visitation program funding, and spread some of these tax$$ around to people who really are coordinated — among themselves, at least!

 

We can read how to extract parent coordination fees even when a family is broke.  This should be Kids’ Play (after all, Kids’ Turn was a successful model, was it not):   

 

WORKSHOPS (1-4)

W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordinator Program, Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent Families

This workshop will provide a model for setting up a local Parenting Coordination Program (PC) to make available to the court a panel of trained and qualified mental health and attorney providers for referral of high conflict cases by the court and counsel.

This presentation will include a component of the program that provides services for pro bono cases. This portion was modeled after the successful pro bono program operated in the Washington DC court in conjunction with the American Psychological Association.

Hmm.

LGH comment, showing my lack of restraint (but harming no one)….

AFCC, AAML, and APA are related organizations, and have some personnel in common no doubt with each other.  And people in trauma (from the courts) like to continue the litany  . . . . “but in MY county, OUR court is the worst, they are UNBELIEVABLY corrupt in OUR area, why should I bother to study outside my area?  I can’t be bothered to study AFCC, read the history of the parent coordination, welfare reform, access visitation, I have no time to look up grants — we just want OUR GAL, Custody evaluator, Judge (etc.) Supervised Visitation Provider — to be removed.  Come to the rally, hold a sign, protest Mr. so and so, and Ms. So and so (unless they have a Ph.D.).

Well, some people are starting to study a little more.  S/he that hath ears to hear — we live in an INTERNET age (got that), with things like airplanes, conferences, and nationwide and regional associations.  Deal with it!

 

(Maybe that mindset does deserve to be fleeced; who knows?   – - – - nah . . . . . . . )

The speakers will provide hands-on experiences on how the program was established in San Diego County,** its successes and limitations, training recommendations and protocols, model stipulations and orders, and practice tips.. A portion of the presentation would address the development of the component of the program that serves low income high conflict families by using qualified doctoral and post-doctoral psychology students under the supervision of a clinical director.*** The purpose of the program is to provide the court with a case management tool for those cases which do not seem to lend  themselves to resolution through litigation or other means of alternative dispute resolution.

Presenter: Honorable Lorna Alksne, Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA, Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD, Lori Love, Ph.D.

 

(**speaking of funny ideas established in San Diego with plans to expand nationwide and internationally, see posts on the One-Stop Justice Shop and Casey Gwinn’s personal retirement plan, started apparently while he was still City Attorney, with help from public employees at the time.  I’m pretty sure I posted the rundown on the related audit of the city for these practices, starting with the next City Attorney).

(***as a consequence of being low-income, you also get to be subject matter to train the next generation of people heading for one of the highest-paid (considering hours worked) white-collar jobs around — Psychology.  Up there with Judge.   See “early childhood development specialist.”

 

The presence of the Honorable (?) Lorna Alksne reminds me of some internet press on this judge.  I’m not familiar with the San Diego Parenting Coordination Protocol (YET), but here it is.  We all have to stop somewhere:

 

The (pretty much fathers’ rights, but they too dig up information) AngieMedia site comments in Nov. 2009

Grand Juries Stymied from Investigating Courts

California’s county Grand Juries are tasked with investigating and reporting on problems in county and local governments. However, the San Diego County Grand Jury has been effectively prohibited from investigating the San Diego Superior Court itself for a variety of reasons. Aside from whatever legal technicalities there may be for this, it is clear there is a strong motivation for the government officials who control the county to prevent investigation of the court system itself. The government wants naive citizens to believe that the courts in the county are fair and obey the law when neither is true.

The San Diego Superior Court is filled with abuse, corruption, illegal conduct, and disreputable judges such as drunk driver Lisa Schall, cover-up scam artist Lorna Alksne, abusive Christine Goldsmith with her nepotistic control over the San Diego City Attorney, and TV-star-wannabe DeAnn Salcido (who recently resigned over her misconduct) that the Grand Jury would literally have to investigate most judges for misconduct and eventually verbally eviscerate the judiciary and file criminal indictments against many of them to even get a start on cleaning up the corrupt mess that these judges wish to remain hidden.

 

By “Cover up Artist” — link says:

San Diego Courts Cover Up Missing Forms and Psych Evals

 

I don’t know anyone with a court case who doesn’t have some issues with missing or altered transcripts or other data.  It seems common (alas).  We’ve heard of dual docketing systems, AND dual physical files — one for the court case (parents) and another — which the parent never sees — to justify the program funding.   Here’s a comment from The Public Court.Com (Emad Tadros // “Zoe the Cat” credentialing site).  Also read the info re: the attempt to retroactively file forms which a rule of court (?) required specifically (mandated) to be filed BEFORE custody evaluations, and the response gotten when someone protested blatant ignoring this mandate by this court in particular.  Why these courts should be getting our business, still, I have no idea.  This says it well:  (12/27/2011 comment on:  Complaint Filed to the California Bar (topic FL 326, 327 forms)

 

San Diego Family Law Court is an illegal “boiler room” often operating to place litigants who have assets in very high risk situations. The priority is the financial interest of the attorneys not the litigants or the public’s trust. The California Legislature has ordered the California State Bar to come up with accountability for this type of activity—The Board of Governors was created for this purpose.

These series of designed financial crimes should be investigated by the US Attorney’s Office, specifically Jason Forge who is now prosecuting Theresa Erickson who was running an illegal baby selling ring in San Diego Probate Court for 6 years. This illegal activity was also under the supervision of Supervising Judge Lorna Alksne. Just like every other business the amounts of these “high conflict” cases and the excessive periods of time families are held hostage in litigation should generate an investigation, similar to an outbreak of ecoli or tampered tylenol bottles. The tainted cases aka as the “high conflict” case has become a haven for waste and corruption. The Court is operating as an unregulated “boiler room” worse than the mortgage crisis and Bernie Madhoff because 1000s are speaking out about it and nothing is being done. There is no accountability and no accounting for what is being done to the Families and Children.

Families are coming to the Court for assistance with their family issue and the attorneys who advertise as Family Law Specialists are simply acting like con-artists. The cons seize as much assets as possible for as long as possible until the children “age-out” and in some cases keep it going beyond that. These attorneys are effectively rewarding themselves over the long-term for bringing in new money to the court similar to new money clients bring to a bank. It is completely illegal as the intent is to sezie assets by prolonging litigation that should only take months not many years to resolve. Fruad investigators at the bank are trained to look for patterns but this kind of accountability is not there to protect the public—the public must stand up for itself! Report the patterns to the FBI. The pattern of the “high conflict” case is the same – the attorneys and professionals involved are the same. It is a scam, a con, fraud.

 

Yes, “We the Public” may have conflicts with our exes — but it’s nothing compared to the conflict we have with certain associations, organizations, and fields of practice collaborating — nationwide — to strip us of our legal rights (and any assets — or if indigent, to engage welfare funds instead) — in the process of something which is NOT that abnormal a process, and shouldn’t be:

 

1.  Divorcing.  Sometimes people need to divorce.  This shouldn’t take from 5 to 15 years to complete!

2.  In some cases, trying to find SOME arm of the U.S., STate, County, or Municipal government (we used to think this was the criminal law system, aided by police or district attorneys) to prosecute — in order to stop — criminal behavior against us, or one of our kids.

 

The reason these meetings have to be “members only” and in places far away from the jurisdiction they are handling (in the case of national conferences) it that people — especially parents — of reasonably sound mind and logic, would protest the practices.  That’s why California has a “Brown Act”

 

 

Time to go.  Did you learn something?

Another Reason (besides Its Innate Irrationality) to Shelve the “National Healthy Marriage” Movement: It’s Running Out of Acronyms….

 Veni, Vidi, Vici (Vomiti)

The Nonprofit’s Profiteer’s Epiphany:   Regurgito, Ego Sum:

From Descartes Second Meditation (which I assure you, I have not read, so I don’t really know if the author of this Wikipedia article did either, but I like the ring of it):

But I have convinced myself that there is absolutely nothing in the world, no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies. Does it now follow that I, too, do not exist? No. If I convinced myself of something [or thought anything at all], then I certainly existed. But there is a deceiver of supreme power and cunning who deliberately and constantly deceives me. In that case, I, too, undoubtedly exist, if he deceives me; and let him deceive me as much as he can, he will never bring it about that I am nothing, so long as I think that I am something. So, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, I am, I exist, is necessarily true whenever it is put forward by me or conceived in my mind. (AT VII 25; CSM II 16–17)

Now THAT represents a little thinking, followed at least to some conclusion.  Alas, in “marriage education” most are simply engaged in replication through repetition.  And the relationships they are most adept at is with whoever is helping people fill out the next round of grant applications — from FEDERAL SOURCES — which help set up PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT CURRICULA OWNERS for life — or at least a good set of royalties and nice retirement in these uncertain times.

But they are running into a credibility crisis — running out of names for each success organization based on an idea someone had before the feminists, if not before women could vote!

Perhaps I can conjugate the problem we face, in thinking up more names to get more federal grants to slap up some websites which pretend to represent something other than a slapped-up website, sometimes in accompaniment with an expired, suspended, delinquent or involuntarily dissolved corporate status.  Which would, I suppose, make it a sort of  UNincorporated (body-less) “ethereal being”? ???

?

NIRE, NARME, NOM1, NOM2,. . .  NERMEN.*

(hover cursor over link)

Seriously?  NERMEN?   (Yep, I’m Lucid in Leucadia, I swear I saw it!)*

NOM1 is National Organization for Men (with Warren Farrell & Marty Nemko).  This is NOM2:

NOM Marriage Pledge  = Ron Paul is wrong — not conservative enough!

*rhymes with “mermen” or, I suppose, “vermin.”

Just when you thought you’d heard them all, words that intersperse great nouns and adjectives as if there was an active, achieving VERB  in there somewhere:

Or I could do the versions without vowells, such as NHMRC, (hover cursor over link)

 

WONDERFUL words, building blocks for GREAT shell corporations (nonprofits in particular) which, more closely examined are simply Big Brother in your Britches (and Bank Accounts):

NIRE:

The National Institute of Relationship Enhancement^® (NIRE), a non-profit educational corporation, was founded by Bernard Guerney, Jr., Ph.D. in 1992 as a branch of its parent organization the Institute for the Development of Emotional and Life Skills (IDEALS), which Dr. Guerney had previously founded in 1972. The mission of NIRE is…

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
IDEALS, Inc.	FRANKFORT	KY	40601-2458	FRANKLIN	137666603	$ 50,000

NARME:

NARME

This was the link to the NARME site. Please use the new link below: http://www.narme.org  (NARME “History” site reads “this content will be displayed soon.”  Note also — it’s very much a Members Only  type site.

It’s probably waiting to develop some — the organization registered in FLORIDA in August, 2010!  Link to Membership Brochure states:

NARME is a national association formed in 2010 to represent the interests and serve the needs of Relationship and Marriage Educators by doing the following:

Providing ongoing professional training opportunities

Hosting an annual conference featuring skills-based education programs and the latest research

Disseminating timely and relevant research about the family in America, and the effectiveness of marriage and relationship education programs

Facilitating collaboration among healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood, and other family allies

Nevertheless it has a handprint icon; they (like AFCC, CRC, CPS, DCYF departments across the country, the NCSEA, the NACC, GALs throughout the land, Warren Farrell and Dick Washak, etc. — and Kids’ Turn) are “Champions for Children” if anyone asks….).  Membership has many levels, note that when membership are themselves healthy marriage (etc.) grantees, the “sliding scale  based on revenues” membership is a little disturbing:

MEMBER

Dues on a sliding scale according to revenue
Newsletter subscription

Access to all webinars

Discount to annual conference for up to ten attendees

Collaborating with National Fatherhood Leaders Group to make sure they get some more grants.  OFA (part of HHS) is there to help…

It helps if you can find your way to the NHMRC to get some MRE help with OCSE and p.a.p.a. from a Texas OAG employee:

Main Content

Child Support and MRE: A Case Study of the p.a.p.a. Curriculum

This Case Study examines a successful and replicable approach to integrating marriage and relationship education (MRE) services with Child Support Enforcement (CSE) services. The Parenting and Paternity Awareness Curriculum (p.a.p.a.) represents a unique partnership between the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) and the State Board of Education (SBOE) in Texas.2 It offers a promising practice for engaging high school youth in conversations about successful and responsible parenthood and healthy relationship skills, as well as the legal responsibilities and realities involved in supporting a child. Nationally, the p.a.p.a. curriculum represents the first state-wide effort to educate students about paternity and child support responsibilities as the basis for a program.

YEP.  Search “Michael Hayes on RandiJames.com:

Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support

{{which, besides being self-evident, this post goes on to demonstrate & illustrate, including how they do it}}

I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand of psychology pseudoscience and court litigation.Well, who is Michael Hayes?I’m glad you asked.

NARME is one of my favorite groups to pick on because its directors are heads of other “funny” organization getting kazillions of federal funding, no matter how well they stay incorporated (or don’t):  Joneen Mackenzie (Colorado), Dennis Stoica (California), Julie Baumgardner (TN, First Things First), and so forth.   See BillCoffin.org for more info.

This NARME and NHMRC is not to be confused with NAME (NARME, minus the “R”) which is registered, (presumably) in Arizona.  From TAGGS.hhs.Gov.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT

PHOENIX

AZ

85022

MARICOPA

362992336

$ 1,250,000

I don’t know yet what they’re up to, but I can guess.

About this National Healthy Marriage Resource Center — I probably blogged it before — it’s basically an HHS site, but here are it’s leaders.

About the NHMRC

Skip Navigation

• Meet Our Team
  • Mary Myrick
  • Rich Batten
  • Rachel Derrington
  • Jo Anne Eason
  • Courtney Harrison
  • Anne Menard
  • Theodora Ooms
  • Heidi Valenzuela
  • Barkley REI

Please see my last few posts and note that Anne Menard is a Domestic Violence person.  Do I need to make the point of “DV Heat Shield for Fatherhood Movement” further?

Anne Menard is an activist who has worked on policy, practice and research issues affecting domestic violence and sexual assault survivors since the mid-1970s. After serving as a senior consultant to the Family Violence Prevention and Services Program of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during 2005, she returned as Director of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV), a position she previously held from 1994-99.

She has served as a consultant to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center, the Lewin Group, and MDRC providing assistance to federally-funded Healthy Marriage projects in developing their response to domestic violence issues. At the NRCDV, Ms. Menard directs technical assistance, training, resource development and special projects to support domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts in the U.S. Prior to this national level work, Ms. Menard led the Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence for over six years, and, in the early 1980s, codirected Connecticut’s largest domestic violence shelter and was actively involved in grassroots sexual assault advocacy.

Theodora Ooms & Mary Myrick are associated with, I believe, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative & Public Strategies, Inc. which was the contractor for it.

Theodora Ooms, MSW, is a senior consultant to the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC) and to Public Strategies, Inc. At the NHMRC she has responsibility for planning outreach to policymakers, writing summaries of research, and organizing conferences and other activities that advance the field.

From 1999-2007 she was a senior policy analyst at the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), where she worked on couples and marriage policy, with a special focus on low-income families, and twice testified before the U.S. Congress.

Mr. Batten

Most recently, Mr. Batten served as a Family and Fatherhood Specialist with the Colorado Department of Human Services. In this role, he successfully developed collaborative relationships between healthy marriage programs, domestic violence programs, fatherhood programs, child welfare, child support enforcement, and the Department of Corrections. Mr. Batten has been a Certified Family Life Educator since 1998 and is an experienced instructor of numerous marriage and parenting curriculums** including PREP, Bringing Baby Home, Nurturing Fathers, and Caring Dads. He is a frequent speaker and workshop presenter at OFA Conferences as well as Smart Marriages Conferences. Batten is considered an expert on marriage, healthy relationships and fatherhood. He has been featured on Denver television network affiliates and numerous radio stations. Mr. Batten earned a bachelor’s degree in Speech Communication from Northern Michigan University, a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary, and a Master of Education from Loyola University in Chicago.

Great.  Is that religious enough to be spearheading expenditure of federal funds?  A preacher and professional teacher….with communication specialty.

Family & Marriage Movement = Fatherhood.  I hope we understand that, yes?

**looks to me like lots of those curricula are designed to be teacher-proof, i.e., teach-out-of-a-box.

This center is simply an HHS-funded project, administered by Public Strategies, Inc.

National Healthy Marriage Resource Center

For more information call Public Strategies 303-830-0400
Info@HealthyMarriageInfo.org

The National Healthy Marriage Resource Center (NHMRC) is a clearinghouse for high quality, balanced, and timely information and resources on healthy marriage. The NHMRC’s mission is to be a first stop for information, resources, and training on healthy marriage for experts, researchers, policymakers, media, marriage educators, couples and individuals, program providers, and others.

Initial funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant 90-FH-0001 (9/11/2006 – 9/29/2011)
This site managed by Pivot Concepts
© 2008 - 2012 National Healthy Marriage Resource Center

As we are being told that Healthy Marriages help reduce poverty, persuade happily married men not to bail out on child support, and their abandoned children thus causing trouble for the rest of us, not to mention dooming children born to fatherless homes to a life of abuse and distress, if not crime — just take it on faith, that part — as we see, Mary Myrick, Anne Menard, Theodora Ooms, Public Strategies Inc. and probably Pivot Concepts (that manages the website) are all doing OK, right?

Keep in mind that “thinking” is optional this field.  One must, however, come up with good names and be able to fill out some grants application forms.  Of course, there are membership organizations such as NARME which can teach you (for a fee) how to do this.  I lack animation, but picture a Sesame Street(tr) Show, only less entertaining.

  (fill in the blanks.  how-to, shown below)

(courtesy google images search:  yard-sale-sign—cartoon-[?], wood-signs-vector.jpg (file-vector.com), sculture-in-the-vineyards.au.com, and “growabrain.typepad.com” which shows an Iowa Road Sign (white on Green), Northw/Fertile/Manley….

(Anthony Whyte, Urban Serpent)North Sydney street signs and plastic ties, 17000 x 2000 x 600mm – $10,000“Once these signs directed us around North Sydney, now reincarnated as an Urban Serpent they reflect the Serpents mythical past and our urban modernity.”I like it!   MAYBE TOO, the LOOSE PATCHWORK OF LETTERS REPRESENTING “REGURGITO, ERGO SUM” AT THE END OF AMERICA, will be something of a spectacle, signifying the replacement of thinking (not to mention working), or even producing a useful service — by virtue of downloadable concepts loosely assembled.  Verbs need not apply, as we buzz on down the highway, while the slush funds of IRS-collected, HHS-distributed Relationship Fixing Ideas piped through brightly labeled buzzwords like in this sculpture (who really knows what’s inside, besides air, some of it hot?).  Isn’t it interesting? What will leak out if just a few of the sign segments are dismantled and their insides examined for contents?

• National
• Association of
• Relationship (and)
• Marriage
• Educators

LET’S DO SOME ARTS & CRAFTS  — SPELLING — LETTER BUCKETS.   I’ll provide the letters, You MAKE a Real Word.  This will prepare you for Scrabble, Spelling, Crossword Puzzles, and eventually life a better life in a nursing home,  IF, however, you follow my lead and forget making comprehensible words — just pick an acronym that hasn’t been taken yet (or plow some new furrows in the field of marriage education meaningless names) you just might be able to fill out some paperwork, apply (by having healthy relationships with some of these resource centers below), get a grant (Say, $50,000) and then do nothing with it.  Take the money, close up  shop, dissolve your corporation, relocate, start another one, and thumb your knows at honest working public, just because they’re a little “slower on the uptake” than you were.  That is EXACTLy what it seems plenty of these groups are doing.

Eventually, they find each other, and perfect how to do it en masse — which is what NARME, and some others are there for.  Oh yes, and for teaching marriage and relationship skills, along with how NOT to have sex before it (i.e., abstinence education, STILL….)

Here’s the Letter  bucket of the Ideal Healthy Normal (that means straight), Married — or at least abstinent, or looking for a healthy relationship — branch of this movement.

N A H M E R C I

 

First, take a lesson from the pros.

The best compilation of ALL these initials I’ve seen — todate — comes from a HHS Grantee:

This is the most letters I’ve seen in combination using the theme yet — it has a “P” but it gets extra credit for doing this without a single vowell:

 

“NRCSPHM”. . . YEP.

 

“NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE”

 And as a reward for being willing to handle this, the ICF (or is it I C F ?) got a $1.5 million grant from the government, to expand upon the already fabulously successful “NHMRC.”  I’ll explain

this all later, and can’t wait to see what logo they come up with (this represents an Oct. 2011 Healthy Marriage Grantee, and I blogged it earlier).

 

NAHMERCI, or  We’ll handle the “P” letter bucket separately, below (or later), which includes GOOD terms like “Parents” “Paris” PREP”, and the BAD parts, like the Institute for Pathology Education and Relational Harm Awareness, etc.    Excuse, me, I have the order wrong for the

IRHRPPEP  (‘burp’)(too many consonants per vowell)

Some visitors may remember that I blogged this before and tried to look up the credentials of its founder, and came up empty.  And that the Relationship Training Institute (RTI) out of San Diego, isn’t filing its RRF tax returns and Charitable Registrations with the state of California while doing closely connected to the courts, probation, and citing this group as one of its providers.  I think.   Oh well…

LET”S STICK WITH THE NATIONALIZED MARRIAGE THEME FIRST  TIE THE KNOT FOR UNCLE SAM.  WHAT CAN WE DO WITH NAHMERCI?

NAME / MEAN / HER / MAN/NARCI(SSISTIC)/ NARC/AHEM!/ MAIN / CREAM / CHARM / (“CHMC” IF THERE WAS ANOTHER “C”)  REI (outfits for marital camping weekends), etc.

HERE’s HOW IT”s DONE IN THE MOVEMENT.

N is for National

A is for Association, a.k.a.,  ”Ass.” (allright, “Ass’n.”)

H is for H ealthy*

*(on the negative side of the tracks, “H” is for Harm.  See also “P” for Pathological and “R” for Reduction)

M is for Marriage.  (What, you thought it might stand for “Mom”?  Get real!)

E  is for Education.

 (Although the literal meaning is to “lead out,” ever since compulsory public (state/nationalized) education, particularly in the US, in practice it means to “stuff in.”**    This is a very American practice, stuffing people into small spaces and from there trying to reform their relationships and stuff some more skillsets in.  See Corrections Corporation of America.)

R is for Relationship.

(this is a concession to the fact that, evangelistic Christians and Conservative Catholics aside, face it — not all Fathers and Mothers are going to get married.  Educating Married or Engaged couples limits marketing by about 50% (see divorce and out-of-wedlock births), hence one must include the word “relationship” to be truly viable).

(or . . .. . )

R is for Resource.

Re-Source is a good term, because most Resource Centers (jacked-up websites with important links)

are simply Re-hashing the same old dishes,

only the graphics and the grant numbers seem to change.

Resource is not “Help” — it’s only there if you want it (and have internet service access).

 

C enter.

It’s important to flexibility, the “chameleon factor” needed for when one’s failure to file taxes might get discovered.  Hence the word “Center” is better than “Corporation” which actually commits to a legal structure.

I is sometimes for “Institute.”

Which doesn’t mean ANYthing.  I mean, it could be a website, or it could be a real center of learning at university.  Only the State Franchise Tax Board knows for sure.

It could have some Ph.D.’s behind it AND government projects, such as the Gottman Institute

or it could be a preacher and the church board who sold their souls to keep the grants, lost corporate status, kept the website and kept getting HHS healthy marriage grants, in fact MORE after their corporate status was revoked — like the NW (or is it “NorthWest” Marriage Institute).  The word “institute” sounds like something important is going on.  We never know, except by instinct through repeated check-ups, whether someone is bluffing, or seriously a professional with something to contribute (original) to the world.

C3365104	03/30/2011	ACTIVE	CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES	MARY EMMONS
C0085636	12/13/1917	ACTIVE	CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE, INC.

MARK ENGEL

I think we can presume by the following (TAGGS) list that some of these are legitimate medical research outfits, and others are — well, it’s TBA in my book.  Click on the links — I know one of these is getting fatherhood grants.  Can you tell which one is which?

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
ARKANSAS CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE	LITTLE ROCK	AR	72202	PULASKI		$ 2,218,014
CHILDREN’S RESEARCH INSTITUTE	WASHINGTON	DC	20010-2978	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	143983562	$ 250,913,375
CHILDREN’S RESEARCH INSTITUTE	WASHINGTON	DC	20010-2978	DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	606977783	$ 4,670,060
CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC	LOS ANGELES	CA	90005	LOS ANGELES	082692021	$ 45,375,201
Forsyth Dental Infirmary for Children Forsyth Institute	BOSTON	MA	02115	SUFFOLK	062190616	$ 169,083,134
INSTITUTE FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN	JAMIACA	NY	11432			$ 100,000
MURDOCH CHILDREN’S RESEARCH INSTITUTE	Parkville				752683508	$ 2,318,074
Miami Children`s Hospital Research Institute	MIAMI	FL	33155		047469051	$ 833,962
Research Institute at Nationwide`s Children`s Hospital	COLUMBUS	OH	43205	FRANKLIN	046430013	$ 58,586,668
Research Institute at Nationwide`s Children`s Hospital	COLUMBUS	OH	43205	FRANKLIN	147212963	$ 149,125,008
THE CHILDREN’S INSTITUTE OF PITTSBURGH	PITTSBURGH	PA	15217	ALLEGHENY	018063375	$ 866,725

Showing: 1 – 11 of 11 Recipients

Showing: 51 – 100 of 103 Award Actions

Page: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90FR0088	PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM	1	0	ACF	09-25-2006	082692021	$ 1,000,000
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 1,000,000

Guess this is a new one here, not distributed yet:

Showing: 1 – 50 of 103 Award Actions

Page: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2012	90FK0028	PROJECT FATHERHOOD	1	01	ACF	12-01-2011	082692021	$ 0
Fiscal Year 2012 Total:								$ 0

If you go to TAGGS.hhs.gov, “AWARDS” by award# and keyword, and type in only the first 4 letters of the grant#, you’ll get an assortment of grants – budget year 1 in this series — which all read $0 — but won’t for long.  I would browse them (they are alpha by name, and provide zip code, not states — unless you do further clicks and lookups.  For example, the “NW Marriage Institute may get another dose of this (and are they legit still?  These were the guys who filed a tax return that confused Program EXPENSES with REVENUES and so under-reported REVENUES by about 2/3rds, check it out!)

Recipient: NW Marriage Institute
Recipient ZIP Code: 98682-2328

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2012	90FK0051	PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS	1	93.086	ACF	12-01-2011	$ 0
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 0

or — see recent Primaries:

Watch this one.  The words “Primary Noncustodial” means that it’s likely someone’s custody case is about to get some pro bono legal help (possible help from Access/Visitation program funds also) — does the Mama know?   It’s definitely a keyword.  Is the Community Action, Inc. group legit?   It may be.  See journalist Andy Kopsa (which is a woman) who also tracks some of the funding; she might know.

Recipient: MID-IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 50158

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2012	90FK0022	MICA’S STRONG PARENTS – STRONG CHILDREN PROJECT WILL SERVE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, PRIMARILY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS IN THE COUNTIES OF MARSHALL, POWESHIEK, AND TAMA IN CENTRAL IOWA.	1	93.086	ACF	12-01-2011	$ 0
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 0

SEEDCO — Someone from SEEDCO was on the Children Exposed to Violence Task Force, if i recall it right.  SEEDCO is very influential.

Recipient: Structured Employment Econ Dev Corp (SEEDCO)
Recipient ZIP Code: 10010

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2012	90FK0040	SEEDCO’S PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM	1	93.086	ACF	12-01-2011	$ 0
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 0

And the last two show the grand total as well, in this 90FK series:

Recipient: TARRANT COUNTY {{TEXAS}} WORKFORCE BOARD
Recipient ZIP Code: 76103

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2012	90FK0032	PROJECT, “FATHERS AND CHILDREN TOGETHER.”: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO PROMOTE AND FOSTER RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, ECONOMIC STABILITY, AND HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS IN TARRANT COUNTY.	1	93.086	ACF	12-01-2011	$ 0
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 0

Page Award Actions Count: 50				Award Actions Amount for this Page:			$ 0
Total of 110 Award Actions for 55 Awards				Total Amount for all Award Actions:			$ 54,151,962

Showing: 1 – 50 of 110 Award Actions

Page: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »

I is also sometimes for Initiative.

As in, usually something not initiated with out federal support.  Typically it implies something new being started.  Often it’s not.

This is the ACF/HHS website which led me to NERMEN because I’m NOSY:

Please not that Children’s Bureau and Child Support & Head Start are listed under “Currently Funded Healthy Marriage Projects. Why do you think that is?…….:

Currently Funded ACF Healthy Marriage Projects

• Currently Funded ACF Healthy Marriage Projects
• OFA Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood Initiatives
• African American-Targeted Healthy Marriage Programs
• Hispanic-Targeted Healthy Marriage Programs
• The Children’s Bureau (pdf-78kb)
• Administration for Native Americans
• Office of Head Start
• Office of Child Support Enforcement

Here are some grantees with the name “initiative” in them:

NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE	GAITHERSBURG	MD	20877	MONTGOMERY	879885986	$ 5,497,670
NATIONAL INITIATIVE FOR CHILDRENS HEALTHCARE QUALITY	BOSTON	MA	02138-5815	MIDDLESEX	119539497	$ 9,705,661
NATL BLACK LEADERSHIP INITIATIVE ON CANCER	LAS VEGAS	NV	89133	CLARK		$ 10,000
NORTH JERSEY COMMUNITY RESEARCH INITIATIVE	NEWARK	NJ	07103			$ 903,045
National Center for Faith Based Initiative	WEST PALM BEACH	FL	33407	PALM BEACH		$ 1,750,000
New Jersey State Office of Faith Based Initiative	TRENTON	NJ	08625	MERCER	361857998	$ 0
Oakland Berkeley Initiative for Healthy Relationships	EMERYVILLE	CA	94608	ALAMEDA		$ 44,880

I guess NJ just got its STate Office established.  Pennsylvania hasn’t yet.  Perhaps they need to let the dust settle after Luzerne County, Lackawanna County, and Penn State Scandals.  Keep your eye on that Palm Beach one (It’s got $1.750 million in Compassion Capital ($50K is normal)  Remember also Jerry Regier’s trip through here on the way from Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.

I’m going to look up the Oakland Berkeley Initiative — because I happen to remember that this one wasn’t up on its corporate, or charity, status — when I was looking at another type Initiative surrounding California Healthy Marriage Coalition.  This one has a Bay Area (California) address and a SC Registration info? and got an EIN# — but never registered as a charity.  So who got that $44,800?

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90IJ0597	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	0	ACF	09-22-2006		$ 44,880
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 44,880

Total of all award actions:

$ 44,880

Full Name: OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS FEIN: 841712508 Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2790720 Registration Number: Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration Issue Date: Renewal Due Date: Registration Status: Not Registered Date This Status: Date of Last Renewal: Address Information Address Line 1: 120 SHADOWPINE ROAD Phone: Address Line 2: Address Line 3: Address Line 4: COLUMBIA SC 29212 Annual Renewal Information Related Documents No Related Documents Prerequisite Information No Prerequisite Information

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2790720	06/09/2006	ACTIVE	OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS	** RESIGNED ON 06/20/2011

$44,500 may not seem like much — but do the math.  Unless these are checked (and I guarantee you, most of them probably aren’t) how many more LITTLE groups like this simply took the money, bailed, and that money was or was not reimbursed to the HHS?   I’ve seen several, in various states.  This is what comes of trying to drum up business for promoting healthy marriage.

I personally think that those who are willing to kick -a little-back and then kick-back and wait for the dust to settle, are more likely to get the grants.  Sometimes it’s just below-the-radar, and sometimes so large no one thinks to even question their validity, which seems to be the general idea– multiple income streams under multiple CFDAs (categories of assistance).

Here’s another one in New Hampshire (speaking of Primaries….)

ecipient:	Community Marriage Initiative, Inc.
Address:	134 Hollis Road AMHERST, NH 03031
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	HILLSBOROUGH
HHS Region:	1
Type:	Community Action Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2004	90IJ0142	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	0	ACF	07-23-2004		$ 50,000
Fiscal Year 2004 Total:								$ 50,000

Total of all award actions:

$ 50,000

and here’s their website which clearly shows:

1.  Church ties.

2. Prosletyzing for Diane Sollee, of “Smartmarriages.com” and the for-profit DC-based

Welcome to the website for the Community Marriage Initiative of New Hampshire. We are a not for profit organization designed to encourage marriage and reduce divorce through education, mobilization, and the facilitation of programs in the area of marriage and parenting skills in the state of New Hampshire.

Our most important goal is to encourage leaders in our community to take action by providing programs in their churches that will help promote marriage and discourage divorce. The CMI web sight is intended to make it easy for users to take advantage of such programs.

For an indepth resource that addresses married and family issues, please visit SmartMarriages.org. The Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education (CMFCE), founded in 1996, is an independent, nonpartisan, non-sectarian organization focused on strengthening marriage and reducing family breakdown, through couple empowering education and information. CMFCE provides consultation at the national, state and community level; sponsors a website, e-newsletter, forum, directory, and the Smart Marriages Conferences-an annual summit of researchers, educators, clinicians, clergy, policy makers, journalists and the public. The conference also trains and certifies marriage and family educators.

This organization’s address is simply a Church — and it is listed in 2012 Charitable registry, the state Corporations SEarch page isn’t working just now (“system overload”)

Amherst Christian Church

A Church Without Walls, Networking Christ To The Community And World.

Small Groups Are At The Heart Of This Christ Centered Church.
134 HOLLIS RD, Amherst, NH 03031

If it filed a single tax return — the one shown here is a blank “Schedule A” — and not a return at all.  Nothing is found at the “Foundation Center” finder, either (by EIN#).  I am sure $44,500 is enough to require a return be filed –and where did this financing go?  The website is still up and taking donations as well.  How typical is this?

Most Recent Tax Period	EIN	Name	State	Rule Date	IRS Sub- section	Total Revenue	Total Assets	990 Image
2007	050581198	Community Marriage Initiative Inc	NH	2006	03	499	116	990

Here is another one in Texas, about the same size, and only one grant showing, for 2006.

Under “I” is for Initiative which usually means with Gov’t Help – this one managed to combine some Great words:   Healthy, Marriage, Relationship and Initiative.  It should be prospering!

ecipient:	Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative
Address:	P.O. Box 764274 DALLAS, TX 75376
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	DALLAS
HHS Region:	6
Type:	Other Special Interest Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90IJ0623	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	0	ACF	09-24-2006	949423417	$ 50,000
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 50,000

More details on this one:

Results 1 to 1 of 1 matches.
Page 1 of 1	1

Fiscal Year	Grantee Name	Grantee Class	Grantee Type	Award Title	Award Code	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2006	Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative	Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations	Other Special Interest Organization	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	0	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	VALERIE BALLARD	$ 50,000

Results

This is an example of Grants-Stacking, and apparently it’s still a going concern:

http://www.texashmri.org/

This is an INSTITUTE — it’s HEALTHY, it’s dealing with MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS.  Great use of acronym letters!

Remember TWOGether in Pittsburgh?  Here is it in Texas, Too.  Every theme has its own logo.

Why Knot? is cute — and NFI is its big Daddy:  The idea is to persuade men that marriage is a great idea — or at least to sit through this class, here..

The Why Knot? program is designed to help men develop a positive view of marriage. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) developed Why Knot? to help men understand the benefits of marriage as well as what they can do to prepare themselves to be great husbands to their future wife. The program is six 2-hour sessions filled with fun activities and interesting conversation among men.

Texas Healthy Marriage & Relationship Initiative (TexasHMRI) is dedicated to equipping, empowering and encouraging community and faith-based organizations to join together to build programs that help sustain healthy relationships and stable marriages throughout Texas . North Texas Fatherhood Initiative (NTFI)  A regional partnership of community and faith-based agencies working collectively to promote responsible fatherhood by collaborating to make a comprehensive regional community impact. Our mission is to advocate for fathers to have stronger, healthier, lifelong relationships with their children. We are especially interested in programs for: Supporting Families and Healthy Family Programs Increasing access to healthy relationship and marriage resources for all Texas citizens. Training community members and professionals to assist with educational programs that strengthen relationships and marriages. Responsible Fatherhood, Domestic Violence Prevention and Improved Child Well-being OUR TARGET POPULATION It’s for everyone! We provide programming for singles, young adults, non-married parents, pre-marital couples, fathers, stepfamilies and married couples.

 

TexasHMRI is a subcontractor for the Twogether in Texas Healthy Marriage Program under The Texas Health and Human Service Commission. North Texas Fatherhood Initiative is funded by IMANI -The David Project a 2009 Compassion Capital Fund Grant from U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Administration for Children and Families.

 

This does not show any tax returns, and to search in Texas, I have to submit a credit card and “Pay Per View” which I’m not about to do.  Your guess is as good as mine whether this Initiative is filing in the two ways probably required in texas — as a charity, and as a corporation.

I blogged this before and Ms. Ballard’s LinkedIn shows she’s running (as of 2009) both the fatherhood and the HMRI programs.

 

We remember “TWOGether” right?   From a religious group Family Guidance, Inc. (that goes the Second Mile?) in Pittsburgh Area:

Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2012	90FM0047	TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION	1	93.086	ACF	12-01-2011	$ 0
2011	90FM0047	TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,163,684
Award Actions Count: 2				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,163,684

 

 

 

 

WELL it’s TIME TO BRING IN NERMEN

Related Initiative:

Fatherhood Clearinghouse

Army’s Strong Bonds 

National Extension Relationship and Marriage Education Network  (NERMEN)

Fatherhood Initiative 

Going Further: Community Planning for Healthy Couple and Marriage Education Programs and Support 

“NERMEN”

It drops an “H” retains the National and at least can be pronounced.  The extra “E” represents EXTENSION communities — apparently someone left a stone unturned as to where marriage promotion wasn’t, yet — Extension units of Community Colleges?.    That’s funny, because in MY area, they are cutting funding for community classes, and they are also in trouble with night schools for too many kids per classroom.  I have a theory that this overcrowding and boredom (not lack of campaigns like “NWNW”) leads to the extra unwedded pregnancies, but I could be wrong about that.

This is pretty much more of the same, only not exactly the same, which is why it gets another link on the ACF/HHS healthy marriage site:

 

To learn about more ways that Cooperative Extension can support statewide and local healthy marriage initiatives read Win-Win Partnerships: MRE and Cooperative Extension released by the National Healthy Marriage Resource Center.

© 2006 - 2012 National Extension Relationship & Marriage Education Network  -  Last updated: July 07, 2011  -  Contact Us

If something is copyrighted, it must be registered somewhere.  Where?

 

Here are all the co-directors (each linked to a different state’s Extension College).  I have to laugh because the first one is Dr. Francesca Adler-Baeder out of Arkansas.  We’ve met before on this blog (I mean, I know I’ve looked at this before, that is…).

http://www.nermen.org/workgroup.php

Smart Steps for Couples in Stepfamilies

Developed by Francesca Adler-Baeder, PhD, CFLE, Alabama Cooperative Extension System, Auburn University. Six- $199 session research-based educational curriculum designed for remarried or partnering couples and their children. It focuses on building couple and family strengths while addressing the unique needs and issues that face couples in stepfamilies. Curriculum includes leader’s guides for adult and child programs, handout masters, resource list, two videos, and CD

containing all PowerPoint slides, handouts and evaluation questionnaire.

http://www.stepfamilies.info/SmartSteps.php

If you simply click around here — a lot — you’ll see how no matter WHERE you go in everytown and pleasantville, and even Gotham City, you will be able to by web connect with someone who’s going to market a curriculum designed by, among others, previously generously funded (by HHS — i.e., YOU ) education curricula for how you and your kids ought to behave, including while they are still in high school.  Most of the gang seems to be here — NIRME, The Dibble Institute, the Healthy Marriage Initiative, PREP, and others.  Even the Campus Crusade and definitely the National Council on Family Relations (Key grantee recipient, Utah connection, I blogged it, I believe with the Oct. 2011 round of HMRF grantees.

And I forgot these guys:

• The Association for Couples in Marriage Enrichment – Building Better Marriages. The Association for Couples in Marriage Enrichment is an international, non-profit, non-sectarian organization whose purpose is to promote better marriages by providing enrichment opportunities and resources that strengthen couple relationships, increase intimacy and enhance personal growth, mutual fulfillment and family wellness.
• FamilyLife. A faith-based organization rooted in Campus Crusade and Family Ministry, FamLife provides on-line articles and radio broadcasts of different topics on marriage. E-magazines and other related resources are also available.

Dr. Francesca A-B (from above):

http://www.aces.edu/users/adlerfr//

READ the material, look at the Logos — they tell the story.  MOST of this is being funded by HHS, one division or another.  How many of those groups are properly incorporated (Where is NERMEN incorporated?).  We found one of the problem GALS in Scranton, PA area (Danielle Ross, see FBI Raid) belonged to a “Contemporary Families” type association with a registration at a Chicago University – and not consistent filing of returns.  WHO KNOWS how much funding is spread around these quarters, and people taking executive directorships (etc.) at multiple organizations at once — but those organizations HOW many times are simply formed to soak up a grant stream, because grants are rarely available to individuals.

 

AWARD INFORMATION

Award Number:	90FK0042
Award Title:	PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD ALABAMA
OPDIV:	ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization:	OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (OFA)
Award Class:	DISCRETIONARY

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2012	AL ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR	MONTGOMERY	AL	93086	1	01	ACF	12-01-2011	$ 0
Fiscal Year 2012 Total:									$ 0

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	AL ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR	MONTGOMERY	AL	93086	1	00	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 2,500,000
Fiscal Year 2011 Total:									$ 2,500,000

LOOK — here’s a list of ALL the grantees with the words “Marriage” in them, from HHS.   Who wants to research all this — do you?  DO you believe it’s a good idea to sponsor MORE of this, taking it away from TANF, and knowing that TANF as of about 2000 (see OKLAHOMA) expanded from simply needy families to the entire state, through the Child Support, Head Start and other operations, to push the same concept on everyone, and sometimes literally just pay pastors and church boards to push marriage — which they are ALREADY DOING.

I know, because when I went for help to a certain pastor in my area (large multicultural urban evangelistic church) — by which time my marriage was just about a done deal anyhow, after YEARS of abuse — and said, look help, I need a referral — they gave me no outside referral, tried to handle it INSIDE and almost got me killed.  Those years are burned in my memory — and the fact that the entire congregations of these churches, who often KNOW who’s beating up whom in their communities, are  follow-the-leader NOT teaching each other the law, the mandatory reporting requirements (can you spell child abuse too?) and in general, are ALREADY sacrificing women and children on the altar, this “idol” of “Marriage For Everyone No Matter Almost What.”  And how many of the preachers and pastors are cheating on their wives anyhow?

Nevertheless, here we are, from TAGGS.  Realize that TAGGS almost never matches USASpending.gov, so either one is overreporting or the other one under-reporting, or sometimes, both.  The GAO doesn’t track child support collected (but not distributed) very well, neither does the HHS’s own audit arena.  Meanwhile the DV groups are selling women out in collaboration with fatherhood groups (I SHOWED you this today, above, right?  See Anne Menard) so they can keep publishing their studies, and theories.  I frankly have had enough of it.

This ACES site, above — is simply pasting a bunch of icons for different group up on the site to make it look more official.  Networked doesn’t necessarily mean legitimate, and even legitimately incorporated doesn’t mean that the concept is a good one to start with:

Here they go:

  = ??

The “ALABAMA COMMUNITY HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE” website boasts about the collection of grants Dr. Francesca has brought to the university:

Stengthening Alabama Families

6/14/2007

Dr. Francesca Adler-Baeder Receives Award
from the Alabama Fatherhood Initiative

Dr. Francesca Adler-Baeder of Auburn received the Strengthening Alabama Families Award from the Alabama Fatherhood Initiative (AFI) in Montgomery at a June 14 meeting in Montgomery. Dr. Adler-Baeder is Associate Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Auburn University. She and fourteen other award recipients were recognized for their special contributions and their commitment to the goals of the Alabama Fatherhood Initiative (AFI). The AFI is a network of agencies and organizations that assists non-custodial parents in enhancing their ability to provide financial support to their children. It also encourages non-custodial parents to be involved in their childrens lives in a nurturing, constructive way.
The community-based organizations being honored have operated exemplary fatherhood programs, and the public officials being recognized have provided outstanding leadership in the development of programs to support father involvement and strengthen families. The individuals being honored are program participants who have demonstrated dedication and determination in pursuing the goals of the programs in which they are enrolled.
Through Dr. Adler-Baeders leadership efforts, the Auburn University College of Human Sciences was awarded an $8.2 million grant from the U. S Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to support the work of the Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative (ACHMI). The ACHMI is a partnership with Auburn University, the Childrens Trust Fund of Alabama, eleven Family Resource Centers, and Mental Health Centers who have joined together to build and sustain healthy relationships and stable marriages throughout Alabama.

Let’s read this again, carefully:

The AFI is a network of agencies and organizations that assists non-custodial parents in enhancing their ability to provide financial support to their children. It also encourages non-custodial parents to be involved in their childrens lives in a nurturing, constructive way.

You wanna bet some access/visitation grants are involved, plus welfare diversions?   What happens when a mother becomes Noncustodial through some of these overcompensations — does an Alabama Mother get this help then to be involved in her removed childrens’ lives?

No — apparently she should remarry her way out of trouble, and then she can take a class from the National Association of Stepfamilies, or whatever it is, above.

Here’s that list from TAGGS.  What we have here is nothing more than the HHS paying professionals to manage certain other people, market classes (if it’s their classes too, that’s fine) and keep expanding.  FOREVER.

Well, there are 1,393 awards with the word “MARRIAGE” in the Award itself.  EVERYONE is studying it– universities, too.  Here are some from California (including one guy who’s now board of directors of NARME, Dennis Stoica), plus we see that in Cuyahoga County, Ohio — it went right to the Board of Commissioners.  Remember the doubled-first names (still on there), and look at the amounts, too: (this is ALL years, selected fields, the word “marriage” typed in under “grant” keyword — and it’s an “Advanced” search.  If you do this search, you’ll also see that not only ACF, but OFA, HSB, CB and several program offices of HHS are all in on studying and/or promoting marriages.  Other than helping out real hospitals, paying DV Coalitions to NOT talk about welfare-reform related effects on the women they’re supposedly serving, Medicaid, Head Start, $4 billion (child support enforcement, right?) and TANF-Welfare — well, and trying to get more kids into the foster care system, and from there Adopted, without too much roadkill (but inspite of the roadkill already documented), it appears that what HHS is DOING is promoting and demonstrating marriage.

OFA	CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS	OH	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	1	09/24/2006	93086	LUIS VAZQUEZ	$ 533,730
OFA	CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS	OH	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	4	08/24/2009	93086	LUIS VAZQUEZ	$ 533,730
OFA	CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS	OH	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	5	09/24/2010	93086	LUIS VAZQUEZ	$ 533,730
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	09/27/2011	93086	PATTY PATTY	$ 2,500,000
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	12/01/2011	93086	PATTY PATTY	$ 0
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/25/2006	93086	DENNIS J STOICA	$ 2,342,080
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	2	03/26/2009	93086	DENNIS J STOICA	$ 0
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	3	06/15/2009	93086	DENNIS J STOICA	$ 0
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	4	09/18/2009	93086	DENNIS J STOICA	$ 2,400,000
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	4	03/10/2010	93086	DENNIS STOICA	$ 0
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	4	11/22/2010	93086	DENNIS DENNIS	$ 0
OFA	California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	5	09/24/2010	93086	PATTY HOWELL	$ 2,400,000
OFA	Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.	WI	CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED	1	09/26/2011	93086	JEANETTE JEANETTE	$ 1,779,393

Remember “Convicts for Christ” singing for the wife of Rev. Sun Myung Moon (Bento Leal, was — maybe still is — staff at CHMC)?  Great influence, a world-wide moneylaundering religious cult with possible connections to illicit international dealings, who got a coronation in the US Senate building by a US Senator from Illinois.  How WONDERFUL an association of marriage educators we are truly in.

Here’s another big recipient — the Catholic Group, working at a pregnancy center?

OFA	EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN	TX	HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT	1	12/01/2011	93086	LEONARD LEONARD	$ 0
OFA	ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER	OH	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/25/2006	93086	VIVIAN M KOOB	$ 1,754,872
OFA	ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER	OH	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	1	08/21/2009	93086	GREG SCHUTTE	$- 17,964
OFA	ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER	OH	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	4	09/21/2009	93086	GREG SCHUTTE	$ 1,848,880
OFA	ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER	OH	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1	5	09/24/2010	93086	VIVIAN M KOOB	$ 1,860,687
OFA	ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER	OH	MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE	1	09/26/2011	93086	GREG GREG	$ 2,500,000

and let’s not forget INDIANA:

OFA	Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center	IN	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	1	09/25/2006	93086	ROBERT J RIPPERGER	$ 550,000
OFA	Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center	IN	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	4	09/17/2009	93086	ROBERT J RIPPERGER	$ 550,000
OFA	Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center	IN	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	5	09/24/2010	93086	ROBERT RIPPERGER	$ 550,000
OFA	Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center	IN	STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS	1	09/26/2011	93086	ROBERT ROBERT	$ 1,780,000
OFA	Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center	IN	STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS	1	12/01/2011	93086	ROBERT ROBERT	$ 0

and GEORGIA:

OFA	Future Foundation	GA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	1	09/25/2006	93086	QAADIRAH ABDUR-RAHIM **	$ 417,232
OFA	Future Foundation	GA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	4	09/18/2009	93086	SHAUNAE MOTLEY	$ 402,632
OFA	Future Foundation	GA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	5	09/24/2010	93086	SHAUNAE MOTLEY	$ 402,632
OFA	Future Foundation	GA	REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS	1	09/26/2011	93086	QAADIRAH QAADIRAH	$ 685,000
OFA	Future Foundation	GA	REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS	1	12/01/2011	93086	QAADIRAH QAADIRAH	$ 0

Ms. Abdur-Rahim is a Social Welfare graduate UC Berkeley, has Military (Air Force), Harvard, and an MBA from Emory, something from USF, background and looks like a superperformer.  The link is to her LinkedIn.  Notice 467 connections and:

 Assisted ACF and TANF with designing a best practice toolkit on non-profit capacity building and a case study on TANF & FBCOs working together

Program Director

Future Foundation

Privately Held; 11-50 employees; Think Tanks industry

October 2003 – March 2005 (1 year 6 months)

 Possibly a sibling of an excellent player from the Marietta, GA family:

Life’s Work

Shareef Abdur-Rahim is, according to Phil Taylor of Sports Illustrated, “the best NBA player you never see.” In college he played for the California Golden Bears, where he became the first freshman to win the Pacific-10 (Pac-10) Player of the Year Award. After one season of college ball he joined the Vancouver Grizzlies of the National Basketball Association (NBA). While the team’s losing record has kept Abdur-Rahim out of the spotlight, his dedication to improving his game and his well-grounded upbringing have prepared him for the fame that almost certainly lies ahead.

Shareef Abdur-Rahim was born December 11, 1976. His name means “noble servant of the Most Merciful One.” Abdur-Rahim grew up in a big family, which included seven siblings, in Marietta, Georgia, a suburb of Atlanta. Abdur-Rahim’s father, William, was a Muslim prayer leader at the Masjid Al-Muminum (Mosque of the Believers) in Atlanta, Georgia, and earned his living unloading freight for a trucking company. The family followed the rules of the Muslim faith very closely and Abdur-Rahim often helped his father distribute food to the poor or joined him on visits with people in drug rehabilitation centers.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/shareef-abdur-rahim#ixzz1jCd6KBnH

An article also talks about the Future Foundation and mentions Qaadirah, from the Sacramento Bee.  Safe house, after school programs for school, the family also started and ran a private Islamic School in Atlanta.

But when I rang the doorbell on the “Reef House,” it was less about big names than it was big hearts. Abdur-Rahim’s sister, Qaadirah Abdur-Rahim, certainly fit that bill. She is one of 11 Abdur-Rahim siblings, and so close in age to Shareef that she can’t remember how close (a year or a year and a half, she says). Her 31-year-old brother by the way, isn’t the only athlete in the family, as she ran track while attending Cal just like her brother had. He, of course, had slightly greater athletic fame, having been dubbed “The Future” for his talents that were just that promising.

Now though, Qaadirah is the executive director of the “Future Foundation,” where the only gameplans are the ones which involve helping kids develop in a healthy and happy manner. There are two facilties, one which offers free programs of varying kinds to elementary and junior high-aged kids and another some five minutes away which services high school students.

GEORGIA CORPORATIONS Page (these are high-performing people, I’m interested!)

QAADIRAH ABDUR-RAHIM FUTURE FOUNDATION, INC.   MERCY ENTERPRISE, INC. Qaadirah Abdur-Rahim THE LEIGH TORRENCE SWAY FOUNDATION, INC

It was formed in 2001 (same year Bush opened the door to FCBOs):

Non-Profit Corporation – Domestic – Information
Control No.:	0125997
Status:	Active/Owes Current Year AR
Entity Creation Date:	6/4/2001

Filing show they are indeed filing yearly (more than I can say for certain person’s org. now working in Pennsylvania, coordinating parents) but I can’t find the state-level charities search and don’t see it on NCCSDATA (or foundation finder). It’s noted Privately held foundation so probably might not show up here? I have no EIN# yet.  ”TBA”

 

---

Remember the Iowa Primaries and Iowa Family Policy Center?  Here it is:

OFA	IOWA FAMILY POLICY CENTER	IA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	1	09/22/2006	93086	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 550,000
OFA	IOWA FAMILY POLICY CENTER	IA	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	4	09/17/2009	93086	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 550,000

Understanding that Andy Kopsa is protesting protests of same-sex marriage, and religious right-wing matters, at least she blogs some of the funding here.  I sometimes wonder if anyone else is even paying attention!

To recap, The FAMiLY Leader {{TFL”}} is responsible for the bizarre “Marriage Vow” made famous in July that extolled the benefits of slavery to African-American families (after push-back, TFL removed all reference to slavery from the pledge’s text) and women’s role in society (producing lots of babies) and most recently a possible pay to play scandal where TFL asked Santorum to essentially pay for its endorsement.  (Despite all this, TFL wouldn’t be half as interesting a story if the organization hadn’t been built with over $3 million in federal funds.)

. . .

TFL began building its serious national political clout during the run up to the 2010 mid terms.  Then known as the Iowa Family Policy Center, The FAMiLY Leader (the little “i” stands for subservience to God) scooped up the three-time Iowa gubernatorial race loser Bob Vander Plaats.  His assignment?  To lead the charge to oust the three Iowa Supreme Court Justices that ruled in favor of same-sex marriage (mentioned above).  With the help of over half-million of out-of-state dollars from groups like The Family Research Council, the insane American Family Association and the National Organization for Marriage – they pulled it off.

TFL is part of network of Christian organizations – affiliates of Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.  The South Carolina analog to TFL – The Palmetto Family Council – will undoubtedly follow suit and start working its magic for Santorum.  The Palmetto Family Council also received federal funding – $1.2 million to preach heterosexual marriage and abstinence-only via George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives.

And some people did an FOIA and found out that the IFPC had used its funds, apparently, for political campaigning against the judges, and didn’t file its closing paperwork, etc.  Explained in part here (and see link).

http://iowaindependent.com/61541/ethical-questions-smolder-around-ifpcs-taxpayer-assistance

The Iowa Family Policy Center, a division of The Family Leader, did not comply with federal-grant protocol when it relinquished the last year of federal funding it received for a controversial marriage-counseling program, according to documents obtained by The Independent under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

At the center of the controversy is the recent revelation that the Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) might have used taxpayer dollars to wage a campaign against same-sex marriage in the state.

Shorty after The Iowa Independent began reporting on IFPC’s Marriage Mattersprogram, IFPC announced they had agreed in September 2009 to stop accepting money from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) for the counseling operation. Marriage Matters was funded by federal government dollars while the organization carried out a campaign to oust three state Supreme Court judges whose 2009 ruling legalized civil marriage for Iowa gays and lesbians.

But IFPC did not officially relinquish the grant funding until nearly a year later, The Iowa Independent reported.

In a letter dated Aug. 3, 2010, HHS’s Administration for Children and Families (ACF) asked IFPC President Chuck Hurley to submit a formal relinquishment letter explaining the group’s reasoning for rejecting the funds. That was the first step in the process. The next step in the process, as ACF Grants Management Specialist Abangolee J. Caulcrick explained in that initial letter, would be for IFPC to submit a final financial status report and a final progress report.

. . . .

The question of funding overlap comes from the fact that, according to the AP, IFPC spent $192,000 of the $550,000 it received in 2009 on salaries and employee benefits for five employees, including Hurley. The AP revealed that in April, when the news organization asked Marriage Matters operations manager Chris Nitzschke which IFPC employees were paid through the grant, Nitzschke only mentioned IFPC Vice President Mike Hartwig was paid; he did not mention more than half of his own salary came from the grant.

Additionally, the Healthy Marriage grant money was spent on telephone, Internet and rent for the same building out of which IFPC was operating its campaign to overturn the gay-marriage Supreme Court ruling.

Political connections

One of the paid employees, Matt Reisetter — who was running the Northeast Iowa Marriage Alliance (NIMA) for the Marriage Matters program and is now the Family Leader’s director of development — was running for state political office and working for a presidential candidate at the same time.

In 2006, Reisetter, a Republican, ran a failed bid for Iowa House District 19 seat against the Democratic incumbent Bob Kressig. And in late 2007, he was hired by then-GOP presidential candidate and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee. Reiseitter’s job asdirector of coalitions was essentially to help pastors f

More: ….Remember THIS ONE?  When I found “ICF” — which is being paid to do not just a NHMRC but a NRCSPHM — it’s a large, for-profit company which has contracted a lot of ACF work before (so why is this a $1.5 million GRANT?) and why is it described as an arm of government when it’s not?

OFA	I C F, INC	VA	NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	09/28/2011	93086	CINDY CINDY	$ 1,500,000
OFA	I C F, INC	VA	NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	12/01/2011	93086	CINDY CINDY	$ 0

So, it gets even more interesting when we search on GRANTEE (i.e. corporations, etc.) that stuck the name “MARRIAGE In there to get some funding for spreading the good news — about marriage, I mean, and relationships, naturally:

Well, it’s not always good news, they perhaps discovered –but this gets lesser funding, obviously:

NIMH	WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	MI	DEPRESSION AND CHRONIC PAIN IN MARRIAGE	1	06/10/2003	93281	ANNMARIE CANO	$ 131,610
NIMH	WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	MI	DEPRESSION AND CHRONIC PAIN IN MARRIAGE	2	06/08/2004	93281	ANNMARIE CANO	$ 133,124
NIMH	WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	MI	DEPRESSION AND CHRONIC PAIN IN MARRIAGE	3	07/11/2005	93281	ANNMARIE CANO	$ 135,765
NIMH	WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	MI	DEPRESSION AND CHRONIC PAIN IN MARRIAGE	4	07/07/2006	93281	ANNMARIE CANO	$ 138,154
NIMH	WAYNE STATE UNIVERSITY	MI	DEPRESSION AND CHRONIC PAIN IN MARRIAGE	5	07/17/2007	93281	ANNMARIE CANO	$ 133,096

t ,This one of the guys (along with Markman) who got to have their “PREP, Inc.” curriculum    marketed through US public welfare institutions, as well as were advisors to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  Nice to see how it all fits together?  L

NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	1	04/29/2006	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 565,865
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	2	03/31/2007	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 576,518
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	3	02/18/2008	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 556,682
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	4	03/31/2009	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 570,374
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	5	03/05/2010	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 565,440
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	5	05/18/2011	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 0
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	5	05/20/2011	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 0
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RISK REDUCTION FOR ARMY FAMILIES	6	05/18/2011	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 588,726
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	THE ROLE OF COHABITATION IN MARRIAGE AND UNION FORMATION	1	09/30/2006	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 459,656
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	THE ROLE OF COHABITATION IN MARRIAGE AND UNION FORMATION	2	09/04/2007	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 450,863
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	THE ROLE OF COHABITATION IN MARRIAGE AND UNION FORMATION	3	08/11/2008	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 521,486
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	THE ROLE OF COHABITATION IN MARRIAGE AND UNION FORMATION	3	10/21/2008	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 0
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	THE ROLE OF COHABITATION IN MARRIAGE AND UNION FORMATION	4	08/28/2009	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 520,746
NICHD	UNIVERSITY OF DENVER	CO	THE ROLE OF COHABITATION IN MARRIAGE AND UNION FORMATION	5	08/23/2010	93865	SCOTT M STANLEY	$ 510,36

Wanna go on?  Let’s look at the groups that put Marriage in their name now, meaning they might also just be churches on the faucet here…

I forgot to include Dr. Leo Godzich and NAME (National Association for Marriage Enhancement — I’ve blogged) — here they all are, in glorious detail, our friends:

Interesting how often ABSTINENCE , EDUCATION and MARRIAGE seem to go hand in hand, so to speak.  SO long as it’s only holding HANDS, it’s OK, evidently.

Results 1 to 108 of 108 matches.
Page 1 of 1	1

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	90AE0128	TARGETED CAPACITY BUIDLING PROJECT FOR CHICAGO AREA AT-RISK YOUTH	1	09/16/2005	93010	NEW	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 800,000
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	90AE0128	TARGETED CAPACITY BUIDLING PROJECT FOR CHICAGO AREA AT-RISK YOUTH	2	08/28/2006	93010	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 800,000
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	90AE0128	TARGETED CAPACITY BUIDLING PROJECT FOR CHICAGO AREA AT-RISK YOUTH	2	05/14/2007	93010	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 0
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	90AE0128	TARGETED CAPACITY BUIDLING PROJECT FOR CHICAGO AREA AT-RISK YOUTH	3	09/07/2007	93010	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 800,000
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	90AE0307	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	09/25/2008	93010	NEW	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 512,500
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	90AE0307	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	2	09/13/2009	93010	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 487,724
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	90IJ0442	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – YOUTH	1	09/21/2005	93009	NEW	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 50,000
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	90AE0054	HRSA AE CONTINUATIONS	3	07/07/2005	93010	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE WOOD	$ 686,278
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	90AE0180	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	09/20/2006	93010	NEW	CATHERINE E WOOD	$ 600,000
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	90AE0180	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	2	09/01/2007	93010	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE E WOOD	$ 600,000
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	90AE0180	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	3	08/11/2008	93010	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE E WOOD	$ 600,000
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	90AE0180	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	4	08/19/2009	93010	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE E WOOD	$ 570,994
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	H1DMC00828	SPRANS COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	07/01/2003	93110	NEW	CATHERINE E. WOOD	$ 686,278
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	H1DMC00828	SPRANS COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	03/20/2005	93110	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	CATHERINE E. WOOD	$ 0
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	H1DMC00828	SPRANS COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	2	07/13/2004	93110	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE E. WOOD	$ 686,278
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	H1DMC00828	SPRANS COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	2	11/04/2005	93110	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CATHERINE E. WOOD	$ 0
BILL WILSON MARRIAGE & FAMILY COUNSELING CENTER	CA	09CY2057	RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH	01	09/26/1995	93623	NEW	SPARKY HARLAN	$ 125,000
BILL WILSON MARRIAGE & FAMILY COUNSELING CENTER	CA	09CY2057	RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH	02	07/09/1996	93623	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SPARKY HARLAN	$ 125,000
BILL WILSON MARRIAGE & FAMILY COUNSELING CENTER	CA	09CY2057	RUNAWAY AND HOMELESS YOUTH	3	09/18/1997	93623	COMPETING CONTINUATION	SPARKY HARLAN	$ 125,000
Columbus Marriage Coalition, Inc	OH	90IJ0223	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/18/2005	93009	NEW	STEPHEN JUDAH	$ 49,983
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90FE0034	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	1	09/22/2006	93086	NEW	DR ANNE R GRIES	$ 530,705
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90FE0034	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	2	09/21/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR ANNE R GRIES	$ 528,935
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90FE0034	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	3	09/17/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR ANNE R GRIES	$ 543,303
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90FE0034	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	4	09/18/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN B PHILLIPS	$ 543,303
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90FE0034	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN PHILLIPS	$ 543,303
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90FM0005	SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS.	1	09/27/2011	93086	NEW	JOHN JOHN	$ 799,999
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90FM0005	SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS.	1	12/01/2011	93086	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	JOHN JOHN	$ 0
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	90IJ0147	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	07/23/2004	93647	NEW	DANIEL W HAYDEN	$ 50,000
Community Marriage Initiative, Inc.	NH	90IJ0142	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	07/23/2004	93647	NEW	RON TANNARIELLO	$ 50,000
DOWNRIVER MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	MI	90IJ0834	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM/MARRIAGE	1	08/04/2007	93009	NEW	JULIANNE M BOCK	$ 50,000
Embracing Marriage: The Gtr Portland Coalition for Marr	ME	90IJ0466	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/22/2005	93009	NEW	KATHLEEN M BEIRNE	$ 50,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0108	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	2	09/20/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0108	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	3	09/25/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0108	HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE IN WISCONSIN, SERVING MARRIED COUPLES.	1	09/24/2006	93086	NEW	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 544,680
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0108	HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE IN WISCONSIN, SERVING MARRIED COUPLES.	4	09/18/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0108	HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE IN WISCONSIN, SERVING MARRIED COUPLES.	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0124	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3	2	09/21/2007	93086	COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0124	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3	3	09/17/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0124	HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE IN WISCONSIN, SERVING TEENS, INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN MARRIAGE, AND MARRIED COUPLES IN SPANISH AND ENGLISH.	1	09/22/2006	93086	NEW	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 545,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0124	HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE IN WISCONSIN, SERVING TEENS, INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN MARRIAGE, AND MARRIED COUPLES IN SPANISH AND ENGLISH.	4	09/18/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE	WI	90FE0124	HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE IN WISCONSIN, SERVING TEENS, INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN MARRIAGE, AND MARRIED COUPLES IN SPANISH AND ENGLISH.	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SUSAN DUTTON FREUND	$ 550,000
Fresno County Healthy Marriage Coalition	CA	90IJ0827	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	08/08/2007	93009	NEW	RONALD D MCLAIN	$ 50,000
Greater Houston Healthy Marriage Coalition	TX	90IJ0609	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/14/2006	93009	NEW	TIMOTHY LOUIS	$ 50,000
Indiana Healthy Marriage and Family Coalition	IN	90IJ0214	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/19/2005	93009	NEW	RUTH L LAMBERT	$ 50,000
MARRIAGE ALLIANCE OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA	VA	90IJ0137	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	07/23/2004	93647	NEW	WALTER R SMITH	$ 49,020
MARRIAGE ALLIANCE OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA	VA	90IJ0137	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	06/13/2006	93009	OTHER REVISION	WALTER R SMITH	$- 1,099
MARRIAGE ALLIANCE OF CENTRAL VIRGINIA	VA	90IJ0137	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	09/21/2009	93009	OTHER REVISION	WALTER R SMITH	$ 0
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONNECTIONS	OR	90IJ0616	THE COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/23/2006	93009	NEW	DANIEL J LEISCHNER	$ 50,000
MARRIAGE COALITION (THE)	OH	90FI0054	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 2	1	12/19/2002	93601	NEW	SANDRA G BENDER	$ 199,994
MARRIAGE COALITION (THE)	OH	90IJ0208	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/17/2005	93009	NEW	ANITA ARMSTRONG	$ 50,000
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	90FE0009	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3	1	09/25/2006	93086	NEW	RONDA NISSLEY	$ 524,790
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	90FE0009	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3	2	09/20/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RONDA NISSLEY	$ 534,960
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	90FE0009	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3	3	09/14/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RONDA NISSLEY	$ 540,000
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	90FE0009	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3	4	09/16/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RONDA NISSLEY	$ 545,000
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	90FE0009	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RONDA NISSLEY	$ 549,990
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	90FM0004	THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.	1	09/27/2011	93086	NEW	RONDA M RONDA	$ 798,380
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	90FM0004	THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.	1	12/01/2011	93086	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	RONDA RONDA	$ 0
Marriage Mentoring Ministries, Inc	CA	90IJ0206	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/17/2005	93009	NEW	RONALD MCLAIN	$ 50,000
Marriage Savers of Frederick County	MD	90IJ0606	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/20/2006	93009	NEW	ROBERT J DONK	$ 50,000
Marriage and Family Savers Ministries	NY	90IJ0604	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/21/2006	93009	NEW	WILLIAM C BANUCHI	$ 49,961
Mediation & Marriage Education Center of Menomonie	WI	90IJ0456	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/22/2005	93009	NEW	JUDY K PAREJKO	$ 50,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT	AZ	90FE0040	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	1	09/25/2006	93086	NEW	DR LEO GODZICH	$ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT	AZ	90FE0040	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	2	09/21/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR LEO GODZICH	$ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT	AZ	90FE0040	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	3	09/22/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR LEO GODZICH	$ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT	AZ	90FE0040	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	4	09/17/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR LEO GODZICH	$ 250,000
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT	AZ	90FE0040	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR LEO GODZICH	$ 250,000
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90FE0041	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	1	09/25/2006	93086	NEW	DR ROBERT E WHIDDON	$ 246,728
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90FE0041	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	2	09/21/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR ROBERT E WHIDDON	$ 270,000
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90FE0041	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	3	09/25/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR ROBERT E WHIDDON	$ 275,000
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90FE0041	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	4	09/17/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR ROBERT E WHIDDON	$ 275,000
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90FE0041	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	ROBERT WHIDDON	$ 275,000
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90FK0051	PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS	1	09/26/2011	93086	NEW	ROBERT ROBERT	$ 747,281
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90FK0051	PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS	1	12/01/2011	93086	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	ROBERT ROBERT	$ 0
NW Marriage Institute	WA	90IJ0216	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/17/2005	93009	NEW	ROBERT E WHIDDON	$ 50,000
Orange County Marriage Education and Training Institute	CA	90IJ0201	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI	1	09/17/2005	93009	NEW	DENNIS STOICA	$ 50,000
Orange County Marriage Resource Center	CA	90IJ0121	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	07/23/2004	93647	NEW	DENNIS STOICA	$ 50,000
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	1	09/24/2006	93086	NEW	CAROLYN R CURTIS	$ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	2	09/17/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN R CURTIS	$ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	2	09/26/2008	93086	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CAROLYN R CURTIS	$ 0
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	3	09/25/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN R CURTIS	$ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	4	09/17/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN R CURTIS	$ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN CURTIS	$ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FM0059	FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM	1	09/26/2011	93086	NEW	CAROLYN CAROLYN	$ 798,825
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90FM0059	FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM	1	12/01/2011	93086	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	CAROLYN CAROLYN	$ 0
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	90IJ0205	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/17/2005	93009	NEW	CAROLYN CURTIS	$ 50,000
San Diego North Cty Latino Marriage & Family Resource C	CA	90IJ0828	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	08/06/2007	93009	NEW	JOHN SANCHEZ	$ 50,000
San Gabriel Valley Marriage Resource Center	CA	90IJ0204	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/17/2005	93009	NEW	KENNETH ALLISON	$ 49,877
San Gabriel Valley Marriage Resource Center	CA	90IJ0204	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	03/22/2011	93009	OTHER REVISION	KENNETH ALLISON	$- 1
Sioux Empire Marriage Savers	SD	90IJ0131	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	07/23/2004	93647	NEW	MARY E MASTICK	$ 50,000
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	1	09/24/2006	93086	NEW	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 1,099,731
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	2	09/21/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 1,099,882
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	2	06/06/2008	93086	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 0
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	3	09/14/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 1,099,882
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	3	03/06/2009	93086	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 0
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	4	09/18/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 1,099,882
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 1,099,845
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90FE0133	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 2	5	10/18/2010	93086	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	BRIDGET BRIDGET	$ 37
St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition	MO	90IJ0458	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/22/2005	93009	NEW	BRIDGET BRENNAN	$ 50,000
Stanislaus County Healthy Marriage Coalition	CA	90IJ0587	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) – MARRIAGE	1	09/14/2006	93009	NEW	JAMES STEWARD	$ 50,000
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FE0024	DEMONSTRATION OF INFUENCING HIGH SCHOOL TEEN OUTCOMES THROUGH INCREASING ACCESS TO RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PROGRAMS AND INFLUENCING MEDIA MESSAGES	1	09/22/2006	93086	NEW	CATHERINE M REED	$ 549,999
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FE0024	DEMONSTRATION OF INFUENCING HIGH SCHOOL TEEN OUTCOMES THROUGH INCREASING ACCESS TO RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PROGRAMS AND INFLUENCING MEDIA MESSAGES	4	09/17/2009	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE M REED	$ 547,153
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FE0024	DEMONSTRATION OF INFUENCING HIGH SCHOOL TEEN OUTCOMES THROUGH INCREASING ACCESS TO RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PROGRAMS AND INFLUENCING MEDIA MESSAGES	4	09/24/2009	93086	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	CATHERINE M REED	$ 137,500
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FE0024	DEMONSTRATION OF INFUENCING HIGH SCHOOL TEEN OUTCOMES THROUGH INCREASING ACCESS TO RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PROGRAMS AND INFLUENCING MEDIA MESSAGES	5	09/24/2010	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE REED	$ 550,000
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FE0024	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	2	09/17/2007	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE M REED	$ 550,000
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FE0024	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	3	09/14/2008	93086	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CATHERINE M REED	$ 550,000
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FM0010	BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES	1	09/27/2011	93086	NEW	CATHERINE M CATHERINE	$ 794,846
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	90FM0010	BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES	1	12/01/2011	93086	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	CATHERINE M CATHERINE	$ 0
Texas Healthy Marriage and Relationship Initiative	TX	90IJ0623	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	1	09/24/2006	93009	NEW	VALERIE BALLARD	$ 50,000

Results 1 to 108 of 108 matches.
Page 1 of 1

I’m going to go look up c in Ohio and see if it registered itself.  Have a nice day.

(By the way — I’m not finding it so far.  TAGGS data entry probably renamed the group, again).

http://www2.sos.state.oh.us/pls/bsqry/f?p=100:1:4440170694377566

NOTE:  I hope this proves that, no matter which President is elected, unless someone protests, we are going to have MUCH more of this.  Just remember, a lot of the money comes from TANF-welfare, so if a poor single parent shows up at your household, you can tell them:  I gave at the office, I gave at the church (etc.), I work and pay my taxes, and since you don’t have a man in your life, go jump in the lake’ we’re all given out.  You shouldn’t have gotten pregnant in the first place, or should have been tougher and able to stay in an abusive marriage.  Shame on you for believing all that feminist rot about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS to be free from assault & battery!

This will only apply so long as one of these “anti-contraception” guys doesn’t win.

I realize that the corporate names won’t display on this Ohio SOS search of the word “Abstinence” (only) with the SOS.  You can do it — but we see, it’s a popular theme.  I can see why.  See Trumbull County child rape:

TAGGS summary info: (HHS grants)  This represents (click on it) grants from 2003 through 2009….

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	SUNBURY	OH	43074	DELAWARE	791293129	$ 4,429,828

S

Entity  Number Business Name Type Original  Filing Date Expiry  Date Status Business Location County State RN220829 REGISTERED TRADE NAME 07/22/1996 07/22/2006 Cancelled - - - 9087 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 01/16/1895 - Cancelled MARION MARION OHIO 1613434 REGISTERED TRADE NAME 04/03/2006 04/03/2011 Cancelled - - - 1070441 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 02/18/1999 02/18/2004 Cancelled SOLON CUYAHOGA - 186277 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 10/06/1943 - Cancelled CLEVELAND CUYAHOGA OHIO 1387709 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 05/13/2003 05/13/2008 Cancelled GREENVILLE DARKE - 983389 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 06/30/1997 12/17/2009 Cancelled MASON WARREN OHIO 1848028 FOREIGN CORPORATION 04/02/2009 04/02/2014 Active - - FLORIDA 1085290 REGISTERED TRADE NAME 04/07/1999 04/07/2009 Cancelled - - - 1 – 9 .. PLEASE NOTE THAT NONE OF THESE ARE IN DELAWARE COUNTY, AND THE ONLY ACTIVE ONE WAS BASED OUT OF FLORIDA..  HERE’s the address (Google Maps) of the TAGGS grantee

Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact

By Debra Hauser, MPH, Vice President, Advocates for Youth Introduction Since 1991, rates of teenage pregnancy and birth have declined significantly in the United States. These are welcome trends. Yet, teens in the United States continue to suffer from the highest birth rate and one of the highest rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in the industrialized world. Debate over the best way to help teens avoid, or reduce, their sexual risk-taking behavior has polarized many youth-serving professionals. On one side are those that support comprehensive sex education—education that promotes abstinence but includes information about contraception and condoms to build young people’s knowledge, attitudes and skills for when they do become sexually active. On the other side are those that favor abstinence-only-until-marriage—programs that promote “abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard”[1] of behavior. Proponents of abstinence-only programs believe that providing information about the health benefits of condoms or contraception contradicts their message of abstinence-only and undermines its impact. As such, abstinence-only programs provide no information about contraception beyond failure rates.

In 1996, Congress signed into law the Personal Responsibility & Work Opportunities Reconciliation Act, or “welfare reform.” Attached was the provision, later set out in Section 510(b) of Title V of the Social Security Act, appropriating $250 million dollars over five years for state initiatives promoting sexual abstinence outside of marriage as the only acceptable standard of behavior for young people. For the first five years of the initiative, every state but Californiaparticipated in the program.[2] (California had experimented with its own abstinence-only initiative in the early 1990′s. The program was terminated in February 1996, when evaluation results found the program to be ineffective.[3]) From 1998 to 2003, almost a half a billion dollars in state and federal funds were appropriated to support the Title V initiative. A report, detailing the results from the federally funded evaluation of select Title V programs, was due to be released more than a year ago. Last year, Congress extended “welfare reform” and, with it, the Title V abstinence-only-until-marriage funding without benefit of this, as yet unreleased, report. As the first five-year funding cycle of Title V came to a close, a few state-funded evaluations became public. Others were completed with little or no fanfare. This document reviews the findings from the 10 evaluations that Advocates for Youth was able to identify. Advocates for Youth also includes evaluation results from California‘s earlier attempt at a statewide abstinence-only initiative.

I found the Principal Investigator over this $4 million of HHS grants for a not-found Ohio corporation:

http://www.atmeducation.org/_data/user_docs/SepOct.pdf  (from a 2007 on-line newsletter)

Catherine E. Wood, ATM Education’s founder and president, was honored at the 11th Annual Abstinence Clearinghouse

Conference held in St. Paul, MN July 9-11 with the Watchdog Award “as an advocate showing the best leadership in the abstinence community.” The prestigious award was pre- sented to Catherine at the conference’s ban- quet held at the Crown Plaza Hotel in down- town St. Paul.

As President of ATM Education and Di- rector of Central Ohio AEN, Catherine has championed the teaching of abstinence until marriage education in Ohio and created a curriculum, Relationships under Construction (RUC) that is taught by abstinence providers in over 50 Ohio counties, in numerous states across the United States, in Puerto Rico, the Ukraine and parts of Africa . .

 

Catherine has been a pioneer in abstinence until marriage education assisting with the devel-opment of one of the first government funded curricula in 1987, Responsible Social Values Program (RSVP). RSVP contracted with Kent State University for the first successful evaluation of an abstinence until marriage education program.

Catherine has taught extensively in the class- room as well as in mentoring groups held in public schools, communities and in youth groups. She, along with other partners in the Ohio Abstinence Campaign (OAC), developed a pre- and post-survey to measure the impact of the abstinence until marriage message. Data collected from those surveys has been evaluated by Miami University in Oxford, OH since the 2003-04 school year. Over the last four years, ATM Education and Central Ohio AEN have taught over 140,000 students in 35 Ohio counties in public schools, churches, mentoring groups and community-based after school programs.

Catherine has either administered or served as a sub-contractor to over $7 million in federal and state of Ohio grants since 1998.

Catherine’s passion for teaching young peo- ple abstinence until marriage is reflected in her belief that “young people can make healthy choices if they are given truthful information. Saving sexual activity for marriage and then being faithful in that marriage are the healthiest choices for our young people and their future families.” Her goal is to get truthful information to young people and to the adults who influence them.

This is the newsletter, a colorful, I gather trifold? thing showing the same address, listing board members (one pastor and one rev) Catherine and (her husband?) Wood, and this note:

“ATM Education is funded by individual, corporate donations and federal grants. The newsletter is supported by project 90AE0180 from the Administration of Children and Families (Title V, Social Security Act), Department of Health & Human Services.”

 

So where’s it’s nonprofit filing? OH, I GET IT — TAGGS didn’t use the abbreviation “ATM”!  HERE IT IS: (Blank rectangle reads “ATM Education”) — and we see the incorporated July 2002, and got the first grant one year later (above, see “action date” column for the group).  Moreover, this is a Trade Name for “relationships Under Construction” although the search doesn’t show that up front.

 

 

 

Entity  Number Business Name Type Original  Filing Date Expiry  Date Status Business Location County State 1329647 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 07/17/2002 08/08/2012 Active SUNBURY DELAWARE -

 

 

 

Its Charitable info shows it’s still active (very few annual reports — maybe Ohio doesn’t require annual filings for corporations, as I recall):

Organization Details:

Organization Name: ATM Education

Employer identification number (EIN): 14-1859397

Address line 1: 130 Burrer Dr

Address line 2: Box 323

City: Sunbury

State: Ohio

ZIP code: 43074

County: Delaware

Country: United States

Telephone: (740)965-2046

Web address: www.missthemess.com

Date of formation: 07/04/2002

Charitable exempt purpose:

Is the organization’s registration status current? Yes

 

Here’s a list of ABSTINENCE providers for Ohio.  You’ll recognize many as also marriage/fatherhood recipients, for example, Elizabeth New Life Center (hardly surprising)

1. [PDF]

   Please Note: Abstinence education service providers may not …

   www.odh.ohio.gov/ASSETS/…/abprovdr.pdf

   File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
   atmoffice@missthemess.com. Allen. Heartbeats of Lima. 3325 W. Elm Street. Lima, OH 45801. 419-222-7945. Patti Kennedy. Ashland. Abstinence & Absolutes …

I just got a HORRIBLE sick feeling in my gut when I saw — among they many bright and youth-oriented links, infobytes and appealing appeals to abstain — a link to this:

http://www.boystown.org/about/father-edward-j-flanagan

They were soliciting for donations to Boys Town, as in Omaha Nebraska.  They have not heard of Paul Bonacci?

ather Flanagan was born on July 13, 1886, in County Roscommon, Ireland. In 1904, he set sail for the United States. Following his ordination in 1912, Father Flanagan was assigned to the Diocese of Omaha. His first parish assignment was Saint Patrick’s in O’Neill, Nebraska. In March 1913, he was appointed Assistant Pastor to Saint Patrick Catholic Church in Omaha.

On December 12, 1917, Father Flanagan opened his first Boys’ Home in a run-down Victorian mansion in downtown Omaha. In 1921, the Boys’ Home moved to Overlook Farm, its present location near 139th and West Dodge Road. Father Flanagan and Boys Town became internationally known with the help of the 1938 movie, “Boys Town.” He became an acknowledged expert in the field of child care, and toured the United States discussing his views on juvenile delinquency.

The federal government called on Father Flanagan to help children both nationally and internationally. After World War II, President Truman asked him to travel to Asia and Europe to attend discussions about children left orphaned and displaced by the war.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ BOYS TOWN APPARENTLY WAS A SOURCE OF VICTIMS FOR LARRY KING & FRIENDS, SEE “THE FRANKLIN COVERUP” _ _ _ _ _ _ _

WHY WOULD AN ABSTINENCE EDUCATOR IN OHIO BE SOLICITING MONEY FOR AN ORPHANAGE /FOSTER CARE HOME IN NEBRASKA, AGAIN? ????

From TOM FLOCCO.COM

The Justice Department, acting through the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Omaha, emerges from the record of the Franklin investigations not so much as a party to the cover-up, but as its coordinator. Rigging grand juries, harassment of witnesses, incitement to perjury and tampering with evidence -federal personnel were seen to apply all of those techniques in the Franklin case. (John W. DeCamp, Esq., The Franklin Cover-up, Second Edition, January 2005)

Bless the Beasts and the Children

Photographer for White House child sex ring arrested after Thompson suicide

by Tom Flocco

WASHINGTON—March 13, 2005—TomFlocco.com—Photographer Russell E. “Rusty” Nelson was recently arrested two days after journalist Hunter Thompson reportedly committed suicide four weeks ago on February 10, according to two phone interviews with attorney John DeCamp last week.

Nelson was allegedly employed by a former Republican Party activist to take pictures of current or retired U.S. House-Senate members and other prominent government officials engaging in sexual criminality by receiving or committing sodomy and other sex acts on children during the Reagan-Bush 41 administrations. 

{The photos weren’t just for personal consumption, if they were there, certainly they could be used to control congresspeople through blackmail!]**

. . . . 

{{I don’t know that Paul Bonacci was from Boys Town, but it definitely provided victims, as did the foster care system, and yes, this is the Franklin Coverup, and the same institution.  Boys Town also had girls.  Here’s Paul’s statement:}}

Pedophile victim Paul Bonacci–kidnapped and forced into sex slavery between the ages of 6 and 17–told U.S. District Court Judge Warren Urbom in sworn testimony [pp.105, 124-126] on February 5, 1999: “Where were the parties?…down in Washington, DC…and that was for sex…There was sex between adult men and other adult men but most of it had to do with young boys and young girls with the older folks…specifically for sex with minors…Also in Washington, DC, there were parties after a party…there were a lot of parties where there would be senators and congressmen who had nothing to do with the sexual stuff. But there were some senators and congressmen who stayed for the [pedophile sex] parties afterwards…on a lot of the trips he took us on he had us, I mean, I met some people that I don’t feel comfortable telling their name because I don’t want to — …Q: Are you scared?…Yes…”

AND:

(WARNING — WHAT FOLLOWS IS VERY DISTURBING):

The evidence DeCamp presented was so credible and substantial that Urbom awarded Paul Bonacci $1 million for child abuse on February 19, 1999 regarding his lawsuit involving Larry King. This, despite a Nebraska jury having already indicted Bonacci for perjury in 1990, ultimately sending an intentionally damaged, spiritually and physically abused young man to prison for five years–and despite his treatment by King, described in court testimony:

“They put guns up to my head. Had guns put in my mouth…Larry King sent out boys, men, to jump me…he had them pretty well beat the tar out of me from the waist down so nobody would see the marks…I had my fingers broken…I can remember them burning me with hot instruments…placing stuff inside me…almost what I call a cattle prod.. . (PASSAGE OMITTED BY LGH)

“I threatened to go to the police in California, thought maybe they would listen whereas in Omaha they were in his pocketbook…he had me hung out of an airplane with a rope by my ankles…If they wanted to get something passed through the legislature, he would put some people that were against it in a compromising position. By using us boys and girls…Judge Urbom: Was this by your being the sexual partner of that person?…Yes…Judge Urbom: …Any estimates of how often you participated as the sexual partner of one of these persons that he wanted to get some kind of control over?…There were times when it would be four or five in a night…on probably a couple thousand times…sometimes dozens of times with the same person…” [U.S. District Court testimony, 2-5-1999, pp. 146-151]

{{THINK ABOUT IT:

LARRY KING GETS OUT IN APRIL 2001 AFTER JUST FIVE YEARS — AND NONE OF IT RELATING TO ANYTHING DONE TO THE CHILDREN:}}}

John DeCamp told us last week that “Larry King was released from prison on April 11, 2001 after serving about five years,” adding “he’s back in Washington, DC and now involved in this story again.”  [DeCamp's book also said "King went to prison for embezzlement, conspiracy and making false financial record entries...there was no trial on any other charges, and the evidence of child prostitution and abuse perpetrated by King was never presented in any court."  Franklin Cover-up, p. 224]  

{{THIS SHOULD SOUND FAMILIAR TO SOME PROTECTIVE PARENTS IN FAMILY COURT.   AND THAT IS WHY I SAY, LOOK AT THE FUNDING, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THESE THINGS GO TOGETHER…. AFTER ALL — IF MONEY IS GOING DOWN THE BLACK HOLE OF OCSE, NON-ACCOUNTABILITY, WHAT’S IT BEING SPENT ON?  WHAT’S THE NEED TO GET AHOLD OF UNREGISTERED, NON-REPORTED FUNDING, IN SUCH A WIDE SCALE AS THESE PROGRAMS SEEM TO HAVE?  I MEAN, IT MIGHT BE JUST GREED, BUT DO WE KNOW?}}

Past mysterious deaths, clandestine arrests, court testimony, and credible evidence of FBI and CIA participation in their cover-up also raise questions as to why elderly pedophile priests are removed from their pulpits, prosecuted and imprisoned for sex acts committed 40 years ago and why famous music entertainers are prosecuted for pedophilia; yet elderly pedophile federal legislators may still remain in the U.S. House and Senate–drawing a free pass for past criminal child-sex acts.

{{THIS PARAGRAPH TALKS ABOUT BOYS TOWN AS SOURCE OF CHILDREN FOR THIS…}}

Presidential indiscretions–or criminal acts?

According to a Nebraska state police report, Nebraska Foster Care Review Board letter to the Attorney General, Nebraska Senate’s Franklin committee investigative report, and a 50-page report by Omaha’s Boys Town welfare case officer Mrs. Julie Walters, pedophile victims Nelly and Kimberly Webb detailed a massive child sex, homosexual and pornography operation run out of Nebraska by Larry King–but with close ties directly to the Congress and the White House. 

THE BLACKMAIL FACTOR RELATED TO SOME OF THE FRANKLIN (CREDIT UNION) COVERUP.  I FIRST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS WHILE LOOKING UP A JUDGE FOR A FRIEND (FROM NEBRASKA) WHO WAS A MINOR FIGURE IN ALL OF THIS.  BUT HE WAS STILL IN IT!

John DeCamp just released an updated 2005 edition of his original book about the secret White House-linked national child sex-ring entitled The Franklin Cover-up [$12.95 + $4.00 shipping: contact decamplegal@inebraska.com for 2005 edition]. The carefully researched and graphic expose involves convicted [and recently released from prison] GOP operative Lawrence E. “Larry” King Jr. who allegedly hired photographers to capture legislators and high officials in compromising sexual positions with children while he managed the Franklin Federal Credit Union–according to court testimony on 2-5-1999. [Franklin was raided by federal agencies and shut down two days before George H. W. Bush was elected president in 1988.]

“The Walters report continued: “On December 19, 1988, Nelly was contacted and voluntarily came to the FBI offices on December 30, 1988. She was interviewed by [FBI agents] Brady, Tucker and Phillips…in September or October, 1984 when Lisa was 14 she went to Chicago with Larry King and 15-20 boys from Omaha…She indicates she attended a party in Chicago with King and the male youths…”

ANOTHER REPORT (THIS IS A MOTHER OF A KIDNAPPED BOY, WHO PAUL BONACCI RELATED HE WAS IN THE CAR AT THE TIME, AND FORCED TO LURE HIM IN, INITIATE, ETC.    ).    NOREEN GOSCH SPEAKS ABOUT JEFF GANNON (POSSIBLY HER MISSING SON), JOHNNY GOSCH, AND THE ATTEMPTED THEFT OF HER BOOK, “WHY JOHNNY CAN’T COME HOME.“

Because the matter is so disturbing, I have left it in REAL fine print here, with this intro — that we citizens need to stop taking this (Same) government at face value when it says, it just wants to promote healthy relationships, and is forcing this legislation on a broke country year after year.  Of all people who might NOT know about “healthy relationships” are some who would be all about “forcing” programs and themselves on people, with a particular interest in young people, and to make sure they continue to traumatize mothers (in particular) and fathers in the process.

It was Noreen’s personally funded private detectives, not the police or any branch of law enforcement, who finally uncovered the culprits who were behind Johnny’s kidnapping, including why they had chosen him, for what purpose, and what they had done to him as a result. Noreen has been instrumental in exposing organized pedophilia, its infrastructure and some of the personalities behind it, as well as helping to expose the pedophile network’s interlocking relationships with elite hierarchies of political, military, and corporate power. For the past 23 years, Noreen has dedicated her life to educating parents, politicians, police, teachers, children and anyone who would listen to the sordid facts behind child abductions in America, including the hidden menace of organized pedophile rings.

I have had children “kidnapped.”  it wasn’t the same — they were older, I eventually found out where they were (but not for a month), I watched sheriff’s and law enforcement stand by, taunting me, and letting it happen.  I remember the build up, I remember the shock, and it all but destroyed me as a person, including my ability to trust others, particularly institutions.  My work life stopped.  Everything almost stopped.   My children’s personalities have change d- which is part of growing up — but they too, were engaged in this “don’t ask and especially don’t tell” mentality, accommodating to law-breaking, participation — in a very unhealthy manner — with the adults involved (I can count at least SIX< not including the institutions who also sat by and did nothing).  I have had my kids flown or driven out of the country when they were supposed to be on a visitation here, by which time it became clear there is something radically wrong in the collusion between criminal, family, and domestic violence organizations in this area — and in most areas.  I have been SHOCKED at how few grants recipients stay incorporated, and continue to maintain celebrity status, when I know they don’t file their charitable or state returns, and are many times just LYING.    They also collude with each other and strategize how to keep duplicating the trouble, all the while complaining about bad parents, who just can’t get along and need to be put through classes telling them how to deal with their kids — meanwhile, the kids are separated and also sitting through classes from the tax evaders!

I know too much about extortion, because have been subject to it for YEARS by my own family, including the implicit and sometimes carried out threats to bring on a little more destruction if I spoke out.  After enough years of this, a threat to disrupt one’s stability and work connections is VERY much of a threat upon one’s life, not to mention repeat stalking.  I have seen how people responded when I showed any signs of weakness – AND when I showed signs of independence, or came closer to sustainable work life and balance within the family home — the next event would be worse than the previous, from one of the several adults involved here, all of who were rejoicing (it sure seemed) in mocking, deriding, and ridiculing my attempt to set MY life in order by telling those with NO standing in my divorce/custody matters to get out of there, and that their claims of concerns for my children needed to start with respecting those court orders, signed by judges, and stop messing with not one, but BOTH sets of parents.    Most of this treatment was also based on the fact that domestic violence never happened, despite evidence of physical injury, property destruction, work sabotage, and testimony of witnesses, plus a lot more I’m not putting on here.     In essence, I have in this process been forced to deal with people who know how to warp and twist perception — and are good at doing it in proclamations intended for the courtroom any more.  After several court hearings past an attempt to regain my stolen children, and prior to then, I basically had trouble showing up anywhere near a courtroom (PTSD), and  have taken a good while to get over being even NEAR someone who resembles my ex in stature, (ethnicity — which is Caucasian)  –dress, almost anything that reminds me of him.

What I’m saying is that ETHICS MATTER.  I can’t position myself right now on same-sex marriage (hardly the top priority), but what I’m seeing in this marriage movement is that it’s NOT really a joke — it’s a seriously deranged concept put forth not by people that want to help, but by people that know how to hate and to cheat, and force the propaganda on others.

(Well enough of that);  This is more quotation from the prior link:  And remember — people that lie and cheat on their money, are not to be trusted with counseling, either.  And this WHOLE setup stinks — from the start.  Did I mention BUSH yet this post?

CONSIDER:  If Larry King’s photographer really WAS holding Congresspeople with some pretty sick addictions (coming from boredom, or the need to experience power over others, as if being a US Congressperson wasn’t enough!) in check to run his Franklin Credit Union front — for child and drug trafficking (it’s in the material on this case).   . . . .  Just think of the implications, and who you want teaching your kids values, or anything else, and for how much.  Would you sit still and be preached at by anyone with these practices?      

I am one of the first noncustodial mothers who found and reported the connection between National Parents Day, “True Parents,” Bush, and The Unification Church (and all that goes with it), not to mention its funding of some extreme right-wing groups, including some gullible enough to believe this all has something to do with genuine Christianity.    There are valid reasons why a trip through the family law system feels like trying to get out of a cult — and that’s because it’s run by some!  

As most of you already know, Noreen Gosch is the mother of Johnny Gosch. When Johnny Gosch was 12 years of age and working as a paperboy for the Des Moines Register newspaper, he was kidnapped not far from his home. It was a quiet Sunday morning, around 6A.M. on September 5, 1982, when Johnny had left his home on foot to collect his assigned stack of newspapers to deliver around his quintessential “Leave It To Beaver” neighborhood. Just as he was about to pick up his bundle of newspapers, he was forcefully nabbed off the street, shoved into the back seat of a strange car, drugged, and permanently removed from his family. Johnny’s childhood would be destroyed while his family was shattered and consigned to a life of endless grieving.

Years later, on February 5, 1999, in a civil action in a U.S. District Court in Lincoln, Nebraska, Paul Bonacci painstakingly recounted the sordid, heart breaking details of Johnny Gosch’s abduction and forced participation in an elite government sponsored pedophile sex slave ring, that dehumanized and controlled its young, hapless victims using techniques such as drugs, murder, satanic rituals, sexual abuse, and torture, resulting in MPD (multiple-personality disorder). The children were systemically programmed and “zombified” as part of the CIA’s ongoing, under-the-radar MK-ULTRA (MK = mind control) mind control program.

Bonacci’s attorney was John DeCamp, who later authored a revealing and ground breaking book called The Franklin Cover-Up, which is a no-holds-barred expose of the pedophile ring that had abducted both Johnny Gosch and Paul Bonacci. Paul Bonacci knew what he was talking about regarding Johnny Gosch’s kidnapping in 1982. Why? Because he was there! Bonacci’s role within the pedophile ring was simultaneously that of a victim and a perpetrator. Actually, the then 16 year old Paul Bonacci was the person who had lured and then forced Johnny into the back of the car that screeched away on that fateful September morning. It was Bonacci who had helped drug Johnny, and then proceeded to initiate him into the group, his new “family”, by sexually assaulting him.

Consider all the talk of alienation, and the recommendation that to “counter” it children be forcibly removed from (basically, their mothers).  Some of this crowd are so pre-occupied with themselves, their own associations, and their own jargon, they dont’ take time to actually observe what else is going on.  They speak of what they personally KNOW — don’t you get it?  And they are talking about “brainwashing.”   They are also talking about “FALSE ACCUSATIONS.”   This is exactly what these people are in fact doing, while trying to derail the conversation accusing mothers of it.  Check again one of the playbooks at PCANH.org (handbook for parent coordinators coach people how to accuse a mother, I did FOUR posts on this for a reason!)

And they want to get those kids away from their mothers, if possible at an early age — and have those mothers then pay the fathers — or the state — for the abuse.  HOW is that not just pimping someone economically?

In this kidnapping, another child was used to control a younger one. I have seen this with my own childrens’ handling of each other, too.    In order to brainwash a child, you have to get him/her out of familiar surroundings with familiar people, and then be very dependent for life itself on someone else — one parent and/or new spouse, or total strangers.

Bonacci himself had been abducted and pressed into service as an MK-ULTRA sex slave by Lawrence E. King, a high ranking Republican operative who managed Franklin Savings and Loan in Omaha, Nebraska as a front for an internationally organized pedophile ring. He ran this pedophile ring for the benefit of government, military, and big business elites, whose patronage included political blackmail, snuff films, kiddy pornography, prostitution, illegal arms and drug running, extortion, and money laundering. This was the same Larry King who allegedly ran the infamous midnight “call-boy” tours of the White House, along with Craig Spence. Amazingly, the White House pedophile story was headlined by the Washington Times, on June 29, 1989.This brings us full circle back to Noreen Gosch. She has been an indefatigable seeker of the truth in all things related to her son’s kidnapping. It was Noreen’s personally funded private detectives, not the police or any branch of law enforcement, who finally uncovered the culprits who were behind Johnny’s kidnapping, including why they had chosen him, for what purpose, and what they had done to him as a result.Noreen has been instrumental in exposing organized pedophilia, its infrastructure and some of the personalities behind it, as well as helping to expose the pedophile network’s interlocking relationships with elite hierarchies of political, military, and corporate power.For the past 23 years, Noreen has dedicated her life to educating parents, politicians, police, teachers, children and anyone who would listen to the sordid facts behind child abductions in America, including the hidden menace of organized pedophile rings.

Most likely the only thing people can be taken down for, who are involved in this, is the extortion and money laundering.

This is not normal subject matter for 23 years of anyone’s life.  I wonder if this woman’s marriage survived.  I wonder how she did it, except that I know she was a mother.

I found ATM Education’s EIN# and profile:  Here it is, with more bar charts and info, on “FAQS.org” (on tax-exempt orgs.)

Atm Education, Dba Relationships Under Constructio
Employer Identification Number (EIN)	141859397
Name of Organization	Atm Education
Secondary Name	Dba Relationships Under Constructio
In Care of Name	Catherine Wood
Address	130 Burrer Dr, Delaware, OH 43015
Subsection	Charitable Organization
Ruling Date	11/2003
Deductibility	Contributions are deductible
Foundation	Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public
Organization	Corporation
Exempt Organization Status	Unconditional Exemption
Tax Period	06/2010
Assets	$25,000 to $99,999
Income	$500,000 to $999,999
Filing Requirement	990 (all other) or 990EZ return
Asset Amount	$34,799
Amount of Income	$694,112
Form 990 Revenue Amount	$679,680
National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE)	Health – General and Rehabilitative: Reproductive Health Care Facilities and Allied Services

Amount of income in 2010: $694,112

Atm Education, Dba Relationships Under Constructio:	$694,112
Other organizations performing similar types of work:	$112,879

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/tax-exempt/OH/Atm-Education-Dba-Relationships-Under-Constructio.html#ixzz1jDMUcCic

Here we go:

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Atm Education Inc.	OH	2008	$48,271	990	19	14-1859397
Atm Education Inc.	OH	2007	$70,799	990	21	14-1859397
Atm Education Inc.	OH	2006	$61,479	990	16	14-1859397
Atm Education Inc.	OH	2005	$106,813	990	21	14-1859397
Atm Education Inc.	OH	2004	$32,938	990	19	14-1859397
Atm Inc.	OH	2003	$5,494	990	18	14-1859397

FUNNY how TAGGS can’t get a Grantee’s Name Right — aren’t THEY looking at their nonprofit incorporation, their corporate records, etc.?

ANYHOW…

The Budget Speaks Clearly — Years of Incest (“Collaboration”) Between Fatherhood Promotion/Domestic Abuse (and Batterers Intervention/Child Abuse Prevention, etc.) Programs Have Produced Inbred Blindness to Their Ongoing Operating System Failures

Alternate proposed titles (after coughing up this post):

Shared Silences on Family Secrets among DV and Fatherhood Groups show who’s their Real Daddy, in some cases, Sugar-Daddy.

This is from an acknowledgement in the Duluth Tribune, forwarded to me from a Batterers Intervention Program group:

Pence helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project and is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, which uses an interagency approach involving police, probation, courts and human services. The primary goal is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. The project also included the start of Duluth’s mandatory arrest policy, which says an arrest must be made if there is an injury and police have evidence of an assault.

Linda Riddle, executive director of the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, said the Duluth model is used in all 50 states and at least 17 countries.

“No one has done more to end violence against women than Ellen Pence,” Riddle said. “She has been a teacher, mentor, friend and sister to countless women and men across the world.”

That statement, while I can accept it as the eulogy of a survivor to a friend and colleague, lacks objectivity and is not the testimony of an expert witness, and even at this time is offensive to both the truth, and to the men, women, and children who have died, possibly needlessly, surrounding the issue of custody AFTER protective order.  Duluth Abuse Intervention Program’s model (cf. “Minnesota Program Development Inc.”) specifically compromises individual rights to LEAVE and STAY away from a serious threat to life itself (and sexual integrity of minors) with fathers’ rights interest in maintaining access to children + Training for Judges and everyone else.

From MIN Charities Search, showing its program purpose – which is to support other organizations supporting . . . .

Organization Name	DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
Organization Type	CHARITY
Contact Person	LINDA RIDDLE, DIRECTOR
Address	202 E SUPERIOR ST
City	DULUTH
State	MN
Zip Code	55812
IRS Code 501(c)	03
Purpose or Description	To provide educational services, training, program planning assistance, direct services& other support serve to orgs to improve status of women.

Does it say anything about rescuing battered women and their children?   About helping them leave dangerous situations by advocating actively for sole legal and physical custody for them IN the family law venue, on the basis that ongoing contact could prove lethal (and plenty of evidence within Minnesota alone that it has been, regularly)  ? ? ?   Answer — No.  Just so we make that clear.

From Minnesota Charities Search Page (by EIN#), Here’s last year’s expenditures and revenues:

Organization Name	DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
Federal ID#	411382134
For Fiscal Year Ending	9/30/2010

Income Direct Public Support $126,626 Government Grants $4,006,451 Other Revenue $551,543 Total Revenue $4,684,620 Expenses Amount Spent for Program or Charitable Purposes $4,490,647 Management/General Expense $256,142 Fundraising Expense $24,229 Total Expenses $4,771,018 Excess/Deficit $-86,398 Total Assets $1,496,037 Total Liabilities $356,451 End of Year Fund Bal/Net Worth $1,139,586

From three years earlier (as far back as this site lets viewers search) == 2007.   Still operating in the hole, but Management / General Expense category has increased almost ten-fold, and the difference in “government grants (I.e., ca. $4.01 million – $3.78 million = would support $0.23 million ($230K) increase, instead expenditures increased to $256K).

Organization Name	DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
Federal ID#	411382134
For Fiscal Year Ending	9/30/2007

Income Direct Public Support $76,123 Government Grants $3,781,785 Other Revenue $516,113 Total Revenue $4,374,021 Expenses Amount Spent for Program or Charitable Purposes $4,389,481 Management/General Expense $27,898 Fundraising Expense $0 Total Expenses $4,417,379 Excess/Deficit $-43,358 Total Assets $1,887,120 Total Liabilities $509,078 End of Year Fund Bal/Net Worth $1,378,04

My search by EIN# (you can easily duplicate at TAGGS.hhs.Gov “recipient search” remember to check “9-digit” option for the EIN search) reveals that this is the same EIN as MPDI:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	DULUTH	MN	55802-2152	ST. LOUIS	193187069	$ 19,901,530

From 1991-1995 it didn’t bother to file annual corporate renewals in MN?

Renewal History (of DAIP — not MPDI, which doesn’t show under a business name search; apparently it’s a fictitious name or such).

12/6/1990	Annual Renewal – Nonprofit Corporation (Domestic)
9/9/1996	Annual Renewal – Nonprofit Corporation (Domestic)

It is even a large enough organization to merit a mention in the “ERI” which compares salaries of nonprofit executive officers’ pay.

Economic Research Institute on Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs  (This link also links to tax returns 2001-through 2008, with a bar chart, etc., and confirms that MPDI is an “alias.”  QUESTION:  The public face of this group is its actual business name, DAIP — on the logo, in the press, all over.  WHY then, would TAGGS choose to show the grants under its alias, Hmmm?

One year (tax return 2008) shows, it donated $98,000 to a “wishcamper center” in University of Southern Maine.  I figure this has some relationship the the presence of colleague Barbara J. Hart doing webinars from the Muskie School of Public SErvice there, and sure enough.  In order to end violence against women, it’s helpful to have nice facilities to facilitate trainings, even if it helps put the nonprofit donating this into a negative cash flow:

• Save This Story

March 13, 2010 

Wishcamper Center has grand opening

— Gov. John Baldacci joined both of Maine’s U.S. senators and more than 200 other guests on Thursday for the grand opening of the latest addition to the University of Southern Maine’s campus in Portland.

click image to enlarge

Jack Milton/Staff Photographer: Thursday, October 16, 2008: The University of Southern Maine’s new Wishcamper Center, on Bedford St., Portland, houses the USM Muskie School of Public�Service, and�USM’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, offices, classrooms, and meeting rooms.

Jack Milton

click image to enlarge

Jack Milton/Staff Photographer: Thursday, October 16, 2008: The University of Southern Maine’s new Wishcamper Center, on Bedford St., Portland, houses the USM Muskie School of Public�Service, and�USM’s Osher Lifelong Learning Institute, offices, classrooms, and meeting rooms.

Jack Milton

Select images available for purchase in the
Maine Today Photo Store

The $13 million Wishcamper Center on Bedford Street is the new home of USM’s Muskie School of Public Service and the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute.

It is the first phase of a $32.2 million project on Bedford Street that will also expand the Osher Map Library, add an entrance to the Glickman Family Library and install a 30-foot-wide promenade, university spokesman Bob Caswell said in a written statement.

The Wishcamper Center is cooled and heated by geothermal energy from 1,500-foot wells and is certified for environmentally friendly design.

A short search led to a sample “2007 summer institute” at the Muskie School.  Read ALL these bios and understand the close-knit (if web-based/conference-based) community of DV professionals, just a sampler:

2007 Child Custody & Domestic Violence Summer Institute June 11 & June 12-13, 2007Portland, Maine Institute Faculty Bios Click on a presenter below to view their bio: Richard Ducote, J.D. Daniel G. Saunders, Ph.D. Barbara J. Hart, J.D. Peter Jaffe, Ph.D., C Psych Evan Stark, Ph.D., M.S.W. Becki Truscott Kondkar, J.D. Sujata Warrior, Ph.D. Anita St. Onge, J.D. V. Gail Sweat, M.S. Ed

And here’s Barbara J. Hart’s — like Ellen Pence, also a remarkable woman who has changed society by the organizations she has founded.  Yet, not proved “coachable” to the problems caused by the policies of these organizations, and I did try. I believe it must be simply a mind-set affected by professional associations over the years, and by dramatic success in expanding the influence and reach of this “interlocking directorate” of organizations which have just about collectively filtered out and out-PR’d, out-maneuvered, and silenced mothers talking about AFCC, CRC, and other things which specifically finger serious holes in logic, and programming.

Please notice the various organizations include PCADV, NCADV, and BWJP, among others:

Barbara J. Hart, J.D.   A Senior Policy and Legal Advisor with the Battered Women’s Justice Project. A co-founder of the Women’s Legal Clinic at George Washington University, Berks Women in Crisis, the PA Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women, the Battered Women’s Justice Project, LAPTOP, the National Center on Full Faith and Credit, the Appellate Advocacy Network and International Justice Connections.

“LAPTOP” new to me is not about obtaining laptops for domestic violence survivors (although like phones, they sure are helpful, including in job search, research, and maintaining free internet access when economics don’t provide enough funds for it in the home, or where the home may still not be a safe place for such survivors.  Guess why I mention that . . . . . ).  It stands for:

LAPTOP is an acroynm.  Read the link to see a complete “logical discussion” of the conflict between noncustodial parent visitation rights versus survivor’s right to continue surviving.  As did Mr. Goldstein (former attorney, or perhaps his license has been reinstated, I didn’t check), the reasoning utterly failed to mention the access/visitation fundings incentivize and subsidize noncustodial contact through public welfare law (i.e, TANF reform) which gives a person driven ONTO TANF by DV in the first place the “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” Option).

The LAPTOP Update

Legal Assistance Providers’ Technical Outreach Project

Dedicated to enhancing the capacity of LAV advocates and attorneys addressing the civil legal needs of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking survivors.

LAPTOP Listserv LAPTOP is pleased to bring you an updated version of our listserv that is designed to ensure the transmittal of information with greater ease. To post messages or responses, send an email to laptop@lists.pcadv.net. Also, if you are not already subscribed to the listserv, please send your email address to laptop@pcadv.org.

Newsletter shows this posted at “CSAJ” or “Center for Survivor Agency & Justice” out of Maryland.  Nice logo.  I went to Maryland — not listed as charity (Attorney General Site), but does show up on Maryland’s “Department of Assessments and Taxation” as a newborn:

(F13965132)

CENTER FOR SURVIVOR AGENCY AND JUSTICE INCORPORATED A/K/A C

General Info.

Amendments

Personal Property

INCORPORATED

 Don’t have the “aka” yet, but it only filed here (incorporated?) 02/28/2011:

Page 1 of 1 Description Date Filed Time Film Folio Pages View Document Order Copies QUALIFICATION 02/08/2011 06:31-PM 0004

Center for Survivor Agency and Justice   ·   3605 Husted Dr.   ·   Chevy Chase, MD  20815   ·   (301) 915-0160   ·   privacy policy   ·   site safety  (from the website)

 agent:

ERIKA SUSSMAN

2 SUSSEX ROAD SILVER SPRING, MD 20910

Zillow photo of Tudor-style home, approx value $608K, est. rent around $2600/month:

(from CSAJ Website)

Erika A. Sussman
Executive Director

Erika Sussman is the Executive Director of the Center for Survivor Agency and Justice. For the past four years, she has served as an adjunct professor at Cornell Law School where she teaches a class on Law and Violence Against Women. She was previously a staff attorney and Women’s Law and Public Policy Fellow at Georgetown University Law Center’s Domestic Violence Clinic, where she supervised law students and litigated cases on behalf of domestic violence survivors in the District of Columbia. Prior to that, she was a litigation associate at Swidler Berlin Sherreff Friedman, LLP, where she provided pro bono representation to domestic violence survivors in conjunction with Women Empowered Against Violence (WEAVE) and co-counseled a race profiling class action suit against the Maryland State Police Department. She has published several articles and served as faculty for various academic and practitioner workshops related to violence against women. She obtained her B.S. from Cornell University, her J.D. from Cornell Law School, and her L.L.M. from Georgetown University Law Center.

We see the community of advocates in the LinkedIn profile (“180 connections”) of Ms. Sussman, which shows CSAJ has been around for six years now.  So the MD address is a move?

Erika Sussman

Executive Director at Center for Survivor Agency and Justice

Washington D.C. Metro Area 

Law Practice

Current

• Executive Director at Center for Survivor Agency and Justice*

• (EXPERIENCE:)  Center for Survivor Agency and Justice

  2006 – Present (6 years) Washington D.C. Metro Area

Past

• Adjunct Professor of Law at Cornell Law School
• Senior Attorney at Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence- LAPTOP
• Teaching Fellow- Domestic Violence Clinic at Georgetown University Law Center

Education

• Georgetown University Law Center
• Cornell University Law School

Connections

180 connections

*TIL FURTHER NOTICE, I AM GOING TO ASSUME THIS IS ANOTHER GROUP WHICH WAS OPERATING UNDER SOME OTHER UMBRELLA, FOR HOW LONG “TBA” WHICH FINALLY INCORPORATED ON 2/28/2011 IN MARYLAND (JUST OUTSIDE D.C.) AND AS SUCH, WITHOUT FORKING OUT SOME $$, IT’D BE QUITE A PROJECT TO GET THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, AND PRE-2011 FINANCES FOR, INCLUDING ANY SALARY MS. SUSSMAN’S OBVIOUSLY HIGH CREDENTIALS MIGHT BE PULLING IN FOR HER.

This link says it’s at an address in D.C. 1802 Vernon St NW
Washington, DC 20009

Here’s that address: (google maps)

Here’s a Washington, D.C. Corporations Search  One has to go through the Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs:

Corporate Registration DCRA’s Corporations Division serves as the Office of Corporate Registrar for the District of Columbia. The Corporations Division registers all entities, domestic (DC) or foreign (non-District) that conduct business in the District of Columbia. This is the first step in business regulatory compliance. This registration is separate and must be done before entity applies for a business license, permit, tax registration or any other registration within the District. If you would like to operate in the District of Columbia as a nonprofit and for-profit corporation, limited liability company, limited partnership, limited liability partnership, general cooperative association, limited cooperative association, statutory trust and general partnership you must register with Corporations Division of the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.

This brings up the situation that Washington, D.C. is not a State, and we can’t just hop over to the Secretary of State site to look things up.  Apparently businesses that incorporate here understand that, too?   There’s also a movement to give our national’s capital Statehood Status — because currently its residents have no elected representatives that can VOTE in the nation’s Congress!   (I’ll put on a comment after publishing the post).  If Center for Survivor Agency and Justice is doing business IN D.C., it has to register, but looking that up is not something I’m going to invest more time in — today.  As a citizen of a certain state (on the other coast) and as someone affected by what this group does in concert with many organizations which ARE registered in various states — I and everyone else should be able to check, if this is a nonprofit, its articles of incorporation (in MD it’s listed as holding stock).  You can search for free — IF you register — but to view an image, is not free!   (http://otr.cfo.dc.gov/otr/frames.asp?doc=https://gov.propertyinfo.com/DC-Washington/  -and this may be property records, only.  It’s the OFFICE of TAX and REVENUE)

New to this site? You must register (free of charge) before being able to search records on this site. Register

Moving on:

This link (from CSAJ) describes how it coordinates with other DV professionals (like NNEDV and the state coalitions) and while I approve of acknowledgement of “economics” in ability to leave a battering or abusive relationship content — of course survivors need economic justice — this is the same behaviors that organization after organization has done, year after year (including crossing from 20th to 21st century).  IN response to a problem, this is what they do:  They NETWORK — they RAISE AWARENESS (for what that’s worth..) THEY FACILITATE PARTNER CONFERENCES, TELECONFERENCES, LISTSERVS and USING GRANTS, THEY HELP SPRUCE UP EACH OTHERS’ WEBSITES TO ANYONE LOOKING FOR HELP WILL MISTAKE THEM FOR A SOURCE OF IT, THINKING:  ’LOOKS PROFESSIONAL, CAN PROBABLY HELP MY KIDS!” 

THEY ALSO PRODUCE BROCHURES AND TOOLKITS FOR MEMBERS OF RELATED COMMUNITIES – MOST OF WHICH BECOME “MOOT” THE SECOND ONE IS IN A CUSTODY SITUATION!  and they do NOT TALK ABOUT “dangerous liaisons” which others of us have been, some, for many years.

NNEDV is uniquely positioned to bring its membership, including 56 state and territory domestic violence coalitions and nearly 2,000 local domestic violence programs, together around these issues. The goal of the initiative is to raise awareness and understanding of the complex consumer law and economic justice issues that affect the long-term physical and economic safety of domestic violence survivors.

The previous grant facilitated sessions at partner conferences, hosted multiple skill-building teleconferences, ran a listserv, and dedicated sections of partner websites to address the intersection of consumer law and domestic violence. We also produced two brochures, “Building and Repairing Your Credit History” and “Prioritizing Debt” and produced a “Domestic Violence Screening Tool for Consumer Lawyers.”

In other words, they understand and utilized the combined firepower of access to grants, being nonprofits (and forming them, something few — SOME, BUT FEW — battered women in prolonged litigation / custody challenges get around to doing, or can easily maintain) — and the internet — to dominate the conversation on these topics.

(This is pretty much also what the fatherhood grantees and outfits ALSO do.)

LOOK:

Attorneys tend to think and act like attorneys, which is to argue points, eloquently and well-cited, to support their point of view, and when needed, without inviting their clients to the table.  While these people will continue — pretty much from safe distances — to argue these points and produce more and more “technical” (electronically-based) consultation and services, forming nonprofits to do so — people in survival mode really DO have a shorter frame of reference, and as such, knowing this, I say our senses and perception (despite trauma) might JUST be a little sharper than the policy-setters and organizers.   I am “eff-ing tired” of listening to the over-interpreted but selectively silent So-called Experts on the Elephants in the CourtRoom talk about situations I and plenty of mothers are absolutely familiar with and recognize for what they are — compromise of our rights.

One might ask me — if it bothers you, why listen?  After all, who told you to dig up all this information in the field?

The answer to that is simple.   I’m a US Citizen and I’m a mother.  I don’t endorse censorship and am sounding an alert about this internet-based “cult of the experts” when it comes to matters of who lives, and who dies; who eats and at what sacrifice of civil rights, and who doesn’t.  I don’t think there is a much more important discussion to have in a $15 Trillion Debt County than who is spending our nonexistent (as a country) profits for what kind of talk.   

And that is our right to exist as an individual so long as we are not in violation of criminal law regarding assault and battery, sexual abuse of minors, kidnapping and thieving behaviors, fraud, perjury and other things which are uniformly understood to represent a threat to society.

The existence of single-parent households, while sold as this, does NOT per se represent a threat to national security.  As such, the Conciliation Court’s insistence that it’s “for our own good” that we NEVER be able to safely engage in life post-abuse; and all these groups debates on the matter when there IS no real debate — when many of these men are not just beating up on women, but beating up on pregnant women –

(This post probably went a little downhill after some passion got involved here, but nevertheless):

 

 

 

INTRO:  THE ACF/HHS PROPOSED 2012 BUDGET SPEAKS:

Last post I came down hard on DV groups, particularly one in Pennsylvania, for receiving around $40 million from HHS to date, not including anything received from the DOJ.  I did not compare this to what fatherhood funding is receiving, at around the same time, and through TANF diversions and Child SUpport related matters.

For a little clue, here’s a link to an ACF/HHS/GOV Programs budget request for 2012.  I searched “fatherhood” (20 occurrences) on it, to excerpt this.  People should READ this document — it’s not too long, and it’s your money!

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

**which, as I have reported (and so has the GAO) has been instead retaining lots of those payments.  IN fact, a taxpayer advocate Richard Fine (many years ago), graduate of (to my recall), Harvard, Chicago, and London School of Economics and an attorney, with help from others, sued the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office for ILLEGALLY withholding approximately $25 million of collected child support funds (accumulating interest I’m sure), for which his own attorneys’ fees were depleted, he was incarcerated and thrown into solitary COERCIVE confinement in one of the worst jails in the state, his arrest record apparently feigned (according to some — see FullDisclosure.net and/or Joseph Zernik, DDS) and he was disbarred!  The California State Leigslature shortly before this immunized the entire judiciary retroactively from prosecution for conflicts-of-interest payments from the county, and an attempt to BREAK Mr. Fine’s spirit was thereafter instituted.  Another set of bribery/conflicts of interests he also uncovered consisted of commercial real estate developers, county commissioners (Los Angeles county) influence on legislation at (to my recall) the Superior Court Level — see Sturgeon v. Los Angeles.  These two cases seem to have been what caused Mr. Fine the MOST trouble.

By prosecuting the improper withholding of child support ALREADY COLLECTED (industry enforcement apparatus size, $4 billion/YEAR, as I keep reminding us), Mr. Fine was in essence advocating for both mothers AND fathers.  ALthough it received extensive California Coverage — it received virtually (I think, literally, not just “virtually” but am covering my behind in case I missed a single occasional and obscure mention of this at BMCC, CJE, CPPA, NCADV, PCADV, DV-LEAP, or anywhere else that so loves to help mothers) ZERO mention by these advocates.  If there’s anything that appears to enrage some of the worse kinds of men (not Mr. Silva, evidently) — it is to be forced to pay for his ex after she left his behind.

 

GAO reference reports what they don’t know as of 2004

 

OCSE reported that the amount of undistributed collections for fiscal year 1999 was $545 million and $657 million for fiscal year 2002; however, these amounts may not be accurate. State agencies had different interpretations of what comprised undistributed collections and data reported by several state agencies were found to be unreliable throughout this time period. OCSE revised the reporting form, but data accuracy concerns remain, in part, because OCSE does not have a process to ensure the accuracy of undistributed collections data.

((CUTE, huh??  No process to ensure accuracy for an authority of this size over the lives of virtually ALL divorcing or separating parents in the state with child support orders?))

Based on state agencies’ survey responses,* GAO determined the median value of the undistributed collections from joint tax refunds was about $1.8 million and the median value of four other types of undistributed collections exceeded $350,000.

*a.k.a., self-reporting…..

And that’s from SIX agencies they sampled at the time — across the nation.  And this is NOT being done annually.  FYI, we have 50 states, D.C. and territories ….

State agencies GAO visited took steps to better understand and reduce undistributed collections. Of the 6 state agencies visited, 5 had analyzed their undistributed collections cases, 4 adopted performance goals, and officials from all 6 state agencies stressed the importance of researching collections that were missing information. In addition, officials stated that using automated processes to receive and distribute collections helped reduce the number of collections with missing or inaccurate information.

Conclusion, in part:  NO ONE KNOWS HOW MUCH ALREADY COLLECTED SUPPORT!  IS NOT DISTRIBUTED ON TIME — or AT ALL

Receipt of child support is critical for many custodial parents and their children. However, no one is certain about the amount of child support collections that are not distributed to families on time, if at all.

This report’s 2004 letter to The Hon. Charles E. Grassley on this matter:

March 19, 2004

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley Chairman Committee on Finance United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In 2002, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), in the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that billions of dollars in child support were collected but that payments totaling $657 million were delayed or never reached the families for whom they were intended. These undistributed child support payments are a concern because child support is an important source of income for many families. According to a 2003 report, for 36 percent of poor children living in families headed by single mothers, child support payments comprised almost one-third of the family’s income in 2001. The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA)1 generally requires state child support enforcement agencies to disburse child support collections within 2 business days, if sufficient information identifying the recipient is provided. In addition, portions of child support collections must be distributed to state government programs, such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), to reimburse them for cash assistance provided to families.

Although state child support enforcement agencies administer the child support program, the federal government plays a major role.2 OCSE funds two-thirds of the program’s administrative costs; establishes policies and guidance; provides technical assistance, such as designing curricula and providing support for staff training; and oversees and monitors state agencies.

 

Here’s a 2001 link to some fatherhood group complaining because Senator Grassley voted for VAWA.  To demonstrate how “extremist” this viewpoint is, the writer is complaining about George W. Bush (see faith-based initiatives, right?) courting the vote of — in order — Feminists, Homosexuals, and “the NAACP,” i.e., blacks:

The Fatherhood Movement: A Constituency In Search of a Representative

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D.

June 14, 2001

In the last presidential election the outcome was largely determined by the male vote. And in customary political fashion, the victor is now courting the groups that worked hardest to secure his defeat – feminists, homosexuals and the NAACP. 

AHEM!  The majority of the US Population is female, not male.  And there still remain people who assert this was a “stolen” election, such a rare event in US history, which played out in a state where the winner’s brother just happened to be a Governor, and where the Supreme Court had the final say!  

(Never mind that as U.S. President, feminists and homosexuals are citizens in the country he’s responsible to lead, and whose constitution he swore to defend and uphold on taking oath of office.  NAACP being an organization, doesn’t hold citizenship, but just to make it clear, in priority order, this group hates the most:  1.  Feminists (independent women) 2.  Homos (Lesbians didn’t even get a passing mention — guess it’s understood that all feminists must be lesbians too?) and 3. African-Americans.   Link on the same website expresses distress of  a disenfranchised, I”m going to hazard a guess, white, male on the devolution of the power heirarchy, which apparently started with Martin Luther King, Jr.?  ”From M.L.K. To N.O.W. To NAMBLA; Devolution & The Abuse Of Power” is a 2002 essay by this guy, who I guess lives in Iowa.

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Dadi Inc.	IA	2002	$0	990EZ	2	42-1520471

 

Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D. (in psychology?) (where, TBA) actually founded this “DA*DI,” :

About the Author Gerald L. Rowles, Ph.D. [Clinical Psychology] is the founder and president of the DA*DI a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit. Since founding DA*DI in 1994, he has been devoted to researching, advising and disseminating information on the issues that he believes threaten to engulf and diminish the American culture; the same issues that are driving the divorce industry and the deconstruction of the family and fatherhood. DA*DI’s latest campaign proclaims Dads Have The Right Stuff.

He also writes eloquently about “Disenfranchised Dads” and the PTSD they suffer, plus psychological shock of losing their children, from “Equal Justice Foundation.”  Never mind the PTSD which comes from women whose marriages includes routine assault and battery, and in the backlash also have the additional pay-back shock from losing their children without cause.  I’m posting this to show mindset — not to validate!

Disenfranchised fathers  (co. 2002 by Gerald L. Rowes, first published in MensNews Daily)

Top

In my experience working with more than 8,000 divorced fathers, and in some cases their second families, through the DA*DI network, I originally outlined what I then called the Defeated Father Syndrome. In listening to their personal experiences and emotional responses to the experience of divorce and the attendant loss of their child or children, these fathers almost universally shared a symptom cluster that bridged those symptoms associated with both Depression and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

Their depression derived from loss of positive reinforcers, a sense of helplessness, and a growing negative world view. Their PTSD derived from the battleground of the adversarial family court system in which they repeatedly found themselves on the losing end of a losing proposition — attempting to maintain their roles as Fathers. It is not hyperbole to associate this experience with the battleground. A 1995 headline in the Detroit News blared: “Declaring War on America’s Deadbeat Dads.” The war is real, as are its casualties — children and fathers, but the “deadbeat dad” is largely fictional.

Recently, Dr. Sanford Braver published the results of his exhaustive 8-year study of divorce. And in that account, he not only “shatters” the many myths surrounding America’s divorced dads, but he also explores the notion of the disenfranchised dad. In a glaring refutation of cultural perception, Dr. Braver found that “men have more trouble recovering emotionally” from divorce. He notes that “most often the man — feels utterly powerless because he can do nothing to prevent the breakup of the marriage.” This is entirely consistent with my experience in dealing with the DA*DI dads. Hence, I attached the label Defeated. But this is an outcome-based label. It fails to encompass the whole of the divorced, battle-weary father experience and what precipitates that sense of defeat.

Dr. Braver more adequately captures the precipitating event in using the label Disenfranchised. He reports, “Fathers are often obsessed with what they perceive as the profound bias against them displayed by the courts and the legal system.” And the fact is that such a bias does exist, including the presumption that all divorced dads are or will become deadbeat dads

 

 

The most recent California murder outside a courthouse, to my recall (Hemet, California, I blogged it, Riverside County) was at a hearing for CHILD SUPPORT!  (not custody).   I am explaining to you why when you read, the Federal Budget “encourages states to pass through child support payments” — it’s been pretty negligent (hands-off) in making sure they do, (so long as the Feds get their percentage — about 66%! back) year after year.   Now read the next part of the sentence, again:

and requires states to establish access and visitation arrangements as a means of promoting father engagement in their children’s lives

This constitutes federal control of state courts in order to receive continued funding for a huge apparatus already in place on the theory that father engagement is going to increase child support payment which will reduce welfare which is good for everyone.    The language elsewhere has described “access and visitation arrangements” for EVERY child support order.  To comprehend this, the “Access Visitation” grants are described in slightly more public forums (ones that mothers are more likely to run across) as helping PARENTS — not just fathers.  However, these programs have been abused in purpose to do the opposite, which we know — and, again, when the DV groups don’t even say “access and visitation” anywhere in public while in front of mothers, how can they develop understanding enough to fight back?

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

Ensuring that when non-custodial parents do the right thing and pay child support, their children benefit. The proposal includes $1 billion over eight years (FY 2014 – 2021) to encourage states to pass through the current child support collections they receive on behalf of TANF families to the families, rather than

Administration for Children and Families Page 278 Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programsretaining those payments. The proposal would no longer require states to reimburse the Federal government for any part of the current child support payment that the state chooses to distribute to the family, estimated to cost $543 million during the eight-year period. To encourage states to take up this policy, the proposal also includes a short-term five-year pool of funds to offset a significant share of states’ costs in implementing this policy, estimated to cost $454 million between FY 2014 and FY 2018.

As we can see, this is exponentially larger than any domestic violence organization funding, nationwide.  The purpose of the Domestic Violence organizations on the HHS take is, I have only got to conclude, to MAKE SURE that information such as this budget requirement, is NOT disseminated to mothers so they make INFORMED choices about whether to engage services, thereby also justifying the $39 million.   Also not told mothers — not really clearly — police to not have to arrest, and prosecutors do not have to prosecute (that’s talking DA) however, police, prosecutors, family law professionals, child protection people, and others (counselors of course) are only too willing to “collaborate” in “Justice Centers” when it entails getting MORE federal fundings.  I didn’t finish exploring this topic on my blog yet (HEY!– I am only one person here!), but initial explorations from the California Charitable Registry show that at least one of these centers wasn’t too great at filing annual returns with the state, either.

So, the Feds are saying, we will PAY you (that’s with public money, right?) to release some of the funds you’ve been habitually, and unaccountably withholding from needy families, on behalf of those families.   It then says, that states no longer HAVE to require parents to relinquish their child support rights to the (county) when accepting TANF — but in the next paragraph shows that there’s going to be another proposal which probably more than counteracts this “gift” from above — which is to further expand the reach of Access and Visitation services.  (Parent Education, Supervised Visitation, Mediation, Counseling, etc. — the precise areas where fraud and overbilling/double-billing, plus a few other horrors (can you spell “bestiality” in a supervised visitation provider? or child-rape of basically an infant/toddler IN a facility set up to handle such visits?)   (not to mention the practice of assigning mothers to supervised visitation on “alienation” theory because they’re reluctant to “facilitate” father/kid contact after child sexual abuse, or other forms of abuse such as violence, neglect, etc.  has been reported by the children and/or verified).

“THE FED GIVETH:”

. . . In addition, the proposal grants states additional flexibility to discontinue the requirement that child support payments be assigned to the state when a family receives TANF assistance ($122 million), and provides limited resources to help states makes the necessary adjustments to their computer systems ($100 million). Taken together, these policy changes are estimated to result in an additional $1.9 billion in child support payments reaching the children the payments were intended to support.

Who’s going to track those estimates?  Because so far, ain’t much real-time monitoring of grants to states for OCSE going on from the Feds.  That’s the beauty of the system:  ”it’s out of our hands” to fully monitor.

“AND THE FED TAKETH AWAY — in the form of INCREASING the most DANGEROUS PORTIONS OF THE PROGRAM BASED ON FATHERHOOD THEORY”

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 meet their financial obligations. This creates a “double win” for children – an engaged parent and more financial security.***

Short-term Increase to Incentive Pool. The FY 2012 proposal includes $600 million for short-term incentive payments to states; $300 million in FY 2012 and FY 2013. These payments are to be based on state performance, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency while also helping states overcome short term fiscal stresses.

**THE PORTION IN RED IS WHAT I CALL “GOVERNMENT BY BULLSH*T.”  WHICH IS WHY WE REALLY DO NEED TO STOP THIS DOG-TRAINING, CIRCUS BETWEEN THE FEDS AND THE STATES, IN WHICH THE TOP DOG IS WHOEVER HAS THE MONEY TO DISTRIBUTE, BACKED BY POWER TO INCARCERATE (IRS, CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT).  ABUSIVE SPOUSES USE THE SAME MEANS OF RELATIONSHIP TO EACH OTHER.  

I STILL BELIEVE THAT ALL PEOPLE FUNCTION BEST IN THE MOST FREE ENVIRONMENTS, WITHOUT SYSTEMS OF CONTROL THROUGHOUT SOCIETY, PARTICULARLY ONES THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW ABOUT!  Systems which think of and treat people as a pack of dogs, or sheep, to be herded and managed, are going to end up sacrificing the weak and vulnerable in order to feed the rest and keep expanding the business enterprise of the shepherd and dog-trainers!

The entire THEORY of fatherhood is based upon a false theory frosted with “research indicates” quotes — which research was itself paid-for — that XYZ circumstance leads to ABC cause and only ABC cause.  Most of this discussion is carried out OUT OF EARSHOT of the “herd,”  in self-selecting “think tanks” (etc.)   It is based on the need to bribe or extort aggressive men into settling down and obtaining jobs (not running businesses) while collaborating with some of the MOST aggressive men around (and women) who themselves have a better handle on how money works, and how to get a hold of it without holding down a regular job.  Some of these people buy and sell businesses, and indications are, a few or them, people too.  Their version of reality bears little resemblance to the reality of people whose futures they are deciding.

Back to this budget’s talk of “Implementing Safeguards.”  Let’s discuss real safeguards, not the lip service to the fact that a prime source of inappropriate early death by women is at the hands of men they have had sex with, and/or sometimes married and had children with.

“Implementing safeguards” doesn’t save lives after there have been death threats, stalking, injury and in general the same property-entitlement attitude towards (sorry to say it like this:  Females one has impregnated, and what comes out of them afterwards if they don’t abort or miscarry).    TWO OR THREE THINGS SEEM TO:

1.  Absence.  Leave the area, WITH THE KIDS, and no contact, and severe consequences for any dude stalking.  

2.  A bullet proof vest or a well-timed bullet can sometimes (not always) stop home invasion male on female intended violence, as an 18 year old mother of a 3-month old proved in Oklahoma recently.  She had a shotgun AND a pistol, and got on the phone with 911, being entirely within her self-defense rights.  One man was shot to death and, amazingly, the other intruder (who both must’ve known that her husband had just recently died) is being charged with, as I recall, murder.   This woman received moral support from the public.  I really wonder if it’d been her ex violating a protective order and claiming he loved her and just wanted to talk — with the same result — the public support would’ve been there. After all, she protected HER child from Strangers, not THEIR child from HIM at the time.  We know from other instances where even trained, bullet-proof-vested police died in DV incidents, that this is not viable for all situations.  Moreover, the home-invasion scenarios doesn’t handle a victim leaving DV that might want to, on occasion, simply leave her home, where her legal rights to self defense using a weapon are pretty well eliminated, seems to me.

3.  Abuser STAYS in jail (and doesn’t have means to call a colleague or helper on the outside to commit a crime FOR him).  We see from the Toms River, NJ case, that no one is really willing to do this, seriously — and allow the mother to stay in her area and continue a normal life.    Possibly if it could be employed long enough for her to relocate SAFELY?    But this is NOT going to happen while the Family Law and Fatherhood dynamics (programs) still exist, even if by leaving this determined single mother could support herself and the children, absent ongoing abuse and threats, without public welfare assistance other than to get out of the situation and established in some other STATE, if not geography.

What we have determined does NOT work is protective orders, for the most part.  Also plenty of incidents tell us that batterers intervention Programs are NOT foolproof ways to stop domestic violence — they are, however, foolproof ways to bring funding to whoever is recommending this father-friendly solution to intimate partner femicide, etc. — see MPDI, DAIP, etc.

Again, here’s that Budget Proposal.  That the ACF is even still thinking and talking in these terms tells us where its head is at:  MORE PROGRAMS and MORE CENTRALIZATION THROUGH FUNDING.   The role of the DV organizations in here is definitely, I’d have to say, as heat shields to the same policies.

WHERE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROGRAMS PLAY INTO THIS THEORY:

This blog, August 5, 2011, looks at some of the organizations, and their funding.  I have now been saying since October 2010 (at least) based on Investigation AND Experience AND Networked Narratives from around the country (some narratives I was also able to look at court dockets to validate or invalidate, in part, which led to the “Whacko in Wisconsin Series).

When “Domestic ViolenceSpeak” becomes irrelevant, almost… Let’s talk, in Duluth, then Denver…

Towards the bottom of this VERY informative post, I again reference THIS testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Appropriations Subcommittee — objecting to more Fatherhood Funding.  NB:  I DO get email alerts from all kinds of DV groups, including some I’ve been criticizing that present at BMCC — and NONE of them alerted mothers to speak up on this matter, to my recall.  The fact it even has a mention took years of writing, blogging and re-blogging, commenting in rebuttal to press releases on others’ sites and on PR-type releases put out by NCADV, CJE, and CPPA (See last post, or google them, i’m speaking shorthand now).  Others in my on-line and personal networking on this topic also reblogged my posts, including some that get much higher traffic.   My approach has never been the same as the groups mentioned above, because these approaches to not protect women in custody challenges, and when they DO take a high-profile, “poster child” case (and almost never drop it), that case often represents a failure – -not a win — causing women to identify with losing causes, or causes at such a high cost, they cannot follow the same path.

These circles almost NEVER report honestly on who they are up against, and when something gets out in print regarding at least VAGUELY who that is, it’s not prominent, and you will not hear it mentioned on a Dr. Phil, Oprah, or such.  It is also diluted, doesn’t often show backup resources, and many times out of context.  My plan has been by reblogging and researching NAFCJ.net to FORCE other groups, despite my poor social media skills, to confront this information and start to acknowledge it, or be left looking foolishly negligent (which they have been) in these matters.   I have before going this public about it attempted repeatedly in private conversations to explain this to the leaders, question why they don’t simply follow the clear leads until the FIND something, and why their approach that “judge just don’t understand” and “they don’t have the RIGHT kind of training” is not only ridiculous — it can only (at this point) be linked directly to financial motives — on those who are promoting their brand of training.

I am now going to warn people (particularly “protective mothers”) to watch out for groups which have RECENTLY decided to spice up some of their traditional DV Rhetoric about “Batterers” psychology, and talk of Parental Alienation WITHOUT talk about things like AFCC, or the “Parenting Coordination” movement (which has already been faced with investigation for fraud, from my understanding of at least SOME of the Lackawanna  County, PA cases) — and which is evidently hostile towards mothers — with acknowledgement (belated) that, “Oh, yes!  And the fathers’ rights groups are getting federal money!” and point you to some offshoot or segmented piece of it — when it’s widespread throughout the federal government in programs ranging from early childhood, the criminal justice system (Prison re-entry), welfare system (see “NPFN.org”) and custody system, and is working on middle school and high school levels as well, alongside (still!0 things like “Abstinence eduction” for kids at, probably, their reproductive prime years, whether or not they are ready to function as good parents.

State of the Union:

The Republican Primary Contents and Coverage show how little variety is available to “Responsible Single or Divorced Mothers” throughout the land.  We have an Opus Dei-style  conservative who actually boasts about his role in welfare reform (which is in my view a disaster),  Mormon millionaire, a Newt Gingrich (who dumps wives when they’re sick) and another one from Texas. Or, we have President Obama, who actually did as much for “fatherhood promotion” as any President before him, but (true to the style of the movement) “Enough is never enough!”

Things are at an all-time low for not just mothers, but for women overall, in this country — and we have in part some of the DV movement’s silence on the “Fatherhood Funding” and operations (which some of the groups are benefitting from, FYI) — that this entrenchment has simply not been stemmed earlier.  Confused underinformed traumatized BROKE women are a lot easier to preach at than empowered women who have gotten corrupt judges off their cases when bribery was found, or at least slowed things down some.

Where IS a safe place to raise children, in the hopefully unlikely event (but we know it happens) the other spouse was dangerous to them and/or oneself?  Is marriage advisable even if one wishes to have children together a good idea?   If my daughters asked me, could I honestly recommend the USA?   When our taxes are being used to oppress women as a gender on the theory that welfare is just too friendly to women, as is everything governmental, especially the custody courts — should they be looking to work jobs (and pay more taxes), or run businesses or add to the nonprofit burden of the country until it goes under, and structure their entire futures by creating nonprofit corporations (honest ones, let’s hope, unlike so many that I investigate)?

What can I model or demonstrate for them (and others) in this environment?  Other than sheer continued resistance and protest to the limits of safety and economic survival?

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & HEALTHY MARRIAGES PROMOTION**

(not to mention, in my opinion — not necessarily the next author’s –  & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION, ABSTINENCE PROMOTION, AND (ADDING TO THE FUEL) FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES,  along with the mainstreamed (not the pockets of remaining grassroots) DV Rhetoric and Rationales)

WAS ALWAYS –and IS STILL – 

(This is from Liz Richards, who for reasons probably self-evident, is not on the “conference circuit” among DV professionals, and used to be listed (from my recall) on the NCJFCJ Family Violence Resources pages.  Perhaps the link has moved, but on browsing them, I see the same grantee recipients — anyone who will produce a judicial training or a technical assistance initiative of some sort can get on the train.

Point being — when federal funding enters a national dialogue, it tends to crowd out equally creditable, equally experienced — but not-on-the-take (HHS/DOJ funding) voices.   Then those on the take ingratiate themselves on-line, through facebook, social media, and personal contact (supported financially by their organizations), for example, to visit mothers’ reform groups and make sure their progress is “Headed off at the Pass” before it gets (like I have, and now, SOME others), to accountability at the economic analysis level, and provides women some actual tools to do their own look-ups, which do NOT cost $150 or $250++ per hour!)

NAFCJ is listed as a resource (then again, so is “AFCC”) here, 4th under “Related Links” on “Family Courts” — under the National Criminal Justice Reference Service, which is likely how I ran across the site (I was definitely searching high and low for assistance, after local DV nonprofits had NO help for either the current stalking, the increasing child support arrearage, and pretty much for even someone to come with me to the multiple court events as an observer.  In about eight years of such motions (most with more than one hearing), some of them my attempts to renew or regain a restraining order status, only one person came by once for one hearing from the DV agency in my county, which hearing was continued anyhow.  So I was looking for actual – -not virtual — assistance, including reading, emailing, and making phone calls.     While being also a working mother whose work was rapidly being compromised by lack of protection from the ex, and digesting, comprehending the culture and dynamic of the custody courts, ALONE except for connections I could personally locate.  So, here’s those “Related Links”:

Related Links

American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Family Law http://www.abanet.org/family/ American Bar Association (ABA): Center on Children and the Law http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law.html Association of Family and Conciliation Courts http://www.afccnet.org National Alliance for Family Court Justice http://www.nafcj.net

That’s to let you know that someone outside this blogger and the person involved validates this groups/person’s work as worth linking to on a National CRIMINAL Justice Reference site:

And here’s what this person had to say in 2010 about more funding for “responsible fatherhood”:

(any font changes here are mine).

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 there activities are not causing mothers any problems. HHS ACF officials confirm they do no requirement for collecting or reporting program enrollment or outcome data.

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?

**”Protective Mother’s Response to Ways & Means Income Security & Family Support June 17, 2010 hearing for re- reauthorizataion of Responsible Fatherhood program funding.”  The still-active link shows by URL that this is from the US Government Site.  Looking at some of the arguments PRO one can get a virtual lineup of people and groups already receiving funding from the movement.

Have you ever wondered why the word “Responsible” had to be added to this grants series?  That’s to distinguish it — at least in name — from the most objectionable extremists groups, some of which are also overtly racists and anti-Semitic, in addition to sexist.  it is an attempt to “clean up the image” as the more recent attempt to engage “Women In Fatherhood Inc.” is also an overt attempt to portray the movement as not sexist, and anti-woman at its core:

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. The Responsible Fatherhood promoters claims of being entirely separate from the father rights is not valid and I have plenty of documentation to prove otherwise – that the founders and have been collaborating with for years and work together and in some cases are the same people and share some of the same protocol and tactics. HHS-ACF support their agenda since the beginning and has been colluding with them every step of the way

In the mid-1990’s there was a Responsible Fatherhood program “kick-off” conference at NYC Mt Sinai Hospital which some of our group attended and observed fathers rights leaders and notorious anti-woman /pro-incest and now deceased Dr.Richard Gardner leading the conference discussion on how inner-city men would be recruited into theirgroups and activities. Gardner was observed telling the fatherhood audience how they would collaborate with responsible fatherhood people. Getting men sole custody was an important part of the plan.

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 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.

More evidence that most problems simply result in Judicial Trainings.  That’s the culture we are in.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From NCJFCJ site — more Judicial Training in DV cases:

Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases Workshop
April 15-18, 2012,  San Francisco, CA

The National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence (NJIDV), a partnership of the U.S. Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, offers three-day, hands-on, highly interactive workshops that will provide an essential foundation for new and experienced state court judges to enhance their skills in handling civil and criminal domestic violence cases.** Judicial participants will leave the workshop with greater knowledge and skills for handling cases involving domestic violence.

For more information, please contact Jenny Talancon at (775) 784-1662 or
jtalancon@ncjfcj.org.

That should be interesting, as the Family Violence Prevention FUND no longer exists, although fundings for its face-lifted, new-named “Futures Without Violence” sure seems to have survived the transition, with applause from Joe Torres et. al.

**In SF, the California Judicial Council (which is headquartered there) is the prime recipient of access/visitation funding and a whole lot more.  It also, through AOC/CFCC, houses a lot of AFCC professionals (Depner, Diane Nunn, etc.) presiding over and helping spearhead the transition of the United States from a system with separation of powers, and a functional justice system, into a network of problem-solving courthouses (taxpayer supported) dispensing “solutions” to family problems.  One consistent family problem they are still facing in the “FAMILY” courts (notice training is for civil and criminal DV cases — not custody matters) is that, family or no family, most women don’t like being stalked and beat on — or men, and most kids still don’t like having intimate relations with either an immediate relative, or a parent’s parent, sibling, boyfriend, or replacement spouse.

BMCC Day 3: Hierarchy Behavior @ Mothers’ Conference Derails Problem-Solving.

Treat this as “news-alert” and not expository blogging today. I think it’s timely and relevant, though.

My post from last year speaks to this:

HAPPY NEW YEAR: What Rhetoric are You: Father, Mother, or Mediator?

There’s a live-stream programming from this year’s Battered Mother’s Custody Conference in Albany, New York, where many people actually acknowledging there IS a problem with custody courts giving custody to “batterers and abusers” exists.

“Houston, We Have a Problem” with DV & Child Abuse in the Family Courts

Here is the Speaker Schedule (on-line, dated 12/2011)

This awareness is NOT revealed by the composition of the recent Task Force of the “Defending Childhood” Initiative, which task force is called “Children Exposed To Violence” and has not ONE representative of, or authority speaking on, the matters of the US Custody courts, although even at the International level (“IACHR”) the USA has been recognized as a consistent violator of women’s human rights specifically in the family courts.

The Defending Childhood Task Force is composed of 13 leading experts including practitioners, child and family advocates, academic experts, and licensed clinicians. Joe Torre, Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations, founder of the Joe Torre Safe at Home® Foundation, and a witness to domestic violence as a child himself, and Robert Listenbee, Jr., Chief of the Juvenile Unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, will serve as the Co-Chairs of the Task Force.

Seriously: Here’s a list of links from the “DEFENDING CHILDHOOD” D.O.J. site. Take a look at the one called “Engaging Men and Fathers.” Look at its recommendation — this is classic federal protection policy for kids being raped by men. Make sure that Daddy stays involved and has a connection with the children. THis shows up also at “child welfare.gov” sites as I’ve shown before (or, you can simply go look): For active links, go to the DOJ site: “Take Action to Protect Children.”

If you’re a victim of violence in your home, and want HELP right away, call or visit:

National Domestic Violence Hotline 800/799-SAFE 800/787-3224 (TTY)

National Child Abuse Hotline 800/4-A-CHILD 800/2-A-CHILD (TTY)

Tips for Agencies and Staff Working with Youth (PDF)

Tips for Agencies Working With Immigrant Families (PDF)

Tips for Child Welfare Staff (PDF)

Tips for Domestic Violence and Homeless Shelters (PDF)

Tips for Early Childhood Providers (PDF)

Tips for Engaging Men and Fathers (PDF)**

**scroll to bottom, and see “Additional Resources”: several from FVPF (now “Futures without Violence”) and “national family preservation network.”***

“For more information and resources, please contact the Safe Start Center, a National Resource Center for Children’s Exposure to Violence:

http://www.safestartcenter.org 1-800-865-0965 info@safestartcenter.org”

Tips for Parents and Other Caregivers (PDF)

Tips for Teachers (PDF)

Safe Start Center Online Toolkits and Guides

Greenbook Initiative’s tools and resources to assist communities with the overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment.

Child Development-Community Policing Program

*** “National Family Preservation Network” looks like yet another nonprofit (started ca. 1994?) I hadn’t of aught its influence yet. When I spoke yesterday about a (grand)mother who said that the basic function of CPS, AFTER child molestation has been confirmed, and under the “Welfare and Institutions Code,” was not to help the child, but to reunify the family? . . .. This seems to verify. Look at the money put behind this:

See book of Job: Commentary on losing everything: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” Substitute “CPS” for the first LORD, “NFPN” for the second “LORD” and for the third, I suppose the public is not only supposed to “bless” but also FUND whatever DOJ, HHS, HUD, or DOE task force or initiative promises to moderate the taking and giving away, which brings us to the two certainties in life:  Death, and taxes.  And while there are taxes, there is going to be war, competition for the fruits of taxes and fights over which is closest crony to the government programs distributing them THIS year . . . . .     That creates a “high-conflict” struggle among the (plebians, non-experts, etc.) which then justifies more control systems.

Really now:  there’s an organization to take children away because parents are abusing them, and an organization to give them back; also a service to enforce child support, and a service ($4billion/year, ongoing) to compromise arrears are abated (or it’s eliminated) {{see  fatherhood, access/visitation, etc. }}  There are also incentives to move children into foster care and adoption, and incentives to Preserve Families.

In fact, at every level, “we” . . .  and future grandchilren . . . . are being made to pay for “Society’s” screwups, many of which can be directly graced back to a specific government institution — not “society,” — or several of them, already funded by the public. How Paternalistic! Meanwhile, the state of “society” (including portions previously engineered by various corporate/government/religious collaborations) is used as a justification of more corporate/overnment/religious collaborations and breaking down EVERY due process, civil liberty, and individual bill of rights protection engineered originally into the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

ANYHOW:

The mission of the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) is to serve as the primary national voice for the preservation of families. Our mission is achieved through initiatives in the areas of family preservation, reunification, and fatherhood. NFPN offers research-based tools, training resources, and technical assistance to public and private child- and family-serving agencies.

Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

In 1993 the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) was instrumental in the passage of the Family Preservation and Support Act, the only federal legislation specifically designating funding for family preservation. This source of funding was incorporated into the Promoting Safe and Stable Family Program (PSSF) in 1997. The legislation is approved for a maximum of 5 years and Congress has just reauthorized funding.

Here’s a summary of what the legislation contains:

$345 million in mandatory funding and $200 million in discretionary funds

States are required to develop a five-year plan as to how they will spend the funds, report annually on progress, and provide a final report on funding

Funds must be spent primarily in four categories of services with at least 20% going to each category: family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support. About 25% of the funds are currently spent on family preservation.

PSSF also includes designated funding for tribes, court improvement, monthly caseworker visits, and substance abuse treatment.

Read more: Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

Name change in 2005 (click on the IRS form) but apparently it’s still doing great business with the Federal Government? These are from “foundation finder” website:

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR TOTAL ASSETS FORM PAGES

EIN:

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2005 $0 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2004 $155,649 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2003 $110,028 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2002 $134,970 990 14 13-3715995

A quick search doesn’t show this name registered in Idaho, although website “Contact us” address is in Idaho (which is why I looked there); Also does it look like the IRS forms are complete or up to date, either? Check Idaho Corp. Search, here;

http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/search.html

I found the listing under different name in Idaho (through simple google search)
133715995 Intensive Family Preservation Services National Network Inc National Family Pres 145,761 72,218 2009
(that’s a link to its 2010 tax return). Given the influence of this organization, I plan to find out whether it’s legitimately filed in Idaho, or some other state.)

~ ~ ~

Really — even the Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, Second Mile expose so far hasn’t brought up much — at all — on the lowly topic of family courts enabling the same thing. This situation also exposed a charity (The Second Mile) aimed at needy children (See “The Haiti Fund” of CT) which participated — and yet, are women, at this Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference, being encouraged to look at nonprofits for signs of impropriety, or tax evasion which may coincide with mistreatment of children (nb: Both are illegal activities, in fact, when Larry King of a MAJOR child-trafficking (male and female victims supplied through foster parents and/or Boys Town Nebraska) coverup broke, Mr. King did time on financial charges, not on abuse charges, kidnapping, torture or terrorism, etc. despite testimony and the extent of this operation.). Money-laundering or other tax-evasion when it comes to a charity dealing with children should be investigated — quickly!

Similarly, the Luzerne County (also, PA) “Kids for Cash” scandal,* which hasn’t finished spinning itself out yet, and which uncovered kickback activity involving juvenile institutions and a nonprofit with the word “Child Care” in it, and yet still dots are not being connected, mental perception hasn’t set in that this also is likely and has applied before in the family law arena? ???

*Ciavarella Found Guilty on 12 of 39 Counts

February 19th, 2011
By The Times Leader

SCRANTON – A federal jury on Friday convicted former Judge Mark Ciavarella of illegally accepting money relating to the construction of the PA Child Care center, but entirely rejected allegations he extorted Robert Powell or accepted money relating a second juvenile center.

The verdict, which was reached after about 13 hours of deliberations over two days, left both prosecutors and the defense declaring victory in the corruption case that has captivated the public for more than two years.

The jury found Ciavarella guilty of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, money laundering and money laundering conspiracy relating to the $997,600 finder’s fee he received from Robert Mericle, the builder of the center. It also found him guilty of honest services mail fraud for filing fraudulent statements of financial interest with a state agency and five tax counts for filing false tax returns.

…The government could clearly show through bank records the flow of the initial payment of nearly $1 million from Mericle to Ciavarella, Zubrod said, but other payments allegedly funneled through Pinnacle Group of Jupiter, a Florida corporation the ex-judges set up, came out as cash and thus could not be traced with the same precision.

(Notice:  the government looked at cash flow, and saw what they believed a front group set up — in a different state — but were stymied where the payments turned to cash.  Note:  In Lackawanna County Court, PA, I believe one of the complaints about visitation supervisors, and another (DNR if parenting coordinator, or what) parents complained that they were forced to pay in cash (or not see their kids).  It was the economic matters which were prosecuted, and which took the case down.

RE:  Luzerne County situation — it was so embarrassing, so scandalous that in 2009 the state voted an Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which issued a report, “Lessons from Luzerne County“

State records show that between 2003 and 2008, approximately 50 percent of juveniles appeared in Luzerne County Juvenile Court without benefit of counsel – nearly ten times the state average. Virtually all of these unrepresented juveniles were adjudicated delinquent, many for acts so minor and trivial that in most counties these charges would never have even made it to juvenile court. Of those youth without counsel who were adjudicated delinquent, nearly 60 percent were sent to out-of-home placements. The state data show that former judge Mark Ciavarella presided over more than 6,500 cases, leaving thousands of children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized. Luzerne County was a toxic combination of for-profit facilities, corrupt judges, and professional indifference.

In October 2009, in an unprecedented opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Ciavarella’s adjudications of delinquency made between 2003 and May 2008. Just three months later, Special Master Arthur Grim ordered that all cases heard by former Judge Ciavarella were to be dismissed. In providing relief, the Supreme Court restored integrity to Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system and gave hope to youth who suffered enormous harm at the hands of corrupt judges

Although it has been overtly shown, and acknowledged even within government, that there are indeed things called “corrupt judges” and that their interest is in financial gain  and this case, in particular, demonstrated spectacularly that ordering unnecessary services by judges to nonprofits or corporations they had a financial interest in, for some reason the BMCC conference in approximately 8 years does not seem to have had a workshop or presenter talking about the similar phenomenon in family courts.  I witnessed a woman from the floor ask, after all this advice on how to approach the bench, “what do you do if you get a corrupt judge?,” to which the speaker’s answer was, we don’t deal with specific cases.  I also heard in breakout sessions, a woman ask “what do you do when you can’t afford an expert witness” (the workshop being led by one), and some vague comment about, aren’t there pro bono services available?

Regarding Penn State situation

When it’s a stranger molesting, and others not reporting, somehow it’s more noteworthy than when parents do, which is so often just another relationship problem, and “who knows”? what REALLY happened in the case to provoke, well, murders, etc.

So, as there are so few conferences (that I’m aware of) that have been ongoing and specifically address CUSTODY and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE _- to which women themselves are actually invited, how much more important is it when women come from across the continent: the south, the west, the north, and the east coasts (presumably) to seek help and confer with each other about WHAT TO DO and get feedback on what has happened last year — this one has a moral and ethical responsibility to “GET IT RIGHT.” Anyone getting up in front of women who have experienced what these have, and what their children have — should be concerned about telling the Most relevant Truth, The WHOLE relevant Truth, and nothing which strays from the truth, clouds it, obscures it, or distracts from it.

In this matter from what I can tell, BMCC has failed abysmally this year as in prior years.

One thing that appears to guarantee “presenter status” and special attention is anyone whose advocacy and leadership has previously failed — sometimes, dramatically. Of course, presenters can apply I suppose — and do — but why is it that year after year the groups who show the least progress (when: Father, Mother, or Mediator Rhetoric is compared) regularly get up on the podium to commiserate and to exaggerate progress made — i.e., another task force appointed — and strengthen the sense of Family through this event?

As such, Linda Marie Sacks (see 2nd “About This Blog” post, I give links to the brief) is now a presenter, as are some of the groups specifically mentioned on her brief that was turned down (not heard) at the Supreme Court of the USA level. Eileen King (Justice for Children) was one of those, and is also a presenter at the conference. In all the years of these conferences, has there been one mother who was battered, or had child molestation situation (with evidence, i.e., CPS or police, etc.) — who SUCCEEDED in defeating a custody challenge? Or, any professional whose leadership (or group’s leadership) successfully changed the climate of the local custody courts to the point that this situation does NOT happen?

That should be a lesson for attendees (but probably isn’t).

Loretta Frederick, of BWJP (Battered Women’s Justice Project), who worked on a project alongside AFCC (see my blog, we know who this nonprofit for great profits lobbying trade group of family law judges, mediators, and attorneys (etc.) is now, right?)takes the podium to tell mothers something. I missed that live stream; it may still be up, but as I said in last post — this is more appropriate for to be put on the hotseat and have mothers fire questions at her — WHY is her group collaborating with the exact same people that market PAS theory which they so protest? (Of course, the same crowd is not informed HOW PAS theory gets marketed, which is primarily via AFCC and some related organizations).

The description in the conference schedulefor this ssegment:

2:00 – 2:30 Gabby Davis and Loretta Frederick:  Developing and Implementing a Conceptual Framework for Identifying, Understanding and Accounting for the Implications of Intimate Partner Abuse in Contested Child Custody Cases.
Ample research, local practice, and lived experience collectively inform us that the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children are not adequately accounted for in contested child custody cases where domestic violence is alleged.  Very little systematic attention is paid to whether there is a history of abuse, whether the abuse is ongoing, who is abusing whom, what the abuse looks like, and how the abuse impacts the children, the abused parent, and the parenting capacities of both the abusive and the abused parent.  Consequently, from an institutional standpoint, the family court system is often poorly organized to accurately identify and describe what is actually happening in people’s everyday lives so that it can respond in ways that are helpful, or at least not harmful, to the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children.  This presentation describes a collaborative effort by the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Praxis International, and a local jurisdiction in NW Ohio to develop and implement a concrete framework to help family court professionals better identify, understand and account for the context and implications of domestic violence in contested child custody cases.

Like other segments, apparently, to bring up that the family court system is intentionally and systematically organized (and by whom) so as NOT to use a “conceptual framework” that pays attention to reality, or police reports… . .. The passive writing and constructions here are specifically NOT to finger or point to any real agents. It’s just an unfortunate “situation” that exists, which this grant series can address.

I addressed this specifically in July, 2011:

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: (= title of that post, and a link to it).

Reviewing BWJP website on this project shows that, no matter what changes, one thing won’t — so long as grants exist, advocates will be publishing their thoughts and observations, and then getting some nice conference engagements with travel expenses deductible, while NOT reporting on who set up the family courts to operate as they do.

http://www.bwjp.org/advocating_for_battered_mothers.aspx

Anyone checking out the BWJP site describing this project can see that it’s a joint project with AFCC and from funding by OVW, meaning, while we are so excited about the OVW actually NOTICING this issue (finally), the fact is, that they are paying AFCC to talk about what to do with the topic! And (see link above), I clicked on a few of the references; these women also know about Women’s Justice Project (which I cited yesterday), they know plenty — but they are not reporting the MOST relevant things to us: HOW COME year after year, our accounts continue to fall on deaf ears?

Nor do they talk about their own funding, or the apparent serious failure of this “collaborative Community Response” Model, which appears to have been pushed/originated most out of Duluth, MN.

A few TAGGS.hhs.gov grantees whose titles have the words “Battered Women” (Ms. Frederick’s group is not on this set): (I may clean up this paste tomorrow):

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN	LITTLE ROCK	AR	72203	PULASKI		$ 15,780
CENTER FOR BATTERED WOMEN	AUSTIN	TX		TRAVIS		$ 204,581
COUNCIL ON BATTERED WOMEN	ATLANTA	GA	30308	FULTON		$ 3,000
GEORGIA ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN	ATLANTA	GA	30312	FULTON		$ 1,440,579
MINNESOTA COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN	SAINT PAUL	MN	55103-1844	RAMSEY	076896112	$ 3,157,167
NEW JERSEY COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN	TRENTON	NJ	08690	MERCER	883332645	$ 3,504,339

Showing: 1 – 6

100% of the MN grants (here) if you look are the “SVDC” grants — statewide DV coalition, even though it says “Battered Women” on the title.  The Georgia group hasn’t got anything in this millennium, and what it did get relates to Mental Health protection and advocacy, plus $47K for “SVDC 1996.”   The NJ group is getting the statewide (SVDC) grants for several years — around $250K — but in the year 2010, gets some more for “Youth” as well.  Helping Battered Women is “old School.”  Helping Children and Youth is much more fashionable, although seems to me one way to help children and youth is to stop people from knocking their mothers around while they are growing up!

2010	90EV0404	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES/EXPANDING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH	1	0	ACF	09-24-2010	883332645	$ 150,000
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:

As we can see, it’s few groups and little funding under “battered women.”  This was ALL years combined.

However, change the term to “Domestic Violence” and you get the advocates that are centralized and under better federal control, for example, I just checked recently — Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence ALONE got $26 million in one year alone of grants, which it distributes in part to local “women’s resource centers” which (I checked some) already show direct links to fatherhood groups, particularly one on Scranton. a.k.a., PCADV is sharing funding with groups promoting fatherhood under the title “Women’s Resource” or what a battered women, entering in or calling for help, might be very much misled to believe is actually about helping HER — and not promoting family reunification or other fatherhood agendas.

This has some more details, and we see that to start out with (1996 — oddly, same year as welfare reform) the groups all got $47,140 each to get started, and no one even bothered to name the grant.  This is just a slice of them, all coming from the “ACF” (Administration for Children and Families”.

ACF	ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	AL		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	AZ		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	CA		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	CT		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	DC		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	DE		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	FL		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HI		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	ID		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	IL		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	IN		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	IA		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170
ACF	KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	KS		01/01/1996	NONE		$ 47,170

(etc.)  No CFDA# was assigned, yet and no “principal investigators” are even named.

Fast forward to 2005 (the year I’m searching on below for 990s), and I’m showing again ALA through KS (plus it picked up a RI at the top).  The amounts are nearly 5 times larger ($237K/$250K), and someone has bothered to key in a Grant Title, but few Principal Investigators even named:

Program Office	Grantee Name	State	Grantee Class	Grantee Type	Award Title	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
ASH/ODPHP	RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	RI	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	SAFE AND BRIGHT FUTURES: A STATEWIDE PLANNING PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO WITNESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	09/28/2005	93990	SHEILA FRENCH	$ 75,000
FYSB	ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	AL	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	AZ	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	CA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Special Interest Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	CT	Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	DC	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Special Interest Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,038
FYSB	DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	DE	Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations	Community Action Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	FL	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Special Interest Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	FL	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Special Interest Organization	COLLABORATING TO IMPACT TEEN DATING VIOLENCE IN THE LIVES OF RUNAWAY & HOMELESS YOUTH	09/20/2005	93592	TIFFANY A CARR	$ 75,000
FYSB	HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HI	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	ID	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Special Interest Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,038
FYSB	ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	IL	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	IN	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Special Interest Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,038
FYSB	IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	IA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,037
FYSB	KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	KS	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,038

This year we should also show the NYS Coalition (I remember discovering Patti Jo Newell as a BMCC presenter, and as a NYS DV person, a few years back, it seems).  Odd grant labeling, don’t you think?

FYSB	NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	NY	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,038
FYSB	NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC	NY	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR	09/22/2005	93592	PATTI JO NEWELL	$ 130,000

I think that “Executive Director” is an interesting award title, don’t you?  (Compare, below).  I also note that the CFDA has moved from 93671 to 93592

For PCADV (Pennsylvania) this was also a good year, it got SIX funding streams to start new projects.  two of these were from a different program office (see below); the “DELTA” awards coordinated through two women, Karen Lang and Pam Cox, whoever they are:

FYSB	PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	PA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	2005 SDVC	05/06/2005	93671		$ 237,038
FYSB	PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	PA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	DEMO PROJECT FOR ENHANCING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN EXPOSED TO DV	09/22/2005	93592	CONNIE THOMAS	$ 130,000
FYSB	PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	PA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	08/29/2005	93592	SUSAN KELLY-DREISS	$ 1,561,230
FYSB	PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	PA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	09/28/2005	93592	SUSAN KELLY-DREISS	$ 700,000

NCIPC	PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	PA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DATABASE EARMARK GRANT	06/03/2005	93136	KAREN LANG	$ 297,600
NCIPC	PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	PA	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations	Other Social Services Organization	NATIONAL ON-LINE RESOURCE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN	07/27/2005	93136	KAREN LANG	$ 388,398

I looked at a tax return (recommended).  It shows approximately where the money is going, and relationships also with MPDI, Battered Women’s Justice Project, PA Crime Comissions, and USVAW (as program expenses which resulted in profitable income (i.e., expenses were less than revenue from the activity).  More  to the point, it also shows which programs money is being distributed to, including names and EIN#s (i.e., are these subgrantees also filing properly…) and officers.  While only the Exec Dir. is earning over $100 from PCADV (and a reasonable salary for a very large nonprofit), there are also quite a few others earning around $75K plus a parallel column of income from “related organizations” averaging from $18-25 or so, meaning it’s got a LOT of officers who are pulling in $100K a year, plus a few pages of unpaid “directors” which I assume? (right or wrong, could be checked) represent the directors of the various shelters.

Program purpose is stated (sorry about lack of spaces:  Link here:)

1.TO ELIMINATE DOMESTIC ABUSE OF WOMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA. 2.TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS SHALL INCLUDE CRISIS TELEPHONE COUNSELING, TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR THE VICTIM AND HER DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND/OR PEER AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING, ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING COMMUNITY RESOURCES, HELP IN ACQUIRING EMPLOYMENT SKILLS, AND/OR WORK REFERRAL.

{{Please note that apart from temporary shelter, it says nothing about legal advocacy in the case; once she’s out of the shelter, and in the family law system, the protection order usually comes off, and then — depending on the ex and circumstances — these women are forced to interact long-term with their exes in a system which has a federal grant-incentive, and a child support enforcement agency incentive, and affiliated programs incentives — in addition to whatever incentives the ex had then, and may have now if child support order is in place — to keep the case stretched out and going as long as possible.  Sometimes women then are killed, and/or their children, and/or their exes (i.e., murder/suicides), to the extent that websites have been set up unofficially to track this!  (dastardly Dads, etc.) .   I fail to see how a huge movement of this sort which fails to take seriously the situation of women AFTER they leave the shelter is doing to STOP violence against women.

I also note it says “abuse” and not “violence” in the program description.}}

3.TO EXPOSE THE ROOTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZEDSUBSERVIENCEOFWOMEN INTHISCULTURE.4.TOPROVIDEQUALITYSERVICES STATEWIDE AND TO EXPAND SERVICES SUCH THAT EVERY VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE COMMONWEALTH MAY OBTAIN IMMEDIATE, COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE LOCALLY. 5.TO DO ANY AND ALL LAWFUL ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY, USEFUL, OR DESIRABLE FOR THE FUTHERANCE, ACCOMPLISHMENT, FOSTERING OR ATTAINMENT OF THE FOREGOING PURPOSES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND EITHER ALONE OR IN CONDUCTION WITH OTHERS.

Response:

RE:  Purpose 3.  The roots of DV in institutionalized subservience of women in this culture includes religion AND government AND the workforce.  PCADV is funded by government, and not likely to take on government itself; it doesn’t deal extensively with religion, although so much backlash against feminism (which is mentally associated with pro-LGBT where much of conservative religion is against LGBT, and the Bible is clear on the matter too — it does not endorse homosexuality.  Then again, it doesn’t endorse robbery, usury, or adultery, either.) comes from religious roots.  

Family Law/Domestic Relations Courts  is an institution which could be easily a focus of PCADV (if goal#3 was a major one), as it’s the venue which fathers’ rights groups have targeted as unfair to them, and in which the pendulum swinging the other way has a lot of money behind it.  Yet this major, federally-supported organization, is not focusing on the custody issues, and does not report on even the AFCC, CRC, CPR, AccessVisitation Grants etc. (at least they don’t lead with this information; I haven’t seen it).   They do not report on the various Fatherhood Commissions now being established at the state levels (feel free to correct if you can find anything dating to around the time they were being created).

We are beyond the point of no return in pretending that the domestic violence organizations do not KNOW about the extent of their supposed counterparts, the fatherhood-funded organizations entrenched throughout the executive branch of government (and by executive memo from a Democrat President in 1995, Pres. Clinton’s memo), written into public law in welfare reform, and in both houses of congress fatherhood resolutions were passed, 1998 & 1999.   The NFI has now grandchildren, i.e., nonprofits (also with federal support) training the trainers.  HHS is courting a Coalition of Fathers and Families — and yet organizations like this, and following this lead — simply don’t see fit to MENTION this to women they serve, with the result that these women are losing their children to men they fled, sometimes fled recently!  What kind of “Future without violence” is that/

This information — that the group puts out — is tremendous when it comes to validation for women who have been suffering from this, and useless when it comes to advocacy when they are in a custody battle!  That some of the key scandals came this year FROM Pennsylvania is perhaps an indicator of a bit of tunnel vision?  

I don’t feel “comfortable” criticizing the work of anyone who’s obtained this much public presence, federal help, and cultural change in spreading the concept of “domestic violence” as a serious problem — and the founder of this nonprofit also grew up witnessing violence in the home, her bio says, and was recently inducted into a Women’s Hall of Fame.  HOWEVER, we have to be honest — when institutions get large and established, they also tend to become calcified as to taking feedback constructive, or simply truthful; there is a “territory” to defend.

I also wish to mention that of the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” (funded — not in a major way, most of them except this one, but in a minor way) are usually members of the over-arching nonprofit “NATIONAL Coalition Against Domestic Violence.”  If one looks at its website, I believe membership has multiple breakdowns, but one of them (for nonprofit groups) as i recall includes either this minimum or “a % of the budget.”  Therefore if member CADVs are getting federal funding, NCADV, which is not, takes its “tithe” (so to speak) and this is public money.

Susan Kelly-Dreiss was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame (for her PCADV work, etc. — see link) in 2009.  She got laws passed, shelters started, and was a recognized leader.  I do not see that anything much was done about the problem with the family law system which started in earnest in mid-1990s. Isn’t that something of an oversight, considered in what context women are fleeing their homes with children, and then having unsafe visitation exchanges by court order afterwards, which results sometimes in death?  Wouldn’t a situation which is getting people killed require a little attention, like prominence?  But despite all this funding, success, and honors, it seems Pennsylvania is having serious problem living down its recent scandals.  It continues to put out DV literature (“Telling Amy” out of PSU just being one of them).   FBI has been called to handle corruption in a family courthouse.  Now go through that site and see if it mentions the problem!

Also, I’d like to get an answer why the hotshot resource center, which has been receiving funding since 1993/1995, didn’t bother to register with the state til 2011!   In this, its behavior is beginning to resemble the marriage/fatherhood grantees.  Note:  in 2005, it’s called a grant, not an institution — but in their literature, it’s spoken of as an “entity.”

HHS describes some of these resource centers HERE:  BWJP is one of them….  The “on-line resource center” (“VAWnet”) describes its philosophy:

About VAWnet

VAWnet is a comprehensive and easily accessible online collection of full-text, searchable materials and resources on domestic violence, sexual violence and related issues.

The goal of VAWnet, The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women is to use electronic communication technology to enhance efforts to prevent violence against women and intervene more effectively when it occurs.

- – - – - -

in 2011 (top two rows only are PCADV), over $1,000,000

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HARRISBURG	PA	17112-2669	DAUPHIN	156527558	$ 981,771
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HARRISBURG	PA	17112-2669	DAUPHIN	166527558	$ 315,000
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE	ENOLA	PA	17025-2500	CUMBERLAND	929907426	$ 1,500,000

Overall:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HARRISBURG	PA	17112-2669	DAUPHIN	156527558	$ 39,965,461
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	HARRISBURG	PA	17112-2669	DAUPHIN	166527558	$ 945,000
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE	ENOLA	PA	17025-2500	CUMBERLAND	929907426	$ 14,559,328

Showing: 1 – 3 of 3 Recipients

 

Checking USASpending.gov (the top DUNS# only, which relates $39,965,461 in total grants), it shows only:

• Total Dollars:$10,040,520
• Transactions:1 – 20 of 20

This is in part probably because TAGGS goes back further in time (to 1995), but should be looked into for discrepancies.  That’s a large one, and the bulk of funding was after the time period USASpending database covers, not before it.   The discrepancy is, as we can see, over $29 million.  I call that a lot!

In addition from the DOJ (this is per the above site, USASpending.gov) PCADV — under that top DUNS# only — got this many grants:

• Total Dollars:$2,443,223
• Transactions:1 – 11 of 11

The second DUNS# relates to “VAWnet” creation.  Technology (i.e., disseminate information, PR, research, websites, etc.) to stop violence against women.  OK . . . . started in 2009…

2009

U1VCE001742

VAMNET IN ITS GOAL TO HARNESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT EFFO

1

000

CDC

08-21-2009

166527558

$ 315,000

~ ~ ~ ~The variety of program funding it draws from in both the DOJ and HHS side shows that this is a favored group.   In their home state — and home town — there has been to date, a scandalous cover-up of child abuse (Sandusky), cheating and racketeering re: sending children off to a juvenile institution (Luzerne) and FBI investigating financial fraud at a county courthouse (Lackawanna) among other things.  The next president elect of AFCC also works out of Harrisburg and is an expert witness (Pay, $150 hour, $75 for travel for the firm, last I looked) and I see nothing at all in PCADV of this helpful information.

~ ~ That most of this money comes from HHS and not DOJ tells us one thing — that DV is considered NOT a criminal matter, but a health and children/family matter.  I believe it’s time to call it what it is — crime — and stop writing theses (see below) trying to get family court professionals to apply domestic violence law, and for that matter, I wish to see what results training and technical assistance are providing, except to ensure that no one is under this training going to “out” the systematic fraud and program overbilling (etc.) going on in the other court sectors.

(I’ll come back to this topic another post.   When I looked at the “income from related organizations” column on their 990, I saw amounts — on each row — on which I could’ve adequately sustained (fed AND housed) my family in one of the most pricey areas to live in the country, though not the safest (SF extended Bay Area), and a salary level I couldn’t possibly obtain once the case hit the custody courts, which continually interrupted work!    In other areas — and I have looked at some housing prices in Pennsylvania while helping look at the Scranton area disgraces — these amounts would probably sustain a family of four, comfortably.  But instead, they are “supplemental” income from related groups by people on the Board of PCADV who already are making in the realm of $70+ per year.  I don’t have a problem with people making that much income, but when the program exists because of federal funding, then it has to be accountable to taxpayers for what it’s doing.  If it is functioning as a leader among state-funded coalitions and allowing people to go through programs it subsidizes, and not warning women about upcoming custody issues WHILE it serves them, it doesn’t deserve to continue leading.  This is exactly what is happening throughout the country — and probably because of the centralization & “professionalization” of this movement!

 

From “foundation finder” — and only for a single year, 2005, here are how many state (and county, etc.) groups are “Against Domestic Violence.” Who wouldn’t be “against domestic violence” and actually admit it? The list is long: Again, these are from groups who have apparently filed tax returns with the IRS (if not their local states) in 2005.

62 documents matched. 62 documents displayed. (Search on “Against Domestic Violence“)

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Agape Foundation Against Domestic Violence Inc.	CA	2005	$3,401	990EZ	14	95-4697016
Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	AL	2005	$586,764	990	22	63-0907890
Alliance Against Domestic Violence	WA	2005	$-4,005	990EZ	15	91-1920654
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence	VA	2005	$6,394	990EZ	12	54-1679023
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence	VA	2005	$29,691	990EZ	11	54-1679023
Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	AZ	2005	$584,318	990	15	86-0593601
Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence Inc.	MA	2005	$1,349,359	990	20	04-3103354
Botteneau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	ND	2005	$-1,660	990	12	36-3653713
Branch County Coalition Against Domestic Violence	MI	2005	$747,905	990	21	38-2463183
Bridges Against Domestic Violence	SD	2005	$45,935	990	13	46-0425839
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence	CA	2005	$422,627	990	17	77-0347420
Center for The Elimination of Violence Family Inc. (D/B/A Center Against Domestic Violence)***	NY	2005	$8,313,868	990	28	11-2415837
Citizens Against Domestic Violence	NC	2005	$27,649	990	15	56-2023076
Citizens Against Domestic Violence	OH	2005	$9,025	990EZ	19	31-1703077
Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence	CO	2005	$305,976	990	25	84-0742604
Committee Against Domestic Violence	NV	2005	$991,442	990	27	88-0187930
Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	CT	2005	$1,141,502	990	22	06-0985675
DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence	DC	2005	$177,997	990	22	52-1515600
Employers Against Domestic Violence	MA	2005	$62,063	990EZ	11	04-3389211
Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	FL	2005	$5,065,959	990	19	59-2055476
Fremont County Alliance Against Domestic Violence	WY	2005	$262,417	990	13	83-0254163
Georgia Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc.	GA	2005	$218,210	990	17	58-1854962
Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence	HI	2005	$34,704	990	20	99-0235218
IA Coal Against Domestic Violence	IA	2005	$344,360	990	18	42-1285094
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence	IL	2005	$683,281	990	20	37-1056288
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence Foundation	IL	2005	$39,132	990	14	37-1381646
Indian Country Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault	OR	2005	$8,491	990	14	04-3601074
Indiana Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc.	IN	2005	$227,338	990	13	31-1009769
Kankakee County Coalition Against Domestic Violence	IL	2005	$584,737	990	15	36-3100202
Knox County Task Force Against Domestic Violence Dba Harbor House	IN	2005	$331,796	990	15	35-1662335
Lincoln County Coalition Against Domestic Violence	NC	2005	$185,074	990	18	56-1822730
Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence	LA	2005	$426,982	990	25	72-1015427
Marshall County Coal Against Domestic Violence	AL	2005	$38,628	990	17	30-0178911
Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence	MD	2005	$188,574	990	17	52-1233434
Maury Co Center Against Domestic Violence	TN	2005	$412,158	990	16	62-1375056
Merrimack County Task Force Against Domestic Violence	NH	2005	$291,019	990	26	02-0342221
Mississippi State Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	MS	2005	$407,812	990	28	64-0656865
Nashville Coalition Against Domestic Violence	TN	2005	$0	990PF	13	58-2165997
Nassau County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc.	NY	2005	$1,710,858	990	20	11-2442377
National Coal Against Domestic Violence	CO	2005	$217,684	990	24	91-1081344
Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence	NV	2005	$277,241	990	19	94-2910861
New York State Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc.	NY	2005	$449,377	990	18	22-2337608
NM Coalition Against Domestic Violence	NM	2005	$1,116,716	990	16	93-0792163
North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., The	NC	2005	$449,411	990	21	61-1077481
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault I	OK	2005	$247,396	990	25	73-1131211
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Inc.	OK	2005	$261,112	990	30	73-1131211
Partnership Against Domestic Violence Inc.	GA	2005	$1,067,804	990	20	58-1314556
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence	PA	2005	$3,700,229	990	29	23-2052886
People Against Domestic Violence	MO	2005	$36,174	990	14	43-1577117
Pike County Partnership Against Domestic Violence	OH	2005	$46,070	990	17	31-1438441
R I Coalition Against Domestic Violence	RI	2005	$882,830	990	17	05-0384580
Richland County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	MT	2005	$27,674	990EZ	10	36-3452392
Ross County Coalition Against Domestic Violence	OH	2005	$146,155	990	22	31-1044779
SC Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault	SC	2005	$310,313	990	21	57-0760811
South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence	SD	2005	$29,146	990	13	46-0357192
Stand! Against Domestic Violence	CA	2005	$4,439,016	990	22	94-2476576
Suffolk County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc.	NY	2005	$924,328	990	17	11-2470902
Unidos Against Domestic Violence Inc.	WI	2005	$61,765	990	24	39-1967912
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence	WA	2005	$821,765	990	19	91-1507028
WI Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc.	WI	2005	$228,954	990	23	39-1380437
WV Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc.	WV	2005	$486,285	990	17	31-1011750
Wyoming Coal Against Domestic Violence	WY	2005	$664,354	990	25	74-2466406

In short, Everyone (if you ask them — or fund them) is against domestic violence.  Imagine a group being honest enough to say, “I’m FOR Domestic Violence!”  – it’s one of the easiest topics to say you are against.  So we have:  Coalitions, Centers, Task Forces, Networks, Partnerships, but the primary ones taking money from HHS come under the centralized “Coalitions.”  Some are by state, others are by county, others have some particular emphasis (“Unidos” or “Asian” or “Agape” etc.) (I put anything over $1 million in red font).

*** This one (new to me) says its program purpose is SHELTERING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, and has leased some property in NY for it.  Its officers have one Executive Director at $125K (very reasonable for the field), and “Compensation of the Five Highest Paid Employees Other Than Officers,Directors,and Trustees” shows from mid-sixties to $81K, including two shelter directors.  This one looks like it is actually getting help to people, and not spending its money on training, building fancy websites, and “technical assistance” while selling curriculum to everything that moves and breathes.   LEt’s see if this comes from HHS by an “EIN#” search:  Recipient EIN = 112415837 No matching awards found.

The Center began at a “speak out” in Brooklyn in 1976 where more than a hundred women told how their lives had been turned upside down by domestic violence. One thing became clear: There was no place where mothers could flee to safety with their children. In fact, it was against regulations to bring a child to the “unfit” environment of a shelter. A group of trailblazing women—domestic violence victims, survivors and advocates—set out to change all that and the Center was born.

The Center’s Women’s Survival Space, a place where abused women and their children could find safety, was the first of its kind in the State and is now the longest operating domestic violence emergency shelter in New York. Today the Center houses up to 1,000 women and children each year in three emergency shelters.

By contrast, the Florida CADV (which got $5 million+ in 2005) shows this amount in TAGGS:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	32301-2756	LEON	053274101	$ 7,878,370

$2.2 million of this (above) was from “DELTA” alliances….

Award Number:	CCU422481
Award Title:	DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ENHANCEMENT & LEADERSHIP THROUGH ALLIANCES
OPDIV:	CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Organization:	NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL (NCIPC)
Award Class:	COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

The other thing these grants go to is sometimes to set up “resource centers” aka nice websites which republishes the same type of information, and I wonder who’s monitoring the results and the tax returns of these nonprofits-within-nonprofits. Anyone?

Do a basic “recipient search” (by NAME) on TAGGS, for “Domestic Violence” and notice how much larger the results list is, and how much larger the grants are. PCADV shows over $40 million alone. California Alliance Against Domestic Violence has three different DUNS# it is taking grants under. New York Coalition Against DV — two. There are consortiums and interventions and councils when it comes to “domestic violence” — 74 recipients in all.

Many of these grants are being shared with shelters, and I really wonder if some of the money actually gets TO the shelters, as there is so much emphasis on “Technical Assistance.” There’s one called a National Resource Center on DV (which I looked up) in Harrisburg, PA — which received $1.5 million — and yet I am wondering how separate it really is from the PCADV?

(Filed for incorporation in PA in 2011 only):

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Inc. 4023857 Non-Profit (Non Stock) Active 4/11/2011

(I don’t understand why — but the Secr. of State  PA Corporations page shows one filing only for PCADV — in 1977.  No annual report filings show up.).  Again, the “NCRDV” is an HHS project, and per its own website, existed by name since 1993, 1995 — but only as a corporation this past year?

ABOUT NRCDV…

It is the mission of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence to improve societal and community responses to domestic violence and, ultimately, prevent its occurrence.

Since 1993, the Pennsylvania Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) has received core funding to operate the NRCDV from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with supplemental funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support VAWnet, our national online resource center, and other private and public grants. The NRCDV employs a multidisciplinary staff and supports a wide range of projects to address the complex challenges domestic violence poses to families, institutions, communities, and governments.

Similarly, an Ohio Coalition Against Domestic Violence — in Franklin County, OH — has gotten over $7 million (from HHS, not including any from the DOJ) — and yet Ohio also has a major parallel network to counter any feminism, entrenched and well organized — which I looked at when a little girl got molested and raped INSIDE a government-funded facility, and it was photographed on cell phone, during one of those “Family Reunification” Supervised (?) visits that everyone is paying for. This little girl’s sister had previously died in foster care after being removed AT BIRTH from the mother.

See below, I also address that these groups are NOT necessarily mothers’ friends:

BWJP associates with the Duluth group (DAIP) and “MPDI” which I have blogged on, obviously. I forgot to mention – the live stream of the conference indicated that now the women are to honor “Ellen Pence.” That’s fine — how about a moment of silence for all the dead women, children, and let’s throw in the bystanders, that Ms. Pence’s Collaborative Community Response theory (CCR) is NOT saving, as we speak, and for a round of applause for completely silence on the fatherhood funding, when addressing women and mothers. I also think she should be commended for fronting and schmoozing with another fraudulent group called the National Family Justic Center Alliance (Casey Gwinn Gael Strack, etc., brainchild) out of San Diego, the “Enron by the Sea.”

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

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC
DULUTH  MN  55802-2152  ST. LOUIS  193187069  $ 19,901,530

~ ~ ~
When people stand up and speak to (you) — one of the first questions to answer, particularly in this field, is, who is funding them, and who are their friends. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I have just spent almost 20 years in the geographic area of one of the largest “family violence prevention funds” around — and I cannot see what lives it is saving, and it has completely avoided dealing with the family law crisis. That’s simply unacceptable, at this level, and while other social services (like to the disabled) are taken into consideration.

Taken from the “DAIP” (Duluth Abuse Intervention Program) site — where solicitations for donations, and products being marketed are prominent figures, we learn that BWJP is one of its projects:

The mission of Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs is to end violence against women. We give voice to diverse women who are battered by translating their experiences into innovative programs and institutional changes that centralize victim safety. We partner with communities worldwide to inspire the social and political will to eliminate violence against women and their families.

Our programs include the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the Duluth Family Visitation Center, the National Training Project, and the Battered Women’s Justice Project.

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program that collaborates with community agencies such as law enforcement, criminal and civil courts, and human service agencies to provide an institutional advocacy response to battering.

Our Visitation Center offers support for victims of domestic violence and their children as well as supervised visitation, monitored visitation, and monitored exchange services to families affected by domestic violence.

Supervised Visitation was one of those compromises with radical men’s groups; and it is an adaptation from the field of child welfare, i.e., “reunification theory.” Thanks to the concept that intervention, supervised visitation, and judicial trainings are the solution, we have had nightmare circumstances where non-offending mothers are being put into supervised visitation monitoring and further traumatized, monitored and reported on. Jack Straton testified in early 1990s!! AGAINST doing this to children, and why — and that testimony actually is printed under DAIP type letter head (and probably on my blogroll to right). His advice was ignored, and now the situation is far worse — because while he said this in 1992, 1993 — in 1996 welfare reform opened up a grants stream (diversion from TANF) to encourage the development of such supervised visitation centers.

These centers are now making negative press headlines, have been since 1999 reported as sources of potential and identified double-billing (in fact one of the women’s cases who was at the head of the room at BMCC is on-line documenting this. For some reason, her voice in this matter has been silenced, and she sits by mutely while her colleague Connie Valentine recites how great it is to have this task force about “Children Exposed to Violence.” .. . .. I have a question (speaking of Sandusky) — if one of the most heavily funded coalitions against DV is in PA — and what’s more, I think isn’t it even AT Penn State? — then how come they didn’t put two and two together about the Second Mile, Sandusky, and the scandal in the Lackawanna County family courts? Which the FBI is now investigating (and which overlaps with the field of supervised visitation).

etc.. . . . .

BWJP is one of “Four Resource Centers” according to a 2007 Federal Register description.

During FY 2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made 241 grants to States and Tribes or Tribal organizations. HHS also made 53 family violence prevention grant awards to non-profit State domestic violence coalitions.Show citation box
In addition, HHS supports the Domestic Violence Resource Center Network (DVRN). DVRN consists of the National Resource Center for Domestic Violence (NRC) and four Special Issue Resource Centers (SIRCs). The four SIRCs are: The Battered Women’s Justice Project, the Resource Center on Child Custody and Protection, the Resource Center for the Elimination of Domestic Violence Against Native Women (Sacred Circle), and the Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence. The purpose of NRC and the SIRCs is to provide resource information, training, and technical assistance to Federal, State, and Indian Tribal agencies; local domestic violence prevention programs; and other professionals who provide services to victims of domestic violence.

(NB: Plenty of collaborations between DV & Fatherhood groups are held behind mothers in custody battles’ backs, and without soliciting their input, see any federally supported, state-level (or state-wide) DV provider these days, or fatherhood provider, and it’ll become clear how cozy a relationship these two types of groups have with each other. Eventually (in time marked by statistics and headlines of people shot or otherwise killed surrounding divorce & custody issues) some of these two groups — and very proud of themselves they seem — even talk (with each other) about oh, yes, and women ARE losing their children to abusers.

Here’s a segment from “TimesUP” (a blog, with lengthy article by Barry Goldstein, telling how the first (BMCC) custody conference had a great idea — which was to reach out to the domestic violence groups (“After all, are they not the experts?” must’ve been the reasoning)and get them involved. I’m sure the expenses can be written off at the nonprofit level. It’s called “History of the Battered Mothers’ Conference” and appears to be dated (or at least posted) Dec. 2010, and ends inviting people to attend the January, 2011 conference.)

QUOTE:

“

The battered women’s movement is a natural ally of the protective mothers movement.*

“After our first conference Mo and I spoke about the importance of working with domestic violence organizations and we reached out to the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters. Domestic violence advocates are now well represented at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. Mo and I were invited to lead a workshop and then a separate discussion group at the 2008 NCADV national conference. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the NCADV and other staff have become regular participants at the Battered Mothers conferences and have given us everything we ever asked for. The NCADV invited Mo and I together with Garland Waller and Judge Mike Brigner to present about our book at a plenary session during the 2010 NCADV national conference in Anaheim. This has been a wonderful collaboration that will continue to benefit protective mothers and all of the battered women’s movement.

END QUOTE:

MY RESPONSE(s):

[[*FALSE! The Protective Mothers' Movement (as such) was only necessary because of work the Battered Women's Movement left undone, conveniently for the family court system, or couldn't break through and accomplish, instead compromising away rights of future battered women -- without their knowledge -- by compromise, and failing to advertise heavily to what degree they had compromised. This evidently is Mr. Goldstein's perception still, which may explain why he's still nonplussed (or at least silent on) what really is "up" in the custody courts, and (more to the point), WHY!]]

RE, Above:

“the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters”

Why shouldn’t they? BMCC is not about to “out” the various alliances these organizations have, and when women in attendance have tried to (from the floor), it’s not exactly a warm reception. On the live stream, so far, I heard approximately three women bring this up from the floor. One of these did so during a break, while people were going in and out and talking a lot in the background, i.e., she didn’t have official “floor.” (ALSO NOTE: Unprofessional — the schedule was behind by this point, over an hour behind. Mr. Goldstein was to start his session at 10 a.m. Instead, did not have the floor until after 11:30am, PST.).

This person also commented on the “TimesUpBlog” in Dec. 2010, and basically reiterated it today, around a din of people coming and going for their long-overdue rest break, I guess:

ricky fowler said…

nys coalition against DV and NYS domestic prevention are not advocates of battered mothers, they do not fight DV the do not fight the courts. the DV shelters are fathers rights. and when the mothers complained at the first conference that the shelters are useless, this is still the truth, it haven’t changed. they are the enemy, the YWCA all over the nation is partaking in abuse of mothers and children.

we have no experts in DV, we have people that make money . we need a non custodial mother movement. battered mothers that are not protective mothers are being rubberstamped and lose their children. the admi of family and children promote abuse, the MH proffessionals promote abuse. we are making no progress. and the NCADV is not addressing the real problem. the dog need to be called in its name. it is not just custody scandal. is human trafficking, and one of our worst enemies are the carrer driven women. they are selling the mothers. the public will only care when when they will see the blood, the bones the death. so far the bublic does not want to know and does not want to care. to many of them are getting rich this way.

Today (see live stream, perhaps earlier you tubes are saved to the site), after this, a woman got up and said, she comes from a DV program (provider) and feels under attack every time she comes to the conferences, “not all programs are the same.” (I believe this is true, however, some similar things have happened to where they get their funding from, which is no doubt affecting what they can do.)

When this second woman from a DV program (I don’t know which kind, whether shelter or another source) another grabbed the mike more authoritatively and said, “listen up people, this is important.” Then shared that, while she could see both sides of the question — AND, the battered women’s shelter hadn’t helped her custody case either — we should honor everyone’s work, we honor “all you do” — (and then proceeded to list, basically, the presenters again…)

Another woman (in earlier session) named some NY state agency that was getting quite a bit of money. The presenter (I couldn’t see which one) said, they didn’t want that dialogue now, get it together with others separately. The woman mentioned “OHEL,” which I began to look up.

Well, at least now I know why the BMCC hasn’t published the most important materials mothers need to know in their custody case, or fathers, in their child support or custody cases, for that matter! Or taxpayers — which is who is paying the other side? If this were reported, then the natural tendency of women would be to run across who is funding groups like FVPF, NCADV, PCADV, etc. And to my knowledge, the NFI (incorporated ca. 1994!) Ron Haskins, Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, Brookings Institutions, STATE-LEVEL Fatherhood Commissions, etc. — are not going to be brought up, either.

I want to also quote another section of the same article on the same blog to illustrate what mean by the Hierarchy Mindset, when a movement is NOT a true grassroots movement because the paid professionals ARE involved:

For the fourth annual conference, Mo had the idea of creating a Truth Commission made up of a multi-disciplinary group of leading experts in domestic violence and custody

who would listen to the testimony of sixteen protective mothers and use this information together with their knowledge of domestic violence custody cases to make a report

about the problems in the custody courts and potential solutions that could prevent the all too common tragedies discussed in the testimony and research.

Notes: It was Mo’s idea — not a participating mother’s idea. Mo Hannah, Ph.D. straddles two worlds — she is a mother who has experience in this system (how recent, I don’t know) and also a college professor, major, psychology — which is significant in this field, dealing with criminal matters, or what WE like to believe are criminal matters, even if the family courts decriminalize them because they were committed by personal relationship, and not a stranger.

And in her conception, the women could tell their stories, and the experts would write it up, adding their inside knowledge on cases (what makes these parties think that women have not themselves networked, read other casework, sat in on hearings, seen firsthand enough to testify on?)

We listened to the mothers’ testimony in front of the conference and then met privately to discuss the issues and prepare the report. While there were a few minor disagreements most of the conclusions and recommendations were unanimous and the atmosphere for the discussions was collegial. The Truth Commission presented its report and discussed it at the conference in front of all the participants. The reaction was supportive and appreciative. We later exchanged drafts by email as we prepared the final written report that can be found on the Internet and in our book.

The Truth Commission Report created a lot of excitement when we released it because it not only exposed the extent of the problem but also provided realistic solutions.

{{PI’VE READ ONE OR ANOTHER VERSIONS OF THIS ON THE INTERNET, AND HAVE READ CAREFULLY THE CONTENTS AND PREFACE MATTER OF THE RESULTING BOOK (OVER 100pp of it). ITS SOLUTIONS COMPLETELY FAIL TO REPORT ON THE PWORWA AND EXPLAIN FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO THE COURTS TO PROLONG CUSTODY CASES, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE. THE BASIC SOLUTION HAULED OUT AT EVERY CONFERENCE USUALLY BOILS DOWN TO — THE JUDGES NEED MORE EXPERT TRAINING. OURS…}}

One of the people who was impressed by the report was a publisher at Civic Research Institute which produces quality research and other material by and for professionals. She asked Mo Hannah to prepare a book based on the Truth Commission Report and Mo invited me to co-edit the book with her. This became DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY which was published in April of 2010. Many of the experts who present at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference became contributors to the book. We are excited that the book will be available at the upcoming 8th annual conference January 7-9. We will be discussing how to use the research in the book to help win better results in court.

While this is presented as “we’re all in is together” a “Truth Commission” on the presenters — and on this book — would include that the groups mentioned above, particularly NCADV, in its Anaheim CA Conference (2010?) mercilessly promoted each other, this book and through mailing lists provided by, it seems, “California Protective Parents Association,” Connie Valentine, et. al. A special “Custody track” was added to the NCADV conference, and people who played nicely by the rules could also present there, which Ms. Valentine and others did. More products were introduced to sell to women whose kids and lives were presently being injured and whose lives were under threat, while receiving horrible treatments and further abuse in the courts.

I protested loudly when a friend of mine, who put up an excellent blog, and who was known to be homeless, had been so slapping up press-releases for NCADV/CJE (Kathleen Russell Consulting -related nonprofit), and so forth, while these women were having their wages garnished and THIS one was homeless and working FT to pay her ex-batterer, having zero visitation with her son! There seems no end to what can be drained out of mothers, while concealing relevant information that at least makes some sense!

I do believe that at some level, women leaving abuse are prone to simply finding another controller/handler to replace them, and are particularly vulnerable when this includes both women and men.

The overall standard within this crowd is that anyone who disturbs the peace — i.e., has some “high-conflict” relationship with the overall strategy, process, or themes — can just either learn to get along, or go somewhere else. In this manner, the tendency of women to congregate and work together, and also use peer pressure and group pressure to control dissidents or troublemakers (or, those who won’t go along with the gang when IT is the troublemaker) — is being, to my mind, exploited by those running the conference.

There is also the issue of “blurred boundaries” and thinking that the “is what WE are doing working” actually represents a true “we.” it doesn’t. The women gave their testimony, but the experts wrote the book. Even if they make zero money from it, it’s still on their resume, and can be sited for further speaking engagements.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Anyone who runs a conference, puts it on (which is a major deal) and has had to plan, advertise, administrate, staff, design PR and brochures for, handle finances of presenters and exhibitors, etc. — has a right to control the conference and who gets up front and who does not.

i also believe that this type of podium/floor conferences are NOT the best places for experts to interact with non-experts. It’s not enough to overcome the self-perceived professionalism of the presenters, and the very professional and sometimes expert observation mothers bring to the floor, but without their Ph.D.’s etc.

By innocently? bringing in the “DV Experts” and developing an ongoing momentum of some sort, Mo and Barry, together with west coast helpers Connie Valentine & Karen Anderson (group, CPPA), and non-mother, non-family court survivor Kathleen Russell & CJE (Center for Judicial Excellence), etc. – have all but assured that the TRUTH is not going to come out honestly in this forum. I know from pretty reliable hearsay that Mo also has known about some of the materials I report, and others have reported (California NOW 2002, Marv Byer, NAFCJ.net, in particular) and has chosen not to lead with this information. We all need to make a living, right?

I have personally by email more than once, and also in commentary on material (blogs) these have written, brought up the influence of the nonprofit groups, the actual data regarding the access/visitation funding (to enable increased noncustodial time) and other very obvious (once you look at the stuff) influences on custody decisions, over a period of more than two years, and speaking as a family court survivor who had seen that the information coming out of this source now DOES NOT HELP CUSTODY CASES CONSISTENTLY.

They are still talking about “batterers manipulating the courts” and seem very foggy on the matter that the courts have also influenced the batterers.

conic Analysis is not only more objective than psychological and hearsay reports from the experts — it’s something a person could do at home without an advanced degree, but with some persistence. Doing this type of look-ups also is enlightening and convicting to individuals; the information CANNOT be ignored forever.

I also saw segments from a 2011 protest at HHS building (Washington, D.C.) and saw the signs /banner put up. They were blunt and confronting — but did not give readers or passers by a single website to go to, almost (except “Save Elsa Newman” type one) or mention any terms which could provoke a neutral person to go look things up at home later.

It mentioned the words “$500 million fatherhood funding.” Like the “58,000 children a year put in the custody of (molesters/abusers) which comes from The Leadership Council” — I don’t know where they got this from. If the goal is consciousness-raising, then how about a cite when the data is put out, so a person would see it him/herself.

I personally think the information is far larger. One newsletter I have leads me to believe that possibly someone got it from a Washington Post article!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference comprises a warm, but extended family that’s spread out all year long, but comes together for a ceremonial occasions to share stories and exchange gifts (well, in this case, SELL THINGS), then I would like to propose another paradigm of this family which may speak to mothers involved:

Before you reported, did YOUR family of origin, or extended family, try to “keep secrets” and severely ostracize or punish people who spoke up about what was happening behind closed doors, or collectively by tacit assent — when a child or spouse (or both) was being abused?

I have to at this point say, that’s what you have in the BMCC. Mothers have allowed professional DV organizations to drive the agenda, and to help you sell product. However noble or sincere their intentions may be (and I do believe many of them are), it is NEGLIGENT to omit the statistics on who is running the court system, year after year (8 years in a row), enabling the more informed organizations to “play the field” and dig organizational and financial network of trenches to further compromise the safety of women leaving abusive situations.

You do NOT send troops into battle with chinks in their armor. this IS a battle for the safety of children and particularly “battered mothers” — and they are not even being provided with an adequate boot camp, or even weapons, not unless they know who their opposing side is and what the modus operandi is. Less coaching, more observation would help.

It seems clear that either Mr. Goldstein has not done his homework on TAGGS, USASPending.gov, or on the readily available on-line material about AFCC, and about Welfare Reform, etc., — or he has, and hasn’t digested it.

For example, getting the state (government funding) involved is likely to frame the question in a certain manner so as not to compromise other funded issues — such as fatherhood promotion, which is quite well, thank you, in NYS.

Moreover, as I mentioned above, NOW has many priorities, and reforming family law is NOT a top one. It’s on the back burner.

I hope by being VERY overt and blatant about this position, it may help wake up, or resonate with someone who’s on the fence about, what’s really going on here? We need to know who is and who is not a “friend” when it comes to the most important issues in any parent’s life: Staying alive, and protecting (her, in this case) young. The same principles apply to when assessing who is and who is not going to live in one’s household any longer. Assessment needs to happen.

My blog will NOT continue to be added to after January 2012, (the end of this much) pretty much. This work is volunteer, and no one has to volunteer years on end, after so many years of devastation in the “custody courts” following a pretty devastating marital relationship.

Life consists of time, which is precious — so do good analysis, check it from time to time, adjust as needed, and make good decisions — but make them at least your own decisions!

Consider this a “Shout!” and hopefully it will echo in someone else’s ears.

When mothers who have been battered, or had extreme trauma through either CPS, or removal of children without due process in the courts, will take some time to look up (not rocket science!) on-line some of the people who preaching and teaching them how to manage their own court cases, and what the dynamics are like — I believe they will be more empowered; and will take their RIGHTFUL place in leading — not following — any reform movement within the family law system.

Many of such women may not feel comfortable standing up and saying STOP! No! Ludicrous! or stepping apart from (this) crowd. Others may — but until you take the position of, I am going to VALIDATE information I’ve been receiving, and moreover, I’m going to show a little initiative, or “ADHD” and look at some things these teachers are NOT mentioning to see if they fit in the puzzle — the less need they will have to cross the continent to listen to the “same old” and hopefully get a few seconds of mike in-between presentations.

Really, we need to analyze what good have the experts done here, be thankful for the progress, and probably, take the reins away. “Thank you, foremothers and forefathers, now this is what’s been happening in the last 15 years that your driving down this road failed to see. No harm meant, but it’s time to reconsider the license to lead.”

(Of course, there is no license needed to put on a conference — just organization and some funding. So the matter is of, where to spend one’s time.)

There’s a lot more being communicated than just content at any conference (this one included). As a former teacher, I know this. There are standards, values, processes, and so forth. Right now, I feel from this far away — and by who’s presenting — (today’s post is a sampler, and I didn’t mention the ever forefront promotion of the Holly Collins case and Garland Waller’s film) that it’s time for something different.

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

Why?

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

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

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

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your concern.

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

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

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

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

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

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

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

Key in this EIN#

470942805

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

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

     

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

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

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

Name	Taxpayer ID#	Zip
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS	17523304719	75225

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

2010

751726710

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother

CO

1980

06

31,455

1,402

990

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You might want to look at this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women. If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.‘ Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

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

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hearsay #1:

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

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

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

Hearsay #2:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So here we go:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HUH?

 

• We who?  (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

• Working for whom?*

• Define “working” — what’s the goal here?  (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RE:  ”IS What We’re Doing Working”

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

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

HEMET: Estranged couple die in courthouse murder-suicide

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

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

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

. . . .

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

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

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

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

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

. . . She moved out, not him….

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I posted this on August 17, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012 PRESENTERS   Bios to be added shortly Jennifer Collins Carly Singer Michael Bassett, J.D. Carol Pennington Liora Farkovitz Lundy Bancroft- author Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney Joan Zorza  - DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters Kathleen Russell* — *of Center for Judicial Excellence.  Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles.  Not a mother. Connie Valentine  (CPPA) Karen Anderson  (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.) Phyllis Chesler   (if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her) Gabby Davis Loretta Fredericks Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present.  She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her.  Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding.   She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit?   Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa.  This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers.  They lend legitimacy where there is non. Michele Jeker Maralee Mclean Angela Shelton Wendy Murphy Jennifer Hoult Sandy Bromley Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch) Joshua Pampreen Nancy Erickson Karin Huffer Jason Huffer Crystal Huffer* *Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome). Holly Collins Jennifer Collins Zachary Collins Garland Waller **Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.   Dara Carlin* *Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her.  Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?).  This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually.  She didn’t “Get” it.  Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc. Toby Kleinman Linda Marie Sacks (mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright.  Seriously!) Rita Smith*   (NCADV Leadership.  NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding.  It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..) Eileen King  (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear). Mo Therese Hannah (self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller.  I don’t recoqnize the other names). Liliane Miller Raquel Singh Tammy Gagnon Louise Monroe Chrys Ballerano

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

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

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

More proof that Faith-Based = Grants-Grabbing (even if it means letting go of the Gospel)…NW Marriage Institute

Christians are flooding into the counseling field.  Like evangelization through adoption (see Haiti), it’s an area ripe for the pickings evangelization.

I actually found this organization (website plus would-be author?), the Northwest Marriage Institute, while showing someone else one way to look up a grant series (by typing in only part of the grant# on the HHS database).   Doing this produces several to scan probably in the same grant series, as the numbering series is also similar.

In this field, the word “institute” is ALMOST as meaningless as the word “faith-based” (which is actually a made-up word to accommodate GWB’s version of a Family of prayer warriors and world-changers, or whatever else that idea was in 2001)

I was curious about what was the “institute” in the Northwest Marriage Institute, did a quick look-up (producing the typical not registered as state nonprofit // now inactive but somehow still getting HHS grants, like over $700K in 2011) indicator that this NOT faith-based operations are actually  faith-based in even the loosest sense of the term.  They are in the sense that — (this incidence) — it appears to be yet another case of the US simply paying pastors or church boards, almost directly.  But it’s not in that when someone (for once) protested religious use of federal funds, the institute simply switched tactics:  ”We’ll take the “salt” out of our message, keep the grants a-coming!”  Seriously — that’s why I posted here.  Unbelievable….

We know there is sometimes medicare Fraud, in which either SS#s are re-used, or services proclaimed which never happened, or over-billing, etc.  That’s in the nature of what FRAUD is.

In the case of this group having been declared “inactive” in the year 2010 — yet its 2011 HHS grant nearly tripled (From about $250K to almost $750K) — plus the tax returns show — well, people incapable of correctly even reading a tax return), and I am starting to really believe that the purpose of the marriage/fatherhood grantees is to enable whoever is distributing and administering the grants to wash funds through the system without accounting for them.

In other words, theft of public funds on an unbelievably large scale IS no doubt occurring through this particular means.  I believe that so much of this is under the table (even the US Government GAO agrees that lots of it is just plain LOST), that perhaps the original purpose of the whole operation (Faith-based, I mean) was to set up a series of easy to start, easy to close up shop and hop to the next state, operations such that the IRS could not ever keep up — let alone taxpayers or normal people.

My first clue was the pond-(actually, continent-) skipping incorporation habits of a very boastful organization, California Healthy Marriages Coalition, which turns out to have hooked up with an HHS “Marriage” employee, Bill Coffin, for getting mutual back-patting in grants-getting.

But the truly comic relief is a little rare in the field (other than the reasoning behind the whole things is “comical” — in other words, it’s not reason, its the irrational personified.  Today, I have some:

Faith-Based Marriage Counseling Keeps Funding by Dropping Religion

By Austin Cline, About.com Guide   March 29, 2007

How FAST did it drop the religion?  Well, this article is 2007, and the group received its first grant summer/fall 2005!

A federal court recently dismissed a challenge made against a faith-based marriage counseling scheme, but the religious organization only seems to have won because they got smart: after the lawsuit was filed, they dropped all the explicitly religious aspects of their marriage counseling. The Christian Right is crowing about this as a “win” for them, but it’s a pyrrhic victory at best — they “won” by giving up what they were fighting for.

The Christianson v. Leavitt ruling concluded that the Institute’s mission had originally been to provide Bible-based premarital and marriage counseling, but that its founder, Dr. Robert Whiddon Jr., had decided to provide secular counseling in order to qualify for federal funding. The Washington State-based Institute received money through the “Compassion Capital Fund” and the “Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant” program. 

SOMEONE SUED THEM IN FEDERAL COURT!

. . . .

Observed the judge, “According to the deposition testimony of Dr. Whiddon, beginning in April 2005 and culminating in the formal change of its mission statement in October 2006, The Marriage Institute shifted its mission from providing Bible-based marriage workshops and counseling to providing marriage workshops without religious references. This change was prompted by a desire to qualify for operational funding from the federal government.”

Burgess reaffirmed fundamental principles of church-state law. The judge noted, “An absolute in Establishment Clause jurisprudence is the prohibition against government-financed or government-sponsored indoctrination into the beliefs of a particular religious faith.”

Source: Americans United (via The Carpetbagger Report)

 …It’s own founder, Bob Whiddon, is a former Church of Christ ministerwho asserted that “If it is not founded on the Bible it will not work.” and “I use the Bible as my counseling manual.” What justification can there be for the government to fund marriage counseling that teaches the Bible in this way?

Whiddon is of course perfectly free to run such a marriage counseling program — but only on his own and with private funding. He cannot run such a program using public funds and Burgess’ ruling seems to be unequivocal on that point. It seems likely that this is why Whiddon made major changes to the program’s mission statement and practices (I can’t imagine what else motivated him). I don’t see any way to interpret the series of events except to agree with Barry Lynn: the Northwest Marriage Institute traded 30 pieces of silver to give up their religious witness.

Here’s a nice book he’s selling (with link to the institute):

There’s a lot more than marriage that is fogged up in this case.   I just put it in for comic relief — although it’s in a series of 90FK Grants to promote Marriage and Fatherhood, an idea which is itself all fogged up in my opinion.

I have shown plenty of examples — there shouldn’t be doubt in readers’ minds (that is, if anyone actually reads through my posts!).  I had to laugh — except it just wasn’t funny, given the scope of this behavior — at yet another “marriage/fatherhood” grantee I happened upon, which instinct told might be another one of these, and “sho ’nuff” it was:  Northwest Marriage Institute.  I chose definitely a MINOR player in this field to exhibit after running into an article on atheist.com showing that, when push came to shove, it got grants as a faith-based group, got challenged in taking federal funds to push Biblical counseling — bet that doesn’t happen too often, but this was the American Northwest, Seattle area….

Poor thing, it was only incorporated in 2005, and when presented with a very HIGH Conflict, (and forgetting the record of the Faithful in Hebrews 11) — like a child with a handful of cookies in the jar, in order to extract itself something had to go.  Either the federal grants — or the gospel.  Grants or Gospel, Grants or Gospel, let’s see which one?

THE GRANTS:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
NWMarriageInstitute	Vancouver	WA	98682-2328	CLARK	182103684	$ 2,139,009

Click on the Institute Name (which — in typical HHS fashion — is not the actual group’s name — why initials, why no spaces between the nouns?) to see that there are 8 awards in fairly typical fashion:   a Compassion Building Grant ($50K in 2005), the next year, grants practically quintupled ($246K) to begin the “Healthy Marriage Demonstration” series (90FK0041) which plugs along happily for a while, increasing to $275K after which it becomes “Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood” which must be worth more to our Administration because it then (new grant same series, 90FK0051) TRIPLES to about $750K.  Does this look like some group that incorporated just to get the faith-based grants and didn’t exist before on its own?  You betcha!   Faithfully, they received grants too, increasing 25-fold.  As the Bible says, it just takes a little faith, as a mustard seed, to move mountains.  Here, this little grant, only $50K (enough to feed and house how many needy?) was well-planted, and bore fruit.    2005-06-07-08-09-10 & 2011, it got grants, like clockwork.  Notice how many different forms the principal investigator name takes and that although some are Fatherhood/some Marriage, both are called CFA 93086. Same Diff:

Fiscal Year

Program Office

Recovery Act Indicator

Award Number

Award Code

Budget Year

Action Issue Date

CFDA Number

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

2012

OFA

NON

90FK0051

01

1

12/01/2011

93086

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

ROBERT ROBERT

$ 0

2011

OFA

NON

90FK0051

00

1

09/26/2011

93086

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

ROBERT ROBERT

$ 747,281

2010

OFA

NON

90FE0041

00

5

09/24/2010

93086

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

ROBERT WHIDDON

$ 275,000

2009

OFA

NON

90FE0041

0

4

09/17/2009

93086

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

DR ROBERT E WHIDDON

$ 275,000

2008

ACF

90FE0041

0

3

09/25/2008

93086

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

DR ROBERT E WHIDDON

$ 275,000

2007

ACF

90FE0041

0

2

09/21/2007

93086

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

DR ROBERT E WHIDDON

$ 270,000

2006

OFA

90FE0041

0

1

09/25/2006

93086

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

DR ROBERT E WHIDDON

$ 246,728

2005

OCS

90IJ0216

0

1

09/17/2005

93009

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

ROBERT E WHIDDON

$ 50,000

Just to be clear what source this about $2 million is coming from, my search at USAspending.gov (which doesn’t show all of the above grants and reports less income), using the DUNS#, I see that this is coming from TANF#.  Search here (or select Prime Award, Advanced Search) key in DUNS# ONLY, hit Search).  The first award is categorized as coming from the “Immediate Office of the Secretary of HHS” and as CFDA 93647 (social services research and demo, and NOT as “Compassion Capital (93009 as HHS shows)  Unless this is two different grants (note date difference, too):

Federal Funding Amount	$50,000
Non-Federal Funding Amount	$2,630
Total Funding Amount	$52,630
Obligation / Action Date	07/01/2005

Moreover, as often happens between these two databases, USASpending shows a grant or two less than HHS; in this case no 2006 action was uploaded to USASpending.gov — which was the FIRST action (that’s unusual, eh?) Also, the graph under “timeline” shows all bars the same size, however we see that in 2011, it was triple the previous size, apprxoimately.

BUT — let’s get at least one thing straight.  With the exception of the $52,360 to help set up this “NW Marriage Institute” within 5 months of it having incorporated (and without it apparently having registered with Washington State) — all grants thereafter were from this funding source:

75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

Washington can get cold.  Let’s see what this group has to offer that is more important than food, clothing, housing and possibly transportation to/from child care or school, for families in the area, probably single-parent households:

Here is our “Principal Investigator” Dr. R.E. Whiddon, Jr. I’m inspired to confidence just looking at him:

Dr. Whiddon has earned a Ph.D. in Biblical Counseling, Trinity Theological Seminary,*** Indiana, 1996, and a D.Min. in Pastoral Ministry, Northwest Graduate School,* Seattle, 2001. He is a Licensed Clinical Pastoral Counselor, Certified Temperament Counselor,** Licensed Minister of Pastoral Counseling and has over thirty-three years of experience in ministry and counseling.

(Now, what’s the difference between “Licensed CLINICAL Pastoral Counselor” and “Licensed Minister of Pastoral Counseling” or are we stretching he credentials a little here?)

***Trinity Theological Seminary’s “About Us” shows a conglomerate theology which includes the Divinity of Christ and the Depravity of man.  Actually, it’s a conglomerate, missing major pieces, and inherently-contradictory set of confessions none of which call Jesus “Lord” (which the Bible consistently does).  Expect similar behaviors + evangelism (confusion loves company) to show up in handling of marriages and/or finances, “he that is faithful in that which is least,” (Jesus) and “It is required in stewards that a man be found faithful” (Paul).  Trinity, in accordance with its name, believes:

Articles of Faith:
Trinity is an evangelical Christian institution that affirms the articles of faith found in three historic creeds of the early Church: The Apostles’ Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Athanasian Creed. In particular we affirm:

• The Inspiration and Authority of the Scriptures;
• The Existence of One God in Three Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit;(1)
• The Creation of the Human Race in the Image of God;
• The Fall and Resultant Human Depravity;
• The Deity of Christ, His Incarnation, Atoning Death, and Resurrection;
• Salvation by the Grace of God Through Faith by the Power of the Holy Spirit;
• One Holy Christian Church, the Body of Christ;
• The Second Coming of Jesus Christ and the Consummation of All Things.
• The Gift of Everlasting Life in Heaven, With Christ, for all Who Have Trusted in Him for Salvation.
• [AND THOSE WHO DON'T? . . . . . . . . . . .]

Little Lecture on The Side Effects of Imbibing This Doctrine:  (see 4th century A.D. — enforced by the sword upon heretics).

This is where he got a Ph.D.?   And yet all three creeds have at least verbs and something of a story line regarding Jesus Christ, they start “I believe,” “We believe” and the Athanasian one (named after a bishop of Alexandria, and specifically to counter “Arianism”) which is basically to counteract and describe impalpable things in complex, definite detail starts apparently like this:

“Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance.

For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. But the godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, is all one, the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal.”

Good grief — their articles of faith don’t contain the word “Believe” — or any other verb, and barely mention Jesus Christ– and this is Christianity?  The word “Lord” doesn’t occur.   See Acts 2, or any Pauline Epistle, in fact almost any portion of the New Testament, pick any chapter (or even nine sentences in a row) that do not even mention the word “Lord,” the cross (“Atoning Death”), the resurrection, giving testimony — and also noticeably absent — anything about faith (it rates a passing mention above), or ETHICS in this life.  The articles have no “plot line” and read like a hodgepodge of suspended noun phrases.   The statement of ideas has “drunk the Kool-aid” and doesn’t appear to match any of the above creeds, either, which at least had enough eloquence to help glue together some rituals over the centuries.

APPLICATION:

Similarly, these “scriptures” referred to say, pretty clearly:  ”Hear O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God” (i.e., it’s a Monotheistic religion).  

Is He or is He not?  Give or take about just a FEW centuries, perhaps, and suddenly, this is no longer even under discussion — of course they are all one, but in precisely which fashion do they differ?  This may seem irrelevant — but atheists, agnostics, in fact anyone else but mainstream Catholic AND mainstream Protestant denominations (including evangelicals) for the most part are in agreement — anyone who doesn’t agree with us is a cult, and we should fight them or excommunicate them:  Our tribe is the biggest and the best, isn’t it?  (Yes – see Crusades, Inquisition, Holocaust, etc.)

Why this matters to understand who you are dealing with — and even if President Obama isn’t of this opinion, he will still have to deal with rabid, cornered evangelical faction in this country.  I would like to explain from the DMZ zone, why there IS no DMZ zone for groups like this.  There is no genuine allegiance to Oaths of Office possible if one’s eternal salvation (and everyone else’s) is hostage to obedience to Rome — or the local alternate Bishop.

From “religionfacts” (I just searched for a basic summary of beliefs site), here’s about how it goes:

Doctrine of the Trinity

Christians regards their religion as monotheistic, since Christianity teaches the existence of one God – Yahweh, the God of the Jews. It shares this belief with two other major world religions, Judaism and Islam.

However, Christian monotheism is a unique kind of monotheism. It holds that God is One, but that three distinct “persons” constitute the one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This unique threefold God of Christian belief is referred to as the Trinity (from Latin trinitas, “three”).

Fast Facts on the Trinity

• The word “Trinity” does not appear in the Bible
• The word “Trinity” was first used by Tertullian (c.155-230)[A.D. or C.E.]
• The doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as: “One God, three Persons”
• The doctrine is formally defined in the Nicene Creed, which declares Jesus to be: “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father.”
• Past and present Christian faiths who do not believe in the Trinity include:
  • Arianism (4th century)
  • Some Radical Reformers (16th century), such as Michael Servetus  (Below, I’ll paste a brief bio from a Unitarian Universalist site, he contributed to the advancement of medicine, but was still martyred)
  • Jehovah’s Witnesses
  • Mormonism
  • Unitarianism
• Reasons given for rejecting the doctrine of the Trinity include:
  • It is not mentioned in the Bible
  • It does not make philosophical sense
  • It is not compatible with monotheism
  • It is not necessary in order to explain the “specialness” of Jesus
• Reasons given for believing in the Trinity include:
  • It is taught indirectly in various statements in the Bible
  • It explains the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit while affirming monotheism
  • It would not be expected that the nature of God would make sense to human minds
  • The early ecumenical councils (primarily Nicea) are authoritative

Let’s remember that at this time, the printing press was still rather new:

Michael Servetus (ca. 1510 – 1533; martyr, advanced medical knowledge)

Michael Servetus (1509 or 1511-October 27, 1553), a Spaniard martyred in the Reformation for his criticism of the doctrine of the trinity and his opposition to infant baptism, has often been considered an early unitarian. Sharply critical though he was of the orthodox formulation of the trinity, Servetus is better described as a highly unorthodox trinitarian. Still, aspects of his theology—for example, his rejection of the doctrine of original sin—did influence those who later founded unitarian churches in Poland and Transylvania. Public criticism of those responsible for his execution, the Reform Protestants in Geneva and their pastor, John Calvin, moreover, inspired unitarians and other groups on the radical left-wing of the Reformation to develop and institutionalize their own heretical views.

Widespread aversion to Servetus’ death has been taken as signaling the birth in Europe of religious tolerance, a principle now more important to modern Unitarian Universalists than antitrinitarianism. Servetus is also celebrated as a pioneering physician. He was the first to publish a description of the blood’s circulation through the lungs. 

People who can think straight on scripture, if that’s their thing, can also think straight on other matters.  THE CONVERSE IS TRUE, APPARENTLY…

I can’t but help also think of Joseph Priestley, discoverer of oxygen, whose laboratory was destroyed for holding similar viewpoints.  He fled to the US — Pennsylvania, as it happens.  So now, we have a Pennsylvanian Catholic (the militant version) running for President of the United States (see last post).   Should Christians of rational and enquiring minds seek asylum elsewhere now?

See “Joseph Priestley for Just For Kids” (Font color blue, below, represents passages on Priestley; this is a quote within a quote about the life of Michael Servetus, of early 1500s).

When Joseph was nine, he went to live with his Aunt Sarah. Sarah sent him to different schools, where he learned religion, math, Latin, Hebrew, and grammar.

{making him tri-lingual, literate, and he could count too.  This puts him far ahead of the Trinitarians, who can’t or at least for sake of communion with their groups, don’t…. and a lot of US youngsters who can barely read & write English} 

Joseph became very interested in experimenting. When Joseph was eleven, he did his first experiment to find out how long spiders would live in bottles without fresh air. When he was nineteen years old, he went to Daventry Academy to study the ministry. When Joseph was twenty-two years old, he taught religion and science and continued to teach throughout his life.

 Joseph Priestley’s LaboratoryWhile Joseph lived in England, he met many important people and made many friends. One of his friends was the American scientist, Benjamin Franklin. They both enjoyed experimenting with electricity. With Franklin’s help, Priestley wrote a book about electricity.

Joseph loved science, and he enjoyed experimenting with air and gasses. In 1767, Joseph invented carbonated water, which later led to the invention of soda pop. In 1774, Joseph discovered his most famous gas – Oxygen.

Although Joseph had many friends, there were many Englishmen who did not like him because of his ideas about religion and politics. On July 14, 1791, a group of angry Englishmen destroyed Joseph’s laboratory, his house, and his church. After this riot, Joseph and Mary were left with nothing, so they decided to leave England. . . .

Another one of Priestley’s American friends was Thomas Jefferson. Priestley and Jefferson worked together to plan students’ classes at the University of Virginia.

While Joseph lived in Northumberland, he did many exciting things. He still enjoyed science, and he continued to do experiments. He was called the “Father of Modern Chemistry.” In 1799, Joseph discovered the poisonous gas Carbon Monoxide. Joseph also wrote many different books about history, science, and religion, and he collected over 1,600 books in his library. Above all things, Priestley loved and studied religion. He was the first Unitarian minister in America, and he held many church services in his home. He also taught school for boys in his house because he enjoyed teaching.

Joseph Priestley lived in his Northumberland home for only six years, but he achieved many things while living there.

Probably really appreciated the freedom from persecution.  Notice the times he lived in.  See what a society can do when it’s not tangled up with Religious Wars (or “Culture Wars”)?  Look at Pennsylvania now! There is a bill attempting to establish an Office of Faith-Based Privileges on the books, presently.  Joseph Priestley not only lived through the War for Independence, he probably was a factor in the Declaration of Independence.

(from same site) a few quotations from his autobiography show the extent (and manner) of learning, putting most of us to shame, today:

“From the time I discovered any fondness for books, my aunt entertained hopes of my being a minister, and I readily entered into her views. But my ill health obliged me to turn my thoughts another way, and, with a view to trade, I learned the modern languages, French, Italian, and High Dutch, without a master; and in the first and last of them I translated and wrote letters, for an uncle of mine who was a merchant, and who intended to put me into a counting-house in Lisbon. A house was actually engaged to receive me there, and everything was nearly ready for my undertaking the voyage. But getting better health, my former destination for the ministry was resumed…”
-Autobiography

“I read the whole of the Greek Testament, and the Hebrew bible as far as the first Book of Samuel: also Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Buchanan’s poems, Erasmus’ Dialogues, also Peter Pindar’s poems, &c…and to amuse myself I tried the heat of the water at different depths, and made other observations, which suggest various experiments, which I shall prosecute whenever I get my apparatus at liberty.”
(1794)

He seemed industrious, insatiably curious, and was reading not from catechism, but from probably as close to original sources as available in his times.  Another source (I was looking for his connection to John Locke) after characterizing the times, comments on Priestley’s views towards education.  Note especially that his concerns about educating the poor were about a national, state education system!  (with good reason, judging by current times!).

This can-count-straight “father of modern chemistry” also was less archaic than contemporaries on educating women:

Who should be educated?

The implications of Priestley’s educational philosophy seemed to be that all people should receive the same careful, wide education, and that parents and teachers especially should both fully understand the law of association and be well-educated themselves. Thus Priestley advocated a far higher level of education for females than was usual. Firstly, since development depended completely on education, women were not, as many people assumed, inferior in mental capacity. Secondly, since women had the same moral duties and passions as men and since morality and virtue were improved by intellectual culture, women had as much right to the latter as men. Thirdly, women needed to be well-educated to be respected wives and good mothers. Women who were well-educated intellectually and morally would be well-fitted to educate and influence others and to obtain an independent living if the need presented itself (Priestley, 1790b, p. 419; 1780, pp. 171, 137-38).

Similarly, the logical extension of Priestley’s principles ought to have been that people of all classes in society should receive the same education. Despite the fact, however, that contemporaries saw him as the arch-leveller and regularly burnt him in effigy (Lincoln, 1971, p. 179), Priestley was ambivalent about the education of the poor. He was concerned about their welfare and desirous of their literacy, but his deep fear of State control over education and thus of uniformity of thought and belief, instead of variety and freedom, prevented him from advocating a national system. His educational writings were directed towards the middle-classes and for others he held the reservations typical of his class and period (Priestley, 1771, pp. 43-47)

Source:

The following [preceding] text was originally published in

Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education

(Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXIV, no. 1/2, 1994, p. 343-53. ©UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 1999

This document may be reproduced free of charge as long as acknowledgement is made of the source.

JOSEPH PRIESTLEY (1733-1804)1

Ruth Watts (I note that Ms. or Dr. Watts is from Birmingham, the city that destroyed Priestley family home and his laboratory long ago).

Back a century or so to Servetus, who had his life — not just a laboratory and home — destroyed, in his prime of life….

Miguel Serveto grew up in Villanueva, Aragon, sixty miles north of Zaragossa. At age 14 he entered the service of Juan Quintana, a scholarly Franciscan monk. Even in his youth Servetus was struck by the fact that the doctrine of the trinity was a serious obtstacle to evangelization of the Moors and Jews. {{understandably so!}} While studying law at the University of Toulouse in France, he read the Bible, which the invention of the printing press had made newly and dangerously available. He was surprised to find the trinity nowhere explicitly mentioned, much less defined, in the sacred text. 

New technology will always tend to change government, and society.  This printing press and distribution of the Bible helped increase literacy in England, and eventually helped support (not that it didn’t originate with the King) a challenge to the Catholic church.  However, as we read on — and see yesterday’s post which spoke of Hitler’s Christianity and anti-Semitism (no apparent contradiction, to him)  – Luther wasn’t a 100% challenge to Catholicism of the time; there were things he retained.     Today, the Internet is doing this, faster than most can keep up with.

After two years at the University, Servetus was recalled, in late 1529, to the service of Quintana, who had been appointed confessor to Emperor Charles V. He was to accompany Quintana as he traveled with the imperial party to the coronation of the Emperor in Bologna, Italy. In Italy Servetus was horrified by riches of the church, the adoration accorded the Pope, and the worldliness of the priesthood. Some time in 1530 Servetus dropped out of the emperor’s entourage and made his way to the Swiss city of Basel to join the Protestants. He stayed for months in the household of Oecolampadius, the local pastor and Reform leader.

Something in him rejected the glory, the riches, and the basic greed.  Not so with a lot of faith-based groups (and churches) these days! This tells us character (and calling).  Would you reject an invitation to a White House Inauguration Ball or similar event?

Having worn out his welcome there with constant theological dispute, {{I can just imagine}} Servetus moved to more tolerant Strasburg. There, in 1531, he published De Trinitatis Erroribus (On the Errors of the Trinity).

Pause to note that date of death is just 1533.   This coincides approximately with the time of Tyndale, who was also martyred, for translating the Bible into English.  Tyndale, in his translation work, or earlier, had come to the same point of view on the Trinity.*

If Servetus hoped his book would persuade the new Protestant establishment to re-think orthodox trinitarian doctrine, as traditionally interpreted from the fourth century Council of Nicaea through the late mediaeval Scholastics, and replace it with his own formulation, he was quickly disappointed. Though Protestants admired some aspects of Servetus’ thought, they deplored many others. Moreover, they were especially defensive concerning their trinitarian orthodoxy, having no desire to call upon themselves still more Roman Catholic denunciation. The Lutheran reformer Melanchthon, commenting on De Trinitatis Erroribus, lamented, “As for the Trinity you know I have always feared this would break out some day. Good God, what tragedies this question will excite among those who come after us!”

for “tragedies” read, persecutions.   Notice, their objection to questioning trinitarian orthodoxy was not based on reason, or from the scriptures, but on fear of further retaliation from the reigning religious power.

I’ve posted about Tyndale on here before; it’s relevant to NOW.  Facebook has a photo with this brief caption, for a reminder:

(TYNDALE) (1494-1536) was an English Reformer (known as ‘the Apostle of England in the time of the Reformation’) and the translator of the first English New Testament from the Greek (1526). Tyndale was martyred for his translation work and his writings in the defense of Biblical Christianity. Tyndale was hunted as a heretic, taken and imprisoned under the laws of the Church; after being condemned for heresy, he was formally stripped of his priesthood, strangled and then burned at the stake. Tyndale’s English Translation is read yet today as the greater part of the King James Bible, first published in 1611.

From “William Tyndale, Priest, Scholar, Martyr“:

 It is reported that, in the course of a dispute with a promminent clergyman who disparaged this proposal, he said, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plow to know more of the Scriptures than thou dost.” The remainder of his life was devoted to keeping that vow, or boast. Finding that the King, Henry VIII, was firmly set against any English version of the Scriptures, he fled to Germany (visiting Martin Luther in 1525), and there travelled from city to city, in exile, poverty, persecution, and constant danger. Tyndale understood the commonly received doctrine — the popular theology — of his time to imply that men earn their salvation by good behavior and by penance. He wrote eloquently in favor of the view that salvation is a gift of God, freely bestowed, and not a response to any good act on the part of the receiver. . .

He completed his translation of the New Testament in 1525, and it was printed at Worms and smuggled into England.

How does this level of commitment, passion, and perseverance for a cause compare to Dr. Whiddon’s group, above, which changed its tune for about 30 pieces of silver from HHS? And having gotten that silver, being apparently dyed-in-the-wool Trinitarian bread, cannot seems to understand the difference between expenses and income on a tax form, so under-reporting by about 66%, on one of them I saw?   Few people are in the same class with some of these reformers and leaders, but even so, the power-based (not reason- or scripture-based) “discuss + threaten + take charge of finances” brand of Christianity  – is not even in the same arena.  Not even close — in fact, it’s closer to at-home in the Vatican, which is essentially a monarchy.

Of 18,000 copies, only two survive. {{they were banned and burned!}} In 1534, he produced a revised version, and began work on the Old Testament. In the next two years he completed and published the Pentateuch and Jonah, and translated the books from Joshua through Second Chronicles, but then he was captured (betrayed by one he had befriended), tried for heresy, and put to death. He was burned at the stake, but, as was often done, the officer strangled him before lighting the fire. His last words were, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes

Let’s see to what extent the hunters were serious about taking control — he had been translating on the fly, from Belgium, I think!  Had someone not betrayed him, he’d have probably finished the work.  For his work, he gave his life.  In those days they sometimes, to make a point, dug up dead bodies, and destroyed (or in the case of a Pope) tried them again.

A 2002 Japanese professor and Bible scholar thought it was “unforgiveable” that people who cited (the King James Bible version, which was largely Tyndale’s work) didn’t know much about the translator.  So he got to work.  See next paragraphs from “Tyndale and the English Bible:  The martyred genius who brought the word to the people.“

Tai Kawabata
June 2002

History sometimes fails to recognize the brilliance of a true pioneer and instead glorifies those who profit from his innovation. William Tyndale (1494?-1536), who first translated the Bible into English from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, is one such forgotten pioneer. In fact, large portions of the renowned King James Version of 1611 are actually Tyndale’s own sentences. His contribution, however, goes unrecognized by most readers.

It is not surprising that in non-English-speaking countries like Japan, Tyndale is a relatively unknown historical figure. In 1997, Kenzo Tagawa, one of Japan’s leading Bible scholars, published ‘Shomotsu to shite no Shinyaku Seisho’ (The New Testament as a Book), which devoted many pages to Tyndale. The book dealt with such topics as the canonical selection process of the New Testament, the language situation in the first century Mediterranean world including Palestine and Hellenistic cities, history of the textual criticism of the New Testament and history and assessment of Bible translations.

The 800-page scholarly book sold more than 10,000 copies within a short period of time. But Tagawa was astounded to find that very few readers knew about Tyndale. He therefore decided to translate David Daniell’s book William Tyndale (Yale University Press, 1994) to help Japanese readers learn about him – a task that took him three years to complete. The 788-page-long translation, entitled ‘Uiriamu Tindaru’ (William Tyndale) and subtitled ‘Aru Seisho Honyaku-sha no Shogai’ (The Life of a Bible Translator), was published in January 2001 by Keiso Shobo Publishing Co. in Tokyo.

‘Tyndale is one of the few truly important people in history,’ says Tagawa. ‘The vernacular Bible became a dynamo for social transformation. It showed people that all human beings were created equal before God and that people owed each other nothing but love. The members of King James I’s committee had no intention of producing a new translation of the Bible. Instead, they intended to make a revision of existing translations. This is basic knowledge shared by all biblical scholars. My sense of justice told me that it was unforgivable that a version based on literary borrowing had become more famous than the original. That was my motivation for translating Daniell’s book.’ Tagawa added to the value of Daniell’s book by appending a chronology, some 140 translator’s notes, many of them on biblical text concerned from the viewpoint of a biblical scholar, and a 50-page epilogue.

Not only did it spread a resource to counter religious propaganda, and no doubt increase the general popular level of literacy, it also helped establish English as a language!  Read on:

In fact, please read carefully; if a Japanese multi-lingual scholar believes it’s important for his countrymen to know in order to better understand the English, period, perhaps it’s worth the time:

Tagawa states that a ‘decisive’ thing happened when Tyndale translated the Bible into English. ‘Through Tyndale’s work, written English became English- like English,’ he says, referring to the fact that Tyndale’s writing conformed more closely to the syntax of English than to that of Latin. ‘More’s English is Latin written in English. Tyndale’s English is English written in English. It is a surprising accomplishment that he wrote English that is so clear and so easy to understand.’

‘The situation in which Tyndale found himself is comparable in one sense to the last third of the 19th century in Japanese history when the people were struggling to create modern written Japanese appropriate for modern society,’ Tagawa points out. ‘In the years when Tyndale was translating the Bible, English had not yet been established as a written language. He had two tasks: to establish the written language and to select English words appropriate for Bible translation.’

Answering the question of why Professor David Daniell’s book has any appeal for Japanese readers, Tagawa is of the opinion that the appeal is Tyndale himself. ‘Tyndale has been virtually unknown among the Japanese public. Scholars of English language and history in Japan should not be blamed for this. Japan’s situation is a reflection of the fact that Tyndale has not received due appreciation in England itself. But the historical facts must be conveyed accurately and the Japanese need to know much about Tyndale because they are influenced by the English language and cultures of the English-speaking world. Daniell’s book helps readers sufficiently recognize the greatness of Tyndale’s achievements, opens the eyes of many people who are studying English in Japan and rouses their interest in historical surroundings of Tyndale.’

. . . (And just a bit more)

Why this relates to who’s our next President, Fascist-”Christianity”-forces in the US (see Weyrich, Coors, Free Congress Foundation literature, etc.):

In the book, (a different book, Tagawa’s “A Man Called Jesus”) , Tagawa puts Jesus back into the political, social and economic environment of ancient Palestine and depicts him not as an expounder of religious beliefs but as a person who rebelled in his daily life against the harsh conditions imposed on people by the Roman Empire’s colonial rule and the religious and political authorities of Jerusalem.

Tagawa regards many of Jesus’s sayings as paradoxical statements used as rhetorical weapons against the powers that be. He also sees behind Jesus’s miracles the wretched situation in which people in Palestine found themselves. As in the case of the historical Jesus, Tagawa pays attention to the social situation surrounding Tyndale. In order to understand why Tyndale had to be killed, one has to understand the impact vernacular Bibles had on society in general. He explains that by reading the Bible in their own language, people found that it contained no theoretical justification for social and economic rule by the Roman Catholic Church.

‘The impact of the vernacular Bibles was all the greater because at the time Christianity permeated all aspects of society and people thought in Christian language and created and ran social institutions in accordance with Christian doctrines,’ Tagawa explains. A look at the Peasants’ War in Germany (1524-25) provides a concrete example of the effect the vernacular Bibles had. By reading the Bible, the people learned, for example, that rivers were created and given to all humanity by God. In letters addressed to territorial princes, German peasants asked them to show exactly what part of the Bible said that rivers should belong to the princes as their private property. This way, ordinary people gained strong confidence in themselves. But Tyndale shared the same fear as Martin Luther – that the spread of vernacular Bibles would lead people to revolt, not only against holy authority, but also against secular authority. That is why Tyndale wrote The Obedience of a Christian Man. As this shows, his thinking was Lutheran.

Despite Tyndale’s conservative approach to the existing social order, Tagawa believes that the principle he established for interpretation of the Bible – that the meaning of its texts must be taken ‘literally’ – is still relevant today. Tyndale’s principle put an end to allegorical interpretation of biblical texts, whereby the Roman Catholic Church read its own doctrinal ideas into the texts.

Likewise, the doctrine of marriage & fatherhood promotion is a reading-into the text (when delivered from pulpits and by other religiosu groups) — from yours truly, meaning:  USA-HHS, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and whoever’s next; unless we turn the gushing fire hydrant of political favors to faith-based (and other) cronies O-F-F! — is STRAIGHT out of the same mentality. The mentality of, above all — maintain the status quo, let sleeping dogs lie, and don’t raise the wrath of the king.  Or, oligarchy.

Ironic? or coincidental — the “don’t provoke the boss” mentality is no way to get free from domestic terrorism either, I mean, in the home.   There is something in the personality that is addicted to power over the other, and a submissive “other” simply isn’t satisfying enough, nor is it ever going to be quite LOW enough.     Hence, radical women who protest abuse in the famiy also seem to threaten the status quo of not just local faith communities — but (we are told) the nation.  It’s tearing at the fabric of society, etc.

Today, the importance of this principle must be upheld all the more. With the spread of structuralism {?}, many students in various academic domains have started reading their own, often just cheap and banal, ideology into literary and historical texts under the name of ‘interpretation’. By doing so, they are deviating from or bending the original meaning of the text.

People that will do this with the Bible — to which they allegedly (see all the “We believe” assertions on websites) — have already probably done it in their hearts with the US Constitution, or will in the future.   Same chronic dishonesty — or, following leaders for the sake of company — compliance and tolerance with abuse of common sense (and, did I mention, minors, and women?).  It’s OK to protest — but don’t split the ranks, because the outsiders are a worse force.

Hence we have a whole platform and network of mainstream Christian groups who feel threatend by and tend to galvanize followers around the topics of abortion and homosexuality.   And the Bible is clear on not condoning homosexuality — old testament or new.  Nor for that matter does it condone adultery, but plenty of pastoral leaders practice both.  And they also read into it that ministry by women (in too many factions, not all) is forbidden.

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR US — for WOMEN?

Well — search for your own meaning (See Viktor Frankl, “Man’s Search for Meaning” if you’re clueless that life requires meaning).

Would you rather be a Priestley (lose it all, but live a few years out in safety), or a Tyndale/Wycliffe/Severetus?  How about for your kids?

It means that if you don’t fight back now, you may not have much to fight back with, and whatever it is you are preserving by NOT speaking out against this (even if you’re not pro-LGBT or anti-abortion) will be going away sooner without the front-lines — who you won’t back up — here anymore. 

It also means that these men, above, shed their blood in vain, and changed society away from superstition, myth, and superstition and myth used to deceive and innocculate people against considering themselves on the same human plane as their rulers.  Do I really need to explain this much further, or did you not read that post (the last one) on young women and men who escaped the Opus Dei slavery, at great cost and often after many years.

I do believe that the pen (or in this case, “net”) is mightier than the sword, and that words count.  Most military groups know this, why doesn’t the public?  Most good teachers also know it — it’s the language, standards, and vision set which build a momentum, IF they speak to something inside the students.

AFCC knows it, and set out to transform language, not just law, and practices.  They have (to date) successfully transformed and standardized (with cooperation from law enforcement, representing criminal prosecution backup) the idea that assault and battery of a woman or child isn’t REALLY a crime, nor is threatening her, stalking her, injuring her, kidnapping her children and keeping them in violation of existing court orders and without cause, or stealing the profits of her wages while married, and of her life, after marriage and through nonstop custody litigation backed by federal funding for fatherhood-custody “outcomes.”  etc.

Anyone who’s been through enough abuse and trauma WILL be more alert to changes in the trend of language and behavior with their particular abuser (it’s called surviving!), but will be still hauled in front of people whose lives are NOT at ongoing or immediate risk from the same people, and told they’re imagining, exaggerating, crazy — or alienating.

Then when person or persons — lots of them, over time — is (are) actually killed, before, during, or without “batterers intervention classes” (which I gather serve to further irritate the clients, as well as for profit) — the policies do NOT change to talk about this, nor take any responsibility for having set up the situation for the kill.  You too, can read, and will not find this discussion in almost any AFCC material available (free) on-line.

Read a modern-day conservative Catholic scolding Catholic Schools for not being Catholic enough:  I found it the other day in Pennsylvania:

(written earlier).

Hence we can expect, where faith has been based on “take it on faith– or take THIS!” a similar approach will be given towards government.  ”File taxes” is the law — “but not really” is the practice, etc.   Book “AD 381″ discusses how in part it was the fighting factions of Christians that helped lead a lesser (than Constantine) and less liberal Roman emperor “Theodosius” to glue his empire together by choosing a particular version of the 3-in-1 doctrine and clamping down on discussion.   The inability to discuss, reason, read straight (even their own cited creeds) DOES follow through in inability to report straight on taxes or file straight as a corporation or nonprofit.  Lord knows how they could counsel straight — but then again, half the marriage curriculum is pre-fab as instructor-proof, just about, “out-of-the-box” just provide a classroom.

End little lecture:

*This school was hard to find — possibly because it’s (or similar one) is now called “Bakke Graduate University.”  Founded by two brothers in 1990 (per Wiki, what else?), another profile (possibly diff’t institution) shows 164 students (95% white, Gender–not shown; perhaps it goes without saying, all men?), and categorizes it as a specialized 4-year university in Redmond, WA.  Or perhaps his degree was from none of the above.

Does he have a wife & family?  What qualifies this person to be running marriage institutes at the expense of needy families?

**this certification apparently costs about $1,665 (see link) and possibly was available on-line (for example)

For a sample of his writing, we see a title “The current status of the practice of church discipline in the churches of Christ in America“   on file at Amridge University (affiliated with Churches of Christ) categorized as “controversial literature” which it should be (see related titles), particularly from the viewpoint of wife.  This appears to be his honors thesis from Trinity (see portions on affirmation of the depravity of man, etc.) It is an on-line university primarily, since 1969, in a rural (population 9,000) town.

THE PUBLIC FACE (WEBSITE):  Predictable graphics & Logo:

THE NORTHWEST (not “NW” as TAGGS has it) MARRIAGE INSTITUTE WEBSITE declares it’s a nonprofit, and has a typical website banner & verbiage, with pretty outrageous claims, see center motto:

The Northwest Marriage Institute is a non-profit organization in the State of Washington and recognized as a public charity according to Section 501(c)(3) of the IRS Code. We subsist on tax-deductible donations and grant funding. The Institute provides marriage and fatherhood workshops, to residents of the Vancouver/Portland metro area.

My First question when any group claims to be a Nonprofit (in this field) is, naturally — IS it?  So, show me the money.   Washington State shows me that it did exist as a corporation from 2/1/2005 (just in time to get that grant!) however on 6/28/2010 it became “inactive” (was to have filed by 2/28/2010 and didn’t apparently). Washington State Corporations must file annually, or biennially.  You can look too:  I just typed in “Northwest Marriage” which pulled up 3 results.  Is it registered in Washington State as a Charity?  You can look: (apparently not….).  Did it ever file its 990s with the IRS?

Yes, with interesting results — what happened to the $250,000 grant in 2009 (as it appears not to have acknowledged the $750K grant in 2011….)

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Northwest Marriage Institute	WA	2010	$0	990EZ	6	81-0652178
Northwest Marriage Institute	WA	2009	$5,928	990EZ	8	81-0652178
Northwest Marriage Institute	WA	2009	$0	990ER	1	81-0652178
Northwest Marriage Institute	WA	2008	$9,051	990EZ	8	81-0652178
Northwest Marriage Institute	WA	2007	$10,318.85	990	16	81-0652178
Northwest Marriage Institute	WA	2006	$19,611.09	990	16	81-0652178
Northwest Marriage Institute	WA	2005	$3,896.63	990EZ	10	81-0652178

Ah well, I’ve had enough of this for now.  Perhaps the essay, on “The Dorothy Option” will speak to the situation.  The image below is picked from the main page of where the article was posted. Basically, except I do not share the “Occupy” sentiment, I agree.  Good questions — and I ask them for single mothers who are figuring out which state to live in where their children have to grow up intact and out of the range of foster care, child protective services, and the high-conflict crowd, which are ravenous beasts, and never satiated with enough lives:

http://voxnova2.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/hungry.jpg

Catholic Citizenship and the “Dorothy Option”

by Mark Gordon

My first “guest post” at the Catholic group blog, Vox Nova, appeared on June 17, 2011.

Last Monday’s Republican debate at St. Anselm’s College in New Hampshire was billed by CNN as the first major event of the 2012 presidential campaign. The choice of a Benedictine institution was weirdly appropriate because the debate also kicked off our quadrennial Catholic scrap over electoral politics. A year from now, the battle will be fully engaged. The two camps will have emerged from their respective quarters to savage each other on the deck of the ship of state, contending for control of the rudder, seeking to define each other down the plank and into the Davy Jones Locker of American Church history.

“Conservatives” and Republicans will come armed with abortion, ESCR, and gay marriage. They’ll hurl accusations of indifference to the unborn and the sanctity of marriage. They’ll intone “SOCIALISM” at every turn, and warn darkly of hidden agendas aimed at remaking the Church in the image of MoveOn.org. “Liberals” and Democrats will come armed with war and torture, capital punishment, and market idolatry. They’ll hurl accusations of indifference to the poor, the sick, and the marginalized. They’ll intone “CORPORATIONS” at every turn, and warn darkly of hidden agendas aimed at remaking the Church in the image of the Tea Party.  Both sides will engage in hand-to-hand combat over the meaning and application of terms like “intrinsic evil,” “remote cooperation,” and “prudential judgment,” all the while accusing their opponents of distortion, dishonesty, or simple ignorance. Then, on Election Day + 1, winners will celebrate the return or arrival of truth and justice, while the vanquished will foretell dire calamities soon to be visited on the land.

The deeper I drove into the authentic teaching of the Church {{for me, this would read, “Bible”}} and its implications for living as both citizen and Christian, the less satisfied I became with limitations of a binary political system defined by Democrat and Republican, liberal and conservative. In fact, over time I came to see that the system isn’t binary at all, but unitary, with two distinct but ultimately complimentary and mutually supporting modes of expression. Moreover, I came to the conviction that neither mode is adequate to channel the radical demands imposed upon us by the Gospel.

The Democratic and Republican parties are two dead ends in the same blind alley; but the essential problem isn’t the parties themselves at all. At the heart of the issue is what the Servant of God Dorothy Day called “this filthy, rotten system” itself.

And so, I recommend the “Dorothy Option.” Eschew both parties. Refuse to participate in their rigged game of electoral politics. Refuse to fight their wars. Pack a lifeboat with as many people as you can and row away from the ship of state and the staged battle being waged on its deck. The ship is going down anyway, and it will take all the partisans and courtiers from both parties with it

. . .

etc.

PUBLISHED: June 29, 2011

FILED UNDER: American Empire, Catholic Social Teaching (CST),The Crisis of Legitimacy

(Dorothy was a role model, I guess).

Whatever– for women in any country, it is an uphill battle.  Given its material wealth and reputation (now tarnishing) for freedom and an amazing set of founding documents — I feel the US is going to either give it up, or go down.  It pushes a slave-based economy (always, a caste system is needed, and war is also needed, for the global economy, or freedom might break loose on another continent).  The method of control is economy (threat of starvation) backed by force (faster death for nonconformity) is a real one, and some of us are already experienced dealing with those threats, long-term, and “in your face.”  Some of us did NOT come out of such situations to be told, “Get thee behind me, Woman,” and “Go back for some more, or we take your kids!”

What, precisely, do you think this child support system is in place for to start with?  Without some means of extortion, half the stuff wouldn’t be going on that I’ve blogged in.  The world truly would be a better place, at this point.

Truth is at a premium, always, and finding it is THE most important endeavor in life.    HOW many languages did those Bible translators speak?  And then we get garbled up versions of one of those languages, on-line, half-baked sound bytes? ???

Why is it so often easier to have a sensible conversation (as a person “of faith”) with an atheist than a church-attendee?  Possibly because the atheist takes Sunday mornings for exercise, and the free time weeknights, or weekends, perhaps, for exposure to some of the great ideas of mankind in grappling with the meaning of existence, or reads history (etc.), and what’s more, pays taxes — but not all the tithes to have a dumb-down version of a pittance of scripture explained to them, in the politically correct interpretation of the day.    They then go back to work with a clear conscience, perhaps.

It was the beauty and literature of the Bible that got my attention, originally, as well as its way of speaking to the current issues of life.  I missed the indoctrination and rebellion phases as a young person simply because no one was forcing it on me.  When I ran across some trinitarians who wanted to argue, I settled the question by reading through the gospels.  And a lot more.  End of story.  Not to mention this:  A MEDIATOR has to be in the middle, as in:

1First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, 2for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. 3This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the mana Christ Jesus, 6who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time. 7For this I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I am telling the truth, I am not lying), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.

I think most people want to live a peaceful life — like apparently Joseph Priestley did after emigrating far from the people that destroyed his science lab because it was the wrong theology!  Well, it’s either fight, or leave.  Fight logically, fight without compromise, and fight for the right things, this means, you put your foot down on turning the US into a sharia-type nightmare, even if you think this requires a little sacrifice now for better situation later!

People need to understand the grants systems to understand where their taxes go.  They also need to understand the custody courts to understand why social services are being cut, but taxes are still high, as are commodities.  Not enough people do.

MEDIATORS must be neutral, and they are to represent not just one side of the equation.  They are not to take bribes.  In the wilderness, it’s said, Jesus Christ WAS tempted to take a bribe (the bribe being all the kingdoms of the world, and the tempter, the devil) — and didn’t.  He then qualified.

FAMILY COURT MEDIATORS are often court-appointed, which means county-paid.  They are not neutral in any sense of the word.  IN addition, they are supported by a grant series (Access/visitation) which says — on its face — it is interested in increased noncustodial parenting time.  Their purpose is to produce that time.  Ergo, their purpose is to affect the outcome of a custody hearing in a particular direction, and somehow justify this to others as “justice” when it’s not– it’s service.  They are serving their employers, who pay their salary most directly.

One God, and one mediator between Man & God.  How many in that phrase?

3 entitites.  Not 3-in-1, but three separate, and ONE in the middle.

Galatians (which Paul claimed to have by revelation, but I see plenty of rational argument based on its suppositions in here!):

Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

The mediator referred to surely was Moses.  Was Moses divine?  Was he God?  NO!  He delivered the law, and spoke for God because (according to the record in OT) the people didn’t want to — too frightening.  THey said — YOU speak for us!  (remembering — 400 years of slavery preceded this moment, they were used to taking orders, unfamiliar with freedom yet, and unused to making their own decisions about their own destiny; hence the slavery mindset — YOU’re the expert, YOU translate from God to us.)

Thereafter (you can look it up on-line), a wonderful prophecy of Jesus Christ (so Christians will say, and I do) is right there in Deuteronomy 18:15 and referenced in Acts 3 also:

The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; 16According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. 17And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. 18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee (Moses), and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

He was qualified up one way and down the other as a mediator, and did not take bribes (which pervert judgment) and moreover, put his life on the line for the reconciliation.

And I think it really does matter whether or not this is understood — in the same chapter (describing the mediator) in Galatians, it goes on to say, which is the point anyhow (not all this sectarianism we see nowadays!):

For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

Some people don’t like that terminology, and so simply toss it in practice.  For which, I see:

Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.

Seems like as good a place as any to end this — I have attempted to illustrate two types of individuals and groups of people that both call themselves “Christians.”  One part is prone to hunting down, banning books, killing dissidents and discouraging literacy on even the articles of the faith.  This kind cannot look at a single sentence without dividing it into 3 invisible and mysteriously interlinked parts, and (see Rick Santorum Speech writer, the other day, on “family”) grammatically pay attention for even a single sentence (switching from third to second person).  In a theology where they’re all the same anyhow — what difference does it make, hey?

This is called “blurred vision” and “blurred boundaries”   Where the Bible says “all one in Christ Jesus,” men, certain men (and their women, standing by them) say — no, men take the upper seat, and you women sit down at the other end of the table.  Better yet, go serve us, and then we’ll settle things and let you know the results.  That was their culture, and that is THIS culture too.  Every slavery culture needs a caste system, and in this system, women are below almost all men (religiously speaking) if they come with head, hearts, and minds engaged.

Now let’s apply this in reverse.  The Bible states above clearly — there is one God, and He had a disagreement with Man.  Inbetween comes a “prophet, like unto me” (Moses — and Moses led the people out of captivity and was a prophet, a spokesperson in front of Pharaoh, also being acquainted with Pharaoh’s household, but REJECTING IT for justice, instead affirming his real parentage (not his adopted household), and standing with it.  (Contrast the US with its burgeoning foster care system….)

The people (in the writings) show as of a different character, and God, of a third.  1, 2, 3.

• SIMILARLY — the US Government DID at one time have 3 separate branches:  Executive, Legislative and Judicial.  1, 2, 3.  And the FIRST Bill of Rights states that Congress is not to legislate a religion.
• Where the Bible says 3, some say 1.  Where it says 1 — they say 3.

Now do we really want this mentality in charge of a unified federal government and its budget?  AND with an Office of Faith-Based Privilege and Pooh-Bahs who can’t account for what they already spent, can’t stay incorporated for long because they are not themselves subject to the same laws, while making new ones, and a new language (“parent coordination” “fatherhood.gov” etc.) for the rest of us?

I don’t think so.  Get the voting over with, and then get out your FOIAs (and calculators) and start asking uncomfortable questions of legislators on why they have authorized this baloney!

I forgot to finish the account on this Servetus, of the century 1500s.  Here’s a portion showing John Calvin’s reaction, and his eventual death, twice (once, in effigy) for probably being one danged nuisance to the status quo.  Do we appreciate how brave some of these people were?   Here, Servetus had to take on an alternate identity:

 http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/michaelservetus.html

His books were confiscated, and he was warned out of several Protestant towns. Meanwhile, in 1532, the Supreme Council of the Inquisition in Spain began proceedings to summon him, or to apprehend him if he would not appear before the tribunal. His brother, Juan, a priest, was sent to persuade him to return to Spain for questioning. He was terrified. He later wrote of this period, “I was sought up and down to be snatched to my death.” He fled to Paris and surfaced there with a new name, Michel de Villeneuve.

. . .During his twelve-year residence in Vienne, living as the inoffensive Doctor of Medicine, Michel de Villeneuve, Servetus was busy in his spare time preparing his major theological treatise, Christianismi Restitutio (The Restoration of Christianity). He also began, in 1546, a fateful secret correspondence with his old acquaintance, John Calvin.** By this time Calvin, author of Institutio Christianae Religionis (Institutions of Christian Religion), 1536, and pastor and chief reformer of Geneva, was the most prestigious figure in the Reform branch of Protestantism.

Parallel — people fleeing retaliatory abuse are often wishing to speak with friends, or deal with someone who actually knows them. I imagine Servetus wanted to discuss theology with someone who understood it.  This turned out to be a fatal mistake.

How important it is we know the true strength of various pillars that support us.  I’m talking institutions, associations, etc.

John Calvin

Calvin’s theology had included little mention of the trinitarian nature of the godhead until, in 1537, another reformer, Pierre Caroli, accused him of being an Arian.  Although cleared by a synod at Lausanne, Calvin was afterwards on his guard and determined to deal severely with deviations in this area of orthodoxy.

Can we see how the fear factor here quenched debate on the merits? . . . . . . .

The subject, associated with unpleasant memories, was distasteful to him. Servetus, surely aware of Calvin’s previous lack of clarity on the subject, bombarded him with letters insisting on unorthodox conceptions more radical than those he had presented a decade and more ago. Calvin replied with increasing impatience and asperity. Servetus sent Calvin a manuscript of his yet unpublished Restitutio. Calvin reciprocated by sending a copy of the Institutio. Servetus returned it with abusive annotations. On the day Calvin broke off the correspondence, he wrote to his colleague, Guillaume Farel, that should Servetus ever come to Geneva, “if my authority is of any avail I will not suffer him to get out alive.“

Servetus’ aggressive stance and “refusing to shut up” caused fear of retribution in his hearer.  It is hard to think clearly when there’s the fear factor (remember the times:  Inquisition . . . .. )

When Servetus published the Restitutio in early 1553 he sent an advance copy to Geneva. The printed text included thirty of his letters to Calvin. Soon afterward, at Calvin’s behest, the identity of “Villeneuve” was betrayed to the Catholic Inquisition in Vienne. After his arrest and interrogation Servetus managed to escape from the prison. On his way, perhaps, to northern Italy where, he believed, there were people receptive to his writings, he made his way across the border to Geneva. Recognized at a Geneva church service, he was arrested and tried for heresy by Protestant authorities.

His friend in Geneva was not really his friend.

The secular officials were unable to establish that Servetus was an immoral disturber of the public peace. Nevertheless, he made damaging theological statements in the course of a written debate with Calvin. The Council of Geneva, after receiving the advice of churches in four other Swiss cities, convicted Servetus of antitrinitarianism and opposition to child baptism. Calvin asked that Servetus be mercifully beheaded. The Council insisted he should be burned at the stake.

Spectators were impressed by the tenacity of Servetus’ faith. Perishing in the flames, he is said to have cried out, “O Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have pity on me!” Farel, who witnessed the execution, observed that Servetus, defiant to the last, might have been saved had he but called upon “Jesus, the Eternal Son.” A few months later Servetus was again executed, this time in effigy, by the Catholic Inquisition in France

This source (which is pointing out – John Calvin was a murderer, and some of his motives for this were to maintain power over “theocratic Geneva” describes how green wood was used to prolong the time (30 minutes), and a barrage of verbal abuse on the way to execution.  Talk about heartless!

from:  www.evangelicaloutreach.org/michael-servetus.htm

Let it be noted that the Calvinists of Geneva put half-green wood around the feet of Michael Servetus and a wreath strewn with sulfur on his head. It took over thirty minutes to render him lifeless in such a fire, while the people of Geneva stood around to watch Michael Servetus suffer and slowly die!

Perhaps this history gives us the general idea of how “mainstream” Christianity became “mainstream;” in part by killing off dissidents for an example (and confiscating their property too, burning books, threats, betrayal, etc.).   Through my personal experience, abuse + Bible + “it’s a family matter,” I have come to understand that “birds of a feather flock together”  and not to fly with this crowd.  The air is clearer outside.

However, as someone not from a traditional background (was raised a strange breed of church-attending atheists, and so not subject to much indoctrination), and shocked at how pervasive the mistreatment of women — “justified” by Bible (and being well-read enough in it to realize how little water the argument holds) — I do often need to speak to others a warning not to just brush this faction off.  It has deep historical roots, and despite all the very many truly nice, smart, and intelligent, productive, creative (etc.) people to be found — in the Catholic church, in particular — if it came to saving a neighbor’s life, or stopping child abuse by a colleague — would they really provide a safe haven and show outrage at the system that allowed it?   Will they, for the duration, subject themselves as potential targets for your sake, or the child’s sake?

I’m not of a stature to stand and judge (or a prophet!) but my sense is that in an(y) organization where submission, loyalty and tradition are valued, as well as community — who is really ready to be an outcast for the genuine faith, in the US, I mean?  I’m ont talking of the solitary monks or priests — I mean, on critical issues — such as the overt religious grants recipients in the fatherhood & marriage movement, for example?

• We are not to judge by allegiances and alliances, but does not mean, go to sleep spiritually, psychologically, historically or politically.  And under spiritually — one has to talk linguistically.  These are not mere matters of words — to those involved!  Who gives a hoot whether it’s Unitarian or Trinitarian?  Whether 3 in 1, or 1 divided into 3 equal consubstantial and co-eternal parts?
• With all due respect, plus some, to a many of my personal acquaintances, and (former) colleagues — it does make a difference when we have government by executive order and faith-based initiatives from a Prayer-Breakfast “Family” oriented Bush with connections to a worldwide moneylaundering cult who may — or may not — have stolen an election. A US Presidential election.
• If we had all parties who agreed that the Constitution counts MOST, so there’s a little peace in the land — or the potential for it, if the same people could DEAL with the need to make more slaves and profits —  it would not matter.  But that is not the current landscape.    That’s not even the current Supreme Court!

Suppose it was your child?  Many things matter that may seem unimportant at the time.

A little scientific contributions, inbetween arguing with Calvin, breaking out of prison and attempting to find a safe haven, from our 15th century Spaniard.  He is the same person who at least first published (whether or not he discovered) that the blood circulates through the lungs; there is a pulmonary function to them!  In this matter he was also a “dissident.”  Guess it’s habit-forming.

Servetus soon came to differ from Galen in the matter of pulmonary circulation. Galen had supposed aeration of the blood took place in the heart and assigned the lungs a fairly minor function. Servetus, by examining the wall of the heart and noting the size of the pulmonary artery, concluded that transformation of the blood, accomplished by the release of waste gases and the infusion of air, occurred in the lungs. It is not clear whether Servetus or a contemporary, unknown to Servetus, first made this discovery. Servetus was the first to publish. Although he only expressed the new knowledge as a lengthy metaphorical aside in his theological writing, he was the first person to record a modern understanding of pulmonary respiration.

What people who are well-exposed to this scripture can do in their spare time, before execution….

(Thanks to the “Dictionary of Unitarian & Universalist Biography” for the segments on Servetus when I needed a short enough narrative to illustrate the point)

Vocabulary quiz:

RE-LIGION — to Tie Back & Define (to the past).  Burdens populace, fear-motivation (for them, and sometimes, leaders) plus greed.  Slave/master relationship.

SPIRITUALITY — the word is related to the breath:  Inhale/exhale, inhale/exhale; IN with fresh, OUT with stale.  That’s how life is sustained.

Here’s another summary, its viewpoint is clear enough — and a longish excerpt relating to “Socinians” heresy to Servetus, above.  Notice how in the 1600s, it was less fashionable to burn them in public, rather, let them rot in prison was preferred:

English Dissenters — Socinians

Summary

Anti-Trinitarianism was practiced in sixteenth century Europe and was part of the Radical Reformation. It is a heresy of the Church which denies the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, three coequal Persons of One Nature. A number of heretical [i.e. non-official views] of the Trinity have appeared since the early Church.

One such form of anti-Trinitarianism theology was prominent in Sixteenth and Seventeenth century Europe was known as Socinianism. Socinianism is based of the works of Faustus Socinus.

Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) (or Fausto Paolo Sozzini)of Siena (Italy) preached a moderated form of the writings of Michael Servetus (1511-1553), an anti-Trinitarianism theologian, a prominent scientist and physician.

Socinus maintained that there was only God the Father, a single divine being. The Holy Ghost was not a person but a divine force, not God and not coequal to the Father. Jesus Christ was an exceptional man without sin, but not divine. Salvation required a holy life after the example of the man, Jesus Christ. The Scriptures were the only source of truth.

From 1578-79, Socinus attempted to moderate the radical theology of Ferenc David (1510-79) the Unitarian Bishop of Transylvania (Hungary). Upon moving to Krakow, Poland in 1579, Socinus soon found converts to his moderate form of Unitarian theology. He soon took charge of the Polish Brethren, or the Minor Reformed Church that had Anabaptist leanings. Socinus was forced to flee Cracow in 1598 . . .

Summary of the situation:

Anti-Trinitarianism was one of the few heresies that were pursued consistently and vigorously from King Henry VIII to Charles I. There were a number of individuals who suffered death as heretics for their divergent views of the Trinity and of Christ in the eyes of the English Church.

It was under King James I (1603-1625) that public burning of heretics was ended, rather that they would just rot in prison in private. James I had many heretical books burned including a Latin edition of the Racovian catechisme in 1614, a major Unitarian text.

Or The “Biddlerians:” (same source)

John Biddle (1615-1662) and the Biddlians

One of the most prominent figures in the development of English Socinianism in Stuart England was John Biddle (1615-1662) (or Bidle). Biddle is often referred to as the father of English Unitarianism.

Biddle came from a working background. He received some early financial support from Lord Berkeley. Biddle graduated from Magdalen College (Oxford), a B.A. in 1638, and received a M.A. in 1641. He was known for his independence of mind, and scholarship in Greek. Biddle was offered the mastership of the Crypt Free Grammar School at Gloucester in May 1641.

John Biddle was known as a biblical scholar, and became well known for his translations of the Scriptures. In the course of his own scholarly research he became interested in early Church dogma and textual criticism. These studies would led Biddle to reevaluate the current Church theology against his own research based on the earlier Greek and Latin texts of the Scriptures.

Unfortunately for Biddle, he was not discrete about his own research, or his own personal views. In 1644, he was questioned by the local authorities at Gloucester to answer charges brought against him for anti-Trinitarianism views, but he was released on bail. . . .

Biddle than wrote a manuscript entitled: XII Arguments drawn out of the Scriptures (1644) based on his own textual research. Copies of this manuscript fell into the wrong hands and it was traced back to Biddle. These were seized and burned. In 1645, he found himself in jail again, and probably out of a job. Biddle would find himself in and out of prison for most of the rest of his life.

The real crime was independence of thought and challenging authority.  Remember:  Printing press hadn’t been around THAT long . . . .

Parliament had proposed and passed legislation directed at Anti-Trinitarianism heresy punishable by death. The legislation was directed against the growing interest in Socinianism including John Best and John Biddle in particular. Fortunately for Biddle the enforcement of the new legislation lacked any teeth and it soon took a back-seat to the larger political considerations of 1649.

Biddle found solace from 1649-52 in Strattfordshire with friends away from London. Biddle’s translation of The Racovian catechisme (1652) was promptly seized and burned. Biddle was back in prison again.

Many religious prisoners were released under the Act of Oblivion (1651/52) which was passed by Oliver Cromwell. The new legislation provided John Biddle, his friends and others with a new found sense of religious freedom.

These two need balance, but when spirituality is institutionalized, you get religion, which leads back to bondage, and eventually one or another form of murder + martyrs.   I believe that Catholicism and Protestantism need to learn from each other, but have observed, that when they unite, it’s usually against a common enemy, and not with things actually in common.  This keeps the spotlight off their own hypcrisy and, at times, crimes.   And there is definite political motivation in going for the Jesus as God versus a more rational reading of the scriptures.    The excesses of both protestantism and catholicism (whatever those be) in England in the 1500s and 1600s, led to a very fruitful EXODUS.  I’m going to make a difficult point here.

Where did Oliver Cromwell (credited with starting the Irish slave trade and attempted extermination of the population) stand on this theological issue, if he did take theological stances?  Here’s one page of JSTOR on the matter; Here’s a glowing (too “glowing”) account from a “reformation” source..

For a change of pace, a “National Humanities” source, again, very brief summary of the situation:

The Puritans were a varied group of religious reformers who emerged within the Church of England during the middle of the sixteenth century. They shared a common Calvinist theology and common criticisms of the Anglican Church and English society and government. Their numbers and influence grew steadily, culminating in the English Civil War of the 1640s and the rule of Oliver Cromwell in the 1650s. With the restoration of the Stuart monarchy in 1660, Puritanism went into eclipse in England, largely because the movement was identified with the upheaval and radicalism of the Civil War and Cromwell’s tyrannical government, a virtual military dictatorship.

Can you imagine – civil war 1640s, Cromwell’s dictatorship 1650s, and it’s said he needed a guard to process to his funeral, and back to monarchy in the 1660s.  I’m sitting here setting some of the background of the Declaration of Independence, as history stands to repeat itself, this time with new technology available and in the country of the largest per capital jailor in the world, the USA.

But it persisted for much longer as a vital force in those parts of British North America colonized by two groups of Puritans who gradually cut their ties to the Church of England and formed separate denominations. One group, the Congregationalists, settled Plymouth in the 1620s and then Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and Rhode Island in the 1630s. Another group, the Presbyterians, who quickly came to dominate the religious life of Scotland and later migrated in large numbers to northern Ireland, also settled many communities in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania during the late seventeenth century and throughout the eighteenth century.

Puritans in both Britain and British North America sought to cleanse the culture of what they regarded as corrupt, sinful practices.

{{cf.  Institute for American Values?? and it’s having secret meetings in Kansas recently, to push marriage as the antidote — and not the cause — of poverty, etc.}}

They believed that the civil government should strictly enforce public morality by prohibiting vices like drunkenness, gambling, ostentatious dress, swearing, and Sabbath-breaking. They also wished to purge churches of every vestige of Roman Catholic ritual and practice—the ruling hierarchies of bishops and cardinals, the elaborate ceremonies in which the clergy wore ornate vestments and repeated prayers from a prescribed liturgy. Accordingly, New England’s Congregational churches were self-governing bodies, answerable to no higher authority; mid-Atlantic Presbyterian churches enjoyed somewhat less autonomy because a hierarchy of “presbyteries” and “synods” made up of leading laymen and clergymen set policy for individual congregations. But both Congregationalist and Presbyterian worship services were simple, even austere, and dominated by long, learned sermons in which their clergy expounded passages from the Bible. Perhaps most important, membership in both churches was limited to the “visibly godly,” meaning those men and women who lead sober and upright lives. New England Congregationalists adopted even stricter standards for admission to their churches—the requirement that each person applying for membership testify publicly to his or her experience of “conversion.”

The key word being “membership.”  Good grief….

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/eighteen/ekeyinfo/puritan.htm

Puritanism and Predestination

Christine Leigh Heyrman Department of History, University of Delaware

©National Humanities Center

 Here we go on the influence of Calvin, from (a socialist website?).  I’m including because Calvin’s influence of John Knox, who hated the rule of a woman seems appropriate here.  Again, I’m not trying to be scholarly (most of these articles certainly aren’t) but just to shed a little light on just Who and Where some of the current culture wars ideas came from, sorry for those this is repeat information to.  But I have seen so many of these theologies in operation, they each have a different flavor and definitely have different behaviors.  Which in part has affected why we have some of the welfare reform and other legislation:

Why we should know John Calvin

by Lewis Loflin

The influence of John Calvin (1509 – 1564) and his brand of Protestantism can be seen to this day. Calvinism had many profound social implications such as thrift, industry, and hard work are forms of moral virtue and that business (material) success is evidence of God’s grace. These views created a climate favorable to commerce and in the establishment of modern capitalism.

alvin agreed with Luther’s criticisms of the Roman church, and with most of Luther’s fundamental religious ideas, such as justification by faith alone and not by works. (Augustinianism) Calvin also followed Sola Scriptura, the idea that all Christian teachings should be based only he New Testament alone. (I emphasize alone for a good reason.) Calvin along with the invention of the printing press promoted mass literacy. Protestantism in general opened a theological “Pandora’s Box” not just against the Catholic Church, but Protestantism as well.

Both the Lutheran and Anglican (English) Churches became national churches often tied in closely with the governments of various German states and England. Lutheranism would dominate Germany and Scandinavia, but spread little outside those regions while Calvinism had little influence there. Only in the Netherlands and Switzerland would Calvinism dominate. Geneva became the “Rome” of Calvinism where “reformers” would go to learn the faith and spread it all across Europe. Calvin established a theocracy in Genva, a government controlled by religious leaders. One of Calvin’s most inspired students would be the Scotsman John Knox.(1514-1572)

Scotland of the time was still heavily Catholic and had a Catholic queen. (Mary, Queen of Scots, etc.) His conflicts with Protestant Elizabeth I (Knox hated any idea of a woman ruler and wrote Trumpet Against the Monstrous Regiment of Women in 1558) meant Elizabeth banned him from England, he went to Scotland. It was easy for Knox to gather followers because anti-French (thus anti-Catholic) sentiment was running high. He established Presbyterianism in Scotland. But the conflict between Calvinists (called Puritans in England) and the Church of England and the English throne was just beginning.

To quote: Calvinists refused to recognize the subordination of church to state, or the right of any government—king, parliament, or civic magistracy—to lay down laws for religion. On the contrary, they insisted that true Christians, the elect or godly, should Christianize the state. They wished to remake society itself into the image of a religious community. The bitter struggle within English Protestantism would carry over to America.

Is this starting to sound familiar yet?  (See Iowa Caucuses…)

The Calvinist’ idea of democracy would spread in America minus the Calvinism. They had to end religious strife so the 13 Colonies could ban[d] together to fight the English Throne. At this time the Episcopal (Anglican) and Calvinist’ Churches were by far the largest while all others including the Baptists and Methodists were very small. (They would explode and dominate later on the American frontier.) . . .

The conflict between secular extremism and the so-called Religious Right (culture wars) versus the intentions of American Founders can only be understood by understanding Calvin and his influence. Neither extreme side today be they secular extremists nor Religious Right represent America of 1776. The American Revolution was based indirectly on both Calvinism and a reaction to it.

Understanding Calvin is to understand the absurdities that have plagued Christianity for the last 150 years. While Christian fundamentalists today reject most Calvinist theology, they demand what I’d call social Calvinism. While most reject Calvin’s “TULIP” they desire his theocracy. They see themselves as the elect chosen by God to rule over all others. Oddly the Calvinist style theological democracy is best illustrated today by the Islamic Republic of Iran, a police state.

What I’ve been pointing out here — that while these groups are great at hating those who differ, one common theme is the desire to DOMINATE.  I am flat-out telling you that this is the Trinitarian way; it cannot accept a human, crucified Jesus hero, who was a rebel and critic of the regimes — how could it?  It also is very intolerant of perceived heresy, to the point of murder.  

he most notorious episode in relation to Calvin was the Servetus murder. Calvin would oversee Dr. Servetus’ death for heresy.

the Servetus Murder

In the end Servetus got the last laugh in theology. The Socinians would greatly influence Unitarians, Deists, and John Locke. All would reject the Trinity and the negative, self-loathing theology of Augustinian Original Sin. It was very easy for man by force of will and choice (with guidance from, not fear of, God) could obtain salvation. Calvin’s theocratic democracy would be stripped of Augustine’s theology. Influenced by John Locke and the European Enlightenment, it would produce the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States.

 Well, it’s soon “back to the drawing board” and we are definitely in a “use it or lose it” situation right now.  This same site has a link — only 10 years ago — quoting a Kansas State Senator (female) who said, if she’d been around, she wouldn’t have supported suffrage (women voting):

Senator: Women should not vote

Bristol Herald Courier 9/29/01

The Associated Press

TOPEKA, Kan. – A female state senator says if women’s suffrage were being voted on today she would not support it, because the 19th Amendment was the start of a decades-long erosion of family values.

What circular reasoning!  ”Family values” means women don’t vote and don’t really work outside the home, ergo letting them do this is eroding “family values” ???

“I’m an old-fashioned woman, Senator. Kay O’Connor told The Kansas City Star. “Men should take care of women, and if men were taking care of women (today) “we wouldn’t have to vote.”

Delores F[u]rtado, co-president of the Johnson County League of Women Voters, had asked the 59 year-old Republican to the league’s “Celebrate the Right to Vote” luncheon, and O’Connor responded: “You probably wouldn’t want me there because of what I would have to say.”

Furtado said she was shocked by O’Connor’s view. As a state senator, Furtado said, “she is the beneficiary of a system she doesn’t support.”

Sounds Republican if not Christian to me….

O’Connor said she does vote. But she said she believes that if men had been protecting the best interests of women, then women would not be forced to cast ballots and serve in the Legislature. Instead, they could stay home, raise families and tend to domestic duties, she said.

The 19th amendment giving all U.S. women the right to vote was ratified in 1920. O’Connor said the amendment began a societal shift that eventually, encouraged women to trade homemaker roles for careers.

Let’s not mention men’s habit of starting wars, like World Wars, creating a need for women to help supply them with weapons, ships, etc. on the home front, and then inbetween wars, re-tool their personality switch to “domestic” again!

As to Cromwell (tolerance is asked for posting pieces and parts — I mean to flag the controversy and relate it to religious intolerance, with or without a monarch).  This is what he did to the Irish  From Conservaopaedia.com (pretty lengthy description of his life, seems more even in tone)

Drogheda

When Drogheda fell to the siege in September 1649, Cromwell’s troops massacred nearly 3,500 people.

Reminds me of 9/11.  Sorry . . . . The number of people who died….

Although this figure comprised around 2,700 royalist soldiers and all the men in the town bearing arms, a concerted propaganda campaign followed which ensured Cromwell was seen as a bloodthirsty tyrant in the national consciousness of Ireland. As recently as the 20th century Irish novelist James Joyce wrote in his novel Ulysses: “What about sanctimonious Cromwell and his ironsides that put the women and children of Drogheda to the sword with the bible text “God is love” pasted round the mouth of his cannon?“.

On September 10-11 his army stormed the town, and killed most of the surviving garrison, which had refused to surrender. Cromwell said that the killing at Drogheda had the goal of encouraging other garrisons to surrender and not fight to the death; indeed it induced some other Irish garrisons to surrender, such as Trim, Ross and Dundalk. In October the garrison at Wexford repulsed Cromwell’s army but was overcome; here again no quarter was given once the garrison refused to surrender, and this time the town was plundered. By the end of the year most of the eastern coast of Ireland was in Cromwell’s hands. Early in 1650 he marched his army inland, ravaging the land and slaughtering the populace regardless of age or sex.

Destroying the power of the Irish Catholics

In 1651 Cromwell’s government adopted a policy of destroying the power of those Irish Catholics who did not become Protestants; they were seen as less than human – dangerous barbarians and potential allies of the Royalists. All Irish landholdings (except in Connacht, which was deemed to be too “barren”) were confiscated, and most of the populace was driven into the wilds of Connacht to die of starvation and pestilence. The proportion of land owned by Catholics fell from 59% in 1641 to 20% in the span of two decades. The goal was to resettle the island with, in his view, more “Godly” Protestants, who were given the best lands, and given near complete control over the remaining Catholics. As a result, the Irish Catholics have hated Cromwell with a passion that continues to this day.

I believe I have posted before on the irish slave trade at this time, from HERE and HERE

Some of which may overlap, but here’s another recounting.  Today, there are different kinds of trafficking going on, and the situation of a woman being freed but her children not sure reminds me of what it’s like attempting to vacate a terrorist marriage, also based (in my case) on religion, and thereafter cause for much deliberation on how supposedly secular sources (like our government, family courts) can produce pretty much the same results, and for profit, too!  You tell me if you have an answer!

A few months later, in 1650, 25,000 Irish were sold to planters in St. Kitt. During the 1650s decade of Cromwell’s Reign of Terror, over 100,000 Irish children, generally from 10 to 14 years old, were taken from Catholic parents and sold as slaves in the West Indies, Virginia and New England. In fact, more Irish were sold as slaves to the American colonies and plantations from 1651 to 1660 than the total existing “free” population of the Americas!

But all did not go smoothly with Cromwell’s extermination plan, as Irish slaves revolted in Barbados in 1649. They were hanged, drawn and quartered and their heads were put on pikes, prominently displayed around Bridgetown as a warning to others. Cromwell then fought two quick wars against the Dutch in 1651, and thereafter monopolized the slave trade. Four years later he seized Jamaica from Spain, which then became the center of the English slave trade in the Caribbean.

On 14 August 1652, Cromwell began his Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland, ordering that the Irish were to be transported overseas, starting with 12,000 Irish prisoners sold to Barbados. The infamous “Connaught or Hell” proclamation was issued on 1 May 1654, where all Irish were ordered to be removed from their lands and relocated west of the Shannon or be transported to the West Indies. Those who have been to County Clare, a land of barren rock will understand what an impossible position such an order placed the Irish.

In memory of all those who have died and suffered

as a result of Slavery and the loss of liberty, wherever they came from, may they rest in peace“

Let’s not vote for, or settle for, things that accommodate slavery based on religious views, OK?  Let’s consider letting JUST a few (like up to 50-51%) of women hit the seats of Congress, and how not to require a person to be some sort of millionaire to get there.  Let’s consider the ERA (really!), and then see if for every independent woman, there wouldn’t be another bitter or abandoned woman ready to play #2 and do the dirty work towards biological mother for him (it happens!) Let’s establish some peace around here, and have a little more time for literacy among the rest of the population that isn’t planning the next global perfection (remind me to stop by the San Francisco Praesidio and see “Futures Without Violence” close up….), instead of trying to shove indoctrination down our throats and at our expense about what to believe about men & women.

OK?

And please read this, about the history of Carlism, with which I believe Opus Dei is associated.  I picked up that part of the Bourbon monarchy was opposition to female rulers (see above, John Knox, etc.)

http://opentabernacle.wordpress.com/2010/01/16/carlism-and-the-catholic-right-2/

Carlism is a political philosophy originally developed to help reestablish the Bourbon monarchy in Spain. First emerging as political force in the 1830s, it was primarily a reaction to the increasingly progressive rules of Charles III (1759-1788) and Charles IV (1788-1808), notably the latter’s pressure on the Church to sell its property for government revenue. Similar events continued to created tension between the monarchy and the Church.

As Spain became less theocratic forces such as the Carlists, among others, engaged sometime violent struggles to impose a Bourbon monarchy that would bind the church and state as one. Between the 1830s and the Spanish Civil, five separate Carlists made claims to the Spanish throne (the Carlist label is derived from followers of Don Carlos, son of Carlos IV who initially challenged the non-salic** ascendancy of Isabella II to the Spanish throne in 1833). Its efforts cumulated in the fascist-instigated Civil War lasting from 1936 through 1939.

While there are variations of this political philosophy two of its common hallmarks should stand out to those who are concerned about theocratic trends in the world. First, it sees ultra-orthodox Catholicism as the cornerstone of the state. Secondly, sovereignty is vested not with the people, but with a monarch, who in turn is answerable only to the Catholic Church.  Whether it be full-blown Carlists or those whose political vision is only influenced by it, these are the two commonly held themes that appear in their various pronouncements.

I found the part about “salic law” (new to me — to you?) interesting.  Among other things, it represents opposition to female inheritance or ascendancy to rulership.  Think about King Henry VIII, England, who was somehow not getting those Y chromosomes in place to produce a male heir, and the Anglican church in that context, huh?  It has immense significance.

Wikipedia on this:

Salic law (English pronunciation: /ˈsælɨk/ or /ˈseɪlɨk/; Latin: Lex Salica) or Salian Law was the major body of Frankish law in force governing all the Franks of Frankia under the rule of its kings during the Old Frankish Period, approximately equal to the early Middle Ages. The laws were maintained in written form in the Latin language by a committee empowered by the monarch. Dozens of manuscripts dated from the 8th century of a putative original recension in the 6th century and three surviving emendations as late as the 9th century have survived. Many more did not survive.^[1]

The best known tenet of Salic law is agnatic succession, the rule excluding females from the inheritance of a throne or fief. Indeed, “Salic law” has often been used simply as a synonym for agnatic succession. But the importance of Salic law extends beyond the rules of inheritance, as it is a direct ancestor of the systems of law in many parts of Europe today. . . .

In its use by hereditary monarchies since the 15th century, aiming at agnatic succession, the Salic law is regarded as excluding all females from the succession as well as prohibiting succession rights to transfer through any woman. At least two systems of hereditary succession are direct and full applications of the Salic Law: agnatic seniority and agnatic primogeniture.

 …From the Middle Ages, we have one practical system of succession in cognatic male primogeniture, which actually fulfills apparent stipulations of original Salic law: succession is allowed also through female lines, but excludes the females themselves in favour of their sons. For example, a grandfather, without sons, is succeeded by his grandson, a son of his daughter, when the daughter in question is still alive. Or an uncle, without his own children, is succeeded by his nephew, a son of his sister, when the sister in question is still alive.Strictly seen, this fulfills the Salic condition of “no land comes to a woman, but the land comes to the male sex”.

- – WOW.  I don’t know how to express this, but it seems to have been operational procedure in my own family line (who are not religious).  I did not expect this belief system to come from either a nonreligious or a supposedly well-educated sector of my own family line; i.e., marital status pre-empts character, performance, and other laws — operationally at least.   Listen:

General law

The law of Charlemagne was based on Salic Law, an influence as great as that of Greece and Rome. Through that connection, Salic law has had a formative influence on the tradition of statute law that has extended since then to modern times in Central Europe, especially in the German states, France,Belgium, the Netherlands, parts of Italy, Austria and Hungary, Romania, and the Balkans.

The Salic Law codified inheritance, crime, and murder. In a kingdom with many ethnic groups, each expected to be governed under its own law. The detailed laws established damages to be paid and fines levied in recompense of injuries to persons and damage to goods, e.g., slaves, theft, and unprovoked insults. One-third of the fine paid court costs. Judicial interpretation was by a jury of peers. These laws and their interpretations grant insight to Frankish society; Salic Law establishes that an individual person is legally unprotected by law if he or she does not belong to a family.

Practically speaking this is about how US law is operation, particularly in the family custody realm.  HOWEVER, technically speaking, in THEORY, we have INDIVIDUAL rights in this country (ha, ha, ha!)

The most formative (geo-)political aspect of Salic inheritance law for Europe’s history was its equal division of land amongst all living male children in opposition to primogeniture. This caused not only the break-up of the Carolingian Empire amongst Charlemagne’s grandsons (under the Treaty of Verdun), but many kingdoms during the medieval period

It seems to have degnerated into application whenever there was a need to rule out a certain monarch from taking the throne; accordingly salic law (no women) was in, out, or more rigidly interpreted (this is all still Wikipedia):

In 1328, at latest, the Salic Law needed a further interpretation to forbid not only inheritance by a woman, but inheritance through a female line, in order to bar the male Edward III of England, descendant of French kings through his mother Isabel of France, from the succession. When the Direct Capetian line ended, the law was contested by England, providing a putative motive for the Hundred Years’ War.

 Translation:  women need to be eliminated from inheritance to suit the plans of competing monarchs, thereby resulting in wars…..  Here we are coming 9not that I care about all these competing monarchs from the past) closer to Talk2Action’s (I think progressive Catholic?) writer who is concerned about Opus Dei and ultra-orthodox movements within Catholicism TODAY:  See quote, above.

A number of military conflicts in European history have stemmed from the application of, or disregard for, Salic law. The Carlist Wars occurred in Spain over the question of whether the heir to the throne should be a female or a male relative. The War of the Austrian Succession was triggered by the Pragmatic Sanction in which Charles VI of Austria, who himself had inherited the Austrian patrimony over his nieces as a result of Salic law, attempted to ensure the inheritance directly to his own daughter Maria Theresa of Austria, this being an example of an operation of the Semi-Salic law.

 It looks like Salic Law kind of settled in the Netherlands:  ”As a remnant of Salic law, the office of the reigning monarch of the Netherlands is always formally known as ‘King’ even though her title may be ‘Queen’. ”  But I believe it influences us today.

From Talk2Action// Open Tabernacle (wordpress blog)’s talk about Carlists // Opus Dei connections:

Are There American Carlists? Carlism has had varying influence on different members of the Catholic Right. Its truest adherents are found in groups such as Tradition, Family and Property and individuals such as Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen. Although not full-blown Carlists or even identifying themselves with the Carlist name, its influence is clearly present in the elitist writings of theoconservatives such as John Neuhaus, Robert H. Bork and to a lesser extent, George Weigel.

Carlism’s influence is also found in varying degrees among Opus Dei members and cooperators It’s founder, Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was openly Carlist

The first component of the Carlist maxim, “God,” implied an acceptance of the traditional sacral view of society inherited from the Middle Ages and still quite prevalent in Spain throughout the nineteenth century. Carlists advocated a renewed commitment by all branches of the government to Christian beliefs and ethics. The “Dios” of their motto, stemming from a strong Catholic tradition strengthened during the struggle against Islam, carried four main themes: confessionality of the State, religious unity of the nation, close collaboration between Church and State, and independence of the Church.(ii)

These common attitudes of “struggle,” “religious unity” and “church independence”–something more progressive Catholics view as a lack of accountability–are infused into much of the leadership of the more extreme elements of the Catholic Right. They were clearly apparent forty years ago when L. Brent Bozzell roared, “The Catholic Church in America must forthrightly acknowledge that a state of war exists between herself and the American political order” or when Institute on Religion and Democracy Board member John Neuhaus openly questions the legitimacy of American government because of its pluralism and when Robert H. Bork in his book Slouching Towards Gomorrah bemoans Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence. Esoterically, what today’s Carlists or neo-Carlists are saying is that they want a society where even non-Catholics are bound by their subjective, but ultra-orthodox interpretations of Thomistic morality.

. . . The world is hostile to the Church,” he wrote in 1968, “because the world is secularist and the Church must sacramentalize the whole of existence. A sacral world is one with the Faith’s perpetual rejection of Manicheanism and of any dualism that sharpely(sic) divorces the sacred from the profane.” (iv) (emphasis added) Dr. Alexandra Wilhelmsen’s quote is telling for several reasons. First and foremost is her description of Franco’s Nationalist forces, with its Nazi and Fascist benefactors, as “liberators.” But it also illustrates the inconsistency in Carlist-inspired orthodoxy. For example, many in this school, from Donald D’Elia to Romano Guardini to Robert H. Bork–much like their more secular Straussian brethren–warn of Nazi-styled nihilism pervading modern society. Yet in idealizing Franco’s Spain they fail to recognize how both Hitler and Mussolini played vital roles in establishing a Falangist regime on the Iberian penninsula.

 

CLOSING PARAGRAPHS from The FreeRepublic site:

For those who would have Americans bow before monarchs, only the obvious need be stated: we abrogated such loyalties at Yorktown more than two hundred years ago. Similarly, for those who would make us subject to “benign” tyrants, history has demonstrated that there is no such thing. Tyrants by their very nature are far from benign. It is why we stood up to the likes of Kaiser Wilhelm, Hitler and Stalin.

But we must once again return to admonition of Jesuit priest Wilfred Parsons: “‘The great tragedy of Spain was that in the nineteenth century the working masses apostatized from the Church, as Pope Plus X once remarked. And, it is well to remember, it was poverty, destitution and injustice which made them apostatize. They got to hate the Church because they hated the friends of the Church, who exploited them and whom the Church did nothing to rebuke or correct.”

Among those hated “friends of the Church” described by Parsons were the Carlists and other pompous plutocrats who place their exalted position on Earth well above the common good. And while many on the Catholic Right are not calling for a return to monarchy, they are influenced by the Carlism’s core notion: a nation answers not to the will of a pluralistic people, but to the will of Vatican law. It is at the heart of George Weigel’s recent declaration, “Europe’s crisis of civilizational morale teaches us that, while there are many lenses through which history can be read, theological lenses help us to see deeper, farther, and more truly.” (vi) When Weigel speaks of “consent” he is more concerned with religious authority than with vox populi.

Unfortunately, Carlism’s American heirs–George Weigel, Thomas Monaghan and John Neuhaus–all believe in a society not built upon the meritocracy of the common citizen, but of one that unjustly gives deference to birthright and privilege. If they were ever to succeed it would end the noble experiment of American democracy as generations have known it. Then the last best hope for mankind would take a giant step back into the Dark Ages.

And that is just what the Carlists want.

(phew — now this post is done!  FYI, they take sometimes a full day to pull together.  I don’t like just requoting the obvious; obviously, I like to report on what have found, and supplement by finding some more at the same time.  Current goal is 24 posts in 24 days (for January) and after that, another form of communication — or another form of life which isn’t all “advocacy” focused.

Santorum: A Pennsylvanian in Iowa engaged in “The Work of God” (Opus Dei) — What Endorsement Will Mean MORE of….

Santorum Singing New Tune as Iowa Caucuses Approach

Speaking for nearly an hour, Mr. Santorum [[See below**]] likened Mr. Paul’s noninterventionist views to Mr. Obama’s foreign-policy record, telling voters that a Paul presidency would be more of the same.

But he mainly aimed his attacks at Mr. Obama, building on his most recent TV ad, which paints him as the only candidate who can beat the president.

Accusing Mr. Obama of crushing businesses, expanding the welfare state and alienating American allies, he asked those gathered to “fight for freedom” over the next two days.

“Go out to those caucuses and send a message to this country and to the world, because they are watching,” he said. “If you do that, and you go to bed that night, you will have done your job and fought for freedom.”

© Copyright 2012 The Washington Times, LLC

Santorum’s Site:

Just so we can be CLEAR on what this person represents, you Iowans! !!!    !!!  NB:  These are not positive “American” Values.  What we should value is liberty — and the Constitution.  Clearly, this Mr. Santorum hooks up with the concepts when they are convenient, and ditches it when it ain’t — for example, he’s protesting plenty of Executive Orders — but not the ones creating The “Office of Faith-Based Grants-Steering” a.k.a. “The Family” (See Jeff Sharlett) needs some money . . . .

As a husband and father, Rick Santorum knows the importance of protecting and providing for your family.

{{And whoever wrote that sentence can’t make up (his?) mind whether to write in 3rd or 2nd person = confusion.  Mr. Santorum doesn’t know anything about MY family.}}

He believes that at the core of the American experience is the family, and that without strong families, we cannot have a strong and vibrant nation.

{{Tell that to people whose forebears were slaves}}

Which is more important:  Strong and Vibrating – or Free? And, by the way, it took a lot of strong slaves to build half of what the other half wishes to boast about}}

Senator Santorum believes that at its core, America is a moral enterprise, but that foundation is quickly eroding. As President, Rick Santorum commits to rebuild that foundation and lead the way on restoring traditional American values

{{Then he wants to remove the vote from women & slaves….and reinstate further forcible eviction of and genocide of Native Americans.  That’s an “American value” isn’t it?}}

Executive Orders, Rulemaking and other Executive Branch Actions

• Repeal Clinton-era Title X family planning regulations, and will direct HHS to restore the separation of Title X family planning from abortion practices and restore a ban on referrals for abortion
• Reinstitute the Mexico City Policy to stop tax-payer funding or promotion of abortion overseas
• Ban federal funding for embryonic stem cell research
• Restore conscience clause protections for health care workers
• Defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court***
• Ban military chaplains from performing same sex marriage ceremonies on military bases or other Federal properties
• Repeal Obamacare mandate for contraceptive services in healthcare plans
• Re-direct funds within HHS so it can create a public/private partnership with state &local communities, not-for-profit organizations, and faith-based organizations for the purpose of strengthening marriages, families, and fatherhood**
• Veto any bill or budget that funds abortion or funds any organization that performs abortions including Planned Parenthood

Congressional Directives

• Call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
• Advocate for a Personhood Amendment to the Constitution  {{=Women of child-bearing age not included}}
• Call on Congress to pass the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act
• Advocate for a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution
• Call on Congress to reinstitute Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell
• Call on Congress to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act
• Call on Congress to reinstitute 2008-level funding for the Community Based Abstinence Education program
• Advocate for a federal law permitting schools to allow prayer at graduations, football games and other school functions

Obviously any President of any color or religious party is going to have to deal with the faith-based and fatherhood etc. faction — which is a good part of at least two executive departments, I’ll bet.   These are cash cows for program administrators and (well, we don’t know who else – -nor does the GAO, or the HHS/OIG/OAS.  According to some reports “ARRA” (a lot of this went to such programs) appears to have been about an $800 billion “wash” — meaning about as much money was NOT paid in taxes by grantees (or more) as was doled out.

But to blatantly appeal to this faction is — at this point — simply immoral.  I say this even though I have mixed sentiments on abortion, while not approving of the extremist total prohibition.  A lot of the destruction in my family’s recent history comes from a relative who appears to have undergone casual abortions (more than one) and has been killing off parts of other people’s lives in subsequent years.  I simply think it’s a little too habit-forming.  But it can’t be banned, or next thing you know, the age of consent will be officially 12, which it is in practice (and younger) about now.

**DOMA — look the institution of marriage has been utterly disgraced by the people most “into” forcing it on everyone else.

I am a Christian female that has had ENOUGH of this BS, and will not be silent when others try to force more of it on the next generation — which includes my daughters.    Battered women’s groups are FULL of pastor’s wives and deacon’s wives; and these major institutions’ leadership absolutely DO know that their men are sometimes attempting to kill their wives if they will not  ”submit” properly.  They elevate the worst elements in human character (and spirituality) for the sake of an ideal and are willing to sacrifice infants and others on it.  SO you tell me whether that’s a Judaeo-Christian value or not, and I”ll go look up the Old Testament and quote the New where God does NOT like literal human sacrifice.  This is going to virtual shari’a — only with a so-called “fine” distinction between Islam and so-called Christianity.

There are many more women like me — educated, faithful to our understanding of scripture but sensible into who we will sacrifice if it comes to a decision between an innocent child and a molesting father.  Or, for that matter, whether it comes to, en masse, supporting your institution or hanging out with people whose views may not be quite so “Biblical” but whose ethics much more closely resemble Jesus’  ! ! !  And who can read a single complete sentence of scripture without regurgitating it in scrambled up pieces, in order to get elected, or something else one wants.

This guy is clearly NUTS and anyone would be NUTS to put him ( or Romney) in power.  Let me explain a little further why I’d even consider putting up another tortuous post today, after that last one.

He’s trying to portray Obama as not Fatherhood Friendly enough, which shows how stupid taxpayers truly are, if the buy this.  And is there a little racism involved, or what?  Obama played both sides (Office of Women & Girls AND all “Jeffrey Leving” plus HHS increasing the percentage of Fatherhood Funding from a mere $50 million to a proposed $75 million. . . It’d be hard to find a more “gung-ho, Dads” kinda guy than our current President.  Do they say THANK YOU?  Not exactly:

Rick Santorum believes that to have a strong national economy, we must have strong families.  America’s government must recognize this and help create a positive pro-family environment for our families, our communities and our businesses.  Rick believes we are a land of opportunity where all Americans have the chance to rise on their own merits and hard work.  Sadly, President Obama believes just the opposite and using class warfare to divide America. 

Rick Santorum is committed to celebrating the family by reviving our economy and creating jobs in America again with a smarter and simpler tax code. Santorum will roll back job-killing regulations, force the federal government to shrink and live within its means by passing a Balanced Budget Amendment and reinvigorate our domestic manufacturing and energy potential.  His vision for America is to restore America’s greatness through the promotion of faith, family and freedom.  

WOW.  Shrink the budget and let’s just not talk about the multiple millions dumped into promoting fatherhood, abstinence, marriage, and some of it going straight not just to church-like institutions, but to actual pastors, things JFK would be turning in his grave about. . . .   Rick Santorum is Catholic, but not JFK’s style.  His style is apparently a lot closer to Bush’s evangelism through federal institutions.  More on that below.

MADE IN AMERICA: EMPOWERING AMERICAN FAMILIES, BUILDING ECONOMIC FREEDOM

1. Cut and simplify personal income taxes by cutting the number of tax rates to just two – 10% and 28% returning to the Reagan era pro-growth top tax rate
2. Simplify the tax code and reduce middle income taxes by eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)
3. Simplify the tax code, encourage savings and investment and reduce taxes by eliminating the Death Tax
4. Lower the Capital Gains and Dividend tax rates to 12% to spur economic growth and investment
5. Reduce taxes for families by tripling the personal deduction for each child

Women who’ve fled violent homes with their kids, thereby keeping all alive and possibly Dad too (see headlines) can go jump in the lake, hand over your kids for adoption first (though not to gay or lesbian couples); no tax deductions for YOU.  Triple for us.

Apparently he launched this campaign from PA (understandable):

Defending 2nd Amendment Rights

Coming from Pennsylvania, a state with a rich heritage of hunting and fishing, Senator Santorum understands firsthand the importance of preserving our constitutionally protected rights found in the 2nd Amendment. Senator Santorum fights to preserve this tradition, and will work to ensure these rights are not infringed upon.

As a Senator, Rick Santorum opposed frivolous lawsuits against the gun industry by supporting legislation (The Protection of Lawful Commerce Act) that would protect law abiding firearms manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits attempting to hold them liable for criminal acts of third parties.

That’s probably good, because what else is going to protect women from domestic violence and children from being raped and assaulted in juvenile (or other) institutions.  Pennsylvania right about now has developed a nice, rich tradition in that arena also (see Luzerne County, Penn State, etc.).  In fact it was studying Luzerne County RICO case and a related case involving the (heterosexual, your style) married wife of a police officer rapidly “losing it” and assaulting, stalking, harassing and threatening her — for years — until finally he shot a hole in her chest and (as I recall) managed to kill himself, but even so, not her.  And when she sought some damages, they quoted Castle Rock v. Gonzales (Colorado, mandatory arrest, 3 dead children, case is at the international human rights violation level, last I heard) saying, we have immunity — and you have no right to expect damages if police fail to protect.  Discretion, you know!

I have a LOT more to say, but let’s cut to the main point:  that pesky Opus Dei connection.

If you can (for the sake of convenience posting here) handle a “Puritan Weekly” calling Americans for Separation of Church and State a “wicked humanist” organization, they have pieced together some facts — as does the democratic underground and others.

I’ll just post the link and a chunk of quote and hope that some Iowans will think about this one — and Pennsylvanians.  If this country is going to go THAT way, I will personally dedicate myself to helping females evacuate not just Kansas (it’s about time…) but also the United States.   Since illegal immigration also has to be locked down, then people that THINK like this will have to find some of their own to have sex with and pick up their household messes, do their lowly work, etc.  I’m sure they’ll find substitutes, but for the record, I’m not going to stick around and subsidize this, nor should anyone.

We either hold allegiance to our founding principles and documents (whether or not ANY of our leadership does) or we do not.  Just say no to fascist Christianity and anti-everything but “us” morality!

OPUS DEI IN THE USA

 

By J. Parnell McCarter

What the Jesuit Order is for the left wing of the Roman Catholic Church, Opus Dei is for its right wing.  (Hegelian politics at its finest, for the Roman Catholic Church cannot lose if it has strong ties with both ends of the political spectrum!  Of course, to work it requires Protestants to be duped into political alliances with heretics.)  Many Protestants are not familiar with Opus Dei though, so a bit of education is necessary.

Although Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a wicked secular humanist {{smile…}} organization, its website contains useful information concerning Opus Dei.  One informative article, excerpted below, is at http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8183&abbr=cs_ :

“…Opus Dei, Latin for “work of God,” has, according to media reports, at least 3,000 members in the United States but its influence, critics say, has been more substantial than its numbers would indicate. In 2002, an Opus Dei priest, the Rev. C. John McCloskey III, former director of the Catholic Information Center, converted U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) from evangelical Protestantism to Catholicism. Brown­back’s conversion was shepherded by U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), a conservative Catholic and Opus Dei booster.

Long the scourge of progressive Catholics, Opus Dei, with an estimated 80,000 members worldwide, has enjoyed a close relationship with the church’s conservative hierarchy, serving, as one writer put it in the mid 1980s, as a “holy mafia” to promote far-right views on “culture war” issues. The organization has long had its own order of priests, and in 1982, Pope John Paul II granted Opus Dei special status known as a “personal prelature.” That means the group is overseen by its own bishop, who reports directly to the pope. Opus Dei is the only organization to enjoy such unique privileges…

Ann Schweninger, a former Opus Dei member, told Martin, “Opus Dei plays by its own rules. If they don’t want to have something out in the open, they won’t make it accessible.”…

Opus Dei does not publish a directory of members but is known for its interest in targeting the rich and powerful. Over the years, rumors have surfaced that certain high-profile Catholics might be members. Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito have been fingered as possibilities. There is no proof in either case, but Newsweek magazine reported in 2001 that Scalia’s wife has attended functions at the Catholic Information Center, and his son Paul, a Catholic priest, has spoken there.

Santorum is also pegged as a possible member. In 2002, Santorum attended an Opus Dei event in Rome, during which he attacked President John F. Kennedy’s famous 1960 endorsement of church-state separation. Santorum said the Kennedy vow not to enforce Catholic doctrine through civil law has caused “much harm in America” and went on to describe President George W. Bush, a Methodist, as the nation’s first true Catholic president.

“From economic issues focusing on the poor and social justice, to issues of human life, George Bush is there,” Santorum told the National Catholic Reporter. He has every right to say, ‘I’m where you are if you’re a believing Catholic.’”

…McCloskey foresees a smaller Catholic Church in the future, but he predicts that it will be much more obedient and will include “hundreds of thousands of Evangelical Protestants” who convert to Catholicism…

We can begin to see why a conservative Mormon might go for ultra-conservative Santorum on the basis of similar platforms, then.

WHY I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS:

How Conservative is Opus Dei — beyond beyond.  It is a cult:

Philippinefolio.com article talks about a young man’s recruitment (age 15), becoming an Opus Dei “Numerary” at age 17, immediately being told to switch housing and colleges — to avoid contamination by the liberal Jesuits, Hans Kung influence, etc.  and to recruit male students:

At that stage of our lives, Bernie Villegas and Jesus Estanislao loomed large as the best and the brightest of the land, dedicating their entire lives to God, as celibates foregoing all thoughts of sex, marriage and children, as apostolic laymen in mundane professions that move the wheels of civilization — politics, business, finance, economics, military warfare, education, legislation, press and others.
At the Maynilad Study Center, together with Hermilando “Dodo” Mandanas, Imelda Romualdez Marcos’ right hand man, Bernie Villegas and Jess Estanislao shaped our lives, our aspirations, our life goals. 
     I was contacted by the Opus Dei in high school when I was only 15 years of age. When I joined the Opus Dei as a numerary, I was 17, a 2nd year student of Liberal Arts and a boarder in the Ateneo. Immediately I was told by the Spanish heads of Opus Dei, Jose Cremades and Javier de Pedro, to move my residence from the Ateneo Cervini Hall dormitory to the Opus Dei Banahaw Cultural Center in Cubao, and eventually to leave Ateneo at the end of my second year (with only an AA degree) and enroll in the University of the Philippines. 
     The Opus Dei was afraid I was going to be contaminated by the liberal Jesuit theology — Teilhard de Chardin’s Phenomenon of Man, Divine Milieu and the next stage of man’s evolution; Harvey Cox’s Secular City which was the forerunner of Liberation Theology; and the avant garde post-Vatican II theologians like Hans Kung and Karl Rahner SJ who proposed the abandonment of Latin and the use of English and the vernacular in the Mass, ecumenism, Protestant hymns plus quasi-Protestant doctrines in the Sacramental theology of the Church — which today is already old hat.

….  They could not fraternize with females, lest it tempt their celibacy:

found to my dismay that most of my classmates were girls with whom male Numeraries are forbidden to fraternize, since we cannot take a chance of being tempted to violate our “personal commitment” to celibacy.

. . . I was enticed to go frequently to the Maynilad Center because I wanted to be well prepared for college. Little did I know that I was subtly being introduced and recruited into the Work (of God). There Bernie Villegas taught us study techniques and Jesus Estanislao taught us “how to speak with a Harvard accent,” which he claimed would guarantee us success in all our endeavors. Like his idol President John F. Kennedy, Jess said “Hahvahd” instead of Harvard, and “berl in erl” instead of “boil in oil.”

. . .It is also ironic that in the 1980s, Jess’ favorite American magazines, including Time magazine which made Bernie part of its Board of Economic Consultants, were forbidden reading material in all Opus Dei Centers in the world.
At that stage of our lives, Bernie Villegas and Jesus Estanislao loomed large as the best and the brightest of the land, dedicating their entire lives to God, as celibates foregoing all thoughts of sex, marriage and children, as apostolic laymen in mundane professions that move the wheels of civilization — politics, business, finance, economics, military warfare, education, legislation, press and others.
At the Maynilad Study Center, together with Hermilando “Dodo” Mandanas, Imelda Romualdez Marcos’ right hand man, Bernie Villegas and Jess Estanislao shaped our lives, our aspirations, our life goals.

. . . Two of my girl classmates were Severina Villegas, sister of Bernie and now Dean of Women in CRC University, and writer May Quimpo, both already Opus Dei Numeraries with whom I never exchanged a word for three whole years in consonance with our rules. Our leader Josemaria Escriva boasted that he never got close enough to a girl to notice the color of her eyes.

For young girls too — Opus Dei is not just a run-of-the-mill cult, it is a horrible one.  In this article, Opus Dei was acquitted, but the young women being recruited at age 14, finally got out, weighing only 86 pounds, in 2001.  Opus Dei (article says) was founded in 1928, its founder was canonized in 2002.  This is a nightmare — little sleep, pay reclaimed automatically from her bank account, when taken to an (Opus Dei) doctor, she was “drugged senseless.”  They are clearly predatory on young people.  Note:  This is RECENT:

Two Opus Dei members tried in French court

Agence France-Presse

7:39 am | Friday, September 23rd, 2011

PARIS—Two members of the powerful Roman Catholic organization Opus Dei went on trial in a Paris court on Thursday accused of subjecting a disciple to years of abusive working practices.

The case comes after a nine-year probe and centers on Catherine Tissier, who says that as a teenager she was forced to work 14-hour days, resulting in charges of inadequate remuneration and illegal employment.

Claire Bardon de Segonzac, the head of the Dosnon School attended by Tissier, and Agnes Duhail, head of the Couvrelles International Meeting Centre connected to the college in northern France, are defendants at the trial.

The University and Technical Culture Association (ACUT), which runs the school, is also a defendant, but has said it has no more than a “cultural link” with the conservative Opus Dei group.

She said she was forced to take vows and made to work as a domestic servant for virtually no pay.Opus Dei has insisted it was “not involved in the charges being brought” and had “nothing to be guilty about.” The accused are charged with having “obtained from young students of the Dosnon School or those in an obvious state of psychological fragility… unpaid services or those paid with no respect for the work done.”

Tissier said the group compelled her to take vows of obedience, poverty and chastity and for the following 13 years gave her jobs with organisations that her lawyer Rodolphe Bosselut said were linked to Opus Dei.

. . . . . .

 She’s the only one saying these things,” said Bardon de Segonzac.
“I’m the only one who dared lodge a complaint,” said Tissier. “I know people who got out and who say exactly what I say. Some of them still tell me: ‘I have nightmares at night. I’m afraid.’”

Staff accompanied her wherever she went, including on visits to the doctor, she said. On these occasions she said she was taken to see an Opus Dei doctor who prescribed tranquilisers that left her “senseless”. 

“I went to my parents’ doctor urgently in January 2001,” Tissier told the court. “He told me that I was heavily drugged, with anti-depressants.”
Tissier weighed only 39 kilograms (86 pounds) when her parents rescued her from the group in 2001.

Lawyers first took legal action that year alleging “mental manipulation” among other charges. Other witnesses who appeared in court Thursday denouced the tight grip that the sect exerts over many of its members.

They were acquitted, and she will appeal per Huffington Post — just a few months later.

 At age 29, she claimed she weighed just 39 kilograms (86 pounds).

Tissier filed a complaint in 2001.

Tissier’s lawyer, Rodolphe Bosselut, denounced what he said was the “extreme hostility” of the court toward his client. “She was treated like a defendant.”

A Telegraph.UK article adds some more detail to the first lawsuit, by Henry Samuel (Paris), 9/23/2011

Catherine Tissier said that, from the age of 14 until 27, she was forced to clean, wash and serve from 7am to 10pm, including weekends, with no holidays or proper pay in establishments run by Opus Dei. She said she was forced to take vows of obedience, poverty and chastity and was cut off from the outside world.

Now 40, she began a court action yesterday on charges of “concealed work” and “payment contrary to dignity”.

I wasn’t allowed to tell my parents [I was in Opus Dei],” she said. “They had become the devil. When they tried to contact me, they were told, ‘Your daughter is ours, she doesn’t belong to you any more, you can see her once a year.’” She said she was sent to see a doctor, whom she said was an Opus Dei follower and who told her she was depressed and put her on heavy medication. At the age of 29, she weighed little more than 6st.

She alleged that she was given high doses of an anti–psychotic drug. She said her parents rescued her from the organisation in January 2001 and claimed that it took her two and half years to recover.

Here’s the Hon. Rick Santorum (in 2002, Catholic On Line) in an article called “Fishers of Men” responding to the priest abuse of children scandal, or trying to.  Priests after all, are only human and society is decayed with moral relativism. What we need is a new hierarchy within the church and, as Pope John Paul II said, to mobilize the laity too (For Opus Dei & laity, see above):

Santorum blames society for Roman Catholic pedophile scandal http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=30

…It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning “private” moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture.*** When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected.*** While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

The cultural change needed cannot end with our seminaries. Most of the American Cardinals, while strong defenders of the faith , are from a different era with only a few responding to the new demands our decaying culture has place upon them. With God’s grace, a new hierarchy must emerge that will be both faithful in thought and courageous in confronting all infidelity within the Church. Such Church leaders have a great example in Pope John Paul II’s battle with communism’s attempt to destroy the Church and human dignity. A new hierarchy must similarly fight against an array of “isms”-moral relativism, cultural liberalism-inside and outside of the Church.

Church laity fighting moral relativism outside the church.  Guess that’s what family values is about?

Yes, “** ye are the salt of the earth… but if the salt have lost its flavor…” (Jesus, in the Beatitudes)  and *** (Romans 12) “Be ye not conformed to the world….”…..

Even now we witness this “new evangelization” through many ecclesial lay movements such as Opus Dei, the Neocatechumenate, Focolare, Regnum Christi, Communion and Liberation. The laity across America is also demanding faithful Catholic schools and colleges. The key to success, as the Pope stated in his 1999 exhortation, The Church in America, is to be “formed in the truths and values of the Church’s social teaching and in the basic notions of a theology of the laity.” A renewed, united effort of clergy and laity will transform the Church. That this does not already occur belies the greatest systemic failure of the Church in America where so many cradle Catholics have left the Church or go “unchurched” because of exposure to uninspired, watered down versions of our faith by those with deficient seminary training. In light of recent events, the laity must guide them back.
We as the Church, the people of God, cannot and should not leave the mission of the Church to the clergy alone, nor should our role be limited to overseeing priestly training and conduct. The laity must assist the whole Church in America reclaim our nominally Catholic colleges, schools, hospitals and social welfare agencies for the sake of our souls.

Yep:  Here’s an insignia for this too, at “Catholic Citizenship” (note:  most of these I’ve found by simply searching various terms;  however Talk2Action is a group I follow some).

 

Catholic Citizenship seeks to represent Roman Catholic voices in the public square. In May, 2010, Pope Benedict XVI called on the laity to become active in political life. Catholic Citizenship is following the Holy Father’s call by encouraging and enabling the faithful in civic engagement.

Catholic Citizenship supports the work of Catholic Bishops and Pastors in promoting a culture of life and family in government and politics. Catholic Citizenship is faithful to the Teaching Authority of the Roman Catholic Church and is loyal to His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI.

 

Here are two articles regarding Opus Dei active in Newton, Massachusetts, comparing it step by step to a cult.  This was written in 2002, and describes the TOTAL control of numeraries (most dedicated) who are to recruit; “supernumeraries” are allowed to marry.

How Opus Dei is Cult-Like  A sample:

• Numeraries typically report to their directors every time they leave or arrive at the Opus Dei house.  They are allowed only brief visits to their families, often with a chaperone.  They are not allowed to talk with members of the opposite sex behind closed doors.  Female numeraries are not allowed to hold babies.  Even personal friendships within Opus Dei are monitored and controlled.  Numeraries either live in single or triple rooms; this discourages them from becoming too close and from the temptation to discuss any of their doubts.  The one time when numeraries would have time to talk intimately with one another is at night after the examination of conscience; however, there is a “time of night” or silence, which is strictly enforced.  The only “friendships” they are allowed to cultivate are the ones with potential recruits.  All other friends are a waste of time.
• Numeraries have very little time for leisure, entertainment or vacations.  Movie and concert-going are discouraged as a “waste of time” because there is little time for apostolic conversations at these events.  Numeraries do go on one excursion per month with the other numeraries in their house.  Even if they have too much homework to do, they may still be directed to go and “have fun.”  If the excursion happens to be a trip to the beach, female numeraries are not allowed to lie down on a towel and sunbathe.  They always have to be in the upright position and must cover up their bathing suits, unless they are swimming in the water.  Otherwise, strangers might see the red prick marks or scabs made from wearing the cilice (a spiked chain typically worn around the thigh for two hours daily.)  Instead of vacations, numeraries attend an annual “summer course,” when they attend more indoctrination classes, but may have a little more time for afternoon “excursions,” which could also be some sort of a pilgrimage to a holy shrine.  Discussion in the car on trips is directed around subjects such as anecdotes about the Founder of Opus Dei or alleged miracles attributed to his intervention.
• Female Opus Dei numeraries sleep on a board placed on top of their mattress.  This definitely can interfere with sleep as the board does not absorb body heat and she easily wakes up cold.  One night a week the numerary is supposed to sleep without a pillow.

 

Intro relates this to Steve Hassan’s work on mind control and breaking free from cults… I put the excerpts above this intro:, below:

by Sharon Clasen, Former Numerary

Members are free to come, free to go, free to participate, free not to, free to walk right out the door, free to stay” [1] is deceptive.  The true personal freedom of numerary members, who make up 25-30% of all members, is hindered by the following controls that are put into place by Opus Dei.  The following table illustrates how Opus Dei’s methods resemble those used by cults.  It uses Steve Hassan’s BITE model (Behavior, Information, Thought and Emotional) of mind control described inReleasing the Bonds, Empowering People to Think for Themselves [2] as the basis for comparison.  (For more details about Hassan’s model, see the excerpt from his book.)

The examples cited in the right-hand column are based on the personal experiences of Sharon Clasen, who was a supernumerary for three years and a numerary for two years.  She experienced the following while living at Brimfield, the Center of Studies for numerary women in the United States. (All numeraries typically live in the Center of Studies for two years for intense study of the “spirit of Opus Dei.” There are separate Centers of Studies for numerary men.)  Also included are some writings of the Founder of Opus Dei (taken from The Way by Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer) as well as the testimonies from other former members. 

AND the other, apparently in distraught (or protesting) at the canonization of the founder of this group.  Notice (from my excerpt) that a Nassau District Attorney was a “Supernumerary” member.

Newsday/October 6, 2002

To 85,000 disciples around the world, Msgr. Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer was a man ahead of his time. The Spanish priest said that ordinary people could achieve lives of holiness by doing the everyday work of the world, and he created Opus Dei – or ‘work of God’ – dedicated to that ideal.

To his critics, he was an arrogant, ill-tempered cleric who built a zealous and secretive organization around the cult of his own personality. Opus Dei’s highest-echelon members promise celibacy, turn over their paychecks to the group and in some cases, wear spiked chains and flagellate themselves.

Today, after one of the shortest waiting times in church history, Escriva will be declared a saint in a Vatican ceremony expected to draw at least 250,000 people.

To the delight of theological conservatives and the dismay of some progressives, the man who created the most controversial organization in the Roman Catholic Church has been on a fast track to canonization since he died in 1975, largely due to the overt patronage of Pope John Paul II, who has vigorously promoted the group’s work.

“From all I know about his life, he was a saint,” said Nassau District Attorney Denis Dillon, who was a married or “supernumerary”  member of Opus Dei for 10 years. . . . 

But Tammy DiNicola, 34, of Pittsfield, Mass., who joined the group’s elite echelon of celibate members after being lobbied heavily as a student at Boston College, said Opus Dei operates like a cult.

“I see this as a black day in the history of the church,” she said of Escriva’s canonization. “I really think that Opus Dei is a cancer on the church.”

DiNicola said she learned only after moving into a residence for celibate females in Newton, Mass., that she had to surrender control of her finances, have her mail monitored and cut back family ties. Besides a daily regimen of prayer and meditation, she said, she had to sleep on a wooden board, wear a chain with spikes around her thigh for two hours daily and flagellate herself with a small rope.

Her mother, Dianne DiNicola, said her daughter became withdrawn and distant until, in 1991, the family hired a counselor to persuade her to leave. Afterward, they founded the Opus Dei Awareness Network, a support group for families who have children in Opus Dei. Since then, Dianne DiNicola said she has received thousands of calls from all over the world from families, as well as ex-members, who tell stories similar to her daughter’s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have something to say.   Many, many aspects of the Opus Dei control match — pretty closely (except the sleep on a board aspect, at least in my experience) what plain old “ABUSE” is like — domestic violence, etc.  It is enslavement, it is attempt to dominate another person, body, soul and spirit (and definitely finances) against their will.  In some cases this is justified with religion (Catholic or otherwise) in all cases, it is damaging and takes time to recover from.

In particular, the attempt to occupy all one’s free time, monitoring one’s mail, forbid holding of bank accounts or make it impossible, constant disruptions, degrading activities outside the marriage, degrading one’s relatives,  - – - and I know that this has been done right now to our own children after extracting them from sometimes people “outing” the abuse.

IT is an attempt to break someone’s spirit, to dominate them.  What is most sinister, however, about Opus Dei is that its allegiance is to the Vatican — NOT the U.S.!!  

For many, marriage itself is LIKE this type of experience.  Whether Republican or Democrat wins next year — and whichever of the Iowan contenders for “most pro-evangelical conservative” come out on top — NONE of them spells good news for women, or this country, til this issue of Religion in Government is handled.

But I would put Mr. Santorum at the bottom of the heap (despite Romney being Mormon) — because of this Opus Dei Association.

 

NOW let’s talk about Father Finn’s Cover up of Child Abuse, and the Deal he cut to avoid criminal prosecution for that coverup!  (this is from the ODAN site, which has more links on the story, too):

 

Opus Dei Bishop Indicted for Failure to Report Suspected Abuse

Bishop Robert Finn, Opus Dei member and bishop of the Diocese of Kansas City-St. Joseph, was indicted in October for failing to report suspected child abuse by a priest under his jurisdiction and diocese (Father Shawn Ratigan).  The accused priest was charged for taking pornographic pictures of underage girls.

Bishop Finn was informed of the pictures discovered on Ratigan’s computer in December 2010, yet failed to alert police until May 11, 2011.  This, despite the fact that Finn had agreed in a $10 million settlement with 47 plaintiffs three years ago to immediately report suspicions of child abuse to law enforcement officials.

According to a report by the Religion News Service, Finn has agreed to a deal with law enforcement in Clay County to allow monthly oversight by prosecutors over the next five years.  Charges still stand against Finn in neighboring Jackson County.

Not only has Bishop Finn breached the promises he made in the settlement three years ago, he has also ignored demands for his resignation from parishioners and abuse victims, who feel hurt and betrayed.  In an article appearing in huffingtonpost.com, former spokesman for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and well-known Opus Dei member Russell Shaw fails to identify himself as an Opus Dei member while speaking in Finn’s defense.  Shaw called repeated demands for Finn’s resignation “terribly distasteful” and implied that because Finn apologized, all should be forgiven and forgotten.

Finn is now the highest-ranking church official to be criminally charged with sheltering a priest suspected of sex abuse.  For more information:

Talk2Action has more to say on this affair and the group, and points out that the Vatican is assigning (Opus Dei / culture warrior-type) bishops around liberal American Cities, lest the Catholics in those cities support things the church doesn’t approve of, i.e., collective bargaining rights, etc.:

Bishop Finn’s appointment in Kansas City-St. Joseph appears to be part of a pattern in which the Vatican has placed vehement Catholic Right culture warriors in diocese serving liberal American cities.  The appointment of  Bishop Robert Morlino in Madison, Wisconsin is another excellent example. While municipal servants were recently fighting a conservative governor to keep their right to collectively bargain, Morlino did his best to pour cold water on Catholic support for the workers.  Madison is also the home to important embryonic stem cell research. Likewise, Archbishop Joseph Chaput‘s appointment in Philadelphia and Archbishop Timothy Dolan in New York. To the east of Dolan sits bishop Nicholas DiMarzio in Brooklyn and to his west, Bishop John J. Myers in Newark – both Opus Dei members.  Other recent Opus Dei appointments include Archbishop Jose H. Gomez in Los Angeles, and Bishop John O. Barres in Allentown, Pennsylvania.

 

Opus Dei Bishop Appointed Head of Los Angeles Diocese

Archbishop Jose H. Gomez was announced coadjutor and future archbishop of the Los Angeles diocese on April 6, 2010.  Ordained as an Opus Dei priest in 1978, Gomez is the first Latino archbishop in Los Angeles.  The Los Angeles diocese is the largest diocese in the United States and one of the largest in the world.  Gomez will succeed Cardinal Roger M. Mahony in February 2011 when Manony turns 75, the age when bishops must submit their resignation to the Pope.

Born in Monterrey, Mexico in 1951, Gomez joined Opus Dei when in college.  He has degrees in business and philosophy from the National University of New Mexico (1975) and a doctorate in theology from the Opus Dei-run University of Navarre.  Previous to his appointment in Los Angeles, Gomez was archbishop in San Antonio, Texas since 2005.  Gomez became a US citizen in 1995.

News reports predict that it is likely Gomez will be appointed a cardinal in the years ahead.  In an article written by John Allen Jr., Gomez is quoted as saying that “he is not a “member” of Opus Dei, but rather that he was ordained a priest in Opus Dei and that his spirituality reflects that background. If he’s a “member” of anything now, he says, it’s the diocese he leads.”

For more information:
“Four Points to Make about Gomez and LA” by John Allen Jr., April 9, 2010
http://ncronline.org/blogs/all-things-catholic/four-points-make-about-gomez-and-la

AND one about recruitment of minors.  Written from a boy who was recruited at about age 12.

 

The top article of this post — from the Washington Times — linked “Santorum” to another article, here:

TOP IOWA MORMON SHUNS ROMNEY TO STUMP WITH SANTORUM

by Paige Winfield Cunningham, The Washington Times, January 2, 2012

RANGE CITY, Iowa — As GOP presidential hopeful Rick Santorum spent Sunday stumping in northwestern Iowa, it was he — and not rival Mitt Romney — who had Mormon Secretary of StateMatt Schultz at his side.

Instead of backing Mr. Romney, a fellow Mormon,Mr. Schultz chose to support Mr. Santorum early last month while the devoted Catholic was still lagging near the bottom of the pack. He pointed to “core values” the two share, offering the former Pennsylvania senator another endorsement based not on his religion, but his positions.

Mr. Santorum has been pocketing endorsements from non-Catholic social conservatives, despite spending most of the campaign season overshadowed in a Republican field that includes three evangelicals, two Mormons and one fellow Catholic.

He recently won highly sought-after endorsements from prominent Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats, head of the Family Leader,** andChuck Hurley, president of the Iowa Family Policy Centre.**

TAGGS (federal funding):

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
IOWA FAMILY POLICY CENTER	PLEASANT HILL	IA	50327-7072	POLK	967718255	$ 3,050,000

Funded up through 2009 to reach this total.  Watch out for the Compassion Capacity Building grants — they will escalate (multiply) the next year:  See the Three kinds of grants so far….

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90FE0126	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	1	0	ACF	09-22-2006	967718255	$ 550,000
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 550,000

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2005	90EJ0053	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM	1	0	ACF	09-13-2005	967718255	$ 800,000
Fiscal Year 2005 Total:								$ 800,000

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2004	90IJ0143	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	0	ACF	07-23-2004	967718255	$ 50,000
Fiscal Year 2004 Total:								$ 50,000

Using this “DUNS Number” I go to USASpending and find, as anticipated:

1.  The source of this money is welfare funding:

Program Source:

75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

2.  As so often — USASPending.gov’s total for this same group shows as over one million dollars less than HHS’s.  Either USASpending is UNDER-reporting, or HHS is OVER reporting.  In this case, by approximately >50%.

• Total Dollars:$1,650,000
• Transactions:1 – 3 of 3

Like clockwork it was distributed under three different titles, to Mr. Hurley:

Fiscal Year	Program Office	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2009	OFA	90FE0126	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	4	09/17/2009	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 550,000
2008	ACF	90FE0126	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	3	09/22/2008	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 550,000
2007	ACF	90FE0126	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	2	09/21/2007	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 550,000
2006	OFA	90FE0126	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	1	09/22/2006	93086	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 550,000
2005	OCS	90EJ0053	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM	1	09/13/2005	93009	Compassion Capital Fund	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 800,000
2004	OCS	90IJ0143	CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE	1	07/23/2004	93647	Social Services Research and Demonstration	CHUCK HURLEY	$ 50,000

Results 1 to 6 of 6 matches.

**The Family Leader and that Iowa Family Policy Center  show here — more information to follow.

It says it is a 501(c)3.  Naturally, I will check that out:

“

IFPC is our primary education division of The FAMiLY LEADER.  Presenting the truth through education can result in the action necessary to defend traditional family values.

IFPC, a 501(c)3 organization, believes that presenting the truth through education is fundamental in reversing the breakdown of a productive, ordered society caused by the failure of families to produce God-fearing church, civic, social, and family leaders.  One of IFPC’s key strategies is to engage Christians with truthful, biblical, and consistent messages.”

The Family Leader also features a trademarked group:

Marriage Matters® is a Christ-centered {{for-profit, no doubt}} organization that strengthens families by strengthening marriages.  This is accomplished primarily through marriage mentoring.

This is SO easy to translate.  It is a federally-funded, faith-based, fatherhood-friendly,  from the Marriage Movement, probably through diverting welfare away from families who need it, more than lectures or classes on marriages.  Their “Partners” are a series of churches

And, an Andy Kopsa (we’ve crossed paths before on similar topics) has already done some 990 lookups and a history on The Family Leader and The Iowa Policy Center.  Good read:

FPC denies new group has ties to national organization with same name

Iowa Family Policy Center will relaunch as The Family Leader at event Sunday featuring Mike Huckabee

By Andy Kopsa | 11.19.10 | 10:04 am

Despite sharing a name, numerous connections and an anti-gay marriage agenda, Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck Hurley says the new incarnation of his organization — The Family Leader — has no affiliation whatsoever to a national groupwith the same name and apparent ties to the Mormon church.

IFPC’s The Family Leader will be an umbrella group led by former gubernatorial candidate Bob Vander Plaats, fresh from his successful campaign to oust three Iowa Supreme Court justices for their 2009 gay marriage ruling. The new group will incorporate the Iowa Family Policy Center, the IFPC PAC and the formerly federally funded program Marriage Matters. *** More specifics about the group are expected to be announced this weekend at IFPC’s annual fundraiser featuring possible 2012 presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee.

In 2004 Chuck Hurley earned $26K as President (for a 40 hour week) on the IFPC Political Action Center Inc.  (EIN# 421469051, CHUCK HURLEY 1100 N HICKORY BLVD #105 DES MOINES, IA 50327) with Program Goal “

“DEVELOP, ADVOCATE, AND SUPPORT LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AT THE STATE-LEVEL WITH THE ULTIMATE GOAL OF SUPPORTING CHRISTIAN FAMILY VALUES”

In the same year and at the same address, he ALSO earned $42K (working, again a 40 hour week — must not be married?) at the IFPC itself (EIN# 421461169), which spent over $335K to:

‘STRENGTHEN IOWA FAMILIES BY PRESENTING A TRADITIONAL FOUNDATION OF PRINCIPLES AND VALUES (whatever that means!) FOR THE WELL BEING OF OUR SOCIETY IN THE PUBLIC POLICY ARENA”    

Vander Plaats told the Des Moines Register that the main focus of the group will bevetting and endorsing 2012 presidential candidates.

According to 990 tax forms, the national Family Leader Network was founded in 2006 and is based in Fairfax, Va. However, there is no such entity listed with the Virginia Secretary of the Commonwealth.*** The 990 was filed by a board member of The Family Leader Network based in Utah, but the Utah Secretary of State has no record of the organization either.

It is a very common, common situation for faith-based nonprofits to “forget to file” as a corporation at the state level, or as a charity at the state level.  I find this literally almost every single day.  This morning, I found “Pennsylvania Family Institute” (from a Marriage Matters conference in 2000 pdf).  Unbelievable — some of these are also LARGE when they fail to file.

The national Family Leader Network recently joined with the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) to file an Amicus brief in support of California’s Prop 8, a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage that was overturned by a federal judge.  NOM was instrumental in Vander Plaats’ campaign to oust three Supreme Court justices, spending $635,627 in Iowa, including more than $435,000 on TV advertising. The group also spent nearly $30,000 to co-sponsor the statewide “Judge Bus” tour that capped off the anti-retention campaign.

I like this reporter Andy Kopsa.  Here’s why:  We seem to be investigating the same sorts of data:

IOWA POLICY CENTER RECEIVED OVER $3 MILLION OF FEDERAL FUNDS

By Andy Kopsa in the Iowa Independent, APril 20, 2010

Between 2004 and 2009 the politically influential Christian organization Iowa Family Policy Center (IFPC) received more than $3 million in federal grants through two subsidiaries of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck Hurley speaking on the steps of the state Capitol earlier this year (photo by Jason Hancock/Iowa Independent).

In 2004 and 2005 the IFPC received a total of $850,000 from the Administration for Children and Families’ Compassion Capital Fund.  From 2006 to 2009 they received $2.2 million through the U.S. Healthy Marriage Demonstration Fund, which is doled out in yearly increments of $550,000 and will be awarded to IFPC through 2011.

The Iowa Family Policy Center’s 2007 tax return claims $558,337 of their $1.1 million revenue came from federal grants. Tom Campbell, a representative at the Administration of Children and Families (ACF), the awarding agency within the HHS, said this money must be passed from the IFPC to a third-party to execute the Healthy Marriage Demonstration — the name under which the grants were awarded to IFPC — as part of the government’s Healthy Marriage Program.

The money IFPC receives apparently goes to a marriage-counseling program calledMarriage Matters, which offers couples weekends along with marriage and pre-marital mentoring.

AND:

Spending overlap probable

Dr. Mike Hartwig is the vice president of the Iowa Family Policy Center, for which he receives an annual salary of $78,098. Hartwig also serves as the program director for IFPC’s Marriage Matters, the program that is supposed to be the recipient of the federal grants.

Mike Hartwig, Chuck Hurley, Bryan English, Marriage Matters, The Iowa Family Policy Center and the IFPC Action PAC all share office space at 1100 N. Hickory Blvd. in Pleasant Hill, just east of Des Moines.

(this is still quotation….)

According to a representative of the U.S. Healthy Marriage program in Washington, D.C., federal grants are to be passed out through an intermediary organization (IFPC) to the Healthy Marriage Program contractor (Marriage Matters). But he did admit that certain overlap in spending might occur between the grantee and contractor programs, although not technically allowed.

Marriage Matters is not registered with Iowa Secretary of State as a separate corporation, but rather as a registered trademark of the Iowa Family Policy Center.

If people do not look, they will not know.  It is probably impossible, at this point to catch up with how many similar groups there are.  Essentially “Marriage Matters” sounds like it IS IFPC — meaning IFPC would then be functioning as a “front group” and channeling funds.  This is why the funding needs to be SHUT DOWN first, and CITIZENS — not cronies — GET TO INVESTIGATE BY THE KAZILLIONS, JUST HOW MANY OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS WERE HONEST, AND WHICH ONES WERE CHEATING.  THEN WE (?) CAN START A CLASS ACTION GROUP AS TAXPAYERS FOR THIS FUNDING, OR OTHER WHISTLEBLOWER ACTIVITIES.  BECAUSE FINANCIAL CORRUPTION OFTEN GOES SIDE BY SIDE WITH CHILD ABUSE.  ONE CAN HELP TRACK THE OTHER.  OTHER WISE, TOO FEW OF THE GROUPS HAVE THE SAME ETHICS THEY ARE PREACHING, AND JUST GO -REFORM ELSEWHERE.  AFTER ALL, GOD IS BEHIND IT, RIGHT  ? ???

QUESTION — WHEN FUNDS AREN’T HANDLED HONESTLY, OR GO MISSING — WHERE DO THEY GO, AND FOR WHAT PURPOSES?  Honest PURPOSES for DISHONEST GAIN??  (sure….)

The federal Compassion Capital and Healthy Marriage grants are meant to build capacity and conduct training of staff and board of directors but may not be used in the direct administration of service. This means that IFPC’s Marriage Matters can use the money to train staff and volunteers as marriage mentors, but cannot pay the expenses to host a weekend mentoring retreat for couples or for any other direct service expenditures.

The HHS representative said that from every indication the IFPC met all the requirements on the front end for securing the grant.

{{next time, please post a name, dept. and contact info!}}

The awarding federal agency is responsible for oversight on the back end, after the money has been released to the grantee. However, many times the HHS relies on citizen’s reporting suspected abuse in use of federal dollars to begin an investigation.

(end quotation)

It’s apparently gotten a little to conservative Christian Candidate-rich to make a choice.  ONe blogger (Kathy Obradovich in the Des Moines Register)  suggested they should cancel the caucuses and just ask Chuck Hurley to pick someone:

Cue the tiny violins. Hurley, quoted by The Des Moines Register, suggested some of the candidates should drop out, so one of them would have a shot at winning the caucuses. “Why can’t the top three or so pro-family candidates come together and figure out who has the talents for president, who has the talents for other roles?”

Ah, heck. Why can’t we just cancel the caucuses and let Hurley decide who should win? The fact is, the Family Leader and other evangelical conservatives in Iowa have had an embarrassment of riches. It’s remarkable that four out of the six candidates still in the Iowa race — Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry along with Bachmann and Santorum — managed to meet the group’s criteria for having a “Biblical world view.” One of the others, Mitt Romney, seemed to have been excluded more for skipping evangelical groups’ events than for his current positions on specific issues.

SANTORUM apparently visited Boston and attacked JFK’s speech on separation of church and state.  No way, says the Hon. Santorum:

The Song of Santorum Frederick Clarkson  print page      Mon Jan 02, 2012 at 12:27:37 AM EST In light of late polls apparently showing Rick Santorum “surging” in Iowa, it seems like a good moment to reprise a post from March, when Santorum visited Massachusetts.Former Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) who is considering running for president, recently visited Boston, a major hub of Catholic politics and the biggest media market in New England.  While minor appearances by non-candidates don’t always make the news, Santorum’s remarks to a small group of Church partisans made The Boston Globe because he not only denounced our first Catholic president, John F. Kennedy in his home town, but he attacked Kennedy’s historic 1960 campaign speech in which he explained his unwavering clarity regarding the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. Kennedy’s position had  served as the standard for a half century of political leaders. (See Rob Boston’s excellent defense of Kennedy’s views on separation.)

That’s enough for today. But no matter WHO gets elected, we all will still have to deal with the Fascist/Christian (so-called) attempt to put in a nice shadow government in the US (or with the one that’s already here), and figure out where we take OUR place in this matter.  Sidelines and fences will become increasingly hard places to sit in.  Particularly I foresee some more insistence by women that we have had ENOUGH, and stop robbing us of our daughters, lest they, too, catch a glimpse of spiritual, moral, psychological — and financial — sunlight, particularly any of those who witnessed violence in the home, growing up.