Archive for June 2011

Evaluate, Coordinate, Sow the Seeds of Mother-Hate (a.k.a. How to Accuse a Mom of Alienation)

I’m going to print that commentary here:

Typically, a Guardian Ad Litem is appointed in Family Court matters where a child is at risk due to a crisis within the family structure. In most counties across the state, about 5 – 8 percent of all family court cases has a Guardian appointed to make sure that at-risk child(ren) have access to legal representation of their own. It’s a good idea and it often saves children from abuse. In all other counties, there is a list of attorneys to select from.

However, in Lackawanna County, the appointment rate of a Guardian is nearly 100% of all family court cases. And, there is no list from which to select. There’s one Guardian that gets all the cases. It’s been that way since Harhut took over Family Court.

For years now, Family Court judges have appointed Atty. Danielle Ross as the Guardian in practically every single case. About a dozen cases a week are handed to Ross on a silver platter. The parents have to immediately cough up $600 as her fee, plus she tacks on heavy fees once she’s on board if she’s called upon for a recommendation in a custody proceeding. Ross picks up about $7200.00 a week, every week of the year, and it’s been going on like that for years, which why she drives a bevy of exotic cars and takes non-stop vacations.

{{more than one income stream, county-mandated services, county-paid salary, plus what else?}}

90% of the families have no crisis situation that requires her presence. Some families have kids under five years-old who are not at risk of any abuse, yet they are ordered to pay Ross $600.00 anyway. Ross gets a salary from the county, plus a free county office, free phone and utilities and a free county secretary, even though she’s easily good for half-a-mil a year, year after year.

Then, there’s the quality of her work. Having so many cases, she’s often very difficult to access when problems arise. Once appointed, it takes her weeks to make contact with the family. In fact, she’s required to inspect every house, which she can’t possibly do, so she sends her county-paid secretary, Sue, with no qualifications, to inspect these houses and the family pays her an additonal $100.00, which, by the way, is required to be paid to Sue only in cash.

Ross has a history of making custody recommendations to the court that are extremely politically motivated. She meets with children as little as 5 – 6 years old and interrogates and manipulates them to get them to agree to certain custody conditions that certain “political” litigants want. She’s personally serviced many county employees or cronies to get them a customized custody order, because the judge of the day follows her recommendations. I have some of those outrageous orders in my possession. There are many very angry parents who want Ross’ head on a stake, to say nothing of lawyers on the business end of her biased and unjust recommendations.

Claire Czaykowski is the Court Administrator for Family Court. She’s Harhut’s former tipstaff. He appointed her upon his appointment as President Judge. Claire gets certain cases scheduled before certain judges to make sure the “right” judge hears the “right” cases. If you call Family Court, in fact, it’s Danielle Ross’ voice that welcomes you to Family Court.

{{Case-steering, in other words. it’s a network of interlinked associations…}}

If anyone has a Family Court case involving Danielle Ross, wherein they are unhappy with Ross’ recommendations and the Court’s Custody Order that was issued as the result of it, I’d like to hear from you. I’m in possession of quite a few now, but the more the better.

This Kids for Kash Scheme needs to come to a halt. It’s time to end Ross’ Cash Cow days. Rumors of her paying kickback are out there, but I can’t prove anything, yet. That’s yet. If a Guarian Ad Litem is needed, that’s all well and fine, but in most cases kids are not at risk and the family does not need Ross’ interference or expensive fees for nothing.

And the link contains the feedback, including that this woman drives a $145K Mercedes, and doesn’t even do her own work, but hires others out to do so. AMong the comments:

Ourtraged parents have had to be dragged out of the courtroom over complaints about recommendation made by Ross. On top of the $300 each parent has to pay, Ross then bills at $200 an hour for talking with the family. She likes being alone with the kids and asks them very compromising questions to help steer her findings to assist who she likes in a custody case. The woman knows nothing about what’s best for kids, only what’s best for who’s best friends with the court system.

Different venue, sounds like the same behaviors….

This isn’t about “Kids First,” or Kids, at all; it’s about Purchase Immediately My Products (a.k.a. PIMPs in Govt, Inc.). Public Service? This is the public serving the self-appointed parenting preachers under guise of “it’s good for you,” i.e., public benefit.

It goes on:

Counsel and litigants without counsel are ORDERED to immediately consult their schedules for conflicts and to promptly request a continuance where necessary because of a prior attachment or emergency situation. ALL requests for a continuance of a Custody Conciliation conference must be made on the APPLICATION FOR CONTINUANCE form available from the offices of the Court Administrator, Custody Conciliator or Prothonotary in the Schuylkill County Courthouse. The application must be filed in the Custody Conciliation Office. A continuance will be granted only upon good cause shown.

The moving party shall immediately serve on all interested parties a copy of the original pleading, this order, ”Kids First” registration and information, and a custody conciliation questionnaire; and shall further file an affidavit verifying service.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: The Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County is required by law to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. For information about accessible facilities and reasonable accommodations available to disabled individuals having business before the court, please contact our office. All arrangements must be made at least 72 hours prior to any program, hearing or business before the court. You must attend the scheduled conference or hearing.

[Pa.B. Doc. No. 10-2355. Filed for public inspection December 10, 2010, 9:00 a.m.]

No part of the information on this site may be reproduced for profit or sold for profit.

This material has been drawn directly from the official Pennsylvania Bulletin full text database. Due to the limitations of HTML or differences in display capabilities of different browsers, this version may differ slightly from the official printed version.

This concept didn’t just appear fully-formed in the brain of this judge, this county, or these mediators; it was circulated among professionals with decades of experience requiring others to consume their product, get business referred to their nonprofits, and doing this at public AND private expense, and through the courts.

why do I think this is probably a Kids Turn knockoff? Call it feminine intuition, or that I happen to live in California where a man running for judge, who started a Kids First of Orange County (aka Orange County Welfare Coalition, a nonprofit) simply said he modeled it after Kids Turn:

http://www.fullertonsfuture.org/2010/gerald-l-klein-for-judge/

Among his accomplishments, he founded Kid’s First in 1996. It is a program for separated or divorced parents and their children. Both parents attend this 8 week course together with their children to help the kids cope with changes in the family.

Klein has been practicing law for 33 years and has sat as a temporary volunteer judge in Orange and Los Angeles counties since 1981. He is active in the community and he also teaches Family Law and Community Property as a part-time professor at a local law school. Although I only witnessed his expertise in family law, he is familiar with many types of law as he had a general practice in his early years.

“The Story of “Kids First”

The History

The “Kids First” program is a project of the Orange County Welfare Coalition, Inc., a nonprofit corporation started by Attorney Gerald L. Klein and Attorney Ruth Shapin, MFT, in 1975. Through 1990, the coalition assisted individuals in obtaining governmental entitlements including social security and supplemental security disability benefits.

Left to right: Robert Schuler, Gerald Klein, Sara Doudna and Ruth Shapin, along with Kids First Staff members

Recognizing the need for a program focusing on the needs of children whose parents are separated, in 1995 Attorney Klein began looking for such a program. In 1995, he learned of the “Kids Turn” program in San Francisco which dealt with families going through divorce. The coalition adopted their idea and curriculum. Sara Doudna, MFT, became the Clinical Director, expanded upon it, and “Kids First” was born.

In 1996, “Kids First” became operational.”

Ms. Doudna-Klein (she married him??):

have worked extensively for twenty years with addiction problems and with individuals, couples and families in recovery. I am familiar with all forms of addiction but am most experienced with alcoholism. Ten years ago I co-founded a non-profit program for families in divorce. I am familiar with the issues that affect all members of a family during the divorce process. I am also experienced in the assessment and treatment of “Parental Alienation”.

Mrs. Sara Doudna-Klein, LMFT, Marriage & Family Therapist in Huntington Beach

Situations

involving divorce

Check out Kids First

A Program Helping Family in Divorce

http://www.kidsfirstoc.org/

Positive co-parenting
Single Parenting
Parental Alienation
Parent-Child Reunification
Blended Families

Or on another site: ” I am clinical director and co-founder of this nonprofit program called “Kids First”. Gerald L. Klein, Family Law Specialist founded the program in 1997. Since that time, we have served the community of Orange County and surrounding areas to make a difference in the lives of the parents and kids in the process of divorce.”

These behaviors and products are prime-time AFCC.

and overall would be Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), and perhaps may be with, however, the habit of actually legalizing this behavior may compromise it from being prosecuted under RICO. Also, if it were fully explored and prosecuted, as I may just about to show, it would possibly not clean up, but also completely empty out the family law system Justice = Therapy-dispensing monopoly of judges, mediators, certified family law specialist, and all kinds of psychologist, from J.D.-endowed Psy.D.s to the lowly man or woman who paid up the latest AFCC-approved parenting coordinator, or mediator, or supervised visitation center training course.

Cleaning up the racketeering element of AFCC might end up shutting down the system, because it is probably (at this point) not possible to separate the private nonprofit association, “Association of Family & Conciliation Courts” from the concept (and practice) of family law, at all. this is such a fixture of our society that people forget it had an origin, and at one time, did not exist. This origin was NOT by public, grassroots demand, but it was (like most oppressive systems) from top-down; by highly placed legislators, judges, and/or others who got a law passed, started practicing, and then expanded.

On the other hand, passive inaction will just send the US economy downhill faster –a situation for which those who’ve been marketing these things will be in a better position to handle than those they force to consume their products. At least they know how to operate businesses, reduce taxes, and even in some cases do it under the radar, avoiding taxes and dumping the real social needs of society (housing, food, water, the ability to defend onesself and one’s property — or to own property or assets of any sort) on those already hardest hit.

The RICO link, above, explains how the law began in the 1970s to stop the Mafia, in 1980s was applied to more individual situations, and in the 1990s the federal government sought to restrict this use:

During the 1990’s, the federal courts, guided by the United States Supreme Court, engaged in a concerted effort to limit the scope of RICO in the civil context. As a result of this effort, civil litigants must jump many hurdles and avoid many pitfalls before they can expect the financial windfall available under RICO, and RICO has become one of the most complicated and unpredictable areas of the law.

Today, RICO is almost never applied to the Mafia. Instead, it is applied to individuals, businesses, political protest groups, and terrorist organizations.”

That said, let’s note that two judges in PA were convicted of this, recently — in Luzerne County; “Kids for Cash” scheme. And I cannot think of a better descriptive word, given the powerfully-connected (judges are members) and internet-connected, conference-churning, international, and training-oriented private “nonprofit” organization called “the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” — particularly when the associated network of nonprofits working with it are considered. Talk about undue influence! People who are subjected to this treatment routinely call it “Mafia” or refer to extortion, which I believe overall, the practices are. Doesn’t that last one sound like extortion (though only for $40, do the math X how many divorces and custody modifications…..)? Why, for example, shouldn’t someone besides Libassi Mediation be able to run a simple Kids First class? And what happened to Dr. Chet? Has he got his own line of business with the county now?

HOW I”M GOING TO SPLIT UP THE 17,000-WORD POST:

I AM GOING TO JUST “CUT & PASTE” INTO DIFFERENT POSTS. THIS IS NOT CALLED EDITING, IT’S CALLED, I GUESS, MACHETE CopyEditing.

ONCE THE BASIC INFORMATION IS OUT, I DO NOT FEEL RESPONSIBLE TO KEEP PUBLISHING AND BLOGGING IT — CAVEAT EMPTOR CUSTODY COURTS. THEY ARE BASICALLY (ANYMORE) PRIVATE, NONPROFIT ENTERPRISES WITH A VENEER OF PUBLIC LEGITIMACY. THOSE WHO DON’T TAKE TIME TO LOOK ARE PASSING THE BUCK TO THOSE WHO HAVE HAD TO, BECAUSE THEY WEREN’T SO FORTUNATE IN LIFE (OR COURT) TO HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DODGE THIS RACKET.

Jesus Christ said, long ago, “the poor you have always with you…” It’s obviously that the leadership of the US has figured this out, and made plans with how to control them through a variety of institutions, lest they riot, or there be another civil war. Also, to keep a substantial enough portion of people desperate and competing for jobs they are underqualified for, while promising them more help through reforming the public education system, run as a monoply anyhow, etc. Bread & Circuses..

Yesterday, I compiled, but didn’t publish, a triple-sized post, explaining the relationship between AFCC, Parental Alienation, High-Conflict (talk) and Parenting Coordination. And the absolute mother-hatred in a certain parenting coordination handbook, which is standard. I also show (and it’s obvious to those who look) that state borders (and at a certain level, state laws) are becomign meaningless when, for example, an Ohio Supreme Court Task Force (date: 1999), heavily AFCC-stacked, and lifting portions of its “tasks” wholesale from AFCC leaders — decides, in studying how to reform child custody — to simply fly its personnel out to Arizona and attend and AFCC conference. Again, this was about 12 years ago and NOT blogged by domestic violence advocates.

If I am able to complete the series on the Ellen Pence/Casey Gwinn (I.e., DV advocate / Family Justice Center) connections, I believe this will show an educated (researched) “guess” as to why NONE of the Domestic violence coalitions and primary ‘battered women’s” advocate generally blog, report, publish, or scrutinize the AFCC, OR the fatherhood grants system, (and its religious connections). One of them (Center for Judicial Excellence) has made a habit of not doing this (though they are informed of it, as are many others) until very recently, I heard. And probably because a few bloggers continued to “out” them for failling to address it.

Mainstream, professionalized groups have their rhetoric set in stone, pretty much — and simply do not follow the money, or report to the general public on the conference circuits. These posts are “Public Service Announcements.” I am one (networked) person reporting certain themes. I do not have an editorial staff and am not paid for my time here, as a whistleblower. I write what I see, and I see a lot. The alarm is definitely appropriate.

INDIANA & AFCC

Indiana has lots of Justice. In fact, it has TWO Justice Centers from the Casey Gwinn/Gael Strack/GWBush Initiatives Alliance.

But this is about its AFCC-State Government connections (which, FYI, the Kids First & Kids Turn concept is).

Indianapolis, on the other hand, did it differently, and rather than going through the expense of flying its judges OUT, simply decided to invite AFCC to hold their fall conference locally. This is from the Domestic Relations Committee, June 2009 meeting:

Domestic Relations Committee / Judicial Conference of Indiana / Minutes June 12, 2009

…

1. Members present. Craig J. Bobay, Francis G. Hill, Karen M. Love, Sheryl L. Lynch, Nanette K. Raduenz, Deborah J. Shook, Dean A. Young and William C. Fee, Chair, were present.

2. Staff present. Jeffrey Bercovitz and Anne Jordan provided the committee with staff assistance.

3. Guests present. Amber Njau, Project Analyst; Cynthia Longest, Deputy Director, Child Support Bureau; Karla Mantia, Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, were also present.

4. Minutes approved. The minutes for the May 15, 2009 meeting were approved.

5. Draft child support guidelines. Committee members reviewed comments submitted by topic area:

a. The Health Insurance Premium Worksheet (HIPW) and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was reviewed. The committee made changes to ease the preparation of the HIPW. b. Members of the committee agreed all commentary should be italicized in the child support guidelines. c. The “Child Multipliers” commentary was revised in the Support Guidelines and the Child Support Obligation Worksheet was revised to encompass eight (8), not just five (5) children in accordance with the amounts from Dr. Venohr.***

[[Dr. Jane Venohr runs nonprofit Center for Policy Research, along with Jessica Pearson et. al, and I believe also works for PSI, its nonprofit arm. These two organizations are all over the HHS grants circuit, and found publishing and promoting access visitation policies. She is active in child support matters…See my last post.]]

6. Domestic Relations Conference.

a. Anne Jordan reported the two-day domestic relations conference in the areas of child development, family dynamics, custody and visitation is scheduled for November 19-20, 2009 in Indianapolis. Committee members suggested the following topics:

(1) The economy’s effect on the family, e.g. mortgage foreclosure, high layoff rate, and the court’s ability to respond to a crisis if its staff is reduced.

(2) Professor Marcia Klien-Pruitt, Connecticutt, to speak on family dynamics.**

[[**Mis-spelled, Marcia Kline-Pruett is AFCC presenter, with her husband Kyle, and discussed later]]

(3) Child-Informed Mediation, where a psychologist interviews a child and brings this input this into mediation.

(4) Court ordered investigations in custody disputes. Some courts use a guardian ad litem for this purpose, to investigate mental health issues, substance abuse issues, and criminality.

b. Committee members discussed having the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) hold their fall symposium in Indianapolis in November 2011 and the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent on the two-day domestic relations conference on having Indiana judges attend the AFCC fall symposium in Indianapolis. Magistrate Bobay moved to have the Judicial Center contact AFCC about holding their fall symposium in November 2011 in lieu of the two-day domestic relations conference, with the Judicial Center using the monies they would otherwise have spent to have Indiana judges attend. Magistrate Raduenz seconded the motion. The motion was passed unanimously.

As I see from the Feb 18, 2011 minutes (thanks for publishing them, guys….) the networking with AFCC is going to continue:

This time there was a different set of guests:

“3. Guests present. Stuart Showalter,** Indiana Custodial Rights Advocates, and Craig Scarberry were also present.”

{{The links are relevant: both are fathers’ rights advocates;

Showalter characterized as former “Neo Nazi Skinhead” and in some trouble with the law (as a youth) for it. Later, he is found blaming a woman for her own stabbing death — because she sought a restraining order. She was stabbed to death in front of her two daughters, 8 & 12 Here’s the quote, just so we have a grasp on who was a Guest at the Indiana Judicial Conference this past February:

The wife was found stabbed in her bed at home on Sunday night. Investigators say the couple was going through a divorce and she had a protective order requiring him to stay away from her and their daughters. The killing came two days after the wife obtained a two-year extension on the order.

Angela Warnock’s use of the Indiana Civil Protection Order Act for leverage in the divorce proceedings with the father *of their two daughters failed her this past weekend. On Friday she had obtained an order that would keep the father from having any further contact with his daughters for two years. In addition she had the daughters, age 8 and 12, sleeping with her. These are both signs of Parental Alienation.

(Showalter’s comment was June 2009. Note: obtaining a restraining order is sign of parental alienation. wonder where that concept came from. It has nothing to do with protection, obviously — just using for an advantage in divorce. (the concept that perhaps her desire for divorce may have had to do with violence to start with doesn’t seem to have occurred to him…..)

Craig Scarberry (unfamiliar to me) had custody reduced because he became agnostic, after being formerly Christian. Plans for fathers’ rights rally in Marion County… Another article from “the democratic underground” asks whether(I DNK….) this was the same Scarberry who sued the City of Chicago (etc.) on the same grounds, for interfering with the distribution of gospel tracts with “Repent America”: link shows the pleading: including the Statement of Facts, which begins ”

STATEMENT OF FACTS 7. Plaintiffs are Christians who regard the Bible as God’s literal authority. In keeping with this sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiffs believe that they are obligated to tell as many other people as they can about what they believe is their individual need to be “born again,” that is, to be reconciled to God. This comes only by believing that Jesus Christ is God,{{i.e., Trinitarian, which founding fathers primarily weren’t}} and that Jesus suffered and died on the cross (and was resurrected from the dead subsequently) to pay the penalty for the sins of humanity, particularly those individuals who will believe in him; and who seek healing and forgiveness for and deliverance from their past, present, and future personal sins—“sins” being defined as transgressions of the binding commands of the Bible.)

Just including to show the mindset of someone who would attempt to “witness” in a legal pleading. Probably the same Scarberry, although, who knows? If so, he first proselytized FOR his beliefs God and then, disgruntled, for how his agnosticism shouldn’t be held against him. While it indeed shouldn’t, either line of thinking wouldn’t affect his position regarding father supremacy, most likely..or that it’s appropriate that his current beliefs be inflicted on others…. These two are not the major concern, they are two guys with a cause who sat in on a judicial conference. It’s the conference we should be most concerned about, and this style of decision-making within government.

This 2011 Judicial Conference meeting concluded peacefully:

10. Future meeting dates. Committee members agreed to meet again on Friday, March 18, May 20, July 15, August 19, and November 18, 2011 from 10:30 a.m. – 4:00 p.m. at the Judicial Center. They also agreed to meet in conjunction with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Regional Meeting in Indianapolis on Oct. 27-29, 2011 in Indianapolis.

Respectfully submitted,

Jeffrey Bercovitz, Director Juvenile and Family Law

= INBRED with AFCC. So who ARE they, anyhow? What do they DO? (well, since you asked, I’ll keep posting….)

I don’t know how comfortable the average reader feels with abandoning due process, law, etc. and giving leaders a huge leash (or taking them “off-leash”) by simply ignoring what’s going on with the primary institutions that rule people’s lives, such as — say, the courts?

And behind the courts is the power to incarcerate, or transfer wealth, and offspring; to spare life or to waste life . . . ..

While an Indiana conference, or a Schuykill County parenting education mandate may not seem to relate to you — it does. We are a networked country, and the networks are to be watched. When not “nipped in the bud” these things only expand — and they are inappropriate tolls on the highways of life.

Would you trust this kind of back-door dealings with your life, or your children’s future? Do you want others — judges, psychologists, economists, and mental health practitioners (working together) to do the heavy thinking for you, so long as they leave you alone for a while? Even after they’ve been proven corrupt several times already?

(California’s illegal benefits to judges — legalized. Luzerne County, PA judges — sending adolescents to camps in which they had a vested interests, violating their rights and disrupting their and their parents lives . . . and here’s another post on some Pennsylvania court-based toll-gating with another individual:

To be continued …

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 15, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Lackawanna County, Parent Education promotion, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, Andrew Libassi (KidsFirst Lackawanna Co PA), Chet Muklewicz (AFCC-PA), Indiana Judicial Conference Domestic Relations Committee aka AFCC outfit, Jeffrey Bercovitz (IN), KidsFirst, KidsFirst-1996 (Orange & L.A. Counties-California), Pennsylvania Council of Children, SCHUYLKILL COUNTY COURT RULES (mandated Parenting Class), Stuwart Showalter shows up, Supervised Visitation, Youth & Family Services (and Libassi-Muklewicz Contracts with them)

How in heck can a non-expert understand these systems? Well, Behold, the humble Human….

And of course respiratory & digestive systems, i.e, the alimentary canal has sometimes been called the second “brain”. All of these have to work together, and when one is overstressed, it affects the others, and requires compensation. The skeletal system. . . . . Muscular system, etc.

And the organs to go with various systems, i.e., lungs, brain, heart, liver, etc. Unbelievably detailed, complex and functional, but with similarity of origin (we all started with ovum & sperm. All that power and those systems from such a tiny start).

(Psalmist, psalm 139, reflecting on this: “O LORD, You have searched me and known me.. . . Where can I go from Your Spirit?
Or where can I flee from Your presence?
For You formed my inward parts;
You covered me in my mother’s womb.
¹⁴ I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;^[b]
Marvelous are Your works,
And that my soul knows very well.

Like the human body, the court system (etc., etc.) not only has a static diagram of its various components (like the dry drawings above, as if no movement happened), but it most certainly also has a history. A moment of conception, when a gleam in the eye happened, and then took action.

However, the family law system, the courts in which family law is practices, is actually a graft. It grafted in the marriage counselors, the “fixers” the psychologists, psychiatrists, therapists, mental health professionals, resulting in the HYBRID form called “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” — where Mental Health Vocabulary meets written statutes, and after years of association, neither is itself again, or remembers what previously existed. Unlike, say, basic human reproduction, this set of systems, associations, networks, and laws, was NOT a natural development. It was absolutely sold, promoted, and lobbied for by the very people whose professions depend on the forcing of counseling (and other consumption of products & services) upon parents who separate and disagree on who does what. And many of its origins can be identified.

(Drawing of single fetus URL = Wikipedia on “fetal movement”)

(Fetal Growth image URL)

(“The statue of David was started by a different artist, Agostino di Duccio, in 1463. He picked out a rather narrow piece of stone, which was customary for artists of his denomination. If you are an art expert, you can see from the side that this is not a piece that Michelangelo would have picked. It is too thin. The front [not shown] however, did not come out too bad…”)

(This bronze resin sculpture: woman standing, back may be for sale, see link: “Zhang Yaxi” )

DIFFERENCES between these system and the Family Law system:

Living things, with nourishment, tend to grow to the point of no return, and have a sort of “set point” beyond which they don’t expand, with certain exceptions. For example, there are all heights of human beings, but so far, the range doesn’t go beyond 10 feet tall, does it? There seem to be some inherent limits. While affected by various things, they have a certain common DNA, overall, and are not going to stray TOO far from this, I believe.

Unnatural, but networking and growing fauna & flora, continue to take over the landscape, strangling previous or healthier indigenous plants.

Unlike human life, which can either reach its term limit through old age, or be shortened any number of artifical ways, Family Law seems to have no inherent “term limit” but is continually expanding; children are born daily. Many of these children will have divorcing or separating parents. It doesn’t run into natural boundaries, like skin, or the force of gravity, or lack of balance, in which a too-obese person simply cannot stand up. It grows by conferences, internet-disseminated information, watered by grants and foundations and institutes, and populated by trainers, professors, and promoters. While some of these may grow old, they at least replace themselves by coaching from the University level up, (at a minimum). It will NOT likely run out of clients (barring a boycott — possibly a good idea) unless enough mothers and fathers get smart enough (couple by couple) and simply don’t go through its doors to start with. The way a family generally “terms out” of the family law system is the children age out, or someone gives up, or someone is killed, or they simply run out of energy & money — in which case, if the children haven’t been removed into foster care yet (for which federal incentives exist), no more use for the family.

By law, any time a couple (married or unmarried) has a custody dispute — my understanding is, the COURT has jurisdiction. If there are married couples NOT fighting or separating — but a grandparent is upset about visitation, or the couple is not mainstream enough, there’s always the possibility of engaging CPS, which has happened both when parents seek alternate treatment for, say cancer or asthma — or when their children are not in the local public school, and they aren’t rich.

This is likely why one writer (quoted below) titled a piece “Court Cancer Metastasizes.” Something changed, and began rapidly reproducing.

FAMILY LAW VERSUS REAL FAMILIES / HUMAN BODY:

Thinking about this, there’s a history, an origin, a conception. Just like a child could be started with a number of motives, or excuses for (insert birds & bees discussion) — the fact is, sperm, egg, fertilized, happens SOMEWHERE (in vitro, out of vitro) and growth.

You cannot understand this system unless you understand at least a few things about the AFCC (as it’s now called):

Someone passed a law to enable it. See “Roger & Meyer,” section, below….
The goal included getting people in front of counselors.
Mental health perspective was in from the START and has really gotten out of hand now.
No matter how I look at this, or others, several people understand quite clearly that what is now the world-famous and highly positioned “AFCC” began:

as a private, nonprofit, judges’ association hiding in the Los Angeles County Courthouse and using its EIN# (Tax ID) without accounting for funds properly. As such it was an insult to the integrity of the judicial system.
Seemed to have little conscience about shape-shifting, incorporating in state, out of state, name-changing, and FINALLY getting caught up with and becoming “legitimate” as a nonprofit, supposedly a “new” one.
From what I read, no sooner did it finally register legally as a “new” nonprofit (outside California) than the original founder, Meyer Elkin, took over the leadership. Review at: “Beware AFCC” from “stopcourtorderedchildabuse.org — or read my post, “Beware AFCC and Reform the Courts? What an oxymoron“. As late as 1979 (one source says) the one form (“Conference of Conciliation Courts”) got suspended by the Franchise Tax Board.
AFCC members of course do not see it this way; as I saw yesterday, a woman in Minnesota attended a conference called “Solomon’s Surrogates”

Roger (Alton Pfaff) and Meyer (Elkin): Dynamic Duo in Family Law

(searched..outside the mutual-adoration of the AFCC circles…)

I found a 1966 TIME article, revealing . . . . . . it reads:

What the U.S. really needs is something far more drastic: a complete new approach that totally banishes “fault” and all its sleazy consequences. The most sensible solution would be a system that readily grants divorce only after skilled clinicians confirm that a marriage is beyond repair. In many cases, divorce might be harder to get; in all, it would be far more humane.

(Marriage as a sick puppy needing a good vet…..)

While insisting that divorce be made a more rational process, most marriage experts also believe that many of the divorces that now take place can be prevented. One of the most effective, though not yet widespread, ways of helping to prevent divorce is the conciliation court. Eighteen states have already set up more than three dozen such courts, many of which try to mend marriages with the aid of full-time staff psychologists and social workers. The courts have an overall record of intact marriages in 33% of the cases voluntarily brought before them. They try to get the couple to communicate with each other once more, to concentrate on what they have in common rather than what separates them and to analyze for themselves the problems that are interfering with their marriage.

hence the name “Conciliation” as in “REconciliation.” So much for “irreconciliable differences”!

Psychologists and Social workers still doing this today.

In Toledo, [Ohio] Judge Paul W. Alexander’s much-admired conciliation court averts divorce in 44% of the cases it tackles. In Los Angeles, Judge Roger A. Pfaff’s conciliation court gets 50% of its business from lawyers who refer unhappy spouses even before they file divorce suits. With the aid of eleven highly trained counselors who must have at least ten years’ experience, Pfaff’s court helps more than 4,000 volunteer couples a year, gets 60% of them to make up and sign detailed “husband-wife” agreements that have the force of law. “Divorce courts throughout America are burying marriages that are still alive,” says Meyer Elkin, Pfaff’s supervising counselor. The success of conciliation courts proves that it is perfectly possible to create a rational divorce system that saves as well as severs—if the U.S. wants it

Conciliation court as receiving referral business from divorce attorneys.

Pfaff was the Judge, Elkin the counselor. Get it? Oh yes, the 1966 comments:

Mating at Random

Another reason for a more realistic appraisal of divorce laws is a deeper understanding of what causes marital breakups. While sex, money and incompatibility are the traditional reasons for divorce, a mobile and changing urban society has loosened many of the bonds that once held marriage together, depriving men of their absolute dominance, giving women a large measure of economic independence and weakening the sense of kinship (i.e., men’s absolute dominance + women’s utter economic dependence = stronger kinship = good?)

and a nice religious reference (TIME, 1966…)

“The divorce rate is a social symptom of increased respect for personal freedom and for genuine marriage commitment.”

That is a far cry from Christ’s unequivocal condemnation of the Mosaic right of Jewish husbands to banish their wives at will: “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,842452,00.html#ixzz1P1f1mSR1

Marv Byer (“Johnnypumphandle.com”) had quite a different opinion of Elkin & Pfaff, especially after spending $100K to help his daughter retain custody. In his 1998 Tort claim, he calls (the ring of judges) an “underground mafia posing as the City of Los Angeles.” He says …

and of Elkin & Pfaff:

CONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN (paras. in reverse order)

The ACCUSED are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.

But for general purposes the typical “Mutt & Jeff” combo in the family law arena is going to have — at a minimum

One Judge or representative from the legal profession
One Social Worker, Mental Health Professional, Psychiatrist, etc.
At least ONE nonprofit with some typically shady origins, or which the Judge, Social worker (or close cohorts) just happen to have started.

ALSO, (by the way) as Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net describes this dynamic duo:

Meyer Elkin, co-founder of AFCC, was also a CRC co-founder. Both organizations are heavily cross-affiliated.

The AFCC runs front companies which develop, implement and evaluate federal facade programs allegedly assisting troubled families and children

here is a 1982 Article by Meyer; the abstract shows he wants a complete change to the system. Note: His buddy was a judge, but he was a counselor.

Abstract

Challenging the traditional and outmoded approach to divorce, the author, using a systems approach, proposes interrelated changes (the missing links) in the divorce process and related legal practices. {{INTENT TO CHANGE LEGAL PRACTICES}}

The resulting new and interprofessional structure for the divorce experience would provide for a more humanistic approach to divorce, {{i.e., Elkin & his ilk, not being in the legal field, could thereby get in there…}}

create a system of non-adversarial practices that would enable the law itself to become a more effective support system, maximize client self-determination, redefine the role of the judge and attorney in divorce, and would recognize that parents are forever and families are forever.

The new structure is designed to enable divorcing families to grow with the divorce experience {???} rather than be defeated by it. In his presentation, the author stresses the need for greater interprofessional cooperation between the law and the helping professions, as well as the, need for judges and attorneys to recognize that, in divorce, feelings are also facts and that the search for truth involves both the objective facts and the feeling facts.

That was 1982. This is 2011. Would you say that theory has changed yet? No. And it’s not going to, either. Because the STRUCTURE and INTENT of this type of court is what it says it is — a search for “feeling facts” and the “parents forever, families forever” being forced.

2004 Summary lists names, organizations, and intersections:

Another summary (from an on-line family law discussion group) dating to 2004. “Custody Corruption Summary/Liz Richards”

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FAMILYCOURTREFORM/message/16472

This is a pretty good read because at the bottom it lists many of the “Associations” (as in of Family Mediators, or of Matrimonial Lawyers, or of Family & Conciliation courts, etc.). There are some weird characters in the text. In case the link ever breaks, I’ll also copy it into my url (so it could be read by a “hover” over the link). This version also begins to incorporate various nonprofit leaders’ government connections, and mentions Fathers Rights.

Now that there is a little introduction here (from same source)

see if you can read 3 paras here, with some of my comments, and understand a few connections of WHO was in various nonprofits, associations, and connected with which arm of the U.S. state of Federal Government. It will also bring in the “grants” theme:

PARAGRAPH 1:

The A/V Program, began in 1988, with grants to Iowa CRC Iowa Chapter Director and Fathers for Equal Rights, Dick Woods, through the backing of Sen. Harkin, then Senate Chairman for Appropriations Subcommittee for HHS, and Bonnie Campbell, then IA Attorney General, currently Director of DoJ Office for Violence Against Women.

Now, isn’t that interesting!

While the stated objective of the program has been to assist visitation enforcement for non-custodial parents, in practice, the program acts as a kick-back scheme for CRC litigating members and their AFCC affiliated court professionals.

And once one gets in the door, like dust, or fleas, or other not-natural-to-the-habitat flora — they multiply. We have identified the practice now — and this is how AFCC started — as an UNDER the radar, tax-evading nonprofit slush fund — from what I can tell.. Not to mince words…..

A/V grants are steered {{Grants / Steered}} to CRC chapter members or their allies. AFCC affiliated judges, attorneys, psychologists and given financial incentive to favor the CRC litigating members who get their civil litigation attorney fees paid from A/V funds. Gardner, Underwager and other members of the pro-pedophilia psychological movement are used as expert witness for custody and child abuse evaluations.

So far in this post, I didn’t bring up Gardner, or pedophilia or any of that. However, it’s at the center of the strife along with the money incentive.

PARAGRAPH 2:

Center for Policy Research (CPR), officials, Jessica Pearson (also an original incorporating officer of the AFCC) and Nancy Thoennes, did the evaluations for the (A/V) and Child Access demo project, developed in associated with Dick Woods, IA – a state chapter director for the CRC. Woodâ€™s material relies heavily on Gardnerâ€™s work and he is known to refer cases to Gardner.

Notice next sentence — this is the CPR/PSI connection and that dynamic duo is Jessica Pearson & Nancy Theonnes (both CPR). Theya re going to come to one conclusion in their evaluation — but practice the opposite:

While CPRâ€™s Nancy Thoennes, was the author of the federal granted study which discredited PAS and Gardner, both Thoennes and Pearson have been actively involved in the CRCâ€™s promotion of the A/V programs. CPR conceals all their pro-CRC, pro-Gardner affiliation when making public statements about custody and child sex abuse. Policy Studies, Inc. (the for-profit arm of CPR) has also been involved in these programs since inception.

{{I believe at one time I saw another CPR member (or founder), “Jane Venohr, Ph.D.” working at PSI. Here is one link:

Jane Venohr
Dr.
Policy Studies Inc., Denver, CO

Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D.

Since 1984 PSI has conducted cutting edge research in the area of child support. An economist with years of experience dealing exclusively with child support issues, Dr. Venohr will discuss the economic basis of the “income shares formula” and will discuss the assumptions made in guidelines across the nation. She will also discuss the details of the Nebraska guidelines and engage in a panel discussion on joint custody and provide us with better understanding of the joint custody calculation. Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D. Over the past 10 years at PSI, Venohr has provided technical assistance on the development and revision of child support guidelines for over 30 states. Since completing her doctorate in economics in 1997, Venohr has assumed primary responsibility for all PSI guideline projects.

Well, she “just so happens” to also be CPR. See?

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Director jspearson@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Pearson has 30 years of experience conducting demonstration and evaluation projects dealing with a wide range of social issues including divorce mediation, responsible fatherhood, access and visitation, educational reform, child support enforcement, and self sufficiency. Dr. Pearson has authored many reports and publications on these topics and is a regular presenter at local, state and national conferences for practitioners and policy makers.

Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Associate Director nthoennes@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Thoennes has more than 30 years experience in the design of surveys and data collection forms and conducts large-scale statistical analyses using SPSS. She is a leading expert on child protection and the courts, as well as in the field of child support.

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

(Back to “Paragraph 2” from the FamilyCourtReform group post):

Joan Kellyâ€™s Northern California Mediation Center conducts training courses in PAS, and is a past President of the Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) another AFCC affiliate. A/V grants are administered primarily by DHHS-Office of Child Support Enforcement. Current Director of that Office (since 1993) is David Gray Ross, former Prince George MD judge and CRC regular speaker. Friends of Judge Ross say he became an early CRC participant as a result of his own divorce/child support problems and may be a CRC member.

PARAGRAPH 3: {NOW, it gets interesting — the HHS, Federal Government, gets involved)

The A/V demo project was turned into a mandatory program in 1996, when Ron Haskins, an original CRC official (mis)used his authority as Ways & Means Subcommittee Staff Director, slipped the program into the final language of the Welfare Reform Bill without the knowledge of most members – even of his Subcommittee.

Besides the “conflict of interest” theme, how about “abuse of privilege”?? This is what established a $10 million per year program which inserts a “desired outcome” to the family law process, and in the process, some of the means by which this is accomplished will include (in CALIF, for example), can you say Mediation (AFCC is heavily pushing mediation, and many of its members are mediators), can you say “Parent Education” — can you say “Kids’ Turn, Kids First, Children in the Middle, For the Kids’ Sake (Canada)” and so on (and on, and on…..) ???

NOTE: The A/V program is administered through the Federal Child Support Enforcement agency, “OCSE.” CPR & PSI real active in child support arenas too (see their sites) and if you google Jane Venohr, she is all over the US presenting on the topic, or has been at least. Now, here is Ron Haskins in 2001— no longer HHS, but ovrer at “Brookings Institution,” showing his funding (Annie E. Casey Foundation) and expounding to the Committee he used to be on, about Child Support and this same program… “Hearing on Child Support and Fatherhood June, 2001” It has charts, and lots of text. Just for a looksee….

Besides the A/V program – Judge Gray’s federal OCSE has created multiple clone programs for assistance of non-custodial parents, usually labeled as assistance for family with domestic violence, or disputing families. Most of these programs are steered to AFCC ring allies in state social services agencies or state courts. Other information shows the Clinton Administration issued a directive in 1995 ordering all departments of the government to establish fatherhood programs, which also are misused for protecting bad fathers. CRC leaders solicit membership with promises to obtain custody before judges who are guaranteed to rule in their favor. The CRC member cases are referred to AFCC judges, who in turn appoint court professionals who are also members of the extended ring. Lawyers are frequently members of The American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) while evaluators, counselors, mediators and supervisors belong to other affiliated groups such as Academy of Family Mediators (AFM) or Supervised Visitation Network. [“Hence, the word “ring” is appropriate.]

OK, that’s enough for now. Understanding that there will be:

Certain Influential People
Purpose — Parents Forever, Y’all need counseling…
Generally, a Nonprofit
Associations that work with each other often in individual cases.
The stage is often set OUTSIDE the courtroom in the Child SUpport offices, or elsewhere.. The 20 minutes of fame in a custody hearing (my state at least) will leave an individual who does not understand some basics of this system distraught, betrayed, immobilized with shock, perhaps, or caught in endless rings of trying to “explain” to a judge (or mediator, etc.) that they just don’t understand the facts of the case. (Who said the facts were relevant? Where’d THAT idea sneak into the counseling agenda?)

What results, collectively, is either a SEMBLANCE of a real court (see Toronto experience, my last post), or a kangaroo court. This is serious, it’s problemmatic — it’s a lack of an impartial judiciary AND lack of accountability as to whose money went where. Legislation, and legislators absolutely DO get involved.

GOING BACK TO THE HUMAN BODY ANALOGY:

For what it’s worth — notice that the various diagrams may be about different systems, with different colored diagrams, and different labels — but some things are similar. Let’s talk about that:

The “vessels” carry fluids. What are the vessels themselves, and what is the fluid?
The network is continually growing and expanding (consider blood vessels, for example).
What’s pumping the information through and through?
What are the fluids?

A few suggestions — mine, just ways of thinking about it. First of all, understand that the people involved are taught to think of it as a system, so we might as well, also…. Because it is.

Vessels include: Associations, Nonprofit Corporations. Vessels include the INTERNET (by which communications and downloadable information is circulated). These connections are sometimes funded by “Technical Assistance” grants. The “Technical Assistance,” from what I can tell, is to set up the structures to carry certain information (fluids). For example, websites with links and information on them. For example hiring staff, making connections, and so forth.

Another “Vessel” is a publication. Can be on-line. For example, the voice of the AFCC appears to be the Family COurt Review, among other things.
Another “vessel” is established curricula which can then be marketed, i.e. “Kids Turn” is the nonprofit, but the classes themselves are the material.

By “Train the Trainer” sessions, things are disseminated. The funding is deductible sometimes as Continuing Education (MCLE, etc.).
The HeartBeat of the Family Law — AFCC conferences and trainings (associated, state, and annual). And others
WHAT ARE THE “FLUIDS?”

I feel its very helpful to think in terms of ideas — and monies — as substances flowing. I”m going to say some of the “fluids” are the rhetoric, the terminology of family law. Other things that obviously flow are funds, finances. and so forth. Grants systems.

This is enough for one post. If this has been helpful, please comment. Obviously several elements are missing BUT if you can get a good system of labeling — THIS is an association, THAT is a nonprofit, THIS nonprofit is taking federal grants and foundation monies, and so forth — it will help.

After a time, I noticed the personnel talk so similar that you can just about predict — this is a highly-placed AFCC member. THAT idea came from San Francisco, THIS one from Los Angeles, THAT one from washington, D.C. — HHS, or the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Bush Presidency.

I also forgot to mention the role of the universities and institutes in all this. An “institute” is likely to be a portion of a university that certain “foundations” said, “study this, I”m going to fund it, we want this policy to be set in motion.”

Really, mastering any field — or language — has a lot to do with mastering the basic jargon. Then it’s a matter of application.

To cut to the point,. given what I’ve seen (or looked up) in the last few months about the Domestic Violence Field, I believe that people should simply not mention it. Why? any time you burp, f*rt, or drool the word “DV” — it’s going to end up somehow or other being handled by an organization that has been centralized, diluted, and may LOOK like a battered women’s advocacy group — but probably no longer is. They’ve become large. It’s going to be about the money somehow, some way and the thing (individually) is to get a grasp of where it is in YOUR case and YOUR county/jurisdiction.

I have often wondered why the good, decent, ethical, honest judges don’t just “out” the AFCC-CRC Mafia. I’m not sure whether they’re too busy to understand, or too smart to speak up. Or they forgot what it meant to have a nontherapeutic judicial proceeding. Or they have threats on their lives for doing so, which is not inconceivable.

PS. In a human body, if one set of pipes ruptures and leaks its contents out into another area of the body — particularly an area without its own drainage — serious problems can result. Consider: Hernia, or Hemorrhage. Consider if you gut leaks (“Leaky Gut Syndrome”). The contents of the alimentary canal shouldn’t be in your body cavities. If a lung has a puncture, how can you breathe? If an AORTA has a puncture, you’ll die, pretty much, right?

Well guess what — the US, IRS-enforced currency has cancer — to start with, let alone when more money is being printed. It’s a permanent debt situation, and Obama is still, like preceding Presidents, recommending more money to areas that few people report on, while talking scarcity in other areas.

But as to the family law system, it began off-center, and it’s has sprung a serious “language” leak. The language of law is important — it echoes the language of the constitution. It’s part of the container of the ideas, including the Liberty idea. If practices undermine the ideas, then the liberty goes.

If the courts are to dispense therapy and “help” couples so misled as to actually wish to separate — and this is the case, at least so the professionals imply in the conferences, for example, in how to deal with ‘flawed parents..” — then they are desiring to function as the HEAD (without taking responsibility for it).

They take charge of the problem-children, i.e., the adults & parents coming to the courts. They seek to counsel, guide, lead, reform, advise, and therapize. Right?

That’s the function of the brain. So here’s what I have to say about this type of attempt to Train others Brains:

(Soundoff:)First of all, it helps to understand the elitism behind the introduction of a multitude of “experts” into the divorce arena. The language one hears is of a helpless populace, helpless parents, helpless children, and justice that isn’t streamlined and centralized enough. Baloney! Phooey! That’s the wet dream of an underemployed therapist concerned about retirement. People are not all idiots, helpless, numb, dumb, and so forth — except for those with a membership in a certain set of professional associations that sit in the family court oak tree. People (both parents & kids) are human beings that are born and raised in a variety of institutions, and now SOME of these have been around long enough that its’ quite possible that the family law itself contributed to major, ongoing, generationallytransmitted problems that will continue to bring the next set of fighting over kids parents into these halls again.(end, soundoff:)

After this, we can go through some basic AFCC Vocabulary. Another day. Probably starting with this one:

AFCC Vocabulary, Pt. 1: “High-Conflict”

Family Law Modeling Behavior — In which Toronto Copies USA. Why, again?

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 11, 2011 at 9:29 pm

Posted in AFCC, Child Support, History of Family Court, Metaphors for Family Law, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons

Toronto Tries the “New” One-Stop-Shop concept: Integrating Domestic Violence and Family Law Cases

with one comment

Just a little break in my relentless pursuit of Minnesotan, Nevadan, and Californian promotions of Justice Centers and other collaborative endeavors, through various nonprofit corporations and with federal support… Let’s look at One-Stop Shops in Canada.

At a Canadian-Irish Family Law Conference in 2010, the Hon. Geraldine Waldman – – spoke. Her background:

she worked with many community groups and other organizations engaged in promoting law reform in the area of family law, and in particular in the area of domestic violence. Justice Waldman was appointed to the Ontario Court of Justice in 1991. She has presided in the family court in Toronto since 1998. She is Local Administrative Judge of the North York Family Court and the Chair of the Ontario Court of Justice Chief Justice’s Advisory Committee on Family Law. Justice Waldman is currently involved in the development of an integrated domestic violence court in Toronto Canada.

(There was one representative from the US, Debra McNabb, Circuit Court Referee from Michigan, speaking on:

Deborah Mc Nabb, Circuit Court Referee – ‘Out of the Mouth of Babes; The Evolution of a Child’s Right to be Heard in Michigan Family Court’

Here is a “what and why of the proposed integrated domestic violence court” by this judge. (IT’s short enough…):

The court is modeled on similar courts operating in several states in the United States including New York, Vermont and Idaho. The court is based on a one-family-one-judge concept. Simply put, both the criminal and family case will be dealt with in one court before a single judge. While one judge will case manage both the family and criminal cases, each will be dealt with separately. The cases are not combined but they do appear before the single judge in sequence

In addition to the usual resources, the court will also have a community resource coordinator who will assist litigants in accessing appropriate resources and may assist in monitoring the litigant’s compliance with referrals.

This very much sounds to me like the courts want to refer clients out to services, and will be developing ongoing relationships with non-judicial, non-legal service providers. I am wondering whether these are government-supported (and whether there is no profit motive influencing referrals). I am wondering about the US Models they are basing this after. I am wondering about the various community resources they say will, in effect, “handle” criminal domestic violence issues in family contexts, and what is their slant. …. The next paragraph is a pop quiz. Does any category of professional catch your ear, if you are a regular visitor to my blog (and know what I complain loudly about….)?

The court has been developed over the past eighteen months through consultation with a broad based community board. The board includes judges, family lawyers, criminal lawyers, Legal Aid Ontario representatives, Victim Witness Assistance Program personnel, police, probation, domestic violence victim advocates, parenting skills providers, mental health services, shelters, community organizations such as Mothercraft, Elizabeth Fry, and Family Services Association, court services, and representatives from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

Let’s run that by again….. Can you see the AFCC input? next to the “domestic violence victim advocates.”

The court has been developed over the past eighteen months through consultation with a broad based community board. The board includes judges, family lawyers, criminal lawyers, Legal Aid Ontario representatives, Victim Witness Assistance Program personnel, police, probation, domestic violence victim advocates, parenting skills providers,* mental health services, shelters, community organizations such as Mothercraft, Elizabeth Fry, and Family Services Association, court services, and representatives from the Ministry of the Attorney General.

*(under Parenting Skills Providers, a 2004 article, as to Ontario):

Family Court clinics connected to courts in various provincial centres may provide programs for children. Since 1999, each unified family court in the province contracts for four services, including parent education programs. It is not known if any of these programs include children’s program components.

– Until recently, Toronto’s Family Court Clinic partnered with the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry to provide For Kids’ Sake, an intensive therapy-based program for children in distress as a result of their parents’ high conflict separation and divorce. (there’s the AFCC vocabulary….).

Oddly, although we know that child protection and domestic violence issues overlap, this court specificaly separates out child protection cases…

IDV COURT: (from court’s descriptive site)

The family will appear before a single dedicated judge for both the domestic violence criminal charge and the family (custody, access and/or support) matters.
The criminal and family cases will be heard on the same day in the same courtroom.
The IDV Court Judge will have more complete information about the family.
Having one Judge will enhance consistency between family and criminal court orders. (diluting which one, then? — probably the criminal)
The IDV Court Judge will be able to monitor the family. This will increase accountability of the accused and enhance the complainant’s safety.
The IDV Court will include a Community Resource Coordinator, who will assist the parties in finding resources and services to assist with their problems.
If a party qualifies for legal aid, Duty Counsel will be available for the family cases and, for the accused only, for the criminal cases.
The family will have access to family supports and services including Family Law Information Centre (FLIC) matters and court counter services.
There will be access to support in the criminal cases including the Victim/Witness Assistance Program (V/WAP),Partner Assault Response (PAR), security, and court counter services.
Delays in hearing the family and criminal matters should be reduced.

Well, who pays the Community Resource Coordinator? And is the relationship with the “community resources” being referred to, untained by conflict of interest?

New court integrates domestic violence and family court cases

Want to bet some of the same language (borrowed from?) the US shows up here? Like holistic, non-adversarial, streamlined, calling this an “initiative” and it’s about better serving families?

Let’s see:

The Canadian Press

Date: Friday Jun. 10, 2011 2:38 PM ET

TORONTO — In a first for the Canadian justice system, a new initiative in Ontario aimed at minimizing the hardships for families in crisis is merging some family court and domestic violence cases.

The Integrated Domestic Violence Court will serve people who are dealing with family court issues as well as a criminal charges related to domestic abuse.

Note the word “violence” has already been downgraded to “abuse.” . . . . . . Although somehow a crime / criminal charge is in the mix.

It will run on a pilot project basis in one Toronto courthouse with an eye to expanding in the province if it’s deemed a success. In the works for a year-and-a-half, the court heard its first case Friday.

The province, the judiciary and the many community organizations involved in establishing the court hope it will resolve such difficult issues faster, with less conflict and more affordably with a one-case, one-judge approach.

WHAT other “many community organizations”? Is it designated in the Canadian Constitution that local organizations set judicial standards, and due process standards?

Faster, cheaper, and one-judge system. That’s great if your judge is honest & ethical.

“We think that that will lead to a more integrated, holistic approach, a greater understanding of what the issues are in the family, more consistent orders,” said Peter Griffiths, the associate chief justice of the Ontario Court of Justice. (note — click on link, and a link advertising this court shows at top)

Yep, I expected that word “holistic.” However, if something has “integrity” it’s “whole” (and integer is a whole number, not a fraction, or fracture splinter of one, right?). “holistic” implies it’s tending towards being “hole” — meaning more likely the “hole” that the process of seeking justice just was dumped into. What I suspect this is going to mean is, this is where the therapists etc. can get better in, to smooth out the rough edges of, say, criminal charges against a family member.

It can create havoc in the family,” Griffiths said. “The emphasis in this court really is on a more mediated, less adversarial system.

Mediation is an AFCC thing. It’s their emphasis, overall. These are definitely buzz-words — more mediation, lower conflict, and the adversarial system. How can a victim of domestic violence be forced (or reconditioned) to see the perpetrator of it as less than an “adversary”? THe act of violence is adversarial in nature. As is seeking custody…

The havoc caused in US (from my point of view) comes from the family law’s clear intent to undermine the criminal law’s effect and impact. At least this is waht the primary family law association, AFCC, declares on its website as an intent. Consequently, a person can understand that a crime has been committed, considering the penal code, but should their case land in family court (which is where many of them get shunted to, if children are involved), then it wasn’t a crime, it was a family dispute that requires mediation and access visitation help to the noncustodial parent. If he’s male….

It can be quite onerous on anyone, let alone the victim of a domestic assault, to have to be involved with two completely separate court cases, said family lawyer Lauren Israel, who was on the project’s advisory committee.

“The clients that this court will be servicing are under tremendous emotional stress and I think that trying to . . . minimize the stress involved in process will benefit everybody,” she said.

Well, if someone has actually been violent towards a spouse or child, and has committed a crime against that spouse/partner or child (or the child(ren) witnessed it) let that person feel some stress, for a change. Because that behavior is evil. It’s appropriate to feel stress when one has committed a crime. If, however, there is a fair legal system and one has NOT committed a crime, then although the tension is equally high, then the truth can come out and one could be exonerated.

However, in this “mediator-involved” system the power goes to the hands of the mediator. Who owns (pays) the mediator’s allegiance gets the win in court, generally. that’s hugely stressful on the victim(s) of any real crimes, knowing that their safety and futures depends on a third party’s input (at least as it’s done in the US).

However, more relevant is, who is Lauren Israel?

1998 article tells of a mother jailed for contempt of a court order, though she claims didn’t breach it. Child support arrears seems to have been a factor. The article is on a site called “Dadscanada.” The mother being jailed has an 18 month old baby with new husband, who had to take off work; the father got custody of the 4 year old while Mom was doing her time…. Attorney Lauren Israel was called in to help the mother

Mom gets 60 days for denying Dad access to their daughter

February 28, 1998, BY PATRICIA ORWEN, in The Toronto Star

….
She, however, maintained she always complied with the order, except when the child – who is asthmatic was sick.

She was jailed Monday after a hearing in a Brampton court. …

Barbosa, who was allowed only a short telephone interview from behind a plexiglass wall in the visitor’s room of the jail, said she fears that both her children will he emotionally scarred by her legal battle with the father and, now, by her jailing.

Tuesday is Britney’s 5th birthday.

“What will she feel when I’m not there?” asked Barbosa, who has always been a stay-at-home mother to Britney. ”

Her mother, Nancy Tempelmann, has contacted Toronto family lawyer Lauren Israel.

She has also enlisted the support of the mothers’ right group Mothers Against Fathers In Arrears. [MAFIA]

Dadd says he has kept his child support payments up to date.

When told about the case, Israel said she had never heard of any woman receiving a 60-day sentence for such an offence.

“It’s very unusual,” she said.

More about this new court — it’s not a trial court. If the accused person wants a trial, they can go back to a “real” court. This one was based on a model in New York.

Attorney General Chris Bentley said the court is largely aimed at helping women, who are overwhelmingly the victims of domestic violence, but will also benefit children and the family unit as a whole.

“You want to hold offenders accountable for what they’ve done,” he said in an interview. “You want to safeguard victims and families from any future harm, but you also want to resolve the issues that are outstanding as effectively as you can so that families can get on with the future.”

As someone who works with women who are victims of domestic violence, Lisa Manuel said the court is “well overdue.”

“The concept of an integrated court is wonderful because that really meets the needs of women,” said Manuel, the director of the family violence program at Family Service Toronto.

It can be a challenge to physically navigate between the two courts because in some cities they’re not even in the same building, let alone trying to deal with the stress of such situations, she said.

Manuel said she has heard of instances where in order to comply with both a custody order and a restraining order, one parent takes a child to a parking lot and the other parent is waiting at the far end. The child then has to walk from one end to the other so neither of the orders are violated, she said.

The court, which will be held in the courthouse at 311 Jarvis St., in Toronto, is thought to be unique in Canada and was developed based on a model in place in New York. It will also have a community resource worker who can connect families to services that address the issues that brought them to court in the first place.

Who is to say what issues brought them to court? According to the description: 1. Domestic violence or “abuse”, and 2. Custody. These usually go together, like a knockout punch. One — defend from domestic violence; Two — have the person just sought protection from seek custody of the children.

Participation in the court is voluntary and it is not a trial court. So if the person charged with domestic violence wants to go to trial instead of pleading guilty, that case would be sent back to criminal court.

In the early stages, cases will be heard in the court every other Friday. Divorce and family property cases will still be heard in Superior Court.

More information, on searching the name of this court. Apparently there are already “domestic Violence Courts” but this one integratees custody matters also?

DadsCanada claims that the Ontario Legal Aid is funded in part by the Attorney’s Office and a (private nonprofit?) “The Law Society of Upper Canada.” They believe this legal aid is weighted towards females….

From the Attorney General’s site:

Ontario’s Domestic Violence Court (DVC) program is the most extensive DVC program in Canada. It facilitates the prosecution of domestic assault cases and early intervention in abusive domestic situations, provides better support to victims and increases offender accountability.

In a DVC program, teams of specialized personnel, including police, Crown attorneys, Victim/Witness Assistance Program (VWAP) staff, probation services, Partner Assault Response (PAR) program staff and community agencies, work together to ensure priority is given to the safety and needs of domestic assault victims and their children.

An operational DVC includes the following components:

A Domestic Violence Court Advisory Committee

Specially trained domestic violence Crowns, VWAP staff, and interpreters

Specialized evidence collection and investigation procedures by police

Case management procedures to coordinate prosecutions and ensure early intervention

A Partner Assault Response intervention program

Expanded training for police, Crowns, VWAP staff, court staff, Probation and Parole staff, and interpreters

There is now a Domestic Violence Court Program in each of the province’s 54 court jurisdictions.

(the “PAR” Partner Assault Response” in the US would be called a “Batterers Intervention Program.” Described as:

“Partner Assault Response (PAR) programs, a component of Ontario’s Domestic Violence Court program, are specialized counselling and educational services offered by community-based agencies to people who have assaulted their partners. Offenders are ordered to attend the PAR program by the court. PAR programs aim to enhance victim safety and hold offenders accountable for their behaviour.

The 16-week long program gives offenders the opportunity to examine their beliefs and attitudes towards domestic abuse, and to learn non-abusive ways of resolving conflict.

While an offender is in the PAR program, staff offer their partner help with safety planning, referrals to community resources, and information about the offender’s progress.”

Family COurts, apparently, are separate in Ontario, as described here:

In Ontario, family law matters are heard in the Ontario Court of Justice, the Superior Court of Justice, or the Family Court branch of the Superior Court of Justice, depending on the issue in dispute and where you are located in the province.

Family Court (sometimes referred to as the unified Family Court)

There are 17 Family Court of the Superior Court of Justice locations in Ontario: Barrie, Bracebridge, Brockville, Cobourg, Cornwall, Hamilton, Kingston, L’Orignal, Lindsay, London, Napanee, Newmarket, Oshawa/Whitby, Ottawa, Perth, Peterborough, and St. Catharines.Where the Family Court branch exists, the court hears all family law matters, including divorce, division of property, child and spousal support, custody and access, adoption, and child protection applications. In all other sites across the province, family law matters are divided between the Ontario Court of Justice and the Superior Court of Justice.

MICOD/AFCC Annual Conference; Custody and High Conflict Families: Strengths, Challenges and Options, Isolina Ricci, Ph.D.; St. Paul, MN

Under “helping families” in two places, the parallel to educating parents about the impact of divorce on children seems to be here:

NEWS

Brampton and Milton’s family courts are now helping parents better understand the court system and how to help their children when going through separations or divorces.

A local team of justice partners, including judges, Legal Aid Ontario staff, lawyers, mediators and court staff are working together to:

Provide mandatory information sessions to help families learn about the effects of separation on children and the options available to them to resolve their disputes
Evaluate each family’s situation and recommend the most appropriate services
Offer volunteer senior lawyers, called dispute resolution officers, who will help families find less confrontational ways of resolving disputes before appearing in court
Provide greater access to legal advice and alternatives to litigation, such as mediation.

These new services began helping families this week. As part of Ontario’s family justice reforms, these two family courts were selected to be the first to help improve family justice and develop new initiatives to help reduce the stress on families. These initiatives in Brampton and Milton will help inform future improvements to court locations across the province.

QUOTES

“These improvements will help families resolve difficult issues faster and with less emotional stress when their relationships break down.”
– Chris Bentley, Attorney General

“Legal Aid Ontario recognizes that there is a clear need to make improvements to our system of family justice, and we are pleased to support these significant steps in family justice reform.”
– John McCamus, Chair of Legal Aid Ontario

Learn about how the McGuinty government’s investment of an additional $150 million in Legal Aid Ontario will help to ensure Ontarians have access to the legal services they need and drive reforms in the family and criminal courts.

And here is from “SLAW.ca” “Canada’s on-line legal magazine”, a writer who actually called the concept a One-Stop Shop. This is basically the entire post, which raises some good questions.

Edward Prutschi May 18, 2011 (Mr. Prutschi practices as a criminal defence lawyer in an Ontario firm)…

Integrated Domestic Violence Court – One‑Stop Courthouse Shopping

Regular readers of my SLAW column will know that, while I’m an ardent supporter of initiatives that enhance the efficiency of our criminal justice system, I am also a regular critic of how that same system deals with the deluge of domestic-related charges that clog our courts on a daily basis. For these very reasons, a promising new pilot project has recently caught my attention.

The Integrated Domestic Violence Court (IDV) has ambitious plans to combine cases from two of Toronto’s busiest courthouses: the criminal courts of The Old City Hall and the family courts housed at 311 Jarvis Street. While shying away from the most complex issues that arise can arise (criminal trials, divorce, family property, and child protection proceedings) the IDV will have authority to conduct case conferences, make temporary orders, and final orders on consent of the parties in family cases for custody, access, and support along with hearing bail variations, conducting criminal pre-trials and accepting guilty pleas.

Numerous potential advantages accrue by hearing the criminal and family cases in a single courtroom before a single judge. First and foremost, the presiding jurist enjoys the benefit of a far more complete picture of the family situation. Allegations of domestic violence can be better assessed and addressed in the context of the underlying (and frequently related) stressors that are part of the baggage of many family proceedings. There is the potential for substantial time savings and reduced court appearances which should translate into reduced legal fees for clients mired in the system. An integrated system also completely eliminates the common problem of inconsistent orders where the family court requires access and contact between the parties while the criminal court bail prohibits it.

At this embryonic stage in the pilot program, a number of important questions remain unanswered. All parties must consent to the process before being transferred to the IDV and approval by the criminal crown attorney is also required. What factors will be considered by the crown in assessing which cases are screened eligible for the IDV? What will be the Crown’s involvement once a case has been transferred? Where will jurists for the new court be drawn from – the family system, criminal courts, or both?

This last question raises particularly thorny issues as many judges within either of the two systems have little or no experience with the contrasting theme. Can a criminal court judge who spent her entire career before being appointed to the bench as a defence lawyer or crown be reasonably expected to understand the intricacies of family support orders? Similarly, will defence lawyers and crowns trust a career family lawyer and family court judge to make appropriate rulings on bail conditions and criminal sentences?

On a practice-management level, it is also unclear whether the IDV anticipates having clients represented by separate criminal and family counsel or whether the expectation is that a single lawyer will be responsible for both legal areas. Clients working on a tight budget (which, if we are not kidding ourselves, will be the vast majority) will be sorely tempted to seek out ‘jack-of-all-trades’ counsel even though they may be better served by experienced counsel with focussed expertise in these vastly different specialities.

While questions abound and bumps in the road are inevitable, the Ontario Courts are to be commended for having the courage to engage in some creative thinking on how to address the complex interdisciplinary problems posed by domestic violence. This is one experiment whose results are worth watching closely.

It’s obvious that Canada does study its southern, North American, neighbor for court models (not to mention that AFCC also has Canadian members, conferences, and of course influence). But for the dubious, here is a paper back in 2004, from the Canadian “Department of Justice” (“Justice.gc.ca”) with French/English links, and it’s called:

BACKGROUND PAPER

High-conflict Separation and Divorce: Options for Consideration

2004-FCY-1E

It studies several States in the US: Idaho (first), Oregon, Washington, California (of course). It then presents a case for “Parent Coordinators and Enforcement Models” (Under 6.1.5) and mentions Arizona (states in which forced-co-parenting is known to have resulted in family homicides, i.e., Dawn Axsom case), Michigan, and again refers to Oregon, cites Janet Johnston, Ph.D. (AFCC, Board member, I think), and citing a paper “Interventions for High-Conflict Families: A National Perspective.”

Everyone uses the term, it seems. Here, a Lexis-Nexis abstract combines “parent education” “high-conflict” and of course “parental alienation” Here’s a California “CFCC” (2003) publication, with one article called:

Effective Intervention With High-Conflict Families: How Judges Can Promote and Recognize Competent Treatment in Family Court Lyn R. Greenberg, Jonathan W. Gould, Hon. Robert Alan Schnider, Dianna J. Gould-Saltman & David A. Martindale. (Basically, they are looking ways to prescribe mental health treatment — see?

49 = The authors {some of who are mental health professionals standing to profit from the recommendations} explore the proper role of mental health professionals providing treatment of children and families involved in custody and visitation cases and offer a framework {justification} for judicial officers to use in ordering and assessing appropriate treatment.

This is hardly suprising — the functional purpose of the family law system, from what I can tell, is to take situations involving criminal actions (which are the most highly contested ones), milk the $$ out of it, and make sure that it’s reframed as a FAMILY problem, when at least in the U.S., we are supposedly under a Constitution with some protections for rights of individuals, even if they happen to have given birth or sired children. Are all criminal codes “off” & less relevant til all children are grown?

Really now — the constant reference to “parents” or “families” as high-conflict when in fact, the policy of family law to insist (regardless of whether one parent is actually abusive, violent, or has threatened to kill the other parent, kidnap, etc.) that all MUST co-parent or give up their kids to strangers — is what creates the very long-term, chronic stress situations ideally calling for mental health intervention. “Voila!” and they have just the plan for who…

Either way, that article is a publication of the Judicial Council of California, which has been having its own problems recently, many of them financial. In fact an Alliance of California Judges assembled itself in 2009, and put out a piece called “who really runs the judicial branch? The head of the judicial council, Vickrey, was asked to step down by two assembly persons, citing a statewide (computerized) case management system (CCMS) that ballooned from a cost of $260 million (2004) to $1.9 billion…. (Link, here), incl. ” Czuleger charged that the agency’s “dual bookkeeping and failure to be forthcoming” have made its honesty suspect, while the administrators have shown “a pattern of incompetence continuing to this very day.” and “We need to face the larger truth: our judicial governance structure is broken,” wrote Judge Charles Horan from Los Angeles Superior Court, by far the largest court in California and in the nation as a whole. “Some of our leaders appear arrogant, and others too accustomed to power. Things must change.”

Sounds like they got their own “high-conflict” issues within one state’s court system, and the largest in the US, too. Should I recommend they sit through one of their colleague’s intervention classes, called (well repurposing the title) “People in the Middle” and how stressful this is for the taxpayers?

Anyhow, several Judicial Council of California / AOC / CFCC members (publication above, 2003) are also AFCC members, i.e., high-ranking…..

While I’m sure that this paper exists, the term “High-Conflict” and the egotistic insistence on “intervening” with the bad (they have conflict) parents is an AFCC specialty. I searched the title, above, and found that a MN chapter of AFCC (in July 2010) had a special meeting on it, with invited speaker: See: “Intensive Interventions for High Conflict Parents” The speaker, AFCC Board of Directors, editorial board of “Journal of Child Custody” and co-chair of a Task Force (AFCC-initiatied) developing guidelines for court-ordered therapists. He is the big draw in this conference, and works out of Palo Alto, CA. “Parenting Coordination” is under a big push these days (though not the first year it was so) and there was apparently a “special issue” of the journal on Parenting Coordination.

Anyhow, this Dr. Matthew J. Sullivan, is spoke on (or at least the 2010 conference brochure advertised he would):

“Dr. Sullivan has written articles, presented and done trainings at numerous national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorce, parenting coordination, child alienation and mental health consultationin family law cases….

Dr. Sullivan has served on the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination and the American Psychological and American Bar Association working group on legal and psychological interventions with children and families. His website, http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com (type it in yourself, I’m not hyperlinking!)/

Searching the term led also to a woman who’s all about AFCC if you scan the bio below: Judy Sherwood: The terms are getting predictable; one could almost throw them up in the air, catch them, re-assemble them at will and come up with the title of a past AFCC conference, such as:

AFCC MN Chapter: Is it Abuse, Alienation, and / or Estrangement: A Decision Tree – 2009. or,

MICOD/AFCC Annual Conference; Custody and High Conflict Families: Strengths, Challenges and Options, Isolina Ricci, Ph.D.; St. Paul, MN {{author of Mom’s House/Dad’s House, marketed all over US through courts, etc.}}

Here’s one indicating they are playing the role of a legendary (Biblical) king, “Solomon” who asked for wisdom of God, and reputedly got it, as examined in a famous case where the king had to decided which was the real mother. He lifted a sword over his head to split the baby in half. The real mother ceded her rights to let the child live, and was identified, and the child returned to her . . . . . . . Can you believe it, the analogy is taken seriously here? The whole theme of the association is to spilt the children in half and call in the referees, for personal profit and prestige, etc…. (and to keep the professional niches going….).

Solomon’s Surrogates: Minnesota Association of Custody Resolution Specialists. {{Solomon is gone, so guess who volunteers to stand in…how ironic — how narcissistic. If Solomon, or someone of that stature existed, then there would be fewer family court disasters; he could tell a good (real) mother from a fake one……}}

From what I can tell, this was also probably deductible as continuing education in how to intervene with families, alongside “Advanced Topics in Parenting Consulting.”

Here (OK, OK) is Dr. Sparks’ “Parentingcoordinator.com” site. Please note — he has no legal training, but is in the “mental health” field, and takes personal credit for pioneering the field of “parenting coordination” across US and of course elsewhere (typical). Also note, recently inducted into the AFCC hall of fame (board of directors). Obviously, this practice expands the available areas of practice, regardless of what it does to parents to be subjected to this, year after year:

California Parenting Coordinator.com

Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. is a clinical psychologist (California Lic. # PSY10214) in private practice in Palo Alto, California, who specializes in forensic child and family psychology. He has been in private practice in Palo Alto for 20 years, specializing in Forensic Family psychology.**

He is a pioneer in the field of Parenting Coordination, which he helped develop in Santa Clara County more than 15 years ago, and has led the development of Parenting Coordination across the U.S. He is one of the most experienced Parent Coordinators (called Special Master in California) in the country. Some of the other roles he serves for families going through divorce include:

Numerous court appointed roles – custody evaluator, mediator, special master, and coparent counselor and consultant – in courts across California,
Expert testimony in custody situations in jurisdictions across the U.S. Dr. Sullivan provides consultation services to forensic professionals, Family Law attorneys and parents in the context of child custody issues.
Numerous articles, published and trainings provided at numerous national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorce, Parent Coordination, Forensic Consultation and Child Alienation.
Dr. Sullivan completed a year in 2007 providing the California Rule of Court 5.225 mandatory training of over 200 Custody Evaluators in California.

He served on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody and the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Task Force on Parenting Coordination and was appointed in 2008 to a joint working group of the American Psychological Association and the American Bar Association to develop innovative psychological and legal interventions for parents, children and families.

Dr. Sullivan is currently the co-chair of the AFCC’s task force on Court-involved therapy. The goals are to provide the first guidelines for this role. He was just appointed to a three-year term of office on the Association of Family and Conciliation Court’s Board of Directors.

Academic Background

A.B. from Stanford, Human Biology with a focus on Neurobiology
Ph.D. in Clinical & Community Psychology from the University of Maryland, 1985.
Palo Alto Veterans Administration internship with an emphasis on Family Systems

Forget the legal part . . . . . . . . In practice, it’s all about psychology.

*Remembering that a psychologist is often a would-be psychiatrist. They can’t prescribe medicine, but it helps the ego, I’m sure to continue to use words like “forensic” and see clients as subjects. … Notice also the co-occurring positions, as good a reason as any that I think the whole dang system ought to be exposed (even to parents with “high conflict”) and boycotted, leaving the practitioners as high and dry as some of us were when we walked in thinking that this had anything to do with law.

Got it?

What I’d recommend doing: simply get a hold of an AFCC list (or join it, is one way) and find out who’s a member in your locale. Quiz them on a few things (like some of the Bill of Rights). Find out the businesses in your area taking court-referrals and make sure no judges (etc.) are on the boards that might also have an open case in front of them. Track the local county funding, payrolls, you name it. If the state that is being used as a MODEL for how to run a family law (California is definitely one of them) has its own judges saying “who runs the courts in California” and being caught overbilling, double-billing, and a few other things — what does that say of anyone who is copying that model? Eh???

(And if this doesn’t work, I”ll go sic Ellen Pence on them….)

Get this: we have “no-fault divorce” which should mean, low-conflict. But, the professionals basically blame the parents for divorcing. Then they talk about non-adversarial, and set up a system where the only way to succeed is to exert undue influence on whichever court professional holds the control of your case presently — which is often not the judge, but who the judge is in business with. Safety, desire to stay alive, or physically emotionally intact (cf “LIFE in the “LIFE, LIBERTY & PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS” motto) is no excuse for being a bad parent (i.e., has a conflict with the other one).

And this from the country whose President did a pre-emptive war, or so. I mean, think about it? What’s the issue with Conflict? You injure me, threaten me, destroy or steal something of mine, of course there’s a conflict, if I’m sentient and not too numb from the last scenario.

. Keep this up a few years, and more conflict — I will want out. Now some mental health professionals say, I must stay back in for the kids, and the kids are exposed to the same treatment? And while we all continue working out “who’s the boss” and which is more important – jumping through court-ordered (capricious) hoops and being potentially labeled a “good” ~~doggie~~ (meanwhile rapidly losing a sense of personal integrity and self-respect), or objecting properly, because of the “conflict” with the mental health theme with the civil rights theme — and lose contact with one’s children. (And work life). .. . . . .

?? Are you kiddin’ me?

(I may not be saying this too well — in fact, am definitely not — but something isn’t right about the unilateral objection (by mental healthprofessionals) to “conflict.” What they really mean is unresolved conflicts that cause continuing struggle for dominance, combined with an inability to get free from the situation, or make it into something better, redemptive (etc.)

At some level, it seems they are incapacitating a whole population, focusing on the poor in particular. Anyone willing to protect something worthwhile is going to run into conflict occasionally. But they also can then develop some wisdom in how to stop continually running into conflict with the same people. Typically, this is called leaving the situation, separation.

The family law situation is quite similar to many classroom situations in public schools across the country. Kids are boxed in together with all different kinds of classmates, with each others’ issues, and no going out til the bell rings. if the material is too boring (not advanced enough), there are different ways to handle this boredom. There’s bullying, it’s acknowledged, and multiple problems. Whereas, in a different scenario, with less force and compulsion, I think that the better sides of people to negotiate their way through life (even educational life) might happen. Allowing a variety of languages and systems of meanings into the place –r ather than the codified, hierarchical, AFCC-generated artificial vocabulary for real-world situations, which is arranged and agreed upon in conferences, in publications half the litigants couldn’t afford (or don’t know exist), and so forth.

There’s GOTTA be a better way.

(This below relates more to the Canadian incident).

I looked up “Domestic Violence Advisory Committee” hoping to find Lauren Israel, family attorney. I didn’t so far, but I did find that each DV court has a DVAdvisory Committee. Here is one, and an article on The tendency to use “gender-neutral” language to describe violence against women.

It was prepared by two professors of criminology at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (one male, one female, both Ph.D.s)

Shifting Public Policy Direction: Gender-Focused Versus Bi-Directional Intimate Partner Violence

Transforming our Communities

A Report Prepared by

Walter S. DeKeseredy, Ph.D.
Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Ontario
Canada L1H 7K4
Walter.dekeseredy@uoit.ca

Molly Dragiewicz, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Ontario
Canada L1H 7K4
Molly.dragiewicz@uoit.ca

March 2, 2009

©Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2009.

Introduction

Popular conceptions of violence as gender-neutral are increasingly becoming “common sense” in Canada (Minaker & Snider, 2006, p. 755). However, gender-neutral discourse distorts research on woman abuse, violence against same-sex partners, and on violence against men. The move to gender-neutral or bi-directional language is not merely semantic. Rather, it reflects an intense political struggle to typify violence against intimate partners that has serious pragmatic implications. Indeed, the endorsement of terminology effectively advocates certain responses to violence and abuse and precludes others.

“Prior to the 1970s, there was no name for violence against women by their husbands or partners (Denham & Gillespie, 1999, p. 6).

Although there has been episodic concern with various types of violence against women in Canadian history, women physically abused by male intimate partners and acquaintances were not of interest until recently to social scientists, practitioners, politicians, and the general public. It was, after all, only 40 years ago that an exhaustive bibliography on wife beating could be written on an index card (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002). Since then, predominantly because of feminist efforts, many residents of Ontario and other Canadian provinces are paying considerable attention to the various harms women experience during and after intimate relationships. One of the key results of this extensive work has been the reduction of some persistent injurious myths (e.g., only poor women are beaten). Yet, at the same time, some prominent researchers, journalists, and even some well known Canadian politicians continue to attract much publicity with arguments that include other highly problematic conceptions about the nature of violence against intimate partners.

What Martin D. Schwartz and Walter DeKeseredy stated 16 years ago still holds true today: “Right now, there is an important battle being waged over the nature of women’s behaviour and its role in woman abuse” (1993, p. 249). For example, while many people from different walks of life continue to use terms such as “woman abuse,” “violence against women,” and “male-to-female violence,” there are also many people who fervently oppose these names and contend that we should use gender-neutral terms like “family violence” or “intimate partner violence” (IPV). Their rationale is heavily based on some Canadian national survey data, which, at first glance, show that violence in intimate, heterosexual relationships is sex-symmetrical. Of course, there are government agencies and community groups who also favour the labels “family violence” or “IPV” because they claim that these terms are more inclusive (Denham & Gillespie, 1999). Regardless of the reasons why people use gender-neutral terms, such language suggests that violence results from ordinary, everyday social interactions in the family or other intimate relationships that have gone wrong and that women are just as responsible for the problem as men (DeKeseredy, 2009; Ellis & DeKeseredy, 1996, Kurz, 1989).

Over the past 40 years, there have been significant shifts in the generally accepted definitions of woman abuse, and there have been passionate disagreements along the way. Even the term used here, “woman abuse,” is relatively recent. Before 1970, in Canada and other Western industrialized countries, there was no name for violence against women by their husbands or other intimate partners. Then, in the 1970s, feminists and others began to talk about violence against women and created the first emergency shelters for abused women. In the early and mid-1970s, women working at the community level used the terms “wife beating” and “wife battering” to describe the problem (DeKeseredy & MacLeod, 1997; Walker, 1990). The term “battered” was borrowed from legal references to “assault and battery.” “Wife beating” referred to the way in which women who had been physically abused by their husbands might describe their own experiences.”

(ETC.

)

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 10, 2011 at 9:06 pm

Posted in History of Family Court

(“Say No! to SB 557,” cont’d.) Centralizing the Dispensation of Justice, Resource Centers to Train the Dispensaries…

CRIMINALS

California Releasing Mentally Disturbed Prisoners in Time for Tourists

By Ryan Tate, May 23, 2011 2:53 PM

Here’s an advisory for prospective summer visitors to California: The state must release around 32,000 prisoners under a new Supreme Court decision to help mentally ill inmates. It is one of the largest prisoner releases in U.S. history. Exciting.

Citing the state penitentiaries’ horrific overcrowding and high suicide rate, the high court upheld an order to reduce the prison population to 137.5 percent of capacity from 200 percent in recent years, translating into a release of around 32,000 people. It’s not clear how many of those people will come straight from mental treatment, but it’s plain that the overcrowding is corroding the minds even among the regular population.California prisoners have been living in gyms up to 200 at a time, and as many as 54 prisoners have been known to share a single toilet. There is, on average, about one suicide per week, according to a report by the governor’s office.

…Or, a nice photo from 2010, featured in the NYT:

CALIFORNIA REELING

California, in Financial Crisis, Opens Prison Doors

The prison in Lancaster, Calif., has 4,600 inmates, twice the intended number. Some 150 prisoners are held in the gymnasium.
by Randall C. Archibold in NYTimes, published March 23, 2010:

LANCASTER, Calif. — The California budget crisis has forced the state to address a problem that expert panels and judges have wrangled over for decades: how to reduce prison overcrowding.

The state has begun in recent weeks the most significant changes since the 1970s to reduce overcrowding — and chip away at an astonishing 70 percent recidivism rate, the highest in the country — as the prison population becomes a major drag on the state’s crippled finances.

Many in the state still advocate a tough approach, with long sentences served in full, and some early problems with released inmates have given critics reason to complain. But fiscal reality, coupled with a court-ordered reduction in the prison population, is pouring cold water on old solutions like building more prisons.

About 11 percent of the state budget, or roughly $8 billion, goes to the penal system, putting it ahead of expenditures like higher education…
….

To slow the return of former inmates to prison for technical violations of their parole, hundreds of low-level offenders will be released without close supervision from parole officers. Those officers will focus instead on tracking serious, violent offenders.

Some prisoners may also be released early for completing drug and education programs or have their sentences reduced under new formulas for calculating time served in county jails before and after sentencing.

The effort represents a “seismic shift,” said Joan Petersilia, a criminologist at Stanford Law School and a longtime scholar of the state’s prisons.

Public safety concerns have other states rethinking their decisions to save prisons costs by releasing inmates early and expanding parole.

The same red flags are being raised here, but the overcrowding problem dwarfs that of any other state and the budget deficit — $20 billion and climbing — has left lawmakers with virtually no choice but to move ahead. …

Proponents, including Mr. Schwarzenegger’s corrections secretary, Matthew Cate, have stood by the law, calling it overdue and necessary. The state spends, on average, $47,000 per year to house a prisoner. Early estimates suggest the new changes could save $100 million this year.

Gee, $47,000 per year reminds me of a similar $$$ figure of double-dipping by L.A. County Judges, featured in a “FullDisclosure.net” series of articles on Richard Fine, and retroactively “legalized” in California’s “SBX 211,” which I blogged recently in “What’s Money Got to Do With It?….” post.

This double-dipping has been known about for at least ten years — here’s an article from 2000, LA times, talking about this (although the figure was lower then):

“L.A. County Lets Judges Draw Duplicate Benefits and Perks“

Courts: Jurists, who get similar compensation from the state, say it’s well-deserved.

Others see double-dipping.

August 20, 2000|STEVE BERRY and TRACY WEBER | TIMES STAFF WRITERS

Judges across California can only look in wonderment and envy at their brethren on the Los Angeles Superior Court. In this town, judges make so much that a promotion to a higher level would mean a pay cut.

The reason: Los Angeles County officials allow the judges to draw duplicate benefits and perks from state and local taxes. As a result, the judges receive nearly $30,000 a year above their base salary of $118,000.**

{{**I wasn’t tracking judicial salaries 10 years ago, but recently I’ve been reading $178,000/ year, plus benefits. You can find out locally, I’m sure..}}

Although this compensation arrangement is largely unknown to the public, it is no secret to judicial insiders and county officials throughout the state. Some criticize it as “double-dipping.”

Here’s why:

* Los Angeles County judges now {{year 2000}}receive $22,400 in cash from the county for health and insurance benefits, even though they are fully covered by the state. There are no strings attached to how judges spend that money. “If they wanted to go to Vegas on it they could,” says Los Angeles County spokeswoman Judy Hammond.

* The judges are given $5,520 each year in “professional development” money for legal journals, educational books and conferences. They are not, however, required to submit receipts showing where it goes. In fact, records show that judges have charged the state for educational expenses instead of using the money the county gave them for just that purpose.

{{A “Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court” addresses this, as I noted earlier, in flying judges out to attend a SF- based conferrence on Domestic Violence (see title of post, today). So does this Opinion No. 98-16.

(Quote within a quote, here, is in red…)”

CJE Opinion No. 98-16

Attending Meetings of Domestic Violence Roundtables

~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > NOTE DATE: ~ > ~ > ~ > ~ > September 15, 1998

CJE Opinion No. 98-16

You ask whether you may attend meetings of a domestic violence “roundtable.” In your court these roundtables are called monthly by a victim/witness advocate from the District Attorney’s Office. While all court personnel and the public are invited, the meetings are attended mostly by victim/witness advocates, assistant district attorneys, and probation officers, although police officers, court clinic personnel and clerks will also attend. While defense counsel are notified, they rarely attend. The roundtables typically involve a presentation by a guest who is often a professional involved with the provision of treatment or services to batterers and batterees. Generally, the discussions concern issues regarding the detection of and response to domestic violence, usually, but not always, from a law enforcement, prosecutorial, and probationary standpoint.

{{And the opinion goes on to say, it may compromise appearance of impartiality…..}} My quote, in red here, is to relate this practice (obviously now an established, and federally-supported (through HHS) practice to promote — to this article about double-dipping as to perks, which ALSO refers to the professional development moneys. And I did n’t even refer (here) to how this plays out when, in the family law side, the professional development absolutely does espouse a single point of view, and the organization’s name is AFCC (Association of Family & Conciliation Courts — although it’s a private, nonprofit corporation whose memberships primarily make their livings from the courts…). I recently found information in the state of Indiana where a steering committee simply decided that, rather than fly its judges out to attend a conference out of state, they’d request the organization to host its conference in THEIR state — Indiana. Want references? Comment-me; I’m busy, but will provide if you ask.}}

This Committee has been called upon several times to address participation by judges in activities that involve interaction with individuals identified with or otherwise supportive of a particular class of litigants. These requests have implicated Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides, in part:

“(A) A judge should . . . conduct himself at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

“(B) [A judge] should not . . . convey or permit others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence him.”

Based upon these provisions, we concluded in CJE Opinion No. 97-8 and CJE Opinion 98-9 that a judge’s participation in the activities of a community policing organization impermissibly conveyed the impression that the police and other members of the group were in a special position to influence him. Similarly, in CJE Opinion No. 91-2 we advised a probate judge that she could not serve on an advisory committee established by the Coalition for Battered Women Service Groups. There we concluded that her “membership in an organization dedicated to the needs of women who are battered would call into question [her] impartiality in deciding” abuse prevention petitions.

A judge’s participation in domestic violence roundtables is fraught with the same dangers, i.e., that the judge may be perceived as being on the victim’s “team” in G. L. c. 209A proceedings or in the prosecutions of c. 209A violations or domestic assaults, or that the other attendees may be viewed as having the opportunity, in essentially a one-sided format, to suggest the validity of certain legal positions that will inevitably come up in such proceedings.

SIMILARLY, in the family law venue, often, victims of domestic violence are not informed of the existence of a compromising set of grants (compromising IMPARTIALITY) that is very likely to being their case, given the $10 million/year funding (nationwide) for it, and the variety of groups that stand to profit by marketing products geared primarily to these grants. When these products tie back to nonprofits with judges & attorneys and family law therapists / marital therapist & social workers on them — then, we have an impartiality problem. Not that the judges seem to think so — after all, it’s just to “help” the clients — excuse me, “litigants,” excuse me — parents. Or grandparents. Or (best buzz word to use) “kids.”

Back to the 2000 article:

* On top of the money judges receive in their paychecks, they also are well positioned for their later years. They receive two retirements programs at taxpayers expense–one from the county, one from the state.

Chief Justice of California Ronald George said the great disparity between the pay of Los Angeles County’s 400-plus judges and those laboring elsewhere in the state “doesn’t make sense.” Judges in L.A., he said, are “in effect, double-dipping for benefits.”

“The Legislature has the authority to say judges can’t have both,” George said, but he stopped short of urging specific action.”

A simple solution : Take the double-dipped benefits and apply them to housing prisoners, for now. After also, Los Angeles already knows how to do such things, and so does San Diego, it seems (see recent posts). Surely something would be more sensible than to continue the double-dipping However, extra scoops can become addictive, and politicians and other leaders most definitely can get addicted to various perks of office, and excommunicate ethical protesters in egregious manners. But here’s the humorous rendition (May, 2010) of the issue:

In the early 1990s, California unified its court system and assumed the financial responsibility of paying the wages and benefits for all of California’s nearly 2,000 judges. A California Court of Appeals recently ruled it was unconstitutional (illegal) for Judge Yaffe and his cohorts (at least 500 of them) to accept dual benefits (aka, double-dipping).

It would be absurd for Judge Yaffe to assert that he was ignorant of the fact it was illegal to collect nearly $50,000 a year from LA County for the same benefits he received from the State. I suppose Yaffe will argue that he was ignorant of the law. As we all know, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense; however, in many instances it is a stepping stone to higher office.

Unfortunately for Mr. Fine his sole remedy is to seek redress from another judge, a proposition that in and of itself doesn’t pass the involuntary laugh test. {We now know he was released, the judge who did this has retired, and retroactive immunity for violating the California Constitution was later legalized, in this matter (I think), in SB

As we speak (ca. May 2010) Judge Yaffe and those of his ilk (FYI: Judge Yaffe, ILK is not defined as a male ELK!), are receiving around $57,000 annually in duplicate benefits from LA County that are also being paid by the overburdened taxpayers of California. And Judge Yaffe has the chutzpah to accept this unconstitutional gratuity with a smile on his face. Is Los Angeles County a great country or what?

Finally, when a defendant who wrongfully collected worker’s compensation while actually working appeared before Judge Yaffe, do ya think he gave him/her a pass for illegally double-dipping like he has for years?

You have to admire the graphics, on the post, though: It is no laughing matter, but perhaps if we expose how “laughable” these problem-solving courts are, when in the hands of double-dipping, ethical-attorney-tossing judges and panels of experts. . . . .

If you’re lost, here’s an orderly statement of events on SBX 211 at “tulanelink.com”

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

Judges were apparently worried about being prosecuted for criminal acts and liability for taking the unearned payments. At the urging of the Los Angeles Superior Court, the California Judicial Council quietly authored a provision that was slipped into State Budget legislation SBX2 11 without public debate or awareness. …

{{Well, SB 557 is another one…. time to pay closer attention to our legislators, as best we can. I know it ain’t easy to keep up with them…..}}

NON-DISCLOSURE & PROSECUTION

Sterling Norris of Judicial Watch had these comments regarding unearned payments to judges and their failure to disclose:

The purpose of DISCLOSURE is so that anyone coming before a judge with a cause knows whether the judge as a financial vested interest in a certain outcome. It is to make sure the judges are not being bribed or influenced. If they do not disclose, the public doesn’t know if its judge is honest or dishonest. HONEST judges will disclose, and are responsible to know what they must disclose. Period. Honest judges making honest mistakes don’t retroactively vote to immunize themselves against systemic corruption because it’s somehow “for our common good.” Honestly, we need to stop being “morons united” and figure out what we do — and do not — have in common with our elected and appointed governmental figures.

• “There is no question that the judges should have disclosed they were receiving $46,000 from the County of L.A.; there is no way the judiciary, ethically, could get around it…”

• “$46,000 each year is not a small amount; many people don’t make that much all year, and this, from the County, is on top their $200,000 State salary. In California they are the highest paid court judges in the nation.

• “We have never seen people excused from liability retroactively.”

• “There is a criminal doctrine of law that, if you received money you are not entitled to and you keep it, that is considered theft.”

If you’ve heard of “Sterling Norris” (Plaintiff attorney on ‘Sturgeon v. Los Angeles,” which dealt with this issue), did you know he was a former L.A. County District Attorney? If find this interesting, because a parallel case (between the two of them, Richard Fine ends up jailed 18 months, age 69 — solitary coercive confinement, not the gymnasium variety, above….) was “Silva v. Garcetti, which dealt with another L.A. District Attorney (and his office) illegally withholding millions of collected child support — due the children — in order to retain the interest, and might still be doing this — had they not been caught. I still don’t know what became of “SIlva v. Garcetti,” but Californians know that around 2000, Child Support Collection (another thing that can land a man – or a woman – in jail, if they are in contempt) was removed from the District Attorney’s office to a Child Support Agency which (from what I can tell) is just as burdensome and not much more ethical — and THEIR “on the take” is from the federal government’s series of grants to increase noncustodial parenting time in the theory (and it IS “theory”) that this will improve collections and make better Dads out of the men.

Sterling Norris

Sterling “Ernie” Norris is an attorney for Judicial Watch, a conservative, Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization whose stated mission is to promote transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law. Norris is a former L.A. Deputy District Attorney and is the attorney who represented the plaintiff in Sturgeon vs. County of Los Angeles.

My ongoing theme, these days, is “Say No to SB 557” which is the California version of further legitimizing the Family Justice Center philosophy which, as I wrote, got its start with a Faith-Based President’s $20 million oomph and some sort of Republican empathy with a San Diego City Attorney (?) who was in hot water over financial matters in his hometown. I’m not in favor of the family justice center alliance — for one, where’s the justice, apart from the center’s own claims to be providing it? Show me the money, etc. When I learned who was behind it in Washington, I was even less impressed.

Then I learned at Ellen & Casey were conferencing and schmoozing (I call it that) — EDUCATING AND TRAINING — and so forth — I believe the whole damn thing is most likely a racket. (I plead the “First” — that’s my opinion. For what I based it on, read — or do your own research….).

DULUTH- SAN DIEGO – SAN FRANCISCO CONNECTIONS TO WASHINGTON, D.C. (HHS):

Washington DC is the “initiative” and a financer. Think “House Ways and Means, Appropriations.” Any federal initiative is a great chance for the resident White House CEO to give his favorites some Czar position, whether it reads on Fatherhood (there is none on mother hood), DOmestic VIolence, “Women and Girls” and I hear now they are pushing for a “Boyz 2 Men” initiative as well, per Washington Post, including among its Board of Directors, Warren Farrell, a powerful spokesperson for the “Powerlessness of Men” as he expressed in 1993 interview to his book about “The Myth of Male Power.” (I didn’t finish reading the interview and just found the website by search, don’t associate me with whatever else is on that domain):

FARRELL: By getting men to understand what their feelings are, and to express those feeling, and as a result, getting the society to understand what we are doing that is leading men to commit 80% of the suicides, be victims of 3/4 of the homicides, become 85% of the street homeless, most of the alcoholics and gamblers, and over 90% of the prisoners.

We have no problems understanding that blacks are more likely to be the victims of these problems because of the powerlessness of blacks, but when men as a group are victims of each of these problems we cannot conceive that it might be a result of the powerlessness of men.

{{And women start the wars and run Congress, I know . . . . as can be seen from our major institutions which, though funded through a Congress primarily white males, and many of them run also by males, somehow all these males are mistakenly ruling all the time in favor of females. SOmething oughter be done about that!}}

With men being so powerless, what better to do than have “a White House Council on Boys to Men” “A multi-partisan*” committee of nationally known scholars and practitioners [FATHERHOOD practitioners, for the uninformed, but across a variety of fields][what’s a “practitioner, anyhow? Someone with an advanced degree of some sort?] request that President Obama create a White House Council on Boys to Men….Short term investment, one million. Long-term savings: Billions of dollar…” (of course). For further info, contact Chairman, Warren Farrell, Ph.D.

For who is this mysterious “Commission” self-described as a “Bipartisan Commission of Leading American Authors, Academics and Practitioners” see the roster — it’s basically fatherhood advocates, including many that signed the last “fatherhood manifesto.”

The 2nd listed member of this “Commission” is Sanford M. Braver, Ph.D. (in psychology, what else?) described as:

Dr. Sanford L. Braver has been a Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University since 1970.

For his research on fatherhood, he has receivedFederal grants in excess of $20M, and published over 100 articles and chapters, as well as the landmark book Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths .His numerous awards include Vice-president Gore’s ReinventingGovernment Award, and both the President’s Award and the Research Award from the Association of Family and Conciliation Court

(Hmm. See my comments on the CJE Opinion 98-16 from September 1998, here, on AFCC — it’s another private organization, and obviously, has a position on custody given that Dr. Braver got its research award. Fact is, he can draw grants….)

Described at “The Boys Initiative” (a nonprofit I traced to a Family Foundation in Vienna, VA & New York (i think), but will spare you this time), Warren Farrell organized this commission to start with. So we ought to read some of his earlier work, found in the infamous (and well known among certain mothers fighting to retain or regain custody of their children) December, 1977 PENTHOUSE article, “Incest, the Last Taboo.” The blog this is from is called “Kinda Sort Like Almost Similar to Pro-Pedophilia.” but I’m sure the Penthouse article can be found on-line in its entirety.

WARREN FARRELL, interviewed in Penthouse, December 1977, “Incest: The Last Taboo” by Philip Nobile:

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.”

Dr. Farrell has two daughters. I should go interview them (when they turn 18, if they haven’t) as to whether they have been able to live down their famous father’s reputation, and whether they agree with his comments back then. I suppose I could ask Mrs. Farrell, but typically anyone that can stick around for literature like this sort of has to work out a compromise, or buy into it wholesale, I imagine. . . . . Anyhow, there’s more than one way to sell articles & books and become “leading authors” ; one way is by offending people who then blog it to protest it….

(Bipartisan Commission: translation: Republicans and Democrats and even some progressive among the Democrats can unite, as can the religious and the atheist, when it comes to complaining about women have too much power. After all (says the 1993 article above), were they subject to the draft and forced to fight as infantry on the front lines when they turned 18? {{If they did, then I suppose the older females would have to breed the next generation of soldiers to die worldwide in combat zones in wars started over . . . . over . . . . . . . [?? See Iraq, Viet Nam, etc.]}}

If it has a logo like this, it MUST be legitimate, right?

As it turns out, Dr. Farrell went and assembled the Commission after he attempted to get in on as advisor to the White House Council on Women and Girls,” as even their own site says:

The proposal for a White House Council on Boys to Men was originally inspired by a discussion initiated by the White House Boards and Commissions Director Joanna Martin to Dr. Warren Farrell, inquiring of [her “WTF” response to?] his interest in advising the White House Council on Women and Girls, given his background with the National Organization for Women.*** Shortly after, Dr. Farrell created a multi-partisan Commission of thirty-four prominent authors, educators, researchers and practitioners to accomplish three goals: investigate the status of boys and their journey into manhood; identify both surface and underlying problems confronting boys and men; create a blueprint toward solutions. This proposal is the result.”

A problem-free society as designed by White House Councils on this and that — what a vision….

Council on Women and Girls

The White House Council on Women and Girls was created by Executive Order in 2009, and promptly, Valerie Jarrett (Obama’s right-hand woman, not counting Michelle) got the title role, appropriate for someone who, and her connections, were influential in helping him get to the White House to start with.)

The White House Council on Women and Girls, has as its members the head of every federal agency and major White House office, so that everyone shares in this responsibility. The Council is chaired by Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen serves as the Executive Director. By placing the Council in the White House, we not only emphasize its work, but provide a central point for coordination and cooperation with the overall goals of the Administration. This structure is critical because as the President said at the Executive Order signing, the issues facing women today “are not just women’s issues. When women make less than men for the same work, it hurts families who find themselves with less income, and have to work harder just to get by.

Like the 2001 Office of Faith-Based initiatives (Bush) and the previous Memorandum re: Fatherhood (Clinton) these were executive branch directives that helped ‘REDESIGN GOVERNMENT” — which should be voted on, not executive-order-grafted in. ANyhow, they are here, and while Clinton said all the Federal Government EXECUTIVE Branch agencies, department, and programs should restructure, reconsider, incorporate, evaluate (?) and basically think “Fatherhood” because welfare is biased against men to favor Moms. That’s going strong, last I heard. Now, Obama, not to be outdone, continued to play to that audience and make large and increasingly grandiose promises (entailing transfer of funds) to organizations that are “fatherhood” . . . . . has also done it not to “motherhood” (that’s a word he has a mental block with) but to “Women and Girls” and in context, it’s expected that these mothers would not care for their own children growing up, but childcare providers would. As such, they were women, but they were not really “mothers.”

Here we go with who are the Council on Women & Girls Designees within each department.

Designee Biographies

When the Council on Women and Girls was created, President Obama asked each Cabinet and Cabinet-level Secretary and White House Office to appoint a senior level person within their agency to serve as their designee to oversee the work of the Council. The biographies of those designees are included in this section.

You know I’m going to look at the Dept. of HHS, and we find that it is the Secretary of Health and Human Services, formerly governor of Kansas. Council MEMBERs = all Dept. heads, and under that, they have Designees. The thing about the Secretary of HHS is that she is already by law (Code of Federal Regulations) also enabled to conduct demonstration projects utilizing access/visitation (fatherhood-based) grants, per 45 CFR 303.109, which you can look up yourself at this link (TITLE 45 refers to “Public Welfare”)

303.109 – Procedures for State monitoring, evaluation and reporting on programs funded by Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs.

(b) Evaluation. The State: (1) May evaluate all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs; (2) Must assist in the evaluation of significant or promising projects as determined by the Secretary.

States wanting these funds (and who wouldn’t in these times?) must take on projects as determined by the Secretary, or whoever pushes these projects to the Secretary of HHS, resulting in authorization. Access Visitation funding goes, for example, (as I can see it) to programs like Paternity Opportunity Program (Shasta County, California) between the Dept. of Child Support Services there and a Hospital District. It references 45 CFR 303.109 and pays $10/person on invoice (From these funds) to provide its information to “Natural unwed mother and father.” Alternately, the Hospital could NOT sign up with POP and be in violation of a Family Code. (See 2nd to last & last para on page 1 of 2).

On another note, the Child Support Dept. at least in this county (and in 2010) it says is “34% state and 66% federal.” (Who pays the piper calls the tune. Sounds like the so-called “Local” Child Support department is primarily federalized at this point…)

Here’s another contract from Tarrant County Texas, accessing these funds and citing this code’s purpose; in Texas, the Office of Attorney General is quite open about its dealings with this grants system, and they indeed endorse and promote fatherhood agenda.

CONTRACT FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION GRANT BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS

AND TARRANT COUNTY

ARTICLE 1 INTRODUCTION SECTION 1.1 PARTIES

Contract No.: 09-00003

This Contract (“Contract”) is entered into by and between the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas (“OAG”) and Tarrant County (“Contractor”). The OAG and the Contractor may be referred to in this Contract individually as a “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

SECTION 1.2 AUTHORITY

This Contract is entered into pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §669b, which enables states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children. …

1.3.2 Source of Funding Funds paid by the OAG to the Contractor under this Contract are Access and Visitation Grant funds

awarded to the OAG by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”).

(For a quick review, go to the HHS site (or, I’ve blogged it plenty): 42 U.S.C. §669b, authorizes the grants to states, and 45 303.109 regulates what they can do with the grants. The Office of Child Support Enforcement (which is under HHS) administers these grants.

Allowable Services

States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:

Mediation

Development of parenting plans

Education

Counseling

Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)

Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

These are precisely the areas causing trouble in the family law situation, particularly when it comes to criminal matters of child abuse or domestic violence, B UT ALSO in the area where the fathers can be extorted into taking classes they neither want — nor need — which are run by people associated with the courts, i.e., it’s a racket…

That itself is quite a reframing (“redesign?”) of the purpose of these funds which were sold as a way to increase child support enforcement by involving fathers, and thereby, obviously helping solve our nations’ fiscal crises through more “research and demonstration” projects enabled without vote on the authority of one Executive Branch Designee.

Texas, here (Tarrant County, at least) chose to handle the situation by simply paying someone to do the job. One year, the cost was $45,300 + $500 for conferences:

4.2.2

Table 1. Fiscal Year 2009 (September 1, 2008 through August 31, 2009), see Attachment C for Detailed Program Budget

Category Amount Salary $45,300 Fringe 0 Training and In-State Travel 500 Supplies 0 Contractual 0 Other 0 Total $45,800

RESOURCE CENTERS AND FAMILY VIOLENCE CENTERS

These appear to be more separate than they actually are. They are quite linked. Some of them were the visionary (which vision, is debatable), leveraged creation of just a few individuals. Minnesota Program Development, Inc. (“Duluth Model”) definitely seems to have been this, and it’s obvious that (see post title — but not listed below) the “Family Justice Center Alliance” fit neatly with then-President Bush’s wish to get the faith groups in into service providing centers dealing with child sexual abuse and woman abuse (noted among faith groups to start with….) — as well as Mr. Gwinn’s need for something to do after moving out of the San Diego City Attorney’s Office. Battered Women’s Justice Project, as well as conferencing with the Family Justice Center National Alliance (re-arrange words to get the right one — it attended a conference in San Diego) — also collaborated with Association of Family and Conciliation courts (AFCC) recently to reframe [“explicate”] “domestic violence” when custody is involved. The AFCC being the primary carrier of “PAS” theory which puts kids back into the custody of an abuser (or, if you’re a Fathers and Family Follower, wrongfully accused maligned, innocent Dads who did NOT commit a crime — even if CPS or a District Attorney’s prosecution convicted them of one in a different forum ).

Either way, “the house always wins” -because there is a class and a resource center (and now, justice centers) for any situation.

The “Duluth Abuse Intervention Project” in some ways is little different than the smaller (I think) version of Educational Marketer “Newday Services” in Tarrant County, Texas. Both take advantage of the federal funding stream to market their materials, primarily training populations they get from the courts — and curricula to get the desired results. The Texas Access Visitation funding has perhaps a closer alliance with the AFCC than it seems the Duluth Model did, however — how different, really, is “Batterers Intervention Programs” philosophy from the Parent Education philosophy? Both believe that training is the key…. and take a lot of funding for it. In the SF area, there’s the shape-shifting “ENDABUSE.org” which I learned here has no problem marketing to both the “health” side and the ‘Fatherhood” side of domestic violence prevention, all the while ignoring the existence of AFCC in its materials. The “NCFCJ” below (notice the URLS) is a family law oriented group based in Nevada.

National Resource Centers on Family Violence

National Immigrant Family Violence Institute
314-773-9090
www.nifvi.org

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
800-537-2238
www.vawnet.org

Battered Women’s Justice Project
Criminal and Civil Center
800-903-0111 ext. 1
www.bwjp.org

Battered Women’s Justice Project
Self-Defense Center
800-903-0111 ext. 3
www.bwjp.org

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

Resource Center on Domestic Violence:
Child Protection and Custody
800-527-3223
www.ncjfcj.org/dept/fvd

Sacred Circle: National Resource Center to End Violence Against Native Women
877-733-7623
www.sacred-circle.com

Alianza: The National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence
800-342-9908
www.dvalianza.org

Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence APIA Health Forum
415-954-9988
www.apiahf.org/apidvinstitute

Institute on Domestic Violence in the
African American Community
877-643-8222

www.dvinstitute.org

National Training and TA Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health
312-726-7020
www.dvmhpi.org

**IAADV (“2nd from last) is worth some note, as it’s a fatherhood group, and I believe also Minnesota-based:

Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community (IDVAAC)

The Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community (Institute) seeks to raise awareness of the impact of domestic violence in the African American community, to identify community needs and best practices needed to eliminate domestic violence, and to facilitate local and national conference and training forums on domestic violence. The Institute organizes community forums, conducts reseaC7Jrch, and performs policy analysis. Additionally, the Institute produces publications and uses other forms of media and works collaboratively with other organizations to share knowledge and experience for developing culturally competent responses to domestic violence among African Americans.

NATIONAL AND SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence

The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV), a project of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, employs a multidisciplinary staff and supports a wide range of free, comprehensive and individualized technical assistance and training, as well as specialized resource materials such as resource packets, applied research papers, and training materials. In addition, the NRCDV operates a number of special projects designed to explore issues more deeply or develop more comprehensive assistance to a particular constituent group. These special projects include the Domestic Violence Awareness Projects, VAWnet – the National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women (funded by CDC), the Women of Color Network, Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, and the recently completed national Domestic Violence Shelter Study (conducted with support from the National Institute of Justice).

Battered Women’s Justice Project

The Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) consists of two partnering agencies that operate in separate locations:

The Criminal and Civil Justice Center is a project of the Minnesota Program Development, Inc. The criminal section focuses on effective intervention through interagency coordination and policy development that guides individual practitioners in their understanding of the use of arrest, prosecution, sentencing of abusers, victim safeguards, and batterer intervention programs. The Center provides technical assistance and advocacy to domestic violence victims of military personnel and supports the development of a coordinated response to domestic violence on military bases. The civil section provides leadership in the civil legal arena by improving victim access to civil court options and legal representations in civil court processes. Staff provides consultation to advocates, attorneys, battered women, court personnel, and policy makers on advocacy, representation and pro bono assistance, judicial practice, monitoring, civil court model protocols, and public policy. The civil justice component typically deals with legal issues, including civil protection orders, divorce, custody, child support, economic restoration, landlord-tenant, credit, employment, arbitration, mediation, and immigration.

SAMPLE SEARCHES:

If you go to USASpending.gov and look some of these up, especially if you can get a DUNS# for any of them, you’ll see that they often outshine their competitors (collectively, and some, individually) in the categories of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA, a.k.a., what you provide the IRS) where they are getting Discretionary, Research and Demonstration, etc. grants. I’ve posted a few DUNS#s in the last posts.

Some of the groups also have an associated fund-raising group to go with it, as does NCFCJ:

Foundation Center Data on NCFCJ (written out)

http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/esearch.php

results:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2009 $2,742,133 990 40 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2008 $3,329,058 990 52 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2007 $3,530,962 990 50 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges NV 2004 $2,322,334 990 25 36-2486896

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Fund Inc. NV 2009 $2,278,092 990EZ 14 94-3109663

(SITE notes some problems for IRS receipts in a certain year rang, I think 2007-2009. The PDF I just looked at for 2002-2003 for the topic entity shows GOVERNMENT SUPport $12 million, PUBLIC support, around $1,000. … Salaries & wages, $7 million, Program services $5 million, etc. Contracts and Honorariums, $1+ million etc. The organization’s address is a PO Box in Reno; its one director (in this year), a man from Sparks, Nevada, and an “E. Hunter Hurst III” from Pittsburg (no “h”), PA Their mutual pay (granted, it’s a big organization) is a little above and a little below what I heard Los Angeles County Superior Court Judges get (NOT including any double-dipped benefits), i.e., back then $157K for one, and $180K for another. They are spending most of the $12 million the US granted them — that year — so — the benefits to the public are ? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I decided to look up this “E. Hunter Hurst, III” and found he is/was also Director of a “Providence Service Corporation” out of Tuscon, AZ, and had a masters in social service, bachelors in psychology. The site acknowledges him as director of NCFCJ (1973 til retirement in 2003) and also lists his compensation from Providence, around $70K, plus other fees/benefits. I think we should know about it. This was found on a “Forbes” list and I had to get through a Scientology quote to get to this URL:

Hunter Hurst

Independent Director

Providence Service Corporation

Tucson , AZ

Sector: HEALTHCARE / Specialized Health Services {such as??}

72 Years Old

Hunter Hurst, III has served as our director since December 1996 and chairperson of the nominating and corporate governance committee of our board of directors since May 2005. Mr. Hurst served as Director of the National Center for Juvenile Justice from its founding in 1973 until his retirement in May 2008. The Center (NCJJ) is the leading resource for juvenile justice research and statistics in the western hemisphere. He has directed over thirty applied research studies and has authored numerous publications relating to juvenile issues. He received his bachelor?s degree in psychology and master?s degree in social work from Louisiana State University in 1960 and 1965, respectively.

Director Compensation (Providence Service Corporation) for 2009

Fees earned or paid in cash $70,000.00

Who is “Providence Service Corp?” Well:

PRSC Profile (Volume appears to be $167 million….)

Providence Service Corporation is a government outsourcing privatization company, which provides government sponsored social services directly and through not-for-profit social services organizations.

Providence Service
64 East Broadway Boulevard
Tucson, AZ 85701
Phone: (520) 747-6600
Fax: (520) 747-6605
Web Site: www.provcorp.com

Price and Chart delayed at least 15 minutes.
Price$ 12.85	Change-0.13
Open13.05	% Change-1.0%
Prev Close12.98	Volume19,026
Market Value167 mil	P/E Ratio9.0
Bid12.85	EPS1.43
Ask12.88	Dividend0.00
High13.16	Yield0.0
Low12.79	Shares Out13 mil
52wk High18.27	52wk Low11.88
Industry: Specialized Health Services
Sector: Healthcare

(IS this a conflict of interest? What do you think?)

(i.e., the FUND is a separate EIN from the organzation itself, but either way, it’s representing the Family Law industry primarily, only Juvenile will also be dealing with criminal issues. I’m not knocking this as a resource center — it’s impressive:

When reading the words “family violence department” under this group’s banner, it’s important to acknowledge what they claim to do, and who the organizing entity is — it’s a COUNCIL OF JUDGES — as it says. They are not a District Attorney’s office, criminal defense or prosecuting attorneys. The words ‘Family Court” and “judges” should speak loudly:

FAMILY VIOLENCE DEPARTMENT MISSION STATEMENT

The Family Violence Department improves the way courts, law enforcement agencies, and others respond to family violence, while recognizing the legal, cultural, and psychological dynamics involved with the ultimate goal of improving the lives of domestic violence victims and their children.

The Family Violence Department will accomplish its mission by:

Providing training;

Providing technical assistance;

Providing policy development leadership; and

Developing cutting-edge products for professionals, victims of domestic, and children.

Domestic violence puts millions of women and their families at risk each year and is one of the single greatest social ills impacting the nation. The Family Violence Department (FVD) of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) has advanced social change in courts and communities across the country by providing cutting-edge training, technical assistance, and policy development on issues of family violence. The NCJFCJ’s projects have enhanced the safety, well-being, and stability of domestic violence victims and their children by improving the way criminal, civil, and social justice systems respond to family violence. Such projects include the:

Federal Greenbook Initiative;

National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence;

Resource Center on Domestic Violence: Child Protection and Custody;

Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Grant Program;

The Center for Education on Violence Against Women;

Full Faith and Credit Project; and

Enhancing Judicial Skills in Elder Abuse Cases.

The decision to go for Supervised Visitation rather than complete separation from a perpetrator has a history that’s not always public. The option go for ongoing training is often at public expense — both when the training fails to take effect (or no one mentions the contrary-training coming from other sources). And, it’s also, being a grants recipient, also to that extent, and being a nonprofit, “at public expense.” Individuals (not “practitioners”) calling any of these “resource centers” for more than information to download – for actual help — are in for a surprise. It’s not offered, and even the most persistent will rarely find out the most important information — has your judge disclosed properly? WHo is administering the federal grants to your local jurisdiction, and is that person involved in your custody case? Is the judge ruling in a custody case involved in allocating any child-support federal incentives, etc . . . . .

MPDI same database:

our query: ( Organization Name: minnesota program development inc. , State: “MN” , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
6 documents matched. 6 documents displayed.

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2005	$1,898,718	990	17	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2004	$1,940,803	990	16	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2003	$1,887,601	990	15	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development Inc.	MN	2002	$1,774,265	990	17	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development, Inc.	MN	2007	$1,887,120	990	23	41-1382134
Minnesota Program Development, Inc.	MN	2006	$1,844,847	990	18	41-1382134

(but if I search only on that EIN, minus the dashes, nothing comes up….although doing this to NCFCJ, I did get results.)

Search Again

Under the 2005 990 PDF (grants over $4 million, public support, a good deal less) its 501(c)3 is simply “services to prevent domestic violence” — and listed under “Statement of Program Services Accomplishments” there are 4:

Battered Women’s Justice Project

Grantsandallocations $ 977 248 ► (Program Service Expenses) $ 2,756,428.

DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 283,793.

NOTE: My studies show that this actually “is” MPDI, from what I can tell… This was the heart of the program to start with.

MENDING THE SACRED HOOP

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 63,793.

DAIP TRAINING AND RESOURCES

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 389,470.

“See Statement 3”

► (Program Service Expenses) $ 735,035.

TOTAL SPENT (just about $14K more than their revenues, leaving still assets of over $1 million. )

Books are in the care of a Scott Miller (also one of their trainers, evidently — DNR if I published that post or not).

In this year, the Board of Directors were only 4 (Ellen Pence not being listed, she is associated with another subsidiary group I gather)

Denise Gamache (Search on my blog — she’s sitting over the $3+ million grants to MPDI) Rhonda Martinson, Loretta Frederick (Legal Counsel), Connie Sponsler (Training Coordinator) and Christina Olson.

Loretta Frederick is I believe associated with BWJP, although I could be wrong. My question being, who are these 4 women (or — the board of directors of ANY nonprofit, for that matter) to drive the agenda that determines whether I, or my children, get to live, or die — by taking money from HHS to insist that a certain model — and the heart of that model being both Batterers Intervention, Supervised Visitation, and a Multi-disciplinary model (called “CCR” ) is the answer to stop violence against — women and children, or for that matter against men, by women?)

Any more than, how come the 6 or 7 women atop another nonprofit based in Denver (Center for Policy Research) should have similar levels of influence, and privilege?

I showed a picture of 202 East Superior in a recent post. It’s just a storefront in Duluth, Minnesota. Rather than flying all over, why don’t these people take a simple car ride, next year, over to the Fatherhood Summit (also too place in Minnesota) and report honestly to the public — not just practitioners -on what THEY are doing with our federal funds?

Praxis, International lists two addresses in MN as their nonprofit, and its executive Director is Ellen Pence – it, too, works with OVW grants:

Praxis International

Praxis International, Inc. is a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children. We work with local, statewide, and national reform initiatives to bridge the gap between what people need and what institutions provide. Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

Ellen Pence, founder and Executive Director of Praxis, is honored by a collection of articles in the most recent edition of the Violence Against Women journal, for her many years of steadfast work in the battered women’s movement. Congratulations Ellen, and thank you for your lifelong commitment to improving the lives of battered women and their children!

Praxis International, in partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), is excited to announce the Blueprint for Safety Adaptation Demonstration Project (Blueprint Project). Praxis will work directly with three selected sites to create customized versions of the Blueprint for Safety: An Interagency Response to Domestic Violence Crimes; OVW will also provide financial support to the selected sites. Check back for further information.

To purchase a printed copy of the Blueprint for Safety: An Interagency Response to Domestic Violence Crimes, go to our products page.

As one can see from some of the topics (and note, SUpervised Visitation is an ongoing theme), it’s not about why supervised visitation, but HOW (“practice” ) to do it. The entire field of Supervised Visitation got a huge boost from applying it to situations of violence between spouses, and Karen Oehme (another “practitioner” and writer, of course) was (is?) head of the Florida Clearinghouse for Supervised Visitation Centers — a concept which DULUTH pioneered. Naturally, they are going to write about this and publish and sell what they write, one way or another, even if the whole things is heavily federally subsidized under the presumption that it’s a good idea.

http://www.praxisinternational.org/praxis_event_recordings.aspx

Safety During Post-Separation
Loretta Frederick, February 2007

Listen to recording

The Intersection of Battering and Child Sexual Abuse
Karen Oehme and Scott Hampton, December 2006

Listen to recording

The Co-Occurrence of Domestic Violence and Child Sexual Abuse: Implications for Supervised Visitation and Exchange Programs
Karen Oehme, December 2006

Listen to recording

Part 1: Battered Women’s Experience of Visitation and Exchange Centers
Ellen Pence and a panel of women who used visitation centers, May 2006

Listen to recording
These can (and probably will) go on, forever, including until the US debt tops $15 trillion, which it is heading towards. No matter. there’s always room for a panel of experts, whether or not their expertise (and its expense) is contributing to the pressure of the populations they continue to study and write about….

Sometimes they will get together and compliment each other, citing which organization they represent:

With “Equal Regard”: An Overview of How Ellen Pence Focused the Supervised Visitation Field on Battered Women and Children

Melissa Scaia

Advocates for Family Peace, Grand Rapids, MN, mscaia@stopdomesticabuse.org

Laura Connelly

Advocates for Family Peace, Grand Rapids, MN

Abstract

Ellen Pence has changed the framework for doing supervised visitation and safe exchanges in cases of domestic violence. Ellen challenged the basic tenets of “neutrality” and a primary focus on “safety for children” in the supervised visitation field. By incorporating equal regard for the safety of adult victims of domestic violence and children, Ellen challenged supervised visitation centers to reexamine their mission, role, intake/orientation, documentation, and rules for their programming. She designed services for supervised visitation that would account for battering of women and children while not being excessively policing and providing a respectful and fair atmosphere for men who batte

They should thank Ellen Pence for endorsing and promoting the concept that Batterers Intervention Programs actually stop or reduce battering behavior, which DAIP promoted to start with. STOP DOMESTIC ABUSE (a.k.a. Advocates for Family Peace) has on its site, today, a promotion for:

NOW AVAILABLE

Addressing Fatherhood with Men who Batter – 1st edition

Written by: Melissa Scaia, MPA, Laura Connelly, and John Downing

Forward by: Ellen Pence, PHD

Consultants: Ellen Pence, PhD, & Sylvia Olney, MA, LMFT

To order the curriculum and/or DVD click here ** Non Profits must also complete and submit a ST3 form with their order to avoid being charged sales tax click here

To preview the DVD click here

To sign-up for the September 2010 training offered in Duluth by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project

(Of course this group has its own Intervention program, which a link on the page shows, when men are court-ordered into a program by receiving a civil order of protection). This is what it does:

Purpose of the Intervention Program for Men and Fathers (IPMF)

The IPMF attempts to examine how men can build on their strengths to live a non-violent life. The primary goal of IPMF is to end violence against men, women, and children. The program holds men completely responsible for their behavior. The program educates men about choosing and developing non-violent behaviors. The program asks participants to stand back and look at the impact of their actions on themselves, their partner, their children, and their community in order to change.

I wonder how many dead women did this before going for an order of protection, or anti-stalking order. Surely that approach will work if someone else tries it…

“Advocates for Family Peace” just so happens to be? a “Wellstone Family Program” and they also jsut so happen to be running supervised visitation AND “therapeutic supervised visitation” centers in this Grand Rapids area: Kinda reminds me of CRCkids.org. This goes on, and on, and one:

The Wellstone Family Safety Program (WFSP) is a safe and friendly place that provides a positive and nurturing environment to promote healthy parent/child relationships.  The WFSP also reduces children’s exposure to domestic violence.

What services are offered?

The Wellstone Family Safety Program provides services to children up to the age of 18, who are from families where there has been a history of domestic violence.  Services are also provided to children who are in foster care.

Families that use the WFSP can be referred through the court, Human Services, attorneys, mediation, or they can refer themselves.

WFSP Services

Supervised Visitation

The Wellstone Family Safety Program offers on-site supervised visitation in Family Resource Centers throughout Itasca County.  Supervised visits allow non-custodial parents to continue or even begin a relationship with their child/children.

Therapeutic Supervised Visitation

Therapeutic supervised visitations are conducted when a family** has a history of sexual abuse of a child, there has been a long period of separation between the parent and child(ren), the non-custodial parent’s behavior scares the child(ren) or the last time the child(ren) saw the parent was during a violent incident.  A therapeutic visit operates similarly to a supervised visit, except that a licensed therapist is the person supervising the visit.  The therapist interacts with the family prior to, during, and after the visit to mend and heal the parent/child(ren) relationship.

Of course, it’s important for children to be able to get along with and respect people who have molested them, and of course if one parent only did the molesting, that it’s most vital to make sure the relationship with that parent can be mended. Mothers who don’t approve of this (nowadays) are likely to find themselves in the position of having “supervised visitation” ordered on THEM, because of “alienating” behavior. (What rock did THIS crawl out from under?)

(Actually, I know — but am just blogging it so more people know)….

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Advocates for Family Peace MN 2009 $1,260,301 990 29 41-1377489

Advocates for Family Peace MN 2009 $1,224,928 990 25 41-1377489

(notice — the charts show assets — not expenses and revenues, which are a different category). The 501(c)3 purpose of this is similar — stopping violence:

“To Provide Services, Resources, and Skilled Advocacy (Therapy?) to help battered adults in Itasca County; to reduce violence in their lives, to participate in a network of services (that’s for sure!), to advocate for institutional and social change that stops violence against women…”

{{How about starting with the institution of supervised visitation and the concept behind it that you can train someone to change their character, when in the United States, the COnstitution sets up the concept of liberty & justice, based on common laws to be equally enforced, and defining right and wrong, etc.)}}

Expenses include $43,220 for 26 supervised exchanges and 91 supervised Visits…. $37K for Emergency Safe housing for 21 women and 23 children, $23K for transitional housing (flee the home, let the perpetrators stay)… that actually, however, is a more legitimate type of expense. Family Court will catch them sooner or later, for the most part, anyhow, or a child support order, if one happens, will go reel in Daddy… I don’t recognize the (many) Board members, except I do know that Melissa Scaia has been featured on webinars run jointly by BJWP (Battered Women’s Justice Project) and a group in Maine. She works 40 hours a week for next to nothing ($13K per 990) so some other form of income obviously would be necessary). Here is some of it — definitely “in the loop” and has also testified as a DV expert in criminal cases in court:

You will see several of the groups (including NCFCJ & Praxis) in this listing, apparently a presentation at a medical group:

Melissa Scaia and Scott MillerMelissa Scaia
Melissa is the executive director of Advocates for Family Peace in Minnesota. Melissa co-facilitates a group with men who batter and a group with women who use violence. She provides training and technical assistance as a consultant for Praxis International and serves as a faculty member for the Family Violence Department for the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. She has conducted trainings for the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Program and the National Network to End Domestic Violence. She has testified as an expert witness on domestic violence in criminal court cases. She wrote her master’s thesis on the effects of domestic violence on children and wrote her doctoral dissertation proposal to address supervised visitation services for battered women. {{DID SHE READ JACK STRATON, Ph.D. (not in sociology, etc.)? I’d like to see what she has to say about his take in Supervised Visitation, which, being presented in Duluth (i think) around 1992, questioned its use at all in such cases….}}She has contributed to numerous publications related to supervised visitation and domestic violence. She recently co-wrote a curriculum and DVD for working with men who batter as fathers entitled, “Addressing Fatherhood with Men Who Batter”. She is currently writing the final draft on a curriculum for working with women who have used violence in intimate relationships entitled, “Turning Points: An Educational Curriculum for Women Who Use Violence in Intimate Relationships.”

Battering is a crime. Why is it necessary to “address fatherhood” with such criminals? Or is it not a crime, and are we all, collectively (including any victims who survived and are wage-earners) somehow responsible to “reach” the batterer and convince him (in this case)that’s it’s REALLY not nice, or sensible, and is impacting their “fatherhood” in a collective dream that this will stop them the nexst time around?

Phillip Garrido is a father, let’s go train him — right? OH, I forgot — he took someone else’s child to rape, falsely imprison after kidnapping, and beget children by, so he gets treated as a criminal not someone that a fatherhood program could be targeted to (at least, so I hope). If so, they should use a faith-based one, as he definitely had some religious ramblings going on there, too, inbetween keeping his victim captive of 18 years, and her having to lie to her own daughters, telling them she was their sister….

(Sorry . . . it was on the news again recently, and the victim is going to be speaking out about her experience this summer. A TV station was crowing that it got the interview…)

Scott has worked in the women’s movement since 1985 and has been with the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project since 2000. As team leader for the DAIP, Scott coordinates Duluth’s Coordinated Community Response {“CCR”} to domestic violence. Serving as system advocate and coordinator of the men’s non-violence program, he is instrumental in the evolving work in Duluth and provides training to others on the Duluth Model of Intervention. Scott provides training regarding conducting interviews and a mutli-disciplinary team approach to the investigation of child abuse based on his experience as a forensic interviewer for First Witness Child Abuse Resource Center in Duluth.

OK, here’s a NCJRS (remembering how Melissa Scaia is — she’s on faculty at the NCFCJ) publication honoring Ellen Pence, who is (for her part0 now honoring the “Family Justice Center Initiative” which is why I’m a little pissed presently as it came from a city in my state which already sponsored another problemmatic group with murky finances –a nd which is itself being modeled nationwide and globally (is the general idea), called Kids Turnsd.org…… Same legislator promoting both concepts…. Guess she just likes kids (and her life partner, a woman, also likes those city contracts, as I blogged, citing a blogger at sandiegoonline called “historymatters”).

http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=253873Scott Miller

NCJ Number: NCJ 231795

Title: Violence Against Women: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence

Journal: Violence Against Women Volume:16 Issue:9 Dated:September 2010 Pages:979 to 1060

Author(s): Shamita Das Dasgupta (“Manavi.org*”) ; Edward W. Gondolf ; Melissa Scaia ; Laura Connelly* ; Jane M. Sadusky (opposing gay marriage ban in Calif, consulting in WI, writing with/for? Ellen & BWJP**); Rhonda Martinson ; Kristine Lizdas ; Casey McGee ; Rebecca Emerson Dobash ; Russell Dobash ; Mark Wynn

Editor(s): Claire M. Renzetti ; Barbara J. Hart ; Scott Miller

Document Url: HTML

Publisher Url*: http://www.sagepub.com

Publication Date: 09/2010

Pages: 86

Type: Literature reviews

Origin: United States

Language: English

Note: Special Issue: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence

Annotation: A collection of essays are presented in honor of the contributions made by Ellen Pence in the field of intimate partner violence both in the United States and abroad.

Abstract: The authors of the following seven essays emphasize the profound impact and changes that Ellen Pence’s work has had on social institutions and individual lives with her commitment to ensuring the safety of women and children and her belief in the possibility of personal and social change. The first article traces Ellen’s vital contributions to the field of anti-domestic violence advocacy through two organizations, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) and Praxis. The second article discusses Ellen Pence’s contribution in helping build the foundation of batterer programming. The third article explains the philosophy and method of the Duluth Model men’s program, and the need to put the experience of women who have been abused at the center of work conducted with abusive men. The fourth article explains how Ellen Pence has changed the framework for doing supervised visitation and safe exchanges in cases of domestic violence. The fifth article describes Pence’s development of the Praxis Safety and Accountability Audit (Safety Audit), which provided a new and distinctive tool for a community response to domestic violence. The sixth article presents six appreciation letters from Britain and Europe on Pence’s efforts and impact on the domestic women’s movement. The seventh and final essay offers both personal and professional reflections on the contributions of Ellen Pence to changes in law enforcement responses to domestic violence victims and offenders. References

*Manavi.org is a bit different, in that the women it serves “”South Asian” women are those who identify themselves as being from Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, or Sri Lanka “

Edward W. Gondolf (not a name I knew) — BA Princeton, MPH, Pittsburg, on faculty at IUP (Indiana University of PA), it says:

Dr. Gondolf has achieved a national reputation in the field of domestic violence that has brought numerous invitations for research, writing, and guest lectures. He has presented numerous invited lectures on the effectiveness of batterer programs, and been quoted or cited in a variety of prominent national newspapers and magazines: Scientific American, Psychiatric News, USA Today, The New York Times Magazine, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, Pittsburgh Press, Philadelphia Inquirer, Seattle Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, Time Magazine, Ms. Magazine, Bride’s Magazine, Mademoiselle Magazine, and Changes Magazine

**Sadusky pdf shows “New Perspectives on Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange,” put out by Praxis International, supported by a grant. Keep them grants a-coming….

Browse through THIS and see many of the above groups referenced, including Family VIolence Prevention Fund, and a good bit of discussion on the Duluth Model, Power & Control Wheel, etc. These will no doubt continue — and underplay the role of the field of the Family Law Practitioners forming a parallel, fatherhood-oriented set of nonprofits (to match the feminist-oriented — supposedly — VAW groups, although studied more closely most of them just are in the business, like it, and promote it — like any other professionals. What differentiates both sides of the equation — alas — is that access to Federal Grants To Facilitate, Demonstrate, Research and (other discretionary stuff) can very well be addictive. As this documentation fuels many networks, now, the equivalent of changing it might be something like setting up a new entire WATER system for a regions, plumbing, purification, septic tanks, input, output, and “the whole nine yards.”

The SPECIAL RESOURCE CENTERS are inbred, at too many levels. I personally found their information relevant. Not one of the family law practitioners I was in front of (or had hired) in the time from filing a protective order to the time I no longer saw my kids (and some time thereafter) thought any of it relevant to custody however, — and given the AFCC stranglehold on doctrine and judicial training — it probably wasn’t.

That’s one among several reasons I say, if the “CCR” (Coordinated COmmunity Response) model ain’t working, can we either de-fund it, try something else, or try nothing, which probably wouldn’t be much less expensive People will still kill each other if offended, or if losing control of a codependent relationship with a partner, or loss of status going along with loss of custody. Then there is the matter of child support. . . . BILLIONS spent per year, and then there are “compromise of Arrears Programs that hardly a mother is told of.

These are my children’s and grandchildren’s futures, and future landscape. It for sure is what’s left (i.e., none) of anything that might accrue to their retirement IF they rely on social security. This won’t stop our government from financing the theory that everyone should go get jobs — although the leaders themselves are instead positioning themselves to acquire wealth, and connection with wealth, be on board of profitable businesses (including nonprofits that get government work contracted to them sometimes) and in general teach THEIR offspring how business and finances actually work, including how not to pay more taxes than necessary by forming trusts, foundations, and other tax-exempt entities, then running around changing the world (and sowing some wild oats).

In looking up some of these groups, I found a very odd site that listed several of them together in one place (they do, after all, hang out together — they “ARE” the coordinated community, for sure. How many lives they are saving, or improving the safety of, remains to be seen. . . . . This one showed that (recently — talking May, 2011) the Head of the International Monetary Fund has felony charges pending in NYC for sexual assault (not of a relative). They settled his bail and house arrest (pretty high). He (? presumably) is married with four children.

Here, for what it’s worth: Rap sheet of Dominque Strauss-Kahn former head of an organization in many ways ruling the world, and apparentl in private, expects to dominate as well, including sexually:

Examine the bail application Dominique Strauss-Khan

The Grand Jury of New York City seven count indictment of Dominique Strauss-Kahn

IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The counts include two of committing a criminal sexual act, one of attempted rape, one of unlawful imprisonment, two of sexual abuse and one of forcible touching.
Examine the statement in the charge sheet against Strauss-Kahn testified to by Detective Steven Lane of the Manhattan Special Victims Squad after taking evidence from a 32-year-old chambermaid:

“The defendant engaged in oral sexual conduct and anal sexual conduct with another person by forcible compulsion; the defendant attempted to engage in sexual intercourse with another person by forcible compulsion; the defendant subjected another person to sexual contact by forcible compulsion; the defendant restrained another person; the defendant subjected another person to sexual contact without the latter’s consent; and in that the defendant intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, forcibly touched the sexual and intimate parts of another person for the purpose of degrading and abusing such person, and for the purpose of gratifying the defendant’s sexual desire./

Examine the bail application of former International Monetary Fund director Dominique
Strauss-Kahn: The bail conditions imposed by New York state Supreme Court Justice
Michael Obus include posting $1 million in cash and a $5 million insurance bond
secured by his house. He must wear an electronic monitor and have an armed guard at
all times. He won’t be able to leave his residence except for legal, medical and religious travel

On the other hand, LATimes fires back, why the media leak?

And the Telegraph in UK speculates on the legal defenses

After the alleged attack, he went to have lunch with his 26 yr old daughter, a Columbia Student.. Whatever the results, he will not be in a crowded gymnasium as pictured at the top of the post. However, just for the record, some of this behavior –is what the struggle in the courts is about, as Warren Farrell I’m sure realizes. Society just isn’t ready for Incest yet. . . . . But that doesn’t stop it from happening in high circles or low circles. Meanwhile, the circles of collaborations on how to stop this and other forms of violence, go on, endlessly.

(For what it’s worth, I just searched and posted a full day on this one, thinking about the groups…..)

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 9, 2011 at 8:35 pm

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Child Support, Designer Families, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, public education, Vocabulary Lessons

(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose?

with 2 comments

This post is: “(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose? (Published 6-5-2011, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-J1”)

Seriously, now …..

What did a District Attorney, a City Attorney, and a Republican Faith-Family-Marriage-Fatherhood-pushing President have in common? In 2003, or since?

(Besides an urge to jumpstart an alliance of

One-Stop Family Justice Shops Centers)

BUSH: Family of Secrets (by Russ Baker)

Russ Baker shows that Decision Points is no candid memoir.

Investigative journalist Russ Baker updates what he uncovered in Family of Secrets about the Bushes with his responses to the former President’s best-selling book. In sum, Bush started a war under false pretenses, allegedly left the cockpit because of substance abuse, got fabricated religion in order to keep power, desired to invade Iraq even before his presidency, and works to set up his brother Jeb for the Presidency. Baker finds the Bush Family political system to be a brilliant con job, benefiting large wealthy interests, and being continued by Obama.

Russ Baker’s website ”

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years [Interview]

(note: I don’t have this book. But my work here, continues to run across the Bush brand of religion influence and its infiltration of the legal, judicial, etc. systems).

Or,

“The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlett:

(from Harpers article 2003 by author. Note: The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative (below) began in 2003)

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family’s leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.”

Suharto reputedly involved, that he engaged in anti-Communist massacres didn’t seem to matter…Search “Suharto” and “Somalia” here (interview):

“The Family’s devoted membership includes Congress members, corporate leaders, generals, foreign heads of state, dictators. The longtime leader, Doug Coe, was included in Time Magazine’s 2004 list of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. “

The connected, the powerful, the very wealthy, the dishonest, the means-justifies-the-ends crowd. I am not being facetious at all by placing these two books here in preface to protesting the expansion of a “National” (and planned INTERnational) Family Justice Center Alliance. I am alerting us to question exactly which “families” are referred to her, and not to be fooled about the underlying intents. Look at who is sponsoring the movement!

OK, let’s look back to the West Coast Connections and Family of Inter-connected politicians, including some who are indeed Family to each other.

DA = Alameda County Family Justice Center — headed up originally by someone with real “family” connections, til she began running for County Supervisor,

a post she got, though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponent. Her husband just happens to be (presently) California State Treasurer, previously State Attorney General. Later in the post, more on this process is discussed. Mr. Gwinn & startup of the San Diego Family Justice Center has been addressed (in part) in earlier posts towards the end of May, 2011, and the topic itself is not exactly a new one to my blog.

ex-CA = San Diego County Family Justice Center

President = well, he was always into promoting Family.

Let’s Get Honest (that’s me) generally looks behind the scenes at funding and organizational histories of new Initiatives, Institutes, Centers, Movements, and other Projects proposed by those with political connections to better serve those without them, whose lives will be used to justify whichever project is next.

Right now, it seems that the Family Justice Center Alliance is proudly endorsed by the OVW (White House) starting back in 2003, and up and running. How the first two got up and running is a bit debatable. Used to these, I ignored it for a while, until I ran across CA SB 557.

California’s SB 557 has been passed by Senate and is awaiting in Assembly

Here is some of the voting and excerpts — plus my comments

The California Bill SB 557 is to streamline and authorize the Family Justice Center Model. It’s whizzing by committees, and as we speak, was read in the Assembly June 2, and being held at the Assembly Desk. Right now, per “aroundthecapitol.com,”

Votes

06/01/11 – Senate Floor: 39-0 (PASS)

05/26/11 – Sen Appropriations: 9-0 (PASS)

05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 (PASS)

03/29/11 – Sen Public Safety: 6-0 (PASS)

and

Last Action last week. This bill is indeed moving. Remember that one of the Centers (Alameda County) boasted originally as its first director, the then-state Attorney General, and this person is now State Treasurer – Bill Lockyer. He also was previously Sen. Pro-Tem. fighting with the Governor for collective bargaining rights for the courts. His name is on the 1997 Lockyer-Isenburg Trial Court Funding Act, described as:

I am pleased to send you the enclosed Resource Manual for the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Assembly Bill 233). Passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last fall, this landmark legislation will take effect on January 1, 1998. Under the new law, funding of the trial courts will be consolidated at the state level to ensure equal access to justice throughout California.

Over the last several months, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), along with the California State Association of Counties and the Department of Finance, have worked together to familiarize the state’s judges, court administrators, and county executives with this historic new funding law. As part of that process, we are presenting this Resource Manual to assist you in understanding and implementing the new law.

There aren’t too many places in California politics, or its recent history, [SF performing Gay Marriage v Schwarzenegger] that one can go without finding the imprint of Mr. Lockyer.[Pension issues]

So I’m just wondering whether the relatively fast passage of this SB 577 was affected by the legislature’s knowledge (it’s obvious) that his wife was the former CEO of this grants-grabbing initative. And that the local D.A., who helped get this wife installed, was recently in Washington, D.C., lobbying with the OVW director for it . . . ..

The former CEO of the Alameda COunty Justice Center just so happens (yeah….) to be his third wife. Now she is County Supervisor, even though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponents, characterized as “having more experience than [Ms. Davis-Lockyer] was alive.” The race was also locally characterized as having funding more equivalent for a race for Senator (around $2 million, though don’t quote me on that). Perhaps that’s next . . . .

I wonder what might happen if they all opposed this center on the basis of, has it produced results — would the legislature have the courage?

06/02/11: In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.

As introduced February, 2011 (not current version, excerpts:)

This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to
establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to
assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and
human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to
access all needed services in one location and to enhance victim
safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to
services for victims of crime, as provided. The bill would permit the
family justice centers to be staffed by law enforcement, medical,
social service, and child welfare personnel, among others.

About privacy of information:

The bill would authorize a family justice center to share
information [WITH WHOM — each other?] pursuant to an informed consent process, as provided. The bill would authorize the National Family Justice Center Alliance, subject to certain limitations, to maintain nonidentifying, aggregate data on victims receiving services from a family justice center and
the outcomes of those services.

The bill would provide immunity from civil liability to staff members of the center for information shared with others based on an established client consent procedure, provided that the center has a formal training program with mandatory
training for all members, as specified.

There are so many issues with this (again, original version) its hard to know where to start. But those familiar with the history of the founder of this system can see why (he/they) might have addressed specific issues, including civil liability for sharing info.

(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be
defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where
public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or
part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of** domestic
violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, or human trafficking from one
location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell
their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help,
and increase access to services and support for victims and their
children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised
of, but are not limited to, the following:

**First of all, public agencies are on the public payroll.

Child victims and parents coming for help are quite likely to have business before some arm of the courts where any member of those public agencies may have a built-in conflict of interest in the case. Consider, if it has to do with guardianship of a child, child support, or other issues. When it comes to private agencies— (private organizations, individuals, or “agencies” — what is a private “agency”?) there are issues of where does the law protect the victims seeking help by accountability to any of these private members. The “consent process” has to be taken with a grain of salt — a person in desperate circumstances such as these crimes, may not comprehend what it is they are signing away at the time, their emphasis is survival. Anyhow, potential staff might include:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys. {{note: = who created the 1st & 2nd justice centers in CA….1 of each.

(Tell me — for what purpose might a CITY attorney have any business in a family justice center? )

(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members.
(8) Child welfare agency social workers.

(hey — are there still readers (active in this field as advocate, or survivor parent) who don’t understand, yet, that there are FEDERAL incentives to the states for

any number of actions which might quite well involve a social service agency staff member, or a child welfare agency social worker — such as adopting out, fostering out, or

declaring a child in need of services that may not, really, be in need of services. There are program funds for these activities. What about program administrators of such funds?

and so forth…..)

(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers.

(Translation: People administering TANF funds. We already have become aware that the fatherhood movement has a significant interest in portions of Title IV-D (welfare) finances going towards facilitating increased “noncustodial parent” (i.e., possibly perpetrator) access. No. Uh-uh, No. )

(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.

Huh….

Excerpts from “Analysis” of this bill again specifies already-existing justice centers by name and requests they expand who gets served:

This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the City of Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma to create a two-year pilot project for the establishment of a family justice center, as specified. This bill defines the Family Justice Center model in the law and expands the reach for whom services will be provided to include, not only victims of domestic violence, but also victims of officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and human trafficking.

(The cyber-stalking (stand-alone) and cyber-bullying provisions would just about make the average high school student eligible for services…)

This bill also allows for the FJCs to be staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare personnel.

This bill provides that victims of crime will not be denied services based solely on the grounds of criminal history.

(don’t quite know where to file that last statement. )

Votes so far, if you live in California and in any of these are your legislators:

03/29/11 Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

Ayes – 6 Anderson, Hancock, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg / Noes – 0 / Absent, Abstention or Not Voting – 1 Calderon

05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 pass as amended (see site)

Ayes – 5 Blakeslee, Corbett, Evans, Harman, Leno

05/26/11 Sen Appropriations 9-0 — PASS as amended

Alquist, Emmerson, Kehoe, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Runner, Steinberg, Walters

06.01/11 – Senate Floor 39-0 (1 absent abstain or not voting – Emmerson)

Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Some of the Senate Amendments (strikeouts, replacement):

The bill would prohibit victims of crime from
being denied services at a family justice center solely on the
grounds of criminal history and would prohibit a criminal history
search from being conducted during the client intake process.

prior sections a, b, & c, were struck through.

Sections e, f:

(f) Each family justice center shall develop policies and procedures, in collaboration with local community-based crime victim
service providers and local survivors of violence or abuse, to ensure coordinated services are provided to victims and to enhance the
safety of victims and professionals at a family justice center who participate in affiliated survivor-centered support or advocacy
groups. All family justice centers shall maintain a formal client feedback, complaint, and input process to address client concerns
about services provided or the conduct of any family justice center professionals, agency partners, or volunteers providing services in a
family justice center.

No criminal background checks to be run, but protection for victims & professionals in the center who participate in affiliated survivor centered support or advocacy groups (off-grounds? How would this be done). This seems to address in part the situation Casey Gwinn’s employee Josie Clark sued him over (see recent posts).

Formal feedback good: (don’t recall that this even entered the original version — feedback fro participants…)

WELL, THERE WE HAVE IT. IT”S PASSED WITH FLYING COLORS, SO FAR, AND IS SITTING ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR. MAYBE IT WILL PASS IN TIME FOR FATHER’S DAY, BUT I HOPE NOT. See “District Attorney Dubious Doings.” and re: nepotism, cronyism, racism:

Politics in this famous SF Bay Area, at least Alameda County are, in one blog I read — while probably not equal to Chicago’s or New York’s, known for:

Nepotism, Cronyism, Racism and Corruption

The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.

{{Quote is from a blog post dated July 2009,

The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it. . . . By hiring Chris Bates and Lisa Lockyer, Orloff had the kids of both the local assemblyman, Tom Bates, and the local Senator, Bill Lockyer (later became the Attorney General of the State of California), working for him. He already had the local Congressman’s kid, Jeff Stark, working for him, and he prmoted Stark.

And one of the articles I drew off in reporting this:

Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center

Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT

This is a very short article and commentary on Nadia Lockyer, wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, being givena a $90,000 per year job as Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, a job for which she seems to have no special qualifications. The article also questions the propriety of her employment, considering her husband’s position.

The Alameda county Family Justice Center is one of meny local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW).

The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Execuitve Director. Eventually, Nadia Davis Lockyer was given the top job, which pays about $90,000 per year. (initial pay was $65,000 but extra money was found to make it $90,000. I am researching where the extra money came from)

…Selection process was all for show, Nadia Lockyer is DA staff

Steve White 01.Jan.2007 15:47

I have just received a letter from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office which indicates Nadia Lockyer is an employee of that office.

The letter goes on to respond to my Public Records Act request for all info relaated to her hiring. The DA’s office claims all the info is exempt from disclosure, except for a brochure announcing the job. So they sent me a copy of that announcement.

The denial of information was expected. What was surprising to me is that Lockyer is an employee of the DA’s office. I thought the Family Justice Center was an independent entity which worked with the DA, not a subordinate office.

and, more, after he contacted the OVW for grant applicant guidelines:

[he] clicked the first link, which as the first page of a book on guidelines and rules for Federal graants, then went to the chapter entitled “Conflicts of Interest”

Reading that, it seems pretty clear Lockyer violated the Federal law, and presumably this is why they went through the big show of pretending to use an objective process to pick his wife for the job. These folks knew they were doing something shady from the start. Further evidence is that everyone involved is trying to duck my Public Records Act requests for more information. More on that in my next post

Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC

Steve White 25.Sep.2007 13:37

The first week of September, 2007, the ACFJC announced a large grant from the US Department of Justice, and in the grant announcement, which naturally everyone was very happy about, they added some statistics on how much good the ACFJC had done so far.

The stats were impressive. They claimed “Since it’s launch” the ACFJC had reduced Domestic Violence (DV) deaths from 26 to 6 in 2005, and, they had provided services to “20,000 victims and their families”.

Both claims were untrue. I checked with the Alameda County Public Health Department, and it turned out there has been a very long term decline in DV deaths, from 26 in 1996, eleven years back, to 6 in 2005. The Center opened in the last half of 2005, in August.

MORE (9/2007) INFO FROM Steve White “Boatbrain” on the ACFJC fudging (lying) on its statistics, in addition to improper appointment of CEO. Please read entire article we find further conflicts of interest and very disturbing dishonesty, reminiscent of the San Diego outfit:

The Alameda County Family Justice Center is an agency set up two years back as “one-stop shopping” for victims of domestic violence.

It was started by a Federal program to centralize several different types of services, (prosecutors, counselors, emergency housing) to DV victims. There are about 15 around the US, the Alameda center has been open two years as of August 2007.

I have already published, on Indymedia, an account of how the ACFJC hiring of Nadia Lockyer, the wife of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Executive Director of ACFJC was rigged by Nancy O’Malley, the Chief Assistant DA in the County.

Now, it appears the ACFJC is involved in other nefarious activities.

Recently, the ACFJC received another US Dept. of Justice grant, and the award was announced on their website.

The announcement gave several detailed claims for the achievements of the ACFJC, two of which seemed unlikely to me to be true: Since I knew the ACFJC was only open a bit over four months in 2005, I knew there was no logical basis for attributing all the 2005 decline to their actions.

But more than that, the reduction from 26 to 6 in one year struck me as extreme and improbable. That is an almost 80% reduction, too good to be true.

So, I called the Alameda County Public Health Department to try to get DV death rates, and called the office of the County Supervisor quoted in the article, Alice Lai-Bitker, to ask about the number.

My conversations with Public Health and Supervisor Lai-Bitker’s staff confirmed my suspicions. Too good to be true was exactly right. To get a death toll of 26 in the County, you have to go back to 1996, nine years before the ACFJC existed. There has been a steady long term decline in DV deaths since then.

The number for 2004, the year right before the ACFJC opened, was 11. Obviously, 6 in 2005 is a lot better than 11 in 2004, but there is a problem in the stats, in that Nancy O’Malley, the effective head of the ACFJC, is also the head of the DV death reporting team for the County, so she can fudge the figures.

I realize, one would not think deaths can be fudged. You are either dead or you or not. But, by using varying protocols for what the death was caused by, there is some maneuvering room for this. I am contacting the DV death reporting trainer for the state to try to nail this down.

All that aside, the point is, as far as attibuting the reduction in DV deaths to ACFJC, that was an extremely misleading claim, and I would argue deliberately misleading

He goes on . . . . after challenging the “20,000 victims and their families served…”

It seems much more likely they deliberately lied, to justify more funding in the future.

The County Administrator, Susan Muranishi, who was the highest paid employee of the County, a few years back, at $231,000 per year, is also quoted in the press release, expressing approval of the ACFJC and the grant.

I called her office to try to get documents to indicate what numbers ACFJC has been giving the County to justify the County’s funding. The receptionist there claimed they did not have any figures, and I had to contact ACFJC. If this was true, it seems to indicate a severe lack of oversight. No reports to the County Admin from the Center? How does Ms. Muranishi know how the County’s money is being spent? I doubt there are no reports, and intend to push them to release them, to see if there are any false numbers in the official accountings. Ditto for the Feds, who I have also requested info from.

((i))

That kind of reporting is why we most definitely need INDEPEPENDENT media centers, and pesky bloggers like myself and Mr. White (wonder what happened to is FOIA and Public Records requests on the ACFJC…

In 2010, here’s an article (and comments) on Ms. Davis-Lockyer running for county supervisor, replacing one of the retiring supervisors who, improperly, voted in Nancy O’Malley (per indymedia Steve’s writing). WHat goes around comes around. Again, for non-Californians, this is about how policies get institutionalized in practice, regardless of what results they produce — including initiatives, collaborations, institutes, coalitions, and so forth. This Family Justice Center seems symptomatic of what’s wrong, from both this end and (below) the White House end.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ON FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS – AND GWB DECLARES OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH (in 2003).

I have a general rule of thumb. If it has the word “families” on it — it has a fatherhood (and possibly governmentally endorsed) / faith influence. This appears to be the case with the FAMILY justice centers, as it did with the FAMILY violence prevention fund of SF (see recent posts). After all, US is just one big “family” and everyone in power is there to serve and protect the little vulnerable ones among us, right?

The “Family Justice Center” model is absolutely federally funded, and here is the October (DV awareness month, or as I put it, DV Industry Awareness month) October 8, 2003 White House Press Release:

This offers $20 million of funding to establish 12 centers. The emphasis is Under One Roof (after all, the service providers are just one big happy family, right?) and with a particular emphasis on including Faith Based Initiatives, says our former Prez:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Contact: Angela Harless
202-307-070

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SPEARHEAD PRESIDENT’S
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INITIATIVE TO BETTER SERVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the Justice Department will lead a $20 million-dollar program to develop comprehensive domestic violence victim service and support centers in 12 communities across the country. The unprecedented pilot program, the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative, will make a victim’s search for help and justice easier by bringing professionals who provide an array of necessary services together under one roof. President Bush unveiled the initiative earlier today at a White House event formally declaring the month of October as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.”

“Domestic violence is unacceptable, and this Administration is determined to end the vicious cycle of violence,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “Our efforts across the federal government have made it possible for tens of thousands of women and their families to renew their hope, reclaim their dignity, change their lives and protect their children.”

The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative will provide comprehensive services for domestic violence victims at one location, including medical care, counseling, law enforcement assistance, social services, employment assistance, and housing assistance. The Department of Justice will award grants to 12 communities nationwide to develop Family Justice Centers. Communities will be encouraged to look to the family justice centers in pioneered in San Diego, California and Indianapolis, Indiana for the development and creation of their own centers.

{{Sounds like Casey Gwinn (note: Republican) had a White House connection here… Indianpolis, home of Sen. Evan Bayh, is prime “fatherhood” country. Unbelievable….. The Indiana “Child Services” (a.k.a. Child Support Services) government website directly solicits “Fathers and Families” to pursue grants, as well as notices CRC (Children’s Rights Council)….. I doubt that the choice of these two cities was anything approaching accidental. Who else (grassroots up) was starting Family Justice Centers, around the United States, at this time?}}

Justice Department efforts will be further supported by its partners from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Labor.

{{So much for treating domestic violence as the criminal/legal issue it really is, with consequences, of course, across the spectrum of life, as crime does….}}

“The President’s Initiative will provide communities with the resources designed to co-locate coordinated services to domestic violence victims into one facility,” said Office on Violence Against Women Director Diane M. Stuart. “The services provided by the Family Justice Centers will help victims pursue safe and healthy lives.”

Family Justice Centers are designed to bring together advocates from non-profit, non-governmental domestic violence victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys,chaplains and representatives from community-based organizations into one centralized location.

Involvement of the faith community is integral to the Family Justice Center Initiative, as well as to the President’s overall strategy to end domestic violence. The Justice Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department are coordinating their efforts to ensure that faith communities nationwide get the training and tools necessary to help domestic violence victims in their communities.

{{Chaplains, imams, and rabbis don’t lack the “tools” to stop wife-beating — or the ability to network — but the problem has been historically the desire to do so. They are mandated reporters, too, and of child abuse. GO ask “SNAP” about how well that goes….

{{Reading this now, and as a survivor of domestic violence which was rationalized through religion, though I never accepted that basis, — I understand, and believe I’m right about this — that this has a more sinister purpose than “helping” victims from the faith-based perspective. Many of those victims that end up using the legal system went first to their spiritual perceived authority (translation, pastor, priest, etc.) and were ignored and the danger trivialized. SOme of the perpertrators were those people at times. Welcoming this group into these “centers” with open arms is simply wrong….but, how very “Bush”!!}}

“The faith-based component of the Family Justice Center Initiative is critical to its overall success,” said Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels. “Faith-based institutions are often the first place a domestic violence victim turns to for support and guidance.”

(and the last place they are about to find it — which has been documented repeatedly . . . . ) Next steps, integrating the faith community into the system (2004 release)…

I got on the SB 557 kick, here, because I heard about it accidentally. Accidentally, I happened to browse the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Annual Report of 2010 (yeah, this is my “casual reading material” at times)… only to find that this San Francisco Bay Area [“East Bay”] county leadership was running up to the OVW and trying to sell legitimizing the Family Justice Center” model (see “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post)….

District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and the Alameda County DA’s Office are proud to announce the publication of the 2010 Annual Report.

We invite you to view this comprehensive report.

Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 2010 Annual Report (7MB PDF).

Because I’m familiar with the Justice Center idea already, I picked up on the graphics and mottos that also supported further promotion of it: the 2nd page of the report is a full page photo of a child and parent(?): “Justice isn’t served – – – til Crime Victims are.” On the palms of their hands is written: “I have the right to protection” “I have the right to be heard.”

Compare: (graphic on banner of the Alameda County Family Justice Center reads, next to an icon showing scales carring heart & dove, plus two figures reaching for them) “Justice isn’t served until victims are.”

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ACFJC), a one-stop center for families experiencing domestic violence.

{{Domestic violence is a crime, and is committed by an agent. Note the grammar change: “families experience” it — no one actually DOES it. The District Attorney’s Office is the office deciding which crimes to prosecute, and which NOT to prosecute, and doing so ethically and honestly. District Attorneys offices in East Bay (and SF) counties have been experiencing multiple scandals recently, along with police departments… such as tampering with drug evidence and causing cases to be dropped, infighting during an election that resulted in an office fist-fight (Contra Costa County — nearby) and other serious problems, as well as having various members of their forces from time to time being prosecuted by employees or fellow colleagues on rape or other sexual harassment issues. In this context, I don’t recall hearing a major grassroots call for centralized, one-stop services.}}

The ACFJC provides, under one roof, the services required by domestic violence victims and their families:

Crisis intervention, survivor support, and victim advocacy, incl “MISSSEY”

Legal assistance services

Medical care and mental health counseling for victims and children impacted by family violence

Employment assistance, and information and referral to other community services

Law enforcement investigation and prosecution of offenders

In the past, domestic violence victims often had to seek help from a fragmented, disjointed system of separate agencies offering related by frequently uncoordinated services.

I’m thinking diversity, rather than inbred centrality might be the better order of the day overall. After all — was our country designed for efficiency or liberty?(But I’m talking, pre-Bush Dynasty there…..)

From the DA’s report, a segment:

5. Putting Victims First Page

Alameda County Family Justice Center 22

Domestic Violence Unit 23
Restitution Unit 24

Victims’ Rights & Services 25

Marsy’s Law 25

Victim -Witness Assistance 26

AND . . . .

Legislative Initiatives . . . p. 33

Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

…. such as (one of several — the others sound legitimate, although if parents are involved, it’ll bounce to family law and become “moot” point sooner or later) . . . .. . . .

SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

The TREND towards, meaning, the PUSH, enabled by BUSH towards . . . . . for these models. (other than, since the 1980s, the Duluth Model has been pushing this also, called “Coordinated Community Response.” So, how’d we say it’s going?

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

June 5, 2011 at 6:00 pm

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

with 8 comments

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

Getting to know each other …

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

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

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

Wikipedia on “Ellen Pence”:

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

The COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY RESPONSE (CCR) TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:

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

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

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

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

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

About Justice Alliances and Resource Centers:

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

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

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

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

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

FOR COMPARISON, WHO IS MDRC?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Profile:

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

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

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

OK, CONSIDER THE INCOME TAX . . .

(1) From “infoplease” article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or, say

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:

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

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

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

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

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

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

Printer-friendly Version

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

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

Staff Accountant

MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC.,

Nonprofit Organization Management industry

June 1996 – December 2000 (4 years 7 months)

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

Some non-profit!

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

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

A Multidisciplinary Response To Domestic Violence

Date and Time:

05/05/2011 – 8:00am –

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

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

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

Part 2 of this series will be offered in 2012.

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

Welcome to Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs

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

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

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

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

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

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 22 of 22 Award Actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total of all award actions:

$ 18,027,387

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence

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

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

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

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

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

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP, ACTION & TRIBUTE

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

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

Copyright © 2011 Futures Without Violence. All rights reserved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recip

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812

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

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

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

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

2010

90EV0401

CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE

ACF

09-24-2010

618375687

$250,000

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

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

Transaction Number # 4

Federal Award ID: 90EV0401: 0 (Grants)

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

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

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

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

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

”

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

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

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

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

Filters:

Search Term: “Family Violenc.. (FVPF)

Total Dollars:$38,512,886

Number of Transactions:89

Top 5 Contracting Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MapCurrent Tab

TimelineTab

Advanced SearchTab

(SEE THE PATTERN YET?)

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

Origin and theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CFDA Program :

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

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

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

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

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

Organizational Type

Number of Employees 80

Annual Revenue $3,710,570

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

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

Who is this contractor, MPDI, again?

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

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

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

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

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

(Well why NOT?)

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

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

Domestic Shelter	N: Other than Domestic Shelter

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

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

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

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

Contract Description	DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VIDEO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SEARCH NOW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It has a product list

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

Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

Office of Justice Programs

A Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety:

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

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

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

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

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

Effective Practice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________ ,	:
:
Plaintiff,	:
:	No.: S-
VS.	:
:
_________________ ,	:
:
Defendant.	:

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	sandwich near Detroi… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…

NCJ Number:	NCJ 231795
Title:	Violence Against Women: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence
Journal:	Violence Against Women Volume:16 Issue:9 Dated:September 2010 Pages:979 to 1060
Author(s):	Shamita Das Dasgupta (“Manavi.org”) ; Edward W. Gondolf ; Melissa Scaia* ; Laura Connelly* ; Jane M. Sadusky (opposing gay marriage ban in Calif, consulting in WI, writing with/for? Ellen & BWJP*); Rhonda Martinson* ; Kristine Lizdas ; Casey McGee ; Rebecca Emerson Dobash ; Russell Dobash ; Mark Wynn
Editor(s):	Claire M. Renzetti ; Barbara J. Hart ; Scott Miller
Document Url:	HTML
*Publisher Url:**	http://www.sagepub.com
Publication Date:	09/2010
Pages:	86
Type:	Literature reviews
Origin:	United States
Language:	English
Note:	Special Issue: Essays in Honor of Ellen Pence
Annotation:	A collection of essays are presented in honor of the contributions made by Ellen Pence in the field of intimate partner violence both in the United States and abroad.
Abstract:	The authors of the following seven essays emphasize the profound impact and changes that Ellen Pence’s work has had on social institutions and individual lives with her commitment to ensuring the safety of women and children and her belief in the possibility of personal and social change. The first article traces Ellen’s vital contributions to the field of anti-domestic violence advocacy through two organizations, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) and Praxis. The second article discusses Ellen Pence’s contribution in helping build the foundation of batterer programming. The third article explains the philosophy and method of the Duluth Model men’s program, and the need to put the experience of women who have been abused at the center of work conducted with abusive men. The fourth article explains how Ellen Pence has changed the framework for doing supervised visitation and safe exchanges in cases of domestic violence. The fifth article describes Pence’s development of the Praxis Safety and Accountability Audit (Safety Audit), which provided a new and distinctive tool for a community response to domestic violence. The sixth article presents six appreciation letters from Britain and Europe on Pence’s efforts and impact on the domestic women’s movement. The seventh and final essay offers both personal and professional reflections on the contributions of Ellen Pence to changes in law enforcement responses to domestic violence victims and offenders. References

Grantee Name	Award Number	Award Title	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions	Award Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0011	P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC	09/13/1995	93671	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 385,541	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0011	P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC	04/19/1996	93671	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	OTHER REVISION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 0	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	09/23/1996	93671	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NEW	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 589,908	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	07/17/1997	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 800,000	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	09/19/1998	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 988,119	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	08/19/1999	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,016,010	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0104	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	08/10/2000	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,121,852	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/14/2001	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NEW	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,275,852	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/14/2002	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,331,291	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/06/2003	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,350,730	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	09/06/2003	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	OTHER REVISION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 0	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	07/27/2004	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,343,183	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	03/11/2005	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 0	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0248	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	08/29/2005	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,343,183	Abstract Not Available
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	09/21/2006	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NEW	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,811	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	08/27/2007	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,810	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	07/22/2008	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,811	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	08/27/2009	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,812	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	09/17/2009	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 50,000	View Abstract
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC	90EV0375	FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	09/15/2010	93592	DISCRETIONARY	SOCIAL SERVICES	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE GAMACHE	$ 1,178,812	View Abstract

1.	Office of Justice Programs	$21,134,457	(55%)
2.	Immediate Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services	$11,207,290	(29%)
3.	Administration for Children and Families	$5,500,562	(14%)
4.	Health Resources and Services Administration	$272,394	(1%)
5.	Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)	$218,997

Archive for June 2011

Title 255—LOCAL COURT RULES SCHUYLKILL COUNTY

Amended/Adopted Civil Rules of Procedure

[40 Pa.B. 7041] [Saturday, December 11, 2010]

Order of Court

Proposed Revisions to Schuylkill County

Rules of Civil Procedure

Rule 1915.1(b). Definitions.

Rule 1915.3. Commencement of Action. Complaint. Order.

Rule 1915.3a. Kids First Program.

Rule 1915.15. Form of Complaint.

I’m going to print that commentary here:

This isn’t about “Kids First,” or Kids, at all; it’s about Purchase Immediately My Products (a.k.a. PIMPs in Govt, Inc.). Public Service? This is the public serving the self-appointed parenting preachers under guise of “it’s good for you,” i.e., public benefit.

It goes on:

The History

These behaviors and products are prime-time AFCC.

INDIANA & AFCC

This 2011 Judicial Conference meeting concluded peacefully:

I don’t know how comfortable the average reader feels with abandoning due process, law, etc. and giving leaders a huge leash (or taking them “off-leash”) by simply ignoring what’s going on with the primary institutions that rule people’s lives, such as — say, the courts?

And behind the courts is the power to incarcerate, or transfer wealth, and offspring; to spare life or to waste life . . . ..

To be continued …

SHARE THIS POST on...

And of course respiratory & digestive systems, i.e, the alimentary canal has sometimes been called the second “brain”. All of these have to work together, and when one is overstressed, it affects the others, and requires compensation. The skeletal system. . . . . Muscular system, etc.

FAMILY LAW VERSUS REAL FAMILIES / HUMAN BODY:

Roger (Alton Pfaff) and Meyer (Elkin): Dynamic Duo in Family Law

(searched..outside the mutual-adoration of the AFCC circles…)

Abstract

That was 1982. This is 2011. Would you say that theory has changed yet? No. And it’s not going to, either. Because the STRUCTURE and INTENT of this type of court is what it says it is — a search for “feeling facts” and the “parents forever, families forever” being forced.

2004 Summary lists names, organizations, and intersections:

Now that there is a little introduction here (from same source)

see if you can read 3 paras here, with some of my comments, and understand a few connections of WHO was in various nonprofits, associations, and connected with which arm of the U.S. state of Federal Government. It will also bring in the “grants” theme:

OK, that’s enough for now. Understanding that there will be:

GOING BACK TO THE HUMAN BODY ANALOGY:

For what it’s worth — notice that the various diagrams may be about different systems, with different colored diagrams, and different labels — but some things are similar. Let’s talk about that:

AFCC Vocabulary, Pt. 1: “High-Conflict”

Family Law Modeling Behavior — In which Toronto Copies USA. Why, again?

SHARE THIS POST on...

IDV COURT: (from court’s descriptive site)

From the Attorney General’s site:

NEWS

QUOTES

BACKGROUND PAPER

2004-FCY-1E

Anyhow, several Judicial Council of California / AOC / CFCC members (publication above, 2003) are also AFCC members, i.e., high-ranking…..

Academic Background

(And if this doesn’t work, I”ll go sic Ellen Pence on them….)

Transforming our Communities

A Report Prepared by

Walter S. DeKeseredy, Ph.D. Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies University of Ontario Institute of Technology Oshawa, Ontario Canada L1H 7K4 Walter.dekeseredy@uoit.ca

Molly Dragiewicz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies University of Ontario Institute of Technology Oshawa, Ontario Canada L1H 7K4 Molly.dragiewicz@uoit.ca

March 2, 2009

©Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2009.

Introduction

SHARE THIS POST on...

CRIMINALS

CALIFORNIA REELING

CJE Opinion No. 98-16

Attending Meetings of Domestic Violence Roundtables

If you’re lost, here’s an orderly statement of events on SBX 211 at “tulanelink.com”

RETROACTIVE IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

Allowable Services

Mission

RESOURCE CENTERS AND FAMILY VIOLENCE CENTERS

SAMPLE SEARCHES:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Sector: HEALTHCARE / Specialized Health Services {such as??}

PRSC Profile (Volume appears to be $167 million….)

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Title 255—LOCAL
COURT RULES SCHUYLKILL COUNTY

[40 Pa.B. 7041]
[Saturday, December 11, 2010]

Walter S. DeKeseredy, Ph.D.
Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Ontario
Canada L1H 7K4
Walter.dekeseredy@uoit.ca

Molly Dragiewicz, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor of Criminology, Justice and Policy Studies
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Oshawa, Ontario
Canada L1H 7K4
Molly.dragiewicz@uoit.ca