Posts Tagged ‘Due process’

Federal Designer Families: How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation

This post is about 10,000 words. Enjoy!

I have about six posts in the pipeline, all of them timely to some recent indicators (developments) in the “protective mothers” field. All of them, as usual continuing to emphasize a functional vocabulary in discussing the family courts, and pointing out a few significant historical developments affecting them that those IN them rarely point out to clients, which I find strange.

By contrast, the developments in the “responsible fatherhood” field seem to be moving ahead with the usual momentum, and under-reported among “the commoners,” i.e., the general public and most family-court reform groups, who, apparently, don’t consider worthy of notice that this network even exists, or is a priority to understand.

However, it does. In fact, if you check some of the post-PRWORA-propped up nonprofits, centers, institutes, programming and the “same old, same old” hotshots, there is apparently nothing more important to talk about than what they have done, are doing, and how much HHS is going to pay them this time (sometimes that refers to a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant) to further strengthen and extend their communications, technical support, outreach/ recruiting and funding pipelines already set up in the “Fatherhood” network. (Recent example) Using federal funding to a university. One of team members historically associated with AFCC, another thing family court advocacy groups are averse to talking about.

There are also certain chronic weaknesses and vulnerabilities within this “HMRF” field (but also present, to a degree, in the domestic violence prevention field also), which would be excellent leverage to address some of the problems protective mothers are having in the courts, and I have yet to hear any legitimate (if indeed any) explanation why no significant protective mothers organization, or their featured professionals, has seen fit to raise the topic seriously with a view to DOING something about it, for at least the past dozen years, even when after a certain point, the leadership surely became aware that “outside” information on the responsible fatherhood field, HHS grants and AFCC was somehow “leaking” into the field of vision of some of the “fix the courts” promoters. One whitepaper did come out over a year after I, literally, did several posts (on two blogs) naming names of the “Let’s JUST not talk about it!” groups and proving which personnel at least knew the whole time.

Nearly two days of technical (keystroke processing speed almost at a standstill) problems with my computer slowed getting them published. Meanwhile, working out that situation, and concerned about output at this time, I decided to re-publish a 12/5/2009 FamilyCourtMatters post which is STILL more relevant than the average conversation I see on the family court reform in 2016, original title “While You Were Sleeping,… How Congress got into the Family Law Business.”

I have not yet extended the “Table of Contents” back to 2009, so “While You Were Sleeping” was probably missed by most people who may read or follow this blog. It is not the kind of information one tends to stumble across in general search terms on the family courts or its handling of situations and allegations of criminal behavior such as domestic violence or child abuse. Last month, I felt this post was important enough to clean up (formatting) and link to it, now I am actually re-posting.

It references by name key elements in networks I am blogging consistently on — public/private partnerships, and HOW does the federal government got its hand in into the state-level cookie jar without quite getting caught at it, and vice versa, while the courts themselves contribute to an ever-expanding and increasingly dependent on social services population.

**Mostly, these posts-in-the-pipeline again review some basic vocabulary with which we can talk about things which both the protective mothers’ perspective, and definitely in the fathers’ rights perspective have for years resisted discussing on-line in anything approaching a coherent manner, using accurate and relevant terms to describe the infrastructure and how it networks to promote either their own perspective, or the perspective for which they want “systemic changes” or “a paradigm” change for [divorce law, family courts, child support] because it’s: unfair to fathers, unfair to mothers, dangerous to children, or gender-biased against men (or women), is destroying the American family, human rights,civil rights, etc.

We who are concerned, afflicted by, or discussing the problems in the family courts, should ALL know and talk what top-level state institutions (such as the California Judicial Council), federal deliberations courtesy of CRS (Congressional Research Service) (“Should the Federal Government get involved in Family Matters which are under State law jurisdiction?”) (unsaid: “HOW can we get our fingers into family and divorce courts without getting caught on it, or held responsible for any negative effects after we have?”) ….. (And “WHO will help us do this?” some of which this post shows who actually did) are actually involved, or, for example, just how one state ends up copying the court (privatization and outsourcing) practices in another.

For example, I had years of personal encounters through the courts before I became aware of the information in just this excerpt from that 2009 post below. The publication talking about it came out in the context of a state-level, state-wide evaluation of the ruling body of the courts published around May, 2012. Take a look at this excerpt, which will be repeated below, without the olive-green background:

THE REPORT on the AOC, with its section on the CFCC Division IS RECOMMENDED READING for understanding many things which may relate to complaints about the family courts nationwide. Information on the AOC’s/CFCC begins on page 81:

(from a 2012 “SEC” CALIFORNIA-SPECIFIC REVIEW Of the Administrative Office of the Courts)

Division Description

The Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) was established in February 2000 through the merger of the Statewide Office of Family Court Services and the Center for Children and the Courts.

A Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts. Consolidation, Year 2000

The Statewide Office of Family Court Services was created by a 1984 legislative mandate to provide leadership, development, assistance, research, grants, education, and technical support to the state’s family court services programs through direct services and community partnerships.

…

(Report on the California AOC/CFCC Division, p. 81ff, cont’d. Link above…)
The Center for Children and the Courts was created by the AOC in 1997 in response to the results of a state-wide needs assessment of California juvenile dependency proceedings conducted by the National Center for State Courts.

Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system. Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.” Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind. These are rarely 100% neutral. [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name. It files a Form 990]]

From its inception, the CFCC’s mission has been to improve the quality of justice and services to meet the diverse needs of children, youth, parents, families, and other users of the California courts. The division provides a wide range of services to family, juvenile, and collaborative justice courts.

Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members. This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them. Not the topic of this post….

Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC? I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.

The formation of a specialized center within AOC’s administrative structure institutionalized judicial branch commitment to improving outcomes for children and families. The CFCC is the only division of the AOC that is dedicated to a substantive area of the law. The multidisciplinary model has since been recommended to other states.

If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…

SUMMARY: The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show. The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind…

But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office. Then, they combined them. Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts. “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC. AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.

They are also pretty good at setting the stage for creating new professions at the expense of the courts (the public) and parents (also, the public), one of the earlier ones pushed was mediation, one of the later, “parent coordination.”

Another reason I would question any advocacy group who, knowing about this organization, didn’t talk — and keep talking — about it.
Read the rest of this entry »

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

May 26, 2016 at 9:43 am

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with "CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?" (CRS Rpt 97-590 updated 6-20-2000), "Outflanking the Nation-State: David Mitrany and the Origins of Functionalism", AFCC, AFCC CFCC AOC Judicial Council, Carmen Solomon-Fears, CRS Rept 97-590, CRS-Congressional Research Service, Due process, Elements of the Network, fatherhood, Global Pound Conference of the IMI, HHS-TAGGS grants database, History of Access and Visitation Legislation, House Ways and Means-Human Resources Subcommittee (Jurisdiction - Titles I ~IV ~VI ~X ~XIV ~XVI ~XX and related provisions of titles VII & XI of the Social Security Act per 112th Congress rules), IMI - International Mediation Institute (Dutch/UN Consultative NGO), men's rights, murder-suicides, obfuscation, social commentary, Statewide Office of Family Court Services (in Calif in 2000 merged into a "CFCC"), Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.

America’s Unified Family Courts (UFCs)– forget! due process, this is about “Treating” the Whole Family

with 3 comments

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation + ABA + HHS/DOJ (+Monsanto, CIGNA + Ford) = Unified Family Courts = Treat the Whole Family

This post is three of (my) comments from the “(Kids for Cash)” topic at Scranton Political Times… Those who teach about “abuse” should be teaching about this — because how these courts were set up DOES rather explain why they have spawned (comparison intentional), literally, protest movements across the country, from their horrid treatment of litigants, particularly ignoring facts, law, and due process in individual cases). They are horrible wastes of time and mind (a mind is a terrible thing to waste, is it not?) — and exist to dominate and intimidate, literally, the human spirit and eliminate the “unalienable rights” that SOME believe are innate (“unalienable”) to every man. . . . .And now that “every man” is to include more men – -and women . . . . those crying out for “Children’s Rights” don’t even endorse what’s right to start with — the REPUBLIC (representative government under rule of law) of the United States (plural) of America — not the Oligarchy, the Aristocracy, or the THEocracy of the USA!! — and turning the entire country, starting with children, adding youth, and expanding upwards into adults — into a treatable-at-will population — is hardly a Republic!

I was checking NAFCJ.net for a link to “the money trail” and happened across an unexplored link on there to grants by this Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help the ABA create Unified Courts. These grants spanned the period 1996-1999; my attention was hooked, and this is what developed:

It is worth processing if you are concerned about these topics. I believe we need to FULLY understand who’s running the Justice and Legal Systems of the country, particularly if we are in the situation of attempting to squeeze some water out of a stone in those halls. . . . . . .

I AM WRITING as a single woman who could never have anticipated, as a 20, 30, or 40 year old how dangerous this country has become for ethical, moral, working, and competent women who are also mothers, and value that role as they also value pulling their own weight. Such women are horrors to this system — as they don’t need treatment, nor do their kids — but after a few years in it, ALL will!

So this is, literally, HOW the ABA (incl. AFCC) and others USED the family law system to turn “divorce” into a disease and treat every one for it, as collateral in treating for substance abuse and of course mental health problems. That divorce is NOT a disease hardly matters in the face of such a policy backed by such power.

PART I (first comment on the topic from Scranton PT):

Since the idea sucks,
WHOSE IDEA WAS “UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS,”

ANYHOW, and WHY?

Hey, remember “unified family courts” and “drug courts” (I believe there have been some complaint about Lackawanna County’s right?) and so forth? – – – I just found an old article detailing how the ABA and specific funders were pushing “treating the whole family” and “changing the justice systems” to address substance abuse by youth. An unexplored link over at NAFCJ.net, and the timing of 1996 with welfare reform.

The goal, and the whole point, was to change the justice system — from the outside, not the inside. Foundations pushing a concept and working through the ABA & Judges, plus money didn’t hurt either. HHS/ACF happened to agree — so once that door was open (that it’s OK to revise the courts based on somebody in power’s got a bright idea) — it stayed open.

This is a link from the ROBERT WOOD FOUNDATION grants page. They also helped AFCC, I believe:

Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) had linked to it long ago from:

More information on the Money Trail from HHS to the courts to fathers rights

which leads to:
Grants

$$$
How our money is misused to discriminate against women and children
http://www.statejustice.org/grantinfo/chifam.htm [broken link]
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/029319s.htm [UFC link]

And here we can read:

Unified Family Courts: Treating the Whole Family, Not Just the Young Drug Offender

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is powerful one, focused exclusively on health fields (and the largest philanthropy with this focus; been doing this for 40 years; influences medical education field, etc.)and Unified Family Courts (for substance abuse treatment) were one of their projects

SUMMARY

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.

UFCs combine the functions of family and juvenile courts to provide a comprehensive approach to treating and educating young drug offenders and their families. This approach recognizes that substance abuse results from a combination of problems related to health, family structure, economics and community support. UFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem.

Key Results

See Grant Detail & Contact Information Notice the Baltimore Connection (I have — it’s an AFCC stronghold) — this group helped Chester Harhut & Lackawanna County set up ITS “UFC”, remember?

In Baltimore, Md., a pilot UFC was established in September 1998. The state legislature approved $1 million for the Baltimore pilot UFC project and $4 million to create Family Divisions in four other judicial districts. For each case, judges can order social services, including substance abuse and mental health counseling, and diversion programs. The Baltimore Family Court has also developed an assessment/evaluation procedure that the project director believes provides a replicable model for evaluation at other UFC sites.

I blogged this (with some sarcasm) in March 2012:

Marylands Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron . . .”First of all, they are about as unbelievingly condescending and patronizing (move over, let us experts handle your family give us your kid, etc.) as it is possible for any human relationship to be, apart from some truly unhealthy (i.e., violent/abusive) ones. They deal in force, and subterfuge when it comes to proliferating the program, and like any good, truly disaster capitalism enterprise, they deal with distressed populations, exploit them, and call that service.” [My blog connects Barbara Babb of Baltimore to Lackawanna County pilot program in UFC]

After the Grant
The ABA continues to work with the six sites and has provided technical assistance to eight other states. It also is involved in a project funded by the Scripps-Howard Foundation to examine literacy as a way to address substance abuse in four family courts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®. It is building community solutions to substance abuse and delinquency by developing the systems infrastructure necessary to deliver comprehensive care within the juvenile justice system. See the program’s Web site for more information. . . .Funding

RWJF provided a $481,605 grant to the ABA for its work on UCF systems..(they mean “UFC — Unified Family Courts”)

In 1994, ABA adopted a resolution calling for the promotion and implementation of UFC systems to make the courts more responsive to family problems. {{??}} By 1996, six states had established versions of UFCs statewide, and four states had some UFCs operating on the county level.

[That, friends, is how the ABA operates…] [NOW for the FUNDING]:

Other Funding The ABA solicited and obtained additional project funding from the private sector and government, including:

the US Department of Justice ($100,000),
the ABA’s Standing Committee on Substance Abuse ($90,000),
CIGNA Corporation ($30,000),**
Monsanto ($10,000),** and
Ford Motor Company ($5,000). [Ford is into most govermental things, and in the 1970s had helped from MDRC, which runs demonstration programs onw elfare and the courts, etc.]]

Those names should ring a few bells. Look at some of them!

* *”Grrreat” — Monsanto is “only” the food giant that’s trying to put non-GMO and organic farmers out of business and basically co-opt the US Food supply. (Ya gotta read this one) Monsanto, Wikipedia:

… multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed in the Roundup brand, and in other brands. Monsanto is also the second largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed; it provides the technology in 49% of the genetically engineered seeds used in the US market.”. . .Monsanto’s development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation, political lobbying practices, seed commercialization practices and “strong-arming” of the seed industry^[4…

In 2009 Monsanto came under scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department, which began investigating whether the company’s activities in the soybean markets were breaking anti-trust rules.^[4]^[5]

What better corporation to contribute to an ANTI-Drug Abuse program which creates genetically modified seeds, bovine growth hormone, and strong arm tactics + lobbying to maintain it — and financial clout to help create an alternate justice system (treatment versus accountability….)!!

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear (Vanity Fair Article):

Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the seed police and use words such as Gestapo and Mafia to describe their tactics.

[Starting to sound like the Unified Family Court “treatment Gestapo police” now in place? Birds of a feather..]

“in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the worlds food supply . . .Monsanto patents SEEDS; farmers who use theirs sign an agreement to NOT save seeds, they are suing farmers into whose fields Monsanto seeds may, for example, drift (i.e., by wind).

With an agenda like this, it’s understandable why Monsanto may want a role in dismantling the US legal system! !!! (Other Monsanto Gov’t ties) http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

CIGNA’s quite a player also:

(from 1982 merger of Connecticut General Life — dating to 1865! and INA (Insurance Company of NA) Before selling its international property and casualty business to the Bermuda-based ACE Insurance company in the late 1990s, CIGNA was among the companies with the largest international network in the league of Allianz, AIG and Zurich. . . .CIGNA now operates in 25 countries, has in excess of 42,000 employees and manages around US$110 billion in assets . . .In October 2011, CIGNA has agreed to buy HealthSpring Inc. for $3.8 billion to jump-start its business selling Medicare plans from 46,000 Medicare Advantage members to almost 400,000 Medicare Advantage members. The payment would come from issue new equity to cover about 20 percent of the value, with the rest funded by additional cash and debt.

Gee, I “can’t imagine” why — right around the time of “block grants to the states” welfare reform — CIGNA, being a global “health service” company might want to help the ABA turn large parts of the US Justice system into a treatment-philosophy-based system, including treat the whole family for one member’s substance abuse!

So, here’s the ABA creating all these Unified Family Courts (hint: The ABA membership includes subset no doubt of AFCC membership, who also are into unified courts = more business for the mental health membership..)

“Other in-kind support was provided by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) of the federal Department of HHS, the Administrative Office of the Courts in Maryland (AOC), and ABA volunteers. “

In short — have to watch out for these outfits… (that’s the UBaltimore one — see blog post)

Here’s how the ABA overcame opposition to UFC in Washington DC:

In Washington, D.C., the ABA worked on a strategy to establish a UFC. Judicial opposition to family court reform, based chiefly on economic concerns, blocked significant progress toward the UFC model. The ABA met with the Chief Judge, the primary opponent, and worked with UFC proponents in the District. Family and Child Services, a branch of the District of Columbia’s Child Protection Agency, and an ad hoc group of representatives from the judicial leadership and social service providers, have assumed the lead in efforts to explore the feasibility of a UFC approach in the District.

Does this part of the ABA seem like it’s going to take “No thanks!” as an answer?

Publicizing by ABA:

The ABA developed a network of national organizations to support UFCs. The American Judges Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, {{OBVIOUSLY this group would be in favor of UFC’s – gets its membership more customers!!}} the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, [NCJFCJ] and J oin Together (a national organization created by RWJF that provides technical assistance and information** to communities on issues involving substance abuse and gun violence) distributed information and/or collaborated with the ABA on UFC programs

– – – – -**The phrase “technical assistance and information” ANYwhere should be better read “indoctrination — do it OUR way; but if anyone asks, we’re just “helping” (and not responsible if it backfires).- – – – – – –

Apparently in 2006, “Join Together” was phased out by RWJF to be replaced by a “VULNERABLE POPULATIONS” project:

”

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which for two decades has been the most generous and visible private funder of addiction treatment and prevention programs in the U.S., has announced that it will no longer have a separate program area for funding addiction-related programs.

“Instead, any new grantmaking related to addiction will take place under the foundation’s Vulnerable Populations portfolio, said foundation president and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., in a recent letter to RWJF grantees. Often the neediest populations such as the chronically homeless, new immigrants, victims of domestic abuse** are faced with multiple health and social issues, including addiction, that must be addressed in an integrated way for these individuals to succeed. The Vulnerable Populations grantmaking effort focuses mainly on these populations.

**the substance abuse is often related to other kinds of abuse, which is already known (acestudy.org) from other longitudinal studies. Perhaps if someone could focus on stopping the INJUSTiCE (including violence towards family members) instead of constantly TREATING it (both victm and perp as if both were responsible) there’d be less substance abuse! (who knows?)

So now they’re going for “supportive housing” to keep kids out of the foster care system. Guess who’s helping with THAT project?

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has partnered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and three private foundations to jointly fund a $35 million initiative to further test how supportive housing can help stabilize highly vulnerable families and keep children out of the foster care system. . . .Collaborating foundations include the Annie E. Casey Foundation, Casey Family Programs, and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
This groundbreaking initiative is based on a successful pilot effort in New York City, known as Keeping Families Together (KFT) that took place between October 2007 and July 2009

This is actually an upcoming grant opportunity, $5 million available, per HHS. It’s under CAPTA (child abuse prevention).

What’s Wrong with this Picture? (coming….)

Interesting: AFCC cite to the foundation: see note at bottom of the page: http://afcc.crinfo.org/action/search-profile.jsp?key=14482&type=web

This beta-test, demonstration gateway has been developed to demonstrate the structure of the Conflict Research Consortium’s joint gateway program to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

This test site has not, in any way, been approved by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors
c/o Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado
Campus Box 580, Boulder, CO 80309
Phone: (303) 492-1635; Contac

— Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:06:09 PM— on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:23:37 PM

PARTS II & III:

The powers that be (like ABA, foundations, HHS, etc.) determined among themselves that treatment is better than justice. That some of them happened be in the treatment business must just be coincidence.

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family CourtsUFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem

Notice: justice system — or treatment system. Which would you rather have when walking into a courtroom? Would you like to know which one you’re up for when it says “court” on the outside?

So, here comes that Robt Wood Johnson Foundation:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®.

… USPTO and trademarking social service reform (see that “®”?)

USPTO.gov

pick “Trademark search“

pick “Basic Word Mark Search” and fill it in

Search . .Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime and get:

Sure ‘nuf that’s a robert wood johnson trademark:

	Serial Number	Reg. Number	Word Mark	Check Status	Live/Dead
1	76117473	2592702	RECLAIMING FUTURES	TARR	LIVE
2	75627894	2540943	PROTECTING OUR FUTURE BY RECLAIMING OUR PAST	TARR	LIVE

They trademarked the act of giving grants!

IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Charitable services, namely, providing grants to programs to combat substance abuse and delinquency. FIRST USE: 2001/01/25. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010125

{interesting, executive order GWBush establishing faith-based office was 2001/01/29…}{Filed for opposition: August 24, 2000}

Owner	(REGISTRANT) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The NON-PROFIT CORPORATION NEW JERSEY Route One & College Road East P.O. Box 2316 Princeton NEW JERSEY 085432316
Attorney of Record	Richard C. Woodbridge

(the logo is also a hyperlink)

In 2001, with a $21 million investment from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 10 founding communities located throughout the United States began reinventing the way police, courts, detention facilities, treatment providers, and the community work together to meet this urgent need

Amazing what a $21 million investment can do . . ..

“Reclaiming Futures has been evaluated by The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., in collaboration with the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.” (RWJF helped pay for the evaluation also)
Now there are six partners, including from OJJDP, HHS (SAMSHA), another foundation, Portland State, and a research institute at Portland state.

“Re-engineer the justice system in your state” (how-to manual):
Bring Reclaiming Futures to Your State or Tribal Lands »
Re-engineer the juvenile justice system in your state or region to avoid unnecessary costs and cut recidivism. Here’s how to get started.

RWJF + ABA = UFCs + Drug Courts (cont’d.)

For the Record, American Bar Association is listed at HHS as “Private Profit (large) Business.”

HHS has donated over $20.6 million of grants to the ABA per TAGGS.hhs.gov. So taxpayers are supporting it, too, even if they’re not engaged in litigation.

ABA activism (from site below about Unified Family Courts):

From 1992 to 1996, RWJF funded the ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse’s Community Anti-Drug Coalition Initiative to mobilize lawyers, judges, and justice system leaders to help create new justice systems and structures to solve the substance abuse problem (see Grant Results [] on ID#s 019838 and 023195).

The ABA was also instrumental in persuading legal community leaders to support drug courts for juveniles, which link juvenile justice and community treatment resources to juvenile drug offenders and their legal caretakers.

OK, get JUVENILES into treatment, what next?

The ABA then helped cities nationwide set up drug courts for adultoffenders, which offer defendants who have been charged with a drug offense (typically first-time, non-violent offenders) court supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. Drug courts can motivate drug users to enter rehabilitation programs and reestablish productive lifestyles. These courts have dramatically decreased recidivism rates and drug use among participants. [have they?]

UFC’s complement the work of the drug courts. UFCs combine the functions of family courts (which handle family-related legal issues) and juvenile courts (which handle [criminal or status offence, they should’ve said] cases in which minors are involved) into one entity and provide a comprehensive approach to helping “families in crisis.“ UFCs incorporate treatment for young substance abuse offenders into the wide range of cases heard in civil court involving family matters.

– – – – -OK, what’s that mean?

– – – – Basically, where family court would’ve been perhaps about custody and divorce primarily, UFC’s tempt the judges to order more services, and treat the entire family — although the case may be as simple as a custody/visitation plan or a divorce, NEITHER of which are criminal matters. Also omitted — juvenile courts are not just for people of a certain age — they are for juveniles who’ve caused (or allegedly caused) some problems, committing a legitimate crime (breaking and entering, robbery, rape/sexual assault, etc.) OR “status offence,” i.e. violated some rules that wouldn’t apply to adults, like a curfew, or attendance at school (truancy violations).

Changed the entire climate, definitely affecting people with straightforward business in the FAMILY court who may not be sick or criminal. This was less for the families than for the court’s convenience, and for its liaisons with treatment-providing organizations.

You can look up ABA HHS grants around this time and see:

#90CW1087
Award Title:	CHILD WELFARE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS
OPDIV:	ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization:	CHILDREN’S BUREAU (CB)
Award Class:	DISCRETIONARY

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	5	0	ACF	09-17-1998	$ 700,000
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	1	ACF	09-30-1997	$ 80,000
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	2	ACF	04-15-1998	$ 26,004
1998	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	3	ACF	06-24-1998	$ 21,276
Fiscal Year 1998 Total:									$ 827,280

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	4	0	ACF	09-10-1997	$ 450,000
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	3	1	ACF	12-19-1996	$ 0
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	3	2	ACF	03-29-1997	$ 0
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	3	3	ACF	08-20-1997	$ 3,369
Fiscal Year 1997 Total:									$ 453,369

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1996	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	03	000	ACF	09-25-1996	$ 400,000
1996	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	03	001	ACF	12-19-1996	$ 0
1996	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	03	002	ACF	03-29-1997	$ 0
Fiscal Year 1996 Total:									$ 400,000

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Yr of Support	Award Code	Agency	ActionIssue Date	Amount This Action
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	000	ACF	09-29-1995	$ 400,000
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	001	ACF	09-29-1995	$ 38,947
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	002	ACF	09-30-1995	$ 3,310
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	003	ACF	01-22-1996	$ 0
1995	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	93608	02	004	ACF	07-15-1996	$ 55,125
Fiscal Year 1995 Total:									$ 497,382

Total of all award actions:

$ 2,178,031

AND:

Award Number:	MCU11A301
Award Title:	PARTNERS IN PGRM PLANNING FOR ADOLESCENT HEALTH
OPDIV:	HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA)
Organization:	MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH / SYSTEMS EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (MCHB)
Award Class:	COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

FY	Recipient	City	State	CFDA	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
1997	AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION	CHICAGO	IL	93110	02	000	HRSA	09-02-1997	$ 100,000
Fiscal Year 1997 Total:									$ 100,000

Fiscal Year 1996 Total:

$ 100,000

Total of all award actions:

$ 200,000

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATN

KATHI GRASSO

$ 100,000

So, ABA is a partner in “HEALTH SERVICES.” Principal Investigator “Kathi Grasso”:

Ms. Grasso worked for the ABA Center for Children and the Law, OJJDP atsome point and is a member of NACC based in WDC. She has a degree from Catholic University. .She’s very active around the country and publishing on these matters:

(footnote to an NACC publication) A Judges Guide to Improving Legal Representation of Children, edited by Kathi Grasso, ABA Center on Children and the Law, © ABA May 1998.

Kathi Grasso [From OJJDP “staff” list]
Senior Juvenile Justice Policy and Legal Advisor
202-xxx-xxxx
kathi.grasso@usdoj.gov

First she worked for the (activist) ABA center for children, then she moved over to OJJDP which is a large agency which allocates GRANTS in Judicial Programs; as there she also functioned (I see) as OJJDP Liaison to other ABA commissions on Youth At Risk (etc.) causes.

(presented at some workshop on representing Indigents, in Texas)

Video 2: Keynote: Effectuating Reform in Juvenile Justice
Presenters: Kathi Grasso, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the U.S. Department of Justice
Link to handout and Juvenile Ten Core Principles

_ _ _ _ _

Curious about who was over the “Child Welfare Research and Demo” Grant (above), I looked — it’s a Mark Hardin, who retired in 2009 after 30 years of this type of advocacy:

Award Number	Budg Yr	Action Issue Date	CFDA	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
90CW1087	02	09/29/1995	93608	MARK HARDIN	$ 438,947
90CW1087	02	09/30/1995	93608		$ 3,310
90CW1087	02	01/22/1996	93608		$ 0
90CW1087	02	07/15/1996	93608		$ 55,125
90CW1087	03	09/25/1996	93608		$ 400,000
	03	12/19/1996	93608		$ 0
	03	03/29/1997	93608		$ 0
	3	12/19/1996	93608		$ 0
	3	03/29/1997	93608		$ 0
90CW1087	3	08/20/1997	93608		$ 3,369
90CW1087	4	09/10/1997	93608		$ 450,000
90CW1087	4	09/30/1997	93608	(etc.)	$ 80,000
90CW1087	4	04/15/1998	93608		$ 26,004
90CW1087	4	06/24/1998	93608		$ 21,276
	4	03/24/1999	93608		$ 0
	4	04/26/1999	93608		$ 0
90CW1087	5	09/17/1998	93608	MARK HARDIN	$ 700,000
	5	04/26/1999	93608	MARK HARDIN	$ 0

PROFILE from ABA shows:

Mark Hardin, National Child Welfare Law Authority, Retires

WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 13, 2009 — The American Bar Association is announcing the retirement of Mark Hardin, director of child welfare at the ABA Center on Children and the Law and an Oregon attorney. A legal pioneer in the field of foster care and the role of the courts in aiding abused and neglected children and their families, Hardin spent 35 years utilizing his legal skills and knowledge to improve the plight of children removed from their homes due to child maltreatment.

Beginning as a legal aid lawyer in Portland, Ore., Hardin handled family, juvenile and welfare cases, giving him practical insight into the lives of vulnerable children and families. In the late 70’s, during two years at Portland State University, Hardin forged development of the law on “permanency planning” for abused and neglected children and wrote several early publications helping social workers and policy analysts understand the legal aspects of a child’s placement in foster care. He was among the country’s first trainers of lawyers and child welfare agency staff, educating them in their legal responsibilities relative to children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect.

Hardin joined the Center on Children and the Law in 1980 where, according to ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm, he became “the country’s foremost legal scholar on foster care legal and judicial reforms.”

Hardin’s experience includes having directed the ABA’s National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, a program of the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Wait a minute. is this “child welfare resource center on legal and judicial issues” something belonging to the ABA (a large, private, FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS) or the HHS (a dept. of the US Federal government, Executive Branch, of, by and for the people? How can it be an ABA thing AND a program of the Children’s Bureau? Conflict of interest, much?

. . .With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.”

[Was that supposed to be a JOKE? We are having frequent issues with lawyers BREAKING the law!]

AN AWARD NAMED AFTER MARK HARDIN:

First Annual

Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change

The Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change, created by the ABA Center on Children and the Law in 2011 with approval from the ABA Board of Governors, honors the work of Mark Hardin. Before his retirement, Mark served for almost 30 years on the staff of the ABA Center on Children and the Law as director of child welfare. Mark has long been recognized by those who work in this area of law as an early innovator in the child welfare legal field. He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.

This is understandable, given common interests in these goups

ANYHOW, now there is a MARK HARDIN AWARD, and the FIRST (2012) recipient of it is the Director of CALIFORNIA’s “AOC” “Center for Families & Children in the Courts,” — which is part of the Judicial Council — DIANE NUNN.

May 23, 2012AOC Director Receives ABA award for Work on Behalf of Families and ChildrenRecipient of ABA’s First Mark Hardin Award . .SAN FRANCISCO—Diane Nunn, Division Director of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts,Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), is the recipient of the First Annual Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Scholarship and Systems Change

DIANE NUNN (along with “Depner” along with Isolini Ricci) is AFCC — and the AOC in California — this year, last year, and in recent years — has been split with scandal over fiscal/financial irresponsibility, a bloated bureaucracy, overbilling and fraud in the creation of a new, huge statewide computer system (CCMS) and to my recall, several of its leadership suddenly stepped down: Ron Overholt (administrator), his replacement, and another person — after a whistleblower suit. (see this topic at “courthousenews.com” [back issues]).

This AOC/CFCC also administers and distributes the federal grants to nonprofits around the state for the “treatment programs” parents and kids are ordered into, as well as the Access/Visitation Grants. i can see why a systems change award might go to one of their own!

” In 2000 she became the director of the Judicial Council’s AOC/Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), the first entity devoted exclusively to family and children’s issues in a statewide administrative office of the courts. As Division Director, Nunn leads a nationally-recognized team that provides an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to serving the state’s family and juvenile courts. ”
… {{“multidisciplinary” is code word referring to AFCC many times. It’s their hallmark. Why just have the rule of law when you could have social workers and psychologists as well?}}

“Describing the Award & Mr. Hardin: He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.”

ABA is a private, for-profit business, supported by business(es) in the form of foundation grants, and with a little too close for comfort cooperation with HHS and the Adoption Incentives, plus the theme of we, the elite, know better how to rule society, so let’s change a few laws, and court practices! After all, who’s going to complain — the indigent?

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

July 5, 2012 at 12:20 pm

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017)

with 5 comments

POST TITLE IS:

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017) (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-WN”

My practice of adding borders and listing the post title with shortlink is more recent.

Currently this post is NOT listed on any Table of Contents (my lists only go as far back as Sept. 2012)…I see that many of the logos will not display, and that this post as written was about 10,000 words long. This update made only because a basic search on the blog for an organization I’m writing about again brought it up. (Update this time is only minimal format changes for easier reading; is not in detail and doesn’t include fixing broken links/missing logos, or more recent information on the organizations referenced).//LGH Oct. 30, 2017.

INTRO:

Overall, I seriously doubt that it’s possible to clean up or straighten up the family law system — at all, and I am utterly serious in saying this. There is too much incentive for fraud, and too much need to “pay the mortgages” in the courthouses by ordering more services, and too little oversight and tracking of the funding. There are too many public employees forming nonprofit corporations to franchise for-profit curricula (marriage, parent education, etc.) — in the old NonProfit/ForProfit combo.

There are too few tools in many states to track WHO is repeatedly forming corporations that go belly-up, only to have a partner or other person formerly on one board just go forth and from another one — in another state. Many of these groups, as my last post showed, are membership organizations — membership is charged, conferences run, and we have some evidence from county payrolls or vouchers from court-connected professionals, that the public is billed to fund attendance at nonprofits whose ONE purpose is to expand their services. Child support is one of the worst of these, but they come in all flavors.

Despite the bleak outlook — I still report and I am going to finish reporting on this field of Parent Coordination until it is CLEAR what the AFCC professionals’ intent is in establishing this field and, if possible, having it legitimized at the state level by establishing standards, or by mandate.

The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts runs many task forces at a time, as part of its strategic plan to expand (itself) and transform the “old” language of criminal law into more friendly-to-its-practitioners concepts. One of them which they are taking VERY seriously in promoting — and I take VERY seriously in protesting — is Parenting Coordination.

Parents didn’t ask for this — it’s no grassroots movement, and from what I can tell how it’s been (1) advertised (2) pushed and (3) practiced — there’s no genuine NEED for it either. For that matter, I see no historical record that parents as a sector (both male and female) asked for the family law system, either.

Why I’m addressing it — again:

(1) AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS. NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS AS THEY DID.

The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too: Parenting Coordination: A Bad Idea

Here’s less than half the list — and so far I agree with ALL of them. Thank you, Liz (Kates, the FL Family Law attorney, not Richards, of NAFCJ.net)
© 1996-2011 argate.net frcp:

Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function

Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access

Parenting coordination is a denial of due process

Parenting coordination violates privacy

The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests

Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law

Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups

No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions

No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.

Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people

Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document

Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire

Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract

There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination

Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion

It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them

Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes

Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford

Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds

Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious

Parenting coordination is not confidential

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment

Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other

Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders

Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights

Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers

They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody

They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed

Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being

Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted

Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power

Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships

They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”

They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making

They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being

Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent

Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them

Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and

They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!

Out of control parenting coordinator (Hastings case, FL 2nd DCA, 2002) Caveat custody modification standard

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post). I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida. They have since succeeded, I believe, too.

Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow.

This is primarily what AFCC does. From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.” The problem (sic) is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints.

Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits! {{It looks like I didn’t post that link, or it wasn’t saved to final… unless it’s shown in the DVLeap 2010 brief.}}

DVLeap brief in 2010 case (Washington, DC) arguing some of the constitutional issues More from DVLeap

“The Court’s parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process… The Special Master Order’s requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy… The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy…”

AFCC could care less. They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.

Even the brother of the Marriage Promotion President, the “Family” family, George Bush — as Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, FL (2004) had the sense to object based on sound principles. A newly formed (probably for this purpose) chapter of AFCC strategized, lobbied, publicized, practiced, and finally managed to ram it through, over his veto. It only slowed them down slightly.

June 18, 2004

Ms. Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State Florida Department of State

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.

He lists 5 objections, two of which clearly recognize that it in effect allows a parent coordinator to function as both judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights, and one of which is that it fails to protect victims of domestic violence. I also note from the language that it looks like a Committee (not the general legislature) attempted to have this substitute for an existing Senate Bill. . . . .

(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —

The People fixed on training parent coordinators have a terrible track record when it comes to staying incorporated(I found another one today — Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals, or “SAIF.” Formed in 2006, it’s already behind in its filings, in the state of Indiana. And it appears that, again, a nonprofit/for-profit combo, originating not with litigants, but with the professionals, was set up to give (again) some family law attorneys the right to crow about their own parent coordination training seminars they helped run themselves. By and large, that seems to be the situation in Indiana — which it seems New Hampshire liked a lot, too. Termini/Boyan are Georgia/Pennsylvania — but same general idea.

(3) The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive.

Here’s an example, from a family law attorney, a bona-fide certified one (although the nonprofit membership she cites all over is anything but “bona-fide” when it comes to filing charitable returns in the home state!)

It’s even from an Amicus Brief (I THINK it got filed, although this isn’t the stamped version). Actually, this is where the title to my post came from:

CASE NO. C064475

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________

RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________

Face sheet as posted at CaliforniaParentingCoordinator.com (using link from this 12/14/2011 post).

[Three images, inside blue borders, added in 2017 update. See also their list Table of Authorities].

In the statute of authorities for this brief, bearing the name “Leslie Ellen Shear” and “Stephen Temko” (although the certificate of interested parties form bears the name Shear, and is dated 1/27/2011), after the legal and rules of court list, comes:

Table of Contents from Amicus Brief (source url shown on gray window-frame at top of image).

“Treatises, Law Reviews and Other Authorities” – and on reading it, I see it quotes, among others:

The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)

AFCC itself (at least twice)

A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others. These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.

Herself, like 3 times, in:

Shear (2008) In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass-roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute 5 Journal of Child Custody 88…………………………………………..5, 18, 25 (cited on page 5, 18 & 25).

(I’m also adding this quote in 2017 update, from the Amicus Brief):

ACFLS’s purposes in appearing as amicus are to protect and perfect the parenting coordination service model in California family courts, discuss the implications of the issues raised in this case for the future of parent coordination in California, and address the implications of those issues for other family court appointed neutrals including but not limited to child custody evaluators4, minors’ counsel appointed per Fam. Code §3150 et seq., mediators, therapists, members of collaborative family law teams, and other court appointed or connected quasi-judicial dispute resolution professionals.

In other words, to protect her own kind….

Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination.

Another set of professionals tried to write “Kids Turn” into law around 2002, right? (see my “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch post.”) then-Governor Gray Davis (properly!) vetoed even the version of it put out which didn’t overtly say “Kids’ Turn” on its face.

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

On page 4, quoting AFCC person Greenberg (whose writing I also ran across) cites who came up with the idea, vaguely characterized as:

In 1994, the concept of parenting coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who realized that some high conflict families remained chronically mired in conflict and required something different. . . For these families, the traditional tried and true approaches to containing familial conflict such as litigation, mediation, forensics, and therapy had not worked. Thus, the concept of parenting coordination was conceived as a different and needed dispute resolution intervention.

(Tried and True? [is that really an appropriate phrase for use in an amicus brief?]

Try “Tried and found seriously wanting.” Don’t believe me? Look here. I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida. Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one: even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that murder) miss their Daddy. And they shouldn’t even be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc.

Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children. And the shooter was a retired police officer!

Dad accused of killing son wants custody rights to surviving kids; judge lets him have unsupervised contact (Orlando, Florida)

POSTED: 5:56 pm EST December 13, 2011
UPDATED: 6:45 pm EST December 13, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. — A former Orlando police officer accused of killing his son was back in court, arguing for custody rights to his other children.

Timothy Davis Sr. won a victory of sorts Tuesday when a judge granted him the ability to pick up his younger children from school, including his 9-year-old daughter who authorities said witnessed the killing.

The retired police officer is accused of shooting his son, 22-year-old Timothy Davis Jr., to death at their Apopka home in what he said was self-defense after his son attacked him, injuring his knee in October.

Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife.

Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper. I do not call this ‘tried and true.” This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps.

Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter. This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:

by KHOU.com staff

khou.com
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

KATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.

According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.

Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children. Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.

Sorry to bring up this very unpleasant reality-check, but when in Amicus Brief a parent-coordinator pusher talks about previously tried methods that work — the definition of “works” or “tried and true” apparently / generally just means “tried, sometimes resulting in death, physical or sexual abuse of minors post-separation, or having minor children showing up in child pornography in father’s possession.” All of these were from December 2011 news articles, only.

Keep these incidents for a point of reference while I quote from p.12, a whole chapter on how parent coordinators have such difficult parents to deal with, “poor them”:

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage.** These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.

Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Families 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

**Difficult-to manage parents are the bread and butter of the family court. They are the income producers. Assigning them to parent coordination is yet one more source of income for the professionals, taken from either the parents, or (looks like there’s some effort to make even broke parents participate in this too — AFCC-CA has a workshop or presentation, on the 2012 hearing on this).

Perhaps the professionals in question should re-think the business of “managing parents” to start with.

So, the opening quote to this chapter is from two long-time AFCC professionals (Coates/Deutsch) in an AFCC publication?, although it’s only 2004, using an AFCC-originated concept and term, “high-conflict families” (although I hear Bill Eddy now says they are high-conflict individuals — see my post on “yet another AFCC wet dream.” and his High-conflict Institute….)

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to re- turn to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs,* and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

* perhaps this speaks to the quality of the co-parenting educational programs, more than the parents.

* or perhaps they are pissed at being forced to take co-parenting classes to start with, not mentioning affected if they also have to pay.

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents.

A casual dismissal of whether it’s just one — or both — parents here. We KNOW that many of these cases — not just some — are in fact cases involving danger, abuse, and etc. These cases do NOT belong in family court at all — but they are there because of greed of professionals, and because of the fatherhood movement (backlash to feminism) that incentivizes and insists that single motherhood is bad for kids. For that matter, even if Mom remarries happily, it’s still supposedly bad for the world if biological father isn’t in his kids’ life.

In short — Ms. Shear and Mr. Temko (whoever drafted this) — are, with their colleagues — unable to literally distinguish between one parent and another when discussing “parents” in front of others who have some privilege (like a statutory justification) or grant to give them.

BUT — their own handbooks, and some appellate cases already involving parenting coordination, show clearly that they are QUITE able to distinguish one parent from another, and not only do, but literally plan how to, target mothers, specifically, for badmouthing and possible intervention in the form of getting the kids away from her. (I have two links to parent coordination handbooks on this post, you can check them out.).

The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

You can’t see it here, but on the pdf it shows: in this quote, we have a triple-layer AFCC site. I believe Johnston is probably Janet Johnston (AFCC Board, or was). Kelly, (below) who’s being quoted in the section, if it’s Joan B. Kelly, has been called the “grande dame” of AFCC and mediation promotion in the family law courts. She runs a Northern California Mediation Center, and obviously publishes too. And Shear is AFCC. So — if so — that represents:

AFCC Shear quotes AFCC Kelly quoting AFCC Johnston, as to parent coordination, which is an AFCC idea. (this is FAR more common than most people — who are less obsessive about looking things up than me — realize. I have labored through some pretty detailed writings (NYState) where when they ran out of ideas, they simply restated them, and I literally read ALL the footnotes too, most of which were “ibid.”

Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

I don’t know how to state this clearly enough. The difficulty any professional has — who by definition holds an option to quit the profession (which they chose) in dealing with a ‘difficult client” is no comparison with the difficulty of dealing — year after year thanks to policies — with an “ex” who has threatened to kidnap or kill, who has beaten one before, or who may be and/or has molested children, possibly one’s own (dep. on the case) before. Suppose the shoe was on the other foot? Again, if professionals don’t like the difficulty they have an option — find another line of work.

But thanks to their insistence on THIS line of work, i.e., at public AND private expense, and explicit danger to the communities — almost no parent — and I’m going to say mother, specifically– can actually get free from real criminals they’ve had children with, even when he’s already in jail.

I know of one case where the person has already done time in an unbelievably severe situation, and this mother/daughter who already went through hell — is being stalked again. Until she’s safe, I’m not naming names, but once she is/they are, I will – because this case was high-profile and has been in the news.

One point of view is dealing with comfort, and potential burnout, in the performance of one’s duties that have internationally networked, federally-funded, county-judicial-level endorsed, and more — support groups. The other is of staying alive, housed, and after that, functional and employed at all.

If one continues to read the Amicus, it continues to complain and blame. The next quote by Shear is of Shear. Here’s a little further on in the Amicus:

Parenting coordination is a very intrusive model, inserting state authority into the daily family lives of parents and children. With those intrusive powers comes a duty to exercise restraint, discretion and wisdom.

This work often creates the perfect storm. Parenting coordinators struggle to avoid being triangulated into the family’s conflicts.

Well, they triangulated themselves in there to start with, intentionally! Which shows a lack of: “restraint, discretion, and wisdom” per se.

From page 18 (“just one more”!) – This chapter complains that California hasn’t legislated parenting coordination by stipulation (i.e., authorizing it by force) yet:

The only thing that is clear about appointment of parenting coordinators in California is that family courts are without jurisdiction to make them without a stipulation. Moreover, no published case has upheld orders resulting from a stipulated appointment of a parenting coordinator.

The quote from Greenberg in this Amicus acknowledges that professionals in California & Colorado (two hotspots of family law leadership; Center for Policy Research/Jessica Pearson et al. are in Denver) “spawned” the concept. Or rather, it “was spawned” — we can’t name an individual father, so perhaps it was a sort of psychological gang-rape that produced the idea (just kidding). Unlike “collaborative law” which actually names a father, “Stu Webb” out of MN. . .. And that this began in the 1990s.

We are now in 2011. Perhaps it’s time to admit that it’s a bad idea to start with; if even in California — where AFCC originated — they can’t get it into law!

The text continues — and understanding that I don’t know the underlying case, have not read the entire brief and am not an attorney, I’m to add a comment to the next section:

Of course, courts have no power to modify statutes. Statutes prescribe and proscribe what courts may do.

Damn right they do! On the other hand, has that really slowed down AFCC initiatives, has it? I think there’s been a track record of resounding success, if getting around constitutional and statutory limits pending changing the statutes to accommodate more income streams to court-connected (or formerly court-connected, like retired judges) professionals… is what’s intended.

The California Constitution (art. VI, § 22) prohibits the delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. A trial court lacks either statutory or inherent power to require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services, even where it may have the authority to make the appointment. (People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703)

The Court of Appeal reversed trial court orders delegating authority over the visitation schedule to a child custody evaluator, requiring one of the parents to participate in psychotherapy and requiring that all future custody mat- ters be heard before the same bench officer in In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 811, 816–817 because there was no statutory authority supporting such a delegation.

Just GUESSING here, but perhaps if over a 21-year period (in one state), it’s still being stated that there are Constitutional limits on delegating Judicial power, and three years later the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) brings it up in a reason for vetoing a parent coordination stipulation — there just MIGHT be a good reason! Parent Coordination is hardly an Occupy San Francisco (or anywhere else in California) grassroots protest or demand, is it, either?

We’re third generation fatherhood programs out here, we are also probably at least second-generation post-TANF (1996), post fatherhood (i.e., about 15-16 years since they passed), and perhaps– just perhaps — the last thing this state needs is more ideas originating from this nonprofit and all its collaborators in therapeutic jurisprudence great ideas.

Perhaps — just perhaps — it’s a good thing if constitutional and statutory limits on out-sourcing the judicial function mean something around here, for a change! Be content with what you got so far, as authorized by access/visitation (three categories of potential program fraud enabled) and all the marriage promotion money too, plus lots of the nonprofits — like ACFLS — not even bothering to report into the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG) anyhow!

(REASON 4)

(4)

Moreover — like most AFCC promotions — the language promoting parent coordination continues to refuse to think or talk in terms of legal rights to INDIVIDUALS as the Declaration of Independence asserted, which helped kickstart the USA, claims they are. The language of parent coordination is continually pluralized, or group-talk. It does not, really, acknowledge that a person could be a member of a family (like “parent” “father” or “mother”) and yet really have — and deserve — equal standing as an individual in any matter, before the law.

Here’s an example from ParentCoordinationCentral.com (Termini/Boyan site). These are the supposed GOALS OF PARENT COORDINATION:

Educate parents regarding the impact of their behaviors on their child(ren)’s development.

[supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers. They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]
Reduce parental conflict through anger management, communication and conflict resolutions skills.

[increasing the expense of divorce, treating parents like kids, undermining judicial authority, & due process, and invading one’s privacy sure will “reduce parental conflict”!! . .. And I haven’t even got (this post anyhow) to the training manual which has an openly hostile attitude towards mothers, it’s unbelievable).
Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.

[goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior. Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]
Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.

[Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well. Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans. I mean — the concept is ridiculous! What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]
Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to adjust more effectively with the new family structure.

[You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/ Again, go have your own and show it to us. Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]
Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.

[that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]
Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the recommendations of the Court.

[Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up. One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena. It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .

Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails. It entails respecting its laws. I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]

The NH “Parent Coordinators” Association of 2009 “FAQs” suggest a benefit is:
Q. What are the benefits of Parenting Coordination?

Parenting Coordination offers a much better way of resolving parenting plan issues than returning to court. And the resolution comes much faster than waiting for a court date and then the court decision. The Parenting Coordinator educates the parents about the harm to the children of hostility between parents, mediates issues as they arise, and if the parents are unable to resolve minor issues, makes the decision.

As ever, when selling their services, AFCC professionals see themselves as the mature adults on the scene, and the parents as a “plural,” and refuse to assign responsibility where it’s perhaps due. They seem to utterly lack curiosity in fact-finding as to that matter. This is understandable, because they deal in “psychology” more than law– which is the culture of the association. While two individual parents are often involved, in the marketing prose, it’s always “the parents” v. “the helping professionals”

However, once in the door, and in practice — then they are quick to blame ONE parent, often the mother, and recommend severe intervention, often removing of contact with the children to counter supposed “alienation.” In other words, they are hypocrites — professing neutrality and to be helping, but planning in advance (in this case) to do harm to one gender — the female, should she as a parent (mother) counter them.

I blogged this earlier, but again (from the same site) — here is their “sample” report from the handbook:

Handbook

A handbook for the purpose and practice of parenting coordination prepared by PCANH.

Parts of this were credited (fn1 inside) to “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” in Indiana. This is a nonprofit formed in 2005, EIN# 432074631 with principal listed c/o “Gloria K. Mitchell.”

So of course I looked this person up — she is a Rising Star Super Attorney, member of National Association of Counsel for Children, and works in a four-woman firm. The nonprofit, however, is categorized as “exempt — earning under $25,000). website’s “Divorce and Parenting Research Links” is typical, plus a direct link to the Children’s Rights Council” (hover URL). CRC is pretty big in Indiana… Six years after passing the bar, Ms. Mitchell was on the Executive Committee of Family Law Section of Indiana Bar Assoc., and chaired it in 2005. The articles of incorporation show it’s a 501(c)4 (not “3”) and by address its place of business is another law firm in Noblesville, Indiana: Holt, Fleck & Romini. If the image (showing org.’s purpose) doesn’t show, it’s viewable for free on the site below.

Entity Name	Type	Entity Type	City / State
FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC.	Legal	Non-Profit Domestic Corporation	INDIANAPOLIS, IN

Gloria K. Mitchell, and the four attorneys in the law firm,

Though only incorporated in winter (February) 2005, by summer (July) 2005, Indiana, “Families Moving Forward”** already had a “Parent Coordination Committee” and presented the following report in this context:

Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum

3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute

and Family ICO Training Session July 28-29, 2005*

*Note: the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened. Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005. So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.

I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.

Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF): notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation. In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage: Legislating Family Values” Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.

But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.

Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties. She is a partner.

Amy concentrates her practice in matrimonial and family law matters. She was one of the first Indiana attorneys trained in collaborative law, and she has been instrumental in introducing the approach in Indiana. She has practiced collaborative law since 2007, has attended several conferences of the International Association of Collaborative Professionals,* and has been trained by collaborative law founder Stuart Webb. In addition, Amy also practices traditional litigation.

*Readers probably may not remember, so I’ll remind us. the “IACP” is another incarnation, membership association — out of many — formed by AFCC-type professionals, as you can see by the description:

iacp,collaborative law,collaborative practice,collaborative divorce,international academy of collaborative professionals

ACP is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, an international community of legal, mental health and financial professionals working in concert to create client-centered processes for resolving conflict.

I probably blogged it, too. I remember looking up the various websites, corporate registrations, etc. Here’s their About Us/History narrative. I notice a good chunk of it (after inspiration by “Stu Webb” in MN) took form in the Northern California family court association nonprofit factor, aka the SF Bay Area, including Oakland (East Bay) and other well-known cities:

In May of 1999, the first annual AICP [=American Institute of Collaborative Professionals] networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.

The Collaborative Review has been published continuously since May, 1999. The work begun by initial editors Jennifer Jackson and Pauline Tesler. . .

Jennifer Jackson (FYI, I’ve never met, spoken to, or dealt with her in court) is kind of branded in my mind as having helped start up Kids’ Turn (SF):

FYI — here is another Super Lawyer, high-profile, longstanding success. Her “about” page lists many accomplishments. Notice which comes first; notice also the variety of terms which are basic to the field: I’ll bold them:

About Jennifer Jackson

Before becoming a family lawyer in 1985, Jennifer Jackson was an illustrator and photographer, raising three children.

A LITTLE LOCAL COMMENTARY relating to this Super-Productive/Super Attorney and her many Nonprofits:

I know artists, including photographers and illustrators. It’s not that easy to make a living at; this speaks of either a good prior divorce settlement, (or not marrying) or some substantial education somewhere along the line, undergrad plus law school. That’s quite a set of accomplishments, but I don’t think represents an indigence. See Resume:

BA with Honors in 1966, became family lawyer (passed bar?)
1985, with Professor’s Assistanceships (in law school) on child-related and mediation topics. Maybe I can assume that almost 20 year gap is called “Mom” and “Wife” time.
In 1987, she helped found Kids’ Turn and was simultaneously involved in PTA Board at “Campolindo High School” where her kids probably attended. Campolindo is — well, its site describes it well:

“Located in the hills east of the University of California, Berkeley, Campolindo serves the professionally-oriented and well-educated suburban communities of Moraga and Lafayette. Students, teachers and parents work together to provide a positive climate for learning where mutual respect, trust and esteem are valued. ” . . .”In statewide API (Academic Performance Index) ratings, for the fifth year in a row, both the Acalanes District and Campolindo are ranked in the very top percentiles of all public high schools in California with an API score of 919. Nationally, Campolindo is recognized regularly in Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best High Schools in America”. The Association of Californa School Administrators honored Campolindo’s Principal, Carol Kitchens, as the Secondary Principal of the Year in 2009

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community. A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.

To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.

Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs. Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.

(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans: 166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime). As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people. As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000. The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

Blending this background of creativity, caring and flexibility with her legal training enhances her practice of family law and expands the options for her clients.

Jennifer believes that a lawyer must be actively involved in her professional community, and that life is about making a difference. Jennifer is one of the founders of Kids’ Turn, a program for separating families begun in San Francisco which has expanded exponentially in size and in quality of service to children and families.

(If you know my blog, you know EXACTLY why and how Kids’ Turn “expanded exponentially in size” — see family law attorneys, evaluators & judges on the board, see access/visitation funds “facilitating” parent education programs. . . . .As to the quality of service? That’s debatable, but as I haven’t sat through any of the classes — except to note they use the word “parental alienation” a lot in stating benefits, i.e., “reduces parental alienation” type claims. I’ll withhold judgment on this, as should others who haven’t !!)

She is one of the founders of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and served for eight years as co-editor of its journal, The Collaborative Review. She has had leadership roles in her professional organizations at local, state national and international levels, and is a past president of the Northern California chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Within five years of passing the bar, she is serving as a judge pro tem– how common is that? Or this?

Standing Committee on Custody, North: Chair 1988-1990

San Francisco Bar Association

Executive Committee, Family Law Section: Chair, 1992; Member: 1987-present
Fee Arbitration Panel: 1988-1990
Barristers Club, Co-Chair, Family Law Committee: 1988-1990
BASF Delegate to the State Bar Convention: 1989, 1990
Volunteer Legal Services Program Volunteer Attorney: 1986-2000

[[This is almost another topic — I’ve footnoted it [VLSP* at bottom of post, a section in itself….]

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

Jennifer has been given an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named one of the top 50 female lawyers (“Super Lawyers”) in Northern California in all areas of practice by Law and Politics Publications for the past five years in a row. Jennifer practices alternative dispute resolution exclusively; she has trained extensively in mediation and collaboration, and is committed to keeping clients out of court and at the negotiating table.

The IACP has created Standards for practitioners, trainers and collaborative practice trainings. It has promulgated Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners, and continues to support excellence in collaborative practice through resources, training curriculum, practice tools, mentoring and a comprehensive website, allowing collaborative practitioners to continue our tradition of sharing and learning from one another.

Where we are going…

Today, the IACP has over 4,000 members from twenty four countries around the world. We are dedicated to educating the public about the Collaborative alternative. We are committed to fostering professional excellence in conflict resolution through Collaborative Practice. We invite you to peruse this site to learn more about IACP, our services and initiatives.

Amy is the past-chair of the Family Law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association (2003) and is president of Families Moving Forward, Inc., a multi-disciplinary non-profit organization devoted to developing healthy approaches to family transitions.. . .[Law Degree summa cum laude Indiana Univ. School of Law, 1999; admitted to IN bar same year, graduate “with high distinction” in 1986. ]

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation. What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are. As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).

** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC., is an interdisciplinary organization of attorneys, mental health providers, accountants, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in Indiana, by reducing conflict and cost, creating healthier outcomes for children, and enhancing the satisfaction of professionals serving families.

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)

This report is on-line at “SAIF” where it probably was presented:

Seminars For Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals

They have a form for the (many) professionals listed to say which district they want to be parent coordinator in — PC has its own tab. (Strategic planning)

This For-Profit group incorporated as below in Indiana, with the address “9000 KEYSTONE CROSSING, STE 600, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 (which is “HuirasLaw,” Wm. E. Huiras, although the Registered Agent is another attorney, Robin Brown Neihaus (LinkedIn)

Date	Name (Type)
7/27/2006	SEMINARS FOR ADVANCED INTERDISCIPLINARY FAMILY PROFESSIONALS, INC. D/B/A SAIF (Assumed))

(the entity filed one report in 2008, file notes, it owes 2010/2011 – perhaps IN is only every 2 years).

Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):

The sample report begins with a situation between father and stepfather which was hostile. Both wanted to coach on Little (10) Joey’s baseball team.

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

5. Mr. Smith and Mr. Doe should attend counseling sessions together to attempt to resolve their(For example, the mother did not want the father to volunteer on Fridays at school any longer. She maintained that the children were emotional and upset on those mornings and did not want to go to school. The teachers were contacted and reported that the children looked forward to and enjoyed their father’s presence.

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting

Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp.

AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force: Christie Coates, J.D., M.Ed. (Chair), Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., (Secretary), Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D. , Philip Epstein, Q.C., Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William Jones (ret.), Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D

. . . .

The following new publications have been developed since 2002 while dated products were been eliminated:

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

There are scholarly articles galore about this. One by matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. (and a parent coordinator) uses the phrase repeatedly in the abstract — but to access the article one-time costs $34 and permanently $155. Needless to say, not many people who have parent coordinators in their lives can afford to read up on it….

“In 1994 the concept of parent coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who

WHILE PROMOTION EFFORTS TEND TO PHRASE PARENT COORDINATION PASSIVELY (as if a natural development), IN PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE FIELD:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

And I am going to show you what apparent frauds some of the prime “trainers” are in this field too. But first, let’s look at the upcoming 2012 conference called:

The New Frontier

Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts:

This is an upcoming (Feb. 2012) meeting of the California Chapter of the AFCC. An entire day is dedicated to a workshop on Parenting Coordination, and a secondary one talks about how to get it in there — even if parents are indigent.

Here are the presenters’ bios (please scroll through). Some are more than a page, others short. Notice the types of professionals involved (typical), Judges, Attorneys and Psychologists, Mediators, etc. Some have been around forever (Joan B. Kelly, Dianna Gould-Saltzmann) others seem newer:

Abbas Hadjian, JD, CFLS

Graduate of Tehran University School of Law and Harvard…

Abbas Hadjian, Esquire devotes a substantial part of his family law practice to educating the Farsi‐speaking community on the comparisons between the American and Iranian legal system and recently published “Divorce in California,” which is written in Farsi. He is an expert on Iranian culture and laws.

(from his website, partial description of an amazing background):

Mr. Hadjian was born, educated and lived in Iran until 1980. Between 1959 and 1968 Mr. Hadjian was a professional journalist in Iran, with positions including editor, writer, reporter, translator and commentator in major Iranian publications and news agencies. His profession a journalist required and helped Mr. Hadjian’s foundational understanding of the Iranian legal, social, economical and political structure. Between 1962 and 1966, Mr. Hadjian attended the School of Law, Political Science and Economics in Tehran University. Among others, he received courses in Iranian Constitution, Civil, Family and Probate law, furthering his understanding of the legal, social, economic and political infrastructure of his native country.

Upon graduation. Mr. Hadjian became a political appointee in the Office of the Governor General, Iranian Southern Ports and Islands (Persian Gulf), where he acted as a ranking civil officer in the region until 1978, the year of the Iranian Revolution. As deputy to the Governor General in social and economic affairs, Mr. Hadjian relied heavily on his legal studies and implemented them in real life situations. In 1975, Harvard University accepted him to the renowned Edward S. Mason Program for Public Development on full scholarship, acknowledging five years of Mr. Hadjian’s services in developing the Persian Gulf region as one year of post-graduate studies. He was awarded a Masters Degree in Public Administration

A related site from “Culture Counts.net” (site has three diverse professionals) has a page about fatherhood, the new normal, which “surprisingly” reminds readers about:

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

Children display increased self-confidence.

Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.

Higher grade point averages.

More likely to mature into compassionate adults.

Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.
May reduce health-risk behaviors.
Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.
Happiness and increased physical activity.
Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.
Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.
Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.

These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute. It must be important:

9:00am – 5:15pm

All Day Institute (2)

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

Lyn Greenberg, Ph D

Alexandra Leichtner, JD

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Apparently even indigent people need parent coordination — there’s a workshop on how to get it to them:

W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordination Program Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent FamiliesHonorable Lorna Alksne// Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA // Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD // Lori Love, Ph D

http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.html

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage. These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Fami- lies 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to return to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs, and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents. The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

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

[VSLP*]. This footnote comes from a fragment of attorney Jennifer Jackson’s resume, which itself came from a bio of another nonprofit, Families Moving Forward, Inc. in Indiana. I was following up in another nonprofit, “International Association Collaborative Professionals” and I guess you can see about how curious I am about the inter-relationships of various nonprofits.

I looked at the staff. This one caught my attention — because of the specialties, not him personally:

Chris Emley (in 2011, or at least now on the website.)

Chris is a certified family law specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, with 41 years of experience focusing on child custody litigation. He has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1991. He has helped to govern VLSP since its inception in 1979. He received the State Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 1983, the Legal Assistance Association of California’s Award of Merit in 1989, and two Awards of Merit from The Bar Association of San Francisco (1977 and 2004). He was a BASF board member from 1979 through 1981, and chaired the Lawyer Referral Service Committee. Chris was Vice President of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, Chairman of the Board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and Chairman of the Board of Legal Services for Children, Inc.

There happens to be one pro bono group in the SF Bay area which used to help women leaving violence and eventually in the news (and had I known at the time to check all these 990s, I’d have seen the notation that it specialized in helping NONCustodial, low-income fathers, I’d have realized why this group refused to help so many mothers stuck in the family law system.). The presence of a Certified Family Law Practitioner on the board of VSLP, with his emphasis being on children’s rights, and without question, children in ANY institutional system these days need help and representation, does make me wonder who is helping with women’s rights when it comes to actual mothers who aren’t in jail for killing their batterers (which have some groups advocating) — but actually dealing with the horrors of year after year in a custody battle with a violent or abusive ex, and doing so without even a grasp of how it works, or who pays its bills.

General Comments:

I don’t see anything in VSLP which remotely deals with the situation, and was able to get no actual help (legal representation of any sort, pro bono) in my case either, not past the initial restraining order, and a perfunctory (and NOT in court) attempt to renew it, which I was told would be a non-issue, it’s often granted automatically! No one came to court where I, like many, many other “custodial” mothers after leaving abuse, was blindsided by a prior ex parte movement consolidating renewal with a divorce and custody matter, thus shifting the case into the family law system, where it remained, and where the actual topic of ongoing DV was drowned by the type of talk we see in these realms — psychological states, not literal deeds!

The moral is, every program and every nonprofit has its target clientele. As the target clientele (for keeping in their proper place) in so many federal grants to the states are fathers (when it comes to custody matters), it would make no “sense” for the government to also pay the opposing side, the protective mothers!

[[Interesting program, project of SF Bar: its family law person Chris Emley also on Board of “Legal Services for Children” which (as of 2001) got funding from City & County of SF, SF Dept. of Public Health, and SF Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families.

Its address seems to be a few doors down from Kids Turn: 1254 Market vs. 1242 Market Street. “Legal Services for Children” (2010) shows no Chris Emley on the Board, but its main purposes are: 1. Guardianship for children wanting it; 2. Helping kids dealing with expulsion and school-related issues; 3. Immigration. . ..It also represents children in foster care and helps support LGBT youth. 200 Volunteer attorneys gave over $1mil worth of their help. The group received over $1 mill. of contrib& grants, and gave $65,000 to a DC nonprofit, National Juvenile Defender Center (EIN# 02060456. On “Foundation Finder” this EIN doesn’t pull up a tax return…..for any year. Nor does a name search! However from NCCSdataweb, I see that it was incorporated in 2002 (legal services for children, in 1975). This “National Juvenile Defender Center” interests me: 2002 income, 0. A 2007 letter from Andrea Weisman, signed DC Dept of Youth Rehab. Services (“DYRS”) (shares address with a Board member of NJDC, Mark Soler, 2002) expresses the serious problems of Youth in Adult Facilities. Weisman and Soler (again, board member of the group which got $65K grant from the West-Coast “Legal Services for Children,” which takes funding from various depts. of SF and its city & county) worked together (1999?) on “No Minor Matter: Children in Maryland’s Jails.” Weisman notes she got a $1.6mil grant from OJJDP. ]]

National Juvenile Defender Center:

2002– income is zero. By 2009 — they are into Technical Training and Assistance. And ExDir. Patricia Puritz as only paid director, gets $134K salary) — and have landed over $5 million of grants, and earning $10K from investment income and have some serious program income in 2010 ($119K= almost (but not quite) enough to pay their own Exec. Director:. Check it out. So why, in the following year (revenues down to $405K — but probably some leftovers, wanna bet?) did a group in SF just grant them $65,000? Or was that a sort of tax equalization between them both. I live in the same state as “Legal Service for Children, Inc.” and we know that our K-12 schools are taking a serious hit? Why should enough money to feed, clothe and house three families in this area for a year, be given to a nonprofit out of DC that just got $5 million the year before?

http://njdc.info/about_us.php

The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) was created in 1999 to respond to the critical need to build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in the justice system. In 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center separated from the American Bar Association to become an independent organization. NJDC gives juvenile defense attorneys a more permanent capacity to address practice issues, improve advocacy skills, build partnerships, exchange information, and participate in the national debate over juvenile crime.

They operate 9 US Regional Centers; the California one is in SF and among its projects is:

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

In 2008, California was selected by the the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as one of four sites in the nation to participate in the foundation’s Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN). The four JIDAN sites, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey and California, join the four MacArthur Models for Change “core” states of Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington to form an eight-state network.

The California team is led by the Youth Law Center, and includes members from the Center for Families, Children and the Courts of the California Administrative Office of the Courts; the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law & Policy; the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office; theSan Francisco Public Defender’s Office; the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office; andHuman Rights Watch.

The eight-state network is coordinated through the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), and engages juvenile defenders, policymakers, judges and other key stakeholders in designing strategies to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice. California was chosen as a result of its demonstrated ability to achieve measurable reform on juvenile indigent defense issues. California’s JIDAN work will be centered in the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

The Exec. Director of this “NJDC.INFO” nonprofit (inc. 2002) was in 2003 appointed by the Governor of Virginia to a Board of Juvenile Justice:

This bio/blurb places Ms. Puritz Professionally, prior to here, she was ABA Juvenile Justice Center, etc.

Much of this relates to the “OJJDP” and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act. This is an entirely different category than “Parenting Coordination” through the family law center; it is dealing with things such as the US being the world largest per-capita jailor, that those in jail are disproprotionately minority, that horrible things are happening to youth while in confinement, etc. By comparison, the “Parent Coordinator” issue seems like kids’ play unless one begins to wonder how many of the youth in detention had parents stuck in the family law system, which definitely cuts down on actual parenting time and focus!

p://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/policy/juvenile_justice.html

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

December 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, When Police Shoot / Shoot Back, Where's Mom?, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with "Parenting Coordination is a Bad Idea"-TheLizLibrary, Access-Visitation, AFCC, AFCC Judges-Hugh Starnes (FL), AFCC quoting AFCC quoting AFCC, Attorneys-Abbas Hadjian (CA), Attorneys-Amy Stewart (IN), Attorneys-Chris Emley (VSLP&LSC-CA), Attorneys-Gloria K. Mitchell (IN), Attorneys-Jennifer Jackson (SF:background), Attorneys-Patricia Purditz (VA-NJDC Exec Dir), Bogus ACFLS (not filing Charitable returns in CA) group LOVES to file Amicus Briefs and help Reform the Courts, Due process, Families Moving Forward Inc. (IN), family annihilation, family law, fatherhood, Human Rights Watch on Incarcerated Youth, IACP (Internat'l Assoc of Collaborative Professionals), Jeb Bush Parenting Coord. 2004 Veto, Joan S Meier DVLEAP, Kids' Turn, Legal Services for Children Inc (CA), Leslie Ellen Shear-ACFLS AFCC, Motherhood, murder-suicides, NJDC-National Juvenile Defender Center (WDC Inc.2002), obfuscation, Parenting Coordination, SAIF-Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals (IN-works with Families Moving Forward), Termini-Boyan, Trials and woes of dealing with flawed parents in court, VLSP-Volunteer Legal Services Program (SF Bar assoc)

A Straightforward Explanation of the Federal/State Child Protection Industry

Adoption Bonuses — Why Not Support the Biological Parents Instead?

After this article (including my comments during it) material below checks out some of the groups and funding. Please note that funding continues even if audits show noncompliance; and who knows, really, where the difference between a monthly simple support of a family, to the (more than double the size) payments to the foster care contractor to find foster care parents to house the same kids.

Moreover, we KNOW — it’s not speculation, it’s pretty obvious by now — that SOME (and what %, only good accountability — which we don’t have — would tell) — that there is massive trafficking of children in compromised situations (foster care, or institutions like Boys’ Town, Nebraska) into sex slavery, to high-ranking officials, who can then be blackmailed with the photographs. This also relates naturally to money, drugs, murder, banking (The Franklin Credit Union in this case) and politics. Documentation by a U.S. Senator (John DeCamp) and subsequent court transcripts (cited) and a million-dollar award to one of the victims of trafficking from age 3 through 17 (Paul Bonacci) show that this extended to the White House parties after parties. Other testimony of a young woman who reported, mentions George H.W. Bush.

This is not “sex, drugs and rock and roll” — it’s access to vulnerable kids, incentives to get them away from their parents, sex– with minors, including torture of some of them, drugs, money, blackmail – – – and politics. Who can handle even thinking about this, or emotionally deal with the logical conclusion — that when these hearings came up, the Congress decided NOT to clean its own house; the legislators involved were not removed from office or named, and no attempt was sought by the judge involved to name them either?

Because knowing, from ethical persons, will result in seeking activism — or guilt, or numbing of the conscience to continue life AS IF it were normal, and business if all is well. In an attempt to restructure one’s life somehow to make more time for civic activism.

So, that’s apparently legislative, and judicial leadership in this country. Merry Christmas. That, plus the other financial corruptions in the family court (systemic).

The Per-Capita Bounty on Breaking Up Families**

**Not to be confused with alternate bonuses for attempting to reconcile families which either did not exist, or have already voluntarily broken up, sometimes around abuse or desertion issues. THOSE profits are for the family law practitioners and the various corporations involved, and also have separate federal financing streams. Let me repeat: If you are married but on the radar somehow as abusive, or if you are in particularly a single black woman raising children — it’s fair game. Someone may find an excuse to call CPS and violate all due process rights. After this article, I posted (again) on the black couple with children from Pennsylvania who ran afoul of a new “Child Safety Team” with an agenda to promote awareness of Shaken Baby Syndrome. I found the grants on TAGGS as well. A father was incarcerated wrongfully for a year (shortly after the program was up and running), they medical authorities apparently didn’t know about Rickets among African-Americans, and positive (defense) testimony by a doctor on the same team was suppressed; “experts” used this case to BECOME experts, and when the Dad went in jail — the other children were grabbed by foster care.

SOMEHOW, they managed to sue back, and get some help in doing so. But those stories are further down in the post. I also identified how HHS is helping some coordinated (multistate) adoption centers AND a resource center to create awareness of what a great field this is, to be in.

If growing children cannot bond with their own parents, they WILL find someone else to bond with, another peer group, or another powerful individual — if they are not literally kidnapped by powerful individuals and use in unspeakable ways. Those peer groups are not likely to respect the biological bond between parent and child, and its defensive nurturing qualities. This population is likely to be raised by a government willing to warehouse and label them, drug them (and some recent evidence, testing drugs on foster care kids), and other behavioral science “demonstration” projects funded by the public, and force them to become an ever-consuming (of services, trainings, products, etc.) population.

And for what purpose, what REAL purpose ? to satisfy the IMF somehow? or global billionaires with time on their hands and worlds to revise?The more authoritarian and repressive a society becomes, the more it is simply asking for anarchy — and it will get this. It is about greed, and sale of human beings for greed’s and merchandising’s sake.

In the Bible, “Babylon” is railed and prophesied against in Jeremiah (Ch. 51) Isaiah (21) and Revelations (14, 18). Babylon being the nation that carried Israel away captive and the prophets declared that it had deceived the world (made it drunk, made the nations mad) and vengeance will come:

Flee out of the midst of Babylon, and deliver every man his soul: be not cut off in her iniquity; for this is the time of the LORD’S vengeance; he will render unto her a recompence.

7Babylon hath been a golden cup in the LORD’S hand, that made all the earth drunken: the nations have drunken of her wine; therefore the nations are mad.

Rev. 18 in particular details the greed, merchandising, profits from transporting goods, and in vivid terms pictures their responses when they realize from afar that Babylon is burning. Then it squarely lames the blood of “all that were slain” upon this.

Apart from characterizing the city as a woman (very thinly disguised cultural hatred of women and their sexuality), it seems to me the analogy of drunkenness applies. One of the quotes on this post literally says, “has the nation gone mad?” Long ago, pre-internet, pre-all this — the same sentiment comes out. Notice the contrast between the Merchants — but habitation of “foul spirits” (birds also signifies spirits). I cannot think of anything much more foul than and industry which sells children, with funds collected from the community at large, while promising to help them. And which, when these children then report how they were handled, jails them (happened in the Franklin Coverup), or when it’s well-known that children are both disappearing and/or dying in foster care, the system simply seeks for more clients. The system also currently (custody matters) jails mothers for protesting abuse, or for intervening by fleeing — rather than by the officially sanctioned method, which is having someone ordered into a program, like batterers intervention, treatment for sexual addictions, or other reportedly effective programs which get state adn federal funding.

(*I found another one yesterday, a continuation of one already found allegedly cheating, demanding payments in cash, in 1999, their charitable report is of doing over $6 million of business in Sacramento — California’s capital; the CEO earns $172,000 to oversee this, and psychiatric services of over $200K to one of the Board Directors. It is the largest single contractor for these things. I will report on it, too.).

MERCHANDISING, described . .. .

<< Revelation 18 >>
King James Version

1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory. 2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. 3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

The merchants are waxed rich. . . .. not all the inhabitants. I’m posting a chunk of this (short chapter) for effect — and notice, it’s those that have investments, that own ships, that tule nations, that have goods to sell — that are benefitting; not those who made the ships, or the goods This is the Corporate & Government sectors. The final verse notes that in her (sic) are all the slain of the earth.

There’s a truth to this — for what other reasons to nations go to war, or do people kill each other, besides individually, men may kill for jealousy or feeling betrayed. But usually, it’s for greed. The language is yes, pre-occupied with “fornication” and rejoicing in the destruction of a city (built by men, not women) characterized as female.

And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, 10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more: 12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, 13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all. 15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

16And saying, Alas, alas, that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! 17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off, 18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city! 19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate. 20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

{Industries, including the entertainment industry, that supported the merchants and kings…}}

23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. 24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

There’s some truth to this. In 2011, we are watching a globally-designed (by the great men of the earth) monetary system based on strong-arm collection from wage-earners (income tax, child support enforcement also) and with jails and police force to back up the intimidation, shuddering and crumbling — it has expanded beyond the weight it can bear, and never was to hot on accountability either — which helped increase the wealth of some of the “great men of the earth.”

And yes, this is getting people of all ages killed, including people that spoke out against the injustice and what would happen if it didnt’ stop (cf. prophets) and those who simply lived ethcial lives within their means, without devising ways to get rich illegally (tax evasion) or massively rich (multiple income streams), believing in stead in the merits and honesty of working — a job, or a profession — to produce a product or honest service. And they are losing their houses, and sometimes, offspring, while helping bail out banks. The people who helped create the larger and larger income gap do not LIVE in the neighborhoods they helped design, with each other, for others. In far off places (institutions, Institutes, at conferences, in on-line webinars, and on Congressional and other committees) — they design and plan yet more ways to control the population, either social science, behavioral change programs, or basically the threat of prison for noncompliance, and (let me just say it, OK?), abstinence programs – and no indication the leaders of our country pushing this are even faithful to their own wives ,whichever wife it may be at the time. Marriage promotion programs, fatherhood promotion, and one-stop-justice centers — all a public expense with corporate injections.

And I have seen so many out of compliance corporations in the past year, I cannot count. California Healthy Marriage Coalition, I admit, really got under my skin when I saw the two or three corporate suspensions, a Unification church staff member, that Bill Coffin & Dennis Stoica (and others) worked together to get more grants after what proof of any benefit from the first rounds?

So yes, at a certain level, I can see the truth in the angry prophecies of a future day of accountability from The Lord. Some of this is simply about ethics.

I mean no offence to the many good foster care families that I’ll assume (?) are out there, and not making news headlines. Still, the system you are part of, and taking payment from, has its priorities backwards. It’s simply true of institutions — unlike families, which seem to have a certain natural limit (barring polygamy) — they seek to perpetuate and expand, infinitely, and when the society allows this, they do.

From “Massachusetts New” Political — May 5, 2000 (per url)

Adoption Bonuses: The Money Behind the Madness

DSS and affiliates rewarded for breaking up families

By Nev Moore
Massachusetts News

Child “protection” is one of the biggest businesses in the country. We spend $12 billion a year on it.

The money goes to tens of thousands of a) state employees, b) collateral professionals, such as lawyers, court personnel, court investigators, evaluators and guardians, judges, and c) DSS contracted vendors such as counselors, therapists, more “evaluators”, junk psychologists, residential facilities, foster parents, adoptive parents, MSPCC, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, YMCA, etc. This newspaper is not big enough to list all of the people in this state who have a job, draw a paycheck, or make their profits off the kids in DSS custody.

In this article I explain the financial infrastructure that provides the motivation for DSS to take people’s children – and not give them back.

In 1974 Walter Mondale promoted the Child Abuse and Prevention Act which began feeding massive amounts of federal funding to states to set up programs to combat child abuse and neglect. From that came Child “Protective” Services, as we know it today. After the bill passed, Mondale himself expressed concerns that it could be misused. He worried that it could lead states to create a “business” in dealing with children.

Then in 1997 President Clinton passed the “Adoption and Safe Families Act.” The public relations campaign promoted it as a way to help abused and neglected children who languished in foster care for years, often being shuffled among dozens of foster homes, never having a real home and family. In a press release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services dated November 24, 1999, it refers to “President Clinton’s initiative to double by 2002 the number of children in foster care who are adopted or otherwise permanently placed.”

Fiscal Appropriations for “Promoting Safe and Stable Families” for FY2011 was $565,000,000, Appropriations, $468,000,000.

It all sounded so heartwarming. We, the American public, are so easily led. We love to buy stereotypes; we just eat them up, no questions asked. But, my mother, bless her heart, taught me from the time I was young to “consider the source.” In the stereotype that we’ve been sold about kids in foster care, we picture a forlorn, hollow-eyed child, thin and pale, looking up at us beseechingly through a dirt streaked face. Unconsciously, we pull up old pictures from Life magazine of children in Appalachia in the 1930s. We think of orphans and children abandoned by parents who look like Manson family members. We play a nostalgic movie in our heads of the little fellow shyly walking across an emerald green, manicured lawn to meet Ward and June Cleaver, his new adoptive parents, who lead him into their lovely suburban home. We imagine the little tyke’s eyes growing as big as saucers as the Cleavers show him his very own room, full of toys and sports gear. And we just feel so gosh darn good about ourselves.

In other words, what sells it to the public is a good, warm, fuzzy feeling about helping strangers. Open the pocketbooks…..

Now it’s time to wake up to the reality of the adoption business.

Very few children who are being used to supply the adoption market are hollow-eyed tykes from Appalachia. Very few are crack babies from the projects. [Oh… you thought those were the children they were saving? Think again]. When you are marketing a product you have to provide a desirable product that sells. In the adoption business that would be nice kids with reasonably good genetics who clean up good.

. . . .

With the implementation of the Adoption and Safe Families Act, President Clinton tried to make himself look like a humanitarian who is responsible for saving the abused and neglected children. The drive of this initiative is to offer cash “bonuses” to states for every child they have adopted out of foster care, with the goal of doubling their adoptions by 2002, and sustaining that for each subsequent year. They actually call them “adoption incentive bonuses,” to promote the adoption of children.

“A Whole New Industry — A Sweet Marketing Scheme”:

Where to Find the Children

A whole new industry was put into motion. A sweet marketing scheme that even Bill Gates could envy. Now, if you have a basket of apples, and people start giving you $100 per apple, what are you going to do? Make sure that you have an unlimited supply of apples, right?

The United States Department of Health & Human Services administers Child Protective Services. To accompany the ASF Act, the President requested, by executive memorandum, an initiative entitled Adoption 2002, to be implemented and managed by Health & Human Services. The initiative not only gives the cash adoption bonuses to the states, it also provides cash adoption subsidies to adoptive parents until the children turn eighteen.

If Clinton had run this through the normal legislative processes, and gotten a public vote — would it have passed? I bet lots of parents who lost children properly to the system ALREADY — would’ve voted NO!

Everybody makes money. If anyone really believes that these people are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, then I’ve got some bad news for you. The fact that this program is run by HHS, ordered from the very top, explains why the citizens who are victims of DSS get no response from their legislators. It explains why no one in the Administration cares about the abuse and fatalities of children in the “care” of DSS, and no one wants to hear about the broken arms, verbal abuse, or rapes. They are just business casualties. It explains why the legislators I’ve talked to for the past three years look at me with pity. Because I’m preaching to the already damned.

The legislators have forgotten who funds their paychecks and who they need to account to, as has the Governor. Because it isn’t the President. It’s us.

The author, Nev Moore, then contrasts the help, support (to “preserve families”) and perks foster parents get, as opposed to a welfare mother, who gets less, and is subjected to far more invasion in the process:

What an interesting government policy when compared to the welfare program that the same child’s mother may have been on before losing her children, and in which she may not own anything, must prove that she has no money in the bank; no boats, real estate, stocks or bonds; and cannot even own a car that is safe to drive worth over $1000. This is all so she can collect $539 per month for herself and two children. The foster parent who gets her children gets $820 plus. We spit on the mother on welfare as a parasite who is bleeding the taxpayers, yet we hold the foster and adoptive parents [who are bleeding ten times as much from the taxpayers] up as saints. The adoptive and foster parents aren’t subjected to psychological evaluations, ink blot tests, MMPI’s, drug & alcohol evaluations, or urine screens as the parents are.

Adoption subsidies may be negotiated on a case by case basis. [Anyone ever tried to “negotiate” with the Welfare Department?] There are many e-mail lists and books published to teach adoptive parents how to negotiate to maximize their subsidies. As one pro writes on an e-mail list: “We receive a subsidy for our kids of $1,900 per month plus another $500 from the State of Florida. We are trying to adopt three more teens and we will get subsidies for them, too. It sure helps out with the bills.”

I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place?

The writer points out, correctly:

So, if the natural parents were given the incredible incentives and services listed above that are provided to the adoptive parents, wouldn’t it stand to reason that the causes for removing children in the first place would be eliminated? How many less children would enter foster care in the first place? The child protective budget would be reduced from $12 billion to around $4 billion. Granted, tens of thousands of social workers, administrators, lawyers, juvenile court personnel, therapists, and foster parents would be out of business, but we would have safe, healthy, intact families, which are the foundation of any society.

Thank God for writers like this, who in the article recommends boycotting a US stamp which sports a National Adoption Month, and concludes:

“I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?”

“Remember that children in foster care serve many public purposes — not good ones — but they do. They are being USED, and it’s hardly surprising. Children are big bucks — they can be trafficked to serve legislator’s (and others’) perverse passions, and in the process enabling very profitable blackmail of the same. They can be apparently disposed of easier after use than children with involved biological parents and relatives. They can be used to bill the public for unnecessary pharmaceuticals more easily than kids in the home can be, although from what I read, there’s too much of that going on. How many unknown deaths or adverse reactions result from over-dosing kids in foster care? When inappropriately photographed as minors (sometimes without their knowledge), this pornography has a market, too.

Are there good foster, and really bad parents? Obviously. But just as obviously, the system is ripe for abuse. And it’s SYSTEMS we have to watch out for as citizens — or lose it all. Is this country about material prosperity — absent due process? — or about liberty, which will allow individuals to band together freely and seek their mutual prosperity and safety?

When daily survival keeps the average and poor too busy to monitor those with multiple streams of income and time to lobby and devise favorable legislation for favorite projects (or simply by pass the legal process, as too many Presidents have done) — then we are going to compartmentalize the best of humanity away. I see this as an institutional matter — and as such, more people need to stop letting others direct the institutions that direct their lives, and manipulate different segments of society to fight each other.

Justice doesn’t happen without some accountability, whether one believes in a just highest power (God) — or justice underlying the principles by which the universe operates — it seems to me that mass abuse of the young (and using adults as breeding stock) would be its own prophecy of a system and society that cannot survive, that is going to implode, explode, be taken over — or all three.

This article is 11 years old, and I don’t think I could’ve said it much better.

+ + + + + + + +

Trouble with TAGGS.hhs.gov — the free HHS Database for the Public:

The only database available to the public (for free) to really track its grants system — is obviously inaccurate, hard to manipulate even by people familiar with database use (let alone others).

HHS/ACF recently (Oct 2011) announced over $119 million of grant awards — without providing the grant# in the announcement, and (when this was later looked up, by me) it turns out the last names of all principal investigators of said grants — were omitted from the database, having been replaced by first names only! I.e., a grant overseen by a John Smith would read in the printout “John John,” as I showed earlier.

Moreover, TAGGS.HHS.GOV allows search by grantee identifiers such as EIN# and DUNS# — but many grants lack DUNS. The most obvious searchable numeric identifier of any grantee — is not available to search on in the Taggs database under “Advanced Search.”

CFDA# Selections

The website drop-down-type menu showing which of the multitude of program identifiers (CFDA#s) available to track — for those curious about what’s being done within a state, or inter-state — is narrow, long, one can key in a CFDA#, but not search by CFDA title. For example — in this post, I’m talking about Adoption and Foster Care.

To look up which grant programs (CFDA#s) are involved I would have to either already know them, or scroll down the entire list looking for clues.

The list has two columns — it could have been made searchable by either column, or key-sensitive by either column (i.e., if I typed in “healthy marriage” or “Adoption” — the cursor forwards to the first occurrence of it).

The “Award Search Menu” has a list of all these, and one can select them all — but not copy them all, which seems offensive to common sense! Try it yourself (see link). They are not all visible at once, even. The menu which allows one to search by CFDA numbers (select by year and state) requires one to somehow know which numbers first — and no visual reference for them on the page. Why not?

Here’s a recent grant announcment from “Grants.gov”:

04/27/2011

Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants

Administration for Children and Families

If I go about 4 different places, the CFDA# it falls under will show up:

Funding Opportunity Title: Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants

Funding Opportunity Number (FON): HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CG-0170

Program Office: Administration on Children, Youth and Families

Funding Type: Discretionary

Funding Category: Cooperative Agreement

Announcement Type: Modification

CFDA#: 93.254

Post Date: 06/02/2011

Application Due Date: 06/27/2011

Then, I could search CFDA 93254 by state, region, or locality — but would not get a numeric identifier of the grantee in the results!

In searching AWARD/CFDA# (and not selecting state or year), I come up with a chart showing this total:

Page Award Actions Count: 50				Award Actions Amount for this Page:			$ 62,965,046
Total of 95 Award Actions for 28 Awards				Total Amount for all Award Actions:			$ 140,269,924

The results are displayed by individual award#s and zip codes — but not States! — are shown. So, if one has a photographic awareness of all 50 states by zip code, one might recognize where the awards went. Awards to a few key groups show up in different zip codes; here are some of them:

(1) Adoption Exchange Assoc. (MD)

Total Actions (under grantee) $ 39,674,027

Recipient:	ADOPTION EXCHANGE ASSOCIATION
Address:	8015 CORPORATE DRIVE SUITE C BALTIMORE, MD 21236-5917
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	BALTIMORE
HHS Region:	3
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

Showing: 1 – 18 of 18 Award Actions (1995 – 2011)

Total:

Total of all award actions:

$ 39,674,027

Includes programtitles such as:

2005

90XW0010

HURRICANE KATRINA RELIEF

ACF

09-29-2005

DUNS# 140230892

$ 600,000

but also:

2002

90CQ0001

THE COLLABORATION TO ADOPTUSKIDS

ACF

09-04-2002

140230892

$ 4,438,959

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2008	90CQ0002	ADOPTUSKIDS	2	0	ACF	09-16-2008	140230892	$ 3,669,500

(2) Harmony Adoptions of Tennessee, Inc.

Total awards (this grantee) 2007-2011: $ 5,434,761

(From the TN Corporations Search Site):

Control #	Entity Type	Name	Name Type	Name Status	Entity Filing Date	Entity Status
000365453	NCORP	HARMONY ADOPTIONS OF TENNESSEE, INC.	Entity	Active	02/05/1999	Active

Website claims they were founded in 1996

Founded in 1996, Harmony Adoptions is a licensed, non-profit adoption agency offering programs nationally recognized for their clinical design, implementation and exceptional outcomes. We are highly trained and passionate about our work and we make a difference in the lives of children and families. Our greatest joy is when a child comes home to their forever family. Our work continues as we support them all along the journey.

They also receive “Healthy Marriage Healthy Family” grants — that doesn’t refer to the biological family (see last article on this post), but adoptive:

The Healthy Marriage, Healthy Family (HMHF) program is a federally-funded program through the Children’s Bureau and was launched in 2006. HMHF was developed in hopes that, by stabilizing the relationship between caregivers, the entire household will stabilize which would result in fewer disrupted placements. By utilizing the existing statewide ASAP (Adoption Support and Preservation) program, HMHF is able to reach, train, and support resource (foster) families and adoptive families across the entire state of Tennessee.

In the TAGG grant (incidentally) the title of this program is mis-spelled for this grantee

NCCSdataweb shows they do have an EIN# Purpose indicates a focus on orphans:

“TO ARRANGE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF ORPHAN CHILDREN LIVING IN THE US AND FOREIGN COUNTRIES WITH ADOPTIVE PARENTS AND TO PROVIDE COUNSELING AND SUPPORT” but the Infant Adoption Awareness Training is focused on pregnant women — not orphans.

621772291

Harmony Adoptions of Tennessee Inc

5,546,738

700,199

2010

Recipient:	Harmony Adoptions of Tennessee, Inc.
Address:	131 Cherokee Heights Drive MARYVILLE, TN 37801-5413
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	BLOUNT
HHS Region:	4
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2007	90CG2659	INFANT ADOPTION AWARES TRAINING PROGRAM	2	0	ACF	07-27-2007	104115238	$ 1,013,434
2007	90CO1032	THE HEATLHY MARRAIGE, HEALTHY FAMILY PROJECT	2	0	ACF	06-18-2007	104115238	$ 247,451

The words “Awareness (one series), “Healthy” and “Marriage” were misspelled. I wonder if there were similar errors or switching of #s in the amount$ columns…. The misspelling was not corrected for years of grants recordings….four years, to be exact…..

The Exec Director of “Harmony” (earns about $88K) also shows up (former?)University of Tennessee Legal Clinic Director:

Pamela L. Wolf – LCSW, MSW Founder and Executive Director of Harmony
Pam’s focus is the provision of quality services to children and families. As an instructor at the University of Tennessee Legal Clinic, Pam worked to identify comprehensive solutions for homeless families. Pam developed ‘The Parent Refuge’, a program designed to support single mothers. Following the adoption of her daughter, Pam founded Harmony Adoptions. Harmony provides comprehensive adoption services to adoptive families, birth families, adoptees and the community at large. Pam provides leadership for the Infant Adoption. Training Initiative (IATI) and is active with Harmony’s Adoption Support and Preservation (ASAP) program. Both programs tap into Pam’s passion for promoting comprehensive adoption services with her enthusiasm for education

Another director of Harmony in TN notes her background:

Pam Frye – Adoption Services Director for Harmony
She Received her MS in Educational Psychology, Community Counseling from the University of Tennessee. Pam comes to Harmony from the Helen Ross McNabb Center, where she spent 15 years counseling children and their families. Pam has a special interest in the needs of both rural and urban children. She and husband Kevin adopted their daughter from China. Pam’s work at Harmony combines her passions – meeting the needs of children, counseling, and parental education.

Among other things, the Helen Ross McNabb Center partners with TN Dept. of DCFS to help place children in Foster Care…

Foster Care Services

Helen Ross McNabb Center Foster Care and Adoption Program is a therapeutic foster care program operated in conjunction with the Tennessee Department of Children’s Services.

These children have been removed from their homes (and if they do not have appropriate relatives in their own family) are placed in protective custody of the state due to abuse, neglect, unruliness or delinquency. The program recruits and trains caring, structured foster homes to help these children who enter custody with a multitude of problems and needs. . . .A Helen Ross McNabb foster care specialist is a trained case manager with a Bachelor’s or Master’s degree in the children and families field. The specialist will help the foster family with behavioral interventions if the children exhibit any behavioral issues

The site — which is named Infant Adoption Training Initiative (pretty clearly after the grant series) features three of the recipients from TAGGS, and is copyrighted by them:

In fact, the initiative is pretty well described as simply a grant program from HHS, and 5 recipients are listed:

What is the Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program?
The Infant Adoption Training Initiative is funded by a grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services. Our Understanding Infant Adoption training program is designed to help health care professionals serving pregnant women and teens discuss adoption as an option with patients and clients who are not sure that they want to parent the child.

(3) Latino Family Institute (CA, Los Angeles area)

Total awards (grantee) since 2000 = $9,947,145

Recipient:	LATINO FAMILY INSTITUTE
Address:	1501 W. CAMERON AVENUE STE 240 WEST COVINA, CA 91790-2724
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	LOS ANGELES
HHS Region:	9
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organization

The first two awards show recruitment:

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2000	90CO0905	LATINO RECRUITMENT AND ADOPTION INNOVATIONS	1	0	ACF	09-14-2000	042325063	$ 250,000
Fiscal Year 2000 Total:								$ 250,000

Total of all award actions:

$ 9,997,145

They incorporated in California 1996 (same year as welfare reform, before Harmony — above):

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1967025	04/18/1996	ACTIVE	LATINO FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC.	MARIA L. QUINTANILLA

Their charitable status is also current, although there are no returns (state or federal) showing past the year 2007 in California for this amount: EIN#

EIN#

954587747

Fiscal Begin:	01-JAN-09
Fiscal End:	31-DEC-09
Total Assets:	$1,344,706.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$2,388,114.00
RRF Received:	18-NOV-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Accepted

Their programs include Adoption, Foster Care, Kinship Care, Infant Adoption Awareness Training (above), Abandoned Infants Assistance, etc.:

Latino Family Institute is an Adoption, Foster Care, and Family Support agency dedicated to improving social welfare conditions leading to increased family functioning. We enrich societyâ€™s foundation by advocating for and implementing culturally effective interventions that elevate the collective well-being of our families.

Vision Statement:

The Latino Family Institute seeks to advance social welfare conditions facing Spanish dominant families. Our vision for every child to have love and permanency in their family of origin. We aspire to preserve the integrity of Latin American cultures among adoptive families and to promote kinship adoptions as a preferred alternative to family integration. We envision a social environment that is sensitive to the complex needs of children in Foster Care and one that is active in reducing the vulnerabilities of such delicate families.

Want more specifics? Read this 2009 Los Angeles County audit of the institute’s compliance with its contract with the county, which also shows some $$ figures, for reference. The Institute Contracts with the Department of Family and Children’s Services to recruit, train and supervise foster care parents. Based on age, the institute received between $1,589 & $1,865 per month, per child of which parents were then paid between $624 & $790 per month (2007-2008), approximately $352K that year.

There’s the profit margin, now who is supporting the Institute, and what are its financials (multiply nationwide – this is the practice, do we know how often?) $1,589 – $624 = the profit (overhead) is $965. “Latino Family Social Workers did not make 3 out of the 5 required visits within the timeframe.”

The ACF report — Children’s Bureau Express — was glowing:

Innovative Recruitment Strategies: The Latino Family Institute

A number of programs have received Adoption Opportunities grants from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau to carry out demonstration projects designed to improve outcomes for children adopted from foster care. One highly successful program highlighted here illustrates how these grants can be used to find permanent families for specific groups of children, in this case—Latino children in Los Angeles.

In 2000, the Latino Family Institute (LFI) received a 3-year grant from the Children’s Bureau to place 40 Latino children with families. By the end of the project period, the results spoke for themselves: 69 Latino children had been placed in adoptive homes, and 198 prospective Latino families had been recruited. In addition, the awareness of the need for adoptive homes had been heightened in the Latino community, and more than 200 child welfare professionals had received training on using culturally responsive approaches to recruitment and placement.

…

Since the end of funding, LFI has continued to provide adoption services and was able to expand programs after receiving additional Federal grants. In 2005, LFI opened a new office following the award of the Abandoned Infants Assistance grant targeting families impacted by substance abuse and HIV/AIDS. In 2007, LFI finalized 76 adoptions. Currently, LFI conducts the Infant Adoption Awareness Training Program {{also an HHS-supported project}} in California and Puerto Rico.

This sounds wonderful. I am wondering how much HHS funding this particular (different) institute gets also from the HHS:

http://www.nlffi.org/

(the group is new to me, but it appears to draw on a number of existing grant programs already):

NLFFI LOCALLY
At the community level, the Institute provides culturally competent curriculum, social and educational services with programs designed to:

Influence men to become strong Fathers and responsible men

Assist men is healing and preventing the issue of Domestic Violence

Strengthen and preserve families

Address the Issue of Community and Gang Violence

Promote Rites of passage and Youth Mentoring

Address the issue of Teen Pregnancy prevention

Provide culturally competent health and mental health services

In this context, what chance would a Latina mother, if compromised in any other way already, ever have in a custody situation?

This group (NFFLI) announced that in January 2011 it is launching a California Fatherhood Initiative, and first-up in organizations it wants to partner with includes the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives:

About President Obama’s Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative

The White House Initiative on Fatherhood & Mentoring Initiative recognizes that engaged and involved fathers have an incredibly positive effect on the lives of their children. The Initiative is a national call to action to address fatherlessness in America and includes the following steps:

• The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the Office of Public Engagement will host community forums on fatherhood and personal responsibility around the country, in concert with local groups.

• Organizations and Individuals who sign up for the Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative will receive e-newsletters featuring articles, tips and resources from prominent leaders in the fatherhood and family fields and information about model programs.

• Organizations supporting the Initiative will work to have an impact on responsible fatherhood, from local forums with the National Parent Teachers Association to community trainings by the National Fatherhood Leaders Group (NFLG). Partners from the National PTA to the head of the Council of Christian Colleges and Universities have signed up to advance the President’s Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative in communities around the country.

Will post separately on this one, I am rather disturbed, and want to find out of MY government is funding it also. . . . ..

In addition there is another nonprofit in Maryland serving the region to coordinate information and efforts to adopt:

http://www.adoptionsupport.org/about/index.php

(In MD a page full of corporations (incl. Forfeited, Suspended & Dissolved names) shows how popular the “Adoptions” field indeed is ….) (EIN# 52-2100734, it does exist; year 2009 reporting $766K contributions & grants plus $716K program services — not bad (the previous year, the program services far exceeded the grants). This, too, is incorporated as of 1998:

(Dept. ID)	Entity Name	Entity Detail			Status
(D04974622)	CENTER FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT AND EDUCATION, INC.	General Info.	Amendments	Personal Property	INCORPORATED

This too (per my EIN TAGGS search) got HHS support, starting in the year 2000. As of 2001, faith-based groups (see my last post!) could apply, too, in fact no doubt encouraged to….

Recipient:	THE CENTER FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT & EDUCATION, INC.
Address:	11120 NEW HAMPSHIRE AVE-STE205 SILVER SPRING, MD 20904 (very busy address appears to be right opposite huge hospital? and many other businesses at same street address)
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	MONTGOMERY
HHS Region:	3
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
THE CENTER FOR ADOPTION SUPPORT & EDUCATION, INC.	SILVER SPRING	MD	20904	MONTGOMERY		$ 900,000

WHAT A SHAME THERE ARE NOT MORE HHS GRANTS OR PRO BONO GROUPS TO SUPPORT PROTECTION OF SINGLE MOTHERS FROM INAPPROPRIATELY LOSING THEIR CHILDREN TO ABUSIVE PARTNERS, OR TO THE FOSTER CARE SYSTEM. THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM HAS VIRTUALLY FUNDED AN ATTACK ON THE STATUS OF SINGLE MOTHERS LEAVING ABUSE, AND IT IS MANAGED BY THE SAME ENTITY, HHS.. . ..

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

GRANTS INCENTIVIZE — SO THEY AND THE NONPROFITS GETTING THEM SHOULD BE MONITORED BY THE PUBLIC — BECAUSE THERE IS A PERVERSE INCENTIVE NOT TO MONITOR TOO OFTEN.

This 8,400 word grant began with the following section. What’s above here is (per my style) lengthy intro, combining my lookups with a statement of position. What’s BELOW is what inspired the post.

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

Grants and Programs Incentivize Action & Attract Traffic. It’s a symbiotic relationship. Their original purposes can be great — but once set up, the infrastructure is going to want customers. Consider the father that apparenty spent a year in jail apart from his family, innocently, and the WHY wouldn’t have been unearthed unless they’d filed a lawsuit — as I blogged last October, in Courthouse Forum News: Franklin County (PA) OCYF gets sued in Federal Court by Pennsylvania Couple.

Sick Child’s Parents Say Hospital & County Falsely Labeled Them as Child Abusers

By ERIN MCAULEY

HARRISBURG, Pa. (CN) – Parents say they lost custody of their children, were identified as child abusers and the father was jailed for more than a year because doctors and state officials falsely attributed their 4-month-old daughter’s childhood stroke and congenital rickets to child abuse.
Jamel Billups and Jacqueline Rosario, who are black, sued the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, Franklin County and its Office of Children, Youth and Families and a long list of individuals, in Federal Court.
The parents say that when their daughter, L.B., suffered a stroke and showed signs of rickets on Oct. 19, 2009, the Child Safety team at Penn State Hershey Medical Centerfalsely blamed her condition on child abuse, and the state then seized her and her 2-year-old brother, T.R., and sent them to foster homes.

About the context:

The parents say the Franklin County Office of Children, Youth and Families “has a policy of relying upon doctors affiliated with the American Academy Pediatrics, whose opinions are tainted by a burden shifting medical presumption that the cause of any intracranial injury in a child under the age of one year is caused by abuse unless the parents provide an accidental explanation, to perform the medical investigation into whether injuries suspected to have been caused by child abuse were, in fact, caused by child abuse.”
They claim that agents of the Office of Children, Youth and Families, defendants Tammie Lay and Dawn M. Watson, “failed to conduct their own independent non-presumption tainted investigation” and “relied exclusively upon the conclusion of defendant Penn State’s Child Safety Team and defendants [Drs. Mark S.] Dias, [Kathryn R.] Crowell and [Arabinda K.] Choudhary that L.B.’s intracranial hemorrhages were caused by abuse on the afternoon of October 19, 2009 and rib fractures were caused by abuse 4 to 8 weeks prior to her hospitalization without conducting any independent medical review or confirmation of their own.”

It is horrible that this child suffered injuries. However, there’s another kind of parent education program which might have been appropriate also:

They say that despite medical knowledge that Vitamin D deficiency can lead to rickets and weak bones in African Americans, Penn State’s Child Safety Team failed to require that L.B.’s blood be tested for abnormal clotting factors or that the child’s or mother’s blood be tested for vitamin D deficiency.

Another Doctor, Charles Pragnell — from outside the US — writes consistently on the problem with medical malpractice in presuming abuse, when it may or may not have been:

How children are suffering harm by those with a duty to protect them.

By Charles Pragnell

The abuse of children is a horrendous and unacceptable crime in any society and it is correct that when such acts occur, immediate protection is available for the children and appropriate action is taken in regard to the offenders.

However, what is also unacceptable is the high level of false accusation of child abuse which also has abusive effects on children and the families who are falsely accused.

According to statistical evidence in 1992 and 1997, over two-thirds of reports of child abuse in the U.K. have NO substantive basis i.e. False and wrongful accusations. [Dept of Health Statistics]. Similar proportions of false accusations were evident during the same time period in the United States of America and in Australia. There is evidence that false accusations of child abuse are occurring for mistaken, mischievous, and malicious reasons.

The current unproven medical theory which is resulting in many hundreds of families being wrongly accused of child abuse is Munchausen Syndrome By Proxy [MSBP], which is causing immense disruption, distress, and harm to children throughout the U.K. In these cases, physicians and social workers allege that parents (usually mothers) have fabricated or induced an illness in their child, yet on examination of such cases it can be found that the children have and are suffering serious illnesses. Groups which seem to have been particularly targeted for such accusations are families with children with Autism, Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder [ADHD] or Cystic Fibrosis. In other cases children have suffered adverse reactions to vaccines, or from medically prescribed drugs which have not been clinically tested on children by manufacturers prior to widespread distribution, or from birth injuries.

[[In other words, parents — esp. mothers — properly seeking medical care for their children, sometimes single, sometimes married — are told “it’s all in your head — you are the sick party, you have “Munchhausen’s by proxy” (search my blog)]].

Pragnell’s article seems to cover some factors relevant in the Franklin County Case…

Prosser’s research indicated that the major faults in child protection investigations are :-

The social workers perceived that abuse had occurred and the accused as guilty from the beginning of the investigation;

Thereafter the investigators only sought confirmatory evidence of their assumptions and disregarded evidence which would have cast doubt on the allegations;

Poor recording of evidence;

Inappropriate interpretations by investigators of statements or actions;

Idiosyncratic behaviour and interpretation of policies by investigators;

Investigators focusing on a single piece of evidence and ignoring contrasting sets of evidence;

Confusion over what constitutes a medical indicator of abuse and a “natural” condition [apparent in MSBP cases];

High status doctors (consultant) having substantial influence over other investigators. [apparent in MSBP cases];

Experts deviating from their areas of expertise [apparent in MSBP cases

Prosser identified three major areas of significant concern –

“The imbalance of power within the investigating agencies;

The abandonment of professional codes of conduct and practice by some investigators; and

The failure of the system to adequately acknowledge or compensate the wrongly accused family for the trauma and losses suffered. This latter point is reflected in the statements of some child protection professionals who openly proclaim, “Who cares if nine innocents suffer, as long as we get the guilty one!”.

Finally, Prosser declares, “It is clear that the problem of false accusations remains endemic in both countries”. (U.K. and the U.S.A.).

When it comes to the case in Pennsylvania — I’ll bet the authorities had not expected to be questioned or challenged by a lawsuit! But we can see the suit mentions the over-reliance on the “American Academy of Pediatrics” (AAP). Well – the AAP just happened to be part of the cooperative agreement with Mark S. Dias’ (P.I.) project here! (See below): This is a financial and professional relationship.

(These quotes are from the Courthouse News Article, cont’d)

. . . About the Child Safety Team member’s expert testimony:

The parents add that Dr. Crowell, a member of the Penn State Child Safety Team, “qualified as an expert in child abuse for the first time in her life at the dependency hearing for L.B. and T.R on December 18, 2009. Defendant Crowell was qualified as an expert in child abuse for the second time in her life at Jamel’s preliminary criminal hearing on December 28, 2009. Dr. Crowell acknowledged under oath at Jamel’s criminal trial that she misrepresented medical evidence critical to L.B.’s case when she testified at Jamel’s preliminary hearing.”

She was a doctor, obviously — but was she an expert in identifying child abuse?

Thirty paragraphs later, the parents say that Dr. Crowell “testified falsely that L.B. had ‘an extensive screening’ for ‘coagulation problems’ and ‘an extensive screening for bleeding disorders’ that were ‘normal’ and that L.B.’s ‘metabolic workup was normal.’”

(LGH) Reminder: The Child Safety Team had only been started a few months earlier. Within one month of them being assembled, they had a black father in jail and two kids in foster care, erroneously. The bail was set too high for this man to get out of jail. How many times do we hear of people being quickly sprung from jail after domestic violence? (or sent to diversionary programs instead of jail). See my Toms River article for an example of this, when the woman victim was an employee of the DYFS herself…. But in this case, they kept the father.

This next part, if true, is disgraceful. A medical doctor testifying FOR the family suffered restrictions that ones from the prosecution did not. First, they point out that some doctors (for the prosecution) had liability insurance; while one wishing to testify FOR the family, did not:

The parents say that Crowell was also “paid by, and enjoyed the liability insurance, of Penn State” and was never their daughter’s treating physician.

(I looked up the HHS award for this, principal investigator Mark S. Dias. This nonprofit hospital is a major grants recipient; most of the awards seem for technical clinical research…)

Showing: 1 – 9 of 9 Award Actions

Recipient: MILTON S HERSHEY MEDICAL CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 17033-2360

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	5	93.136	CDC	07-20-2011	$ 492,537
2010	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	3	93.136	CDC	01-26-2010	$ 0
2010	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	4	93.136	CDC	07-14-2010	$ 608,903
2010	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	4	93.136	CDC	07-19-2010	$ 0
2009	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	2	93.136	CDC	10-08-2008	$ 0
2009	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	2	93.136	CDC	05-04-2009	$ 0
2009	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	3	93.136	CDC	08-03-2009	$ 554,142
2008	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	2	93.136	CDC	09-09-2008	$ 554,920
2007	U49CE001274	PENNSYLVANIA ABUSIVE HEAD TRAUMA PREVENTION PROGRAM	1	93.136	CDC	09-10-2007	$ 561,414
Award Actions Count: 9				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 2,771,91

The anticipated program enrollment was 300,000; it is an intervention program and as described, participants were voluntary:

Pennsylvania Abusive Head Trauma Prevention Program

This study is enrolling participants by invitation only.

First Received on July 30, 2008. Last Updated on July 31, 2008 History of Changes

Sponsor: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Collaborators: Pennsylvania Department of Health
American Academy of Pediatrics

Information provided by: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00727116

Purpose

This project is designed to evaluate a statewide, hospital-based parent education program to prevent abusive head trauma (AHT) in Pennsylvania, and investigate the additional effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of “booster” sessions of parent education delivered to parents at primary care provider offices in central Pennsylvania.

Specific Aims:

Assess the effectiveness of an established statewide program of hospital-based postnatal parent education about violent infant shaking, provided at a single consistent point in time between the infant’s birth and hospital discharge, in reducing the incidence of AHT.
Identify while [[I believe they mean “which“]] component(s) are the most important mediators of the intervention’s effectiveness; determine whether the intervention effect is more directly related to changes in perpetrator or caregiver behavior; and determine the effectiveness of the intervention among various socioeconomic groups.
Determine the cost effectiveness of the hospital-based program.
Establish the feasibility, additional costs, and effectiveness of a combined program of repeated exposure delivered both post-natally in the hospital and during follow up 2-, 4- and 6-month outpatient health maintenance visits with the pediatric care provider.

Condition	Intervention
Injury Traumatic Brain Injury Child Abuse	Behavioral: PA Abusive Head Trauma Prevention Program: State-wide Behavioral: PA Abusive Head Trauma Prevention Program Booster: Central PA

Study Type:	Interventional
Study Design:	Allocation: Non-Randomized Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Open Label Primary Purpose: Prevention
Official Title:	Pennsylvania Abusive Head Trauma Prevention Program

Primary Outcome Measures:

Incidence of abusive head trauma in infants [ Time Frame: 3 years ] [ Designated as safety issue: No ]

Estimated Enrollment:	300000
Study Start Date:	January 2008

This sounds like an excellent program, and obviously knowledge about the danger of shaking babies in anger is vital. But in application — something happened, which resulted in an innocently jailed father, and children wrongfully in foster care, for a year!

Detailed Description:

Upon the birth of the child, all parents (mothers, and whenever possible, fathers or father figures) will be asked to read written materials and view an 8-minute video on the dangers of violent infant shaking. Parents will be asked to voluntarily sign a commitment statement affirming their receipt and understanding of the materials; these commitment statements will be sent to the Principal Investigator. A random subset of parent participants will be asked to voluntarily answer a short questionnaire about their impressions of the materials. In addition, 31 counties in central Pennsylvania will be randomly divided into two groups. In 15 counties, the hospital-based intervention will remain as described above. In the other 16 counties, all primary care providers having offices in those counties will be asked to provide all parents of newborns at the 2-, 4-, and 6-month immunization visits.

Investigators

Principal Investigator: Mark Dias, MD, FAAP Penn State University Hershey Medical Center

More Information

Publications:

Dias MS, Smith K, DeGuehery K, Mazur P, Li V, Shaffer ML. Preventing abusive head trauma among infants and young children: a hospital-based, parent education program. Pediatrics. 2005 Apr;115(4):e470-7.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Did the additional state incentives for foster care parents play a role above as well? Jail Dad, Mother separated from children, kids in foster care.

I focus more on the family court system (which is abusive to families, and the public through violations of due process, and more), moreso than “child abuse,” foster care, or adoption per se. However, this system sometimes ends up with kids in foster care because one parent kills the other (one in jail, the other deceased) for a variety of reasons. Then headlines also show cases of children escaping from brutalization in foster care, or dying in there. Both happen.

And there seems there is no longer any question that children have been trafficked for sex abuse and used as entertainment by high-profile politicians, in numbers unknown — as the Franklin Coverup (Nebraska, Larry King, John DeCamp reporting, victim Paul Bonacci testifying, an investigator’s plane shot down in mid air (killing him and his son) as he returned with photos from an interview, involvement of Nebraska Boys’ Town, etc.). No one normal can continue life “as normal” and retain an awareness of these activities, in our country; for sheer emotional survival, we back-burner it, and then believe that somehow CPS and other agencies will take care of the dirty business. Yet in the subsequent investigation, the now grown Paul Bonacci was awarded $1 million for damages, yet not asked to identify the Congressional leaders involved!

This article is too disturbing, and not “casual conversation.” As the point of THIS post is to expose the incentives for putting children needlessly into foster care and up for adoption — and to show an article neatly summarizing it from the year 2000 — let me just post the opening paragraph of the 2005 Article, detailing what is a curious lack of investigation by the highest investigatory powers in the US, or among them (not including Homeland Security, post 2001). This is the summary of the matter — and please keep it in mind when one becomes aware of the immense foster care industry: As this is talking about destinations of vulnerable kids and how they really cannot get out on their own, safely, once in this ring. As posted on TomFlocco.com (this was shared with me, I didn’t look it up):

The Justice Department, acting through the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Omaha, emerges from the record of the Franklin investigations not so much as a party to the cover-up, but as its coordinator. Rigging grand juries, harassment of witnesses, incitement to perjury and tampering with evidence -federal personnel were seen to apply all of those techniques in the Franklin case. (John W. DeCamp, Esq., The Franklin Cover-up, Second Edition, January 2005)

Bless the Beasts and the Children

Photographer for White House child sex ring arrested after Thompson suicide

by Tom Flocco

WASHINGTON—March 13, 2005—TomFlocco.com—Photographer Russell E. “Rusty” Nelson was recently arrested two days after journalist Hunter Thompson reportedly committed suicide four weeks ago on February 10, according to two phone interviews with attorney John DeCamp last week.

Nelson was allegedly employed by a former Republican Party activist to take pictures of current or retired U.S. House-Senate members and other prominent government officials engaging in sexual criminality by receiving or committing sodomy and other sex acts on children during the Reagan-Bush 41 administrations.

In other words, most likely for blackmail purposes…. Now this photographer was arrested after the journalist committed suicide:

Hunter Thompson’s death and the news blackout of Rusty Nelson’s simultaneous arrest raise questions that someone may be attempting to limit Nelson’s freedom or threaten him, since according to testimony, both men had allegedly witnessed homosexual prostitution and pedophile criminal acts in a suppressed but far-reaching child sex-ring probe closely linked to Senate and House members–but also former President George H. W. Bush. [In U.S. District Court testimony, Rusty Nelson told Judge Warren Urbom he took 20,000 to 30,000 pictures, 2-5-1999, p.52]

Pedophile victim Paul Bonacci–kidnapped and forced into sex slavery between the ages of 6 and 17–told U.S. District Court Judge Warren Urbom in sworn testimony [pp.105, 124-126] on February 5, 1999: “Where were the parties?…down in Washington, DC…and that was for sex…There was sex between adult men and other adult men but most of it had to do with young boys and young girls with the older folks…specifically for sex with minors…Also in Washington, DC, there were parties after a party…there were a lot of parties where there would be senators and congressmen who had nothing to do with the sexual stuff. But there were some senators and congressmen who stayed for the [pedophile sex] parties afterwards…on a lot of the trips he took us on he had us, I mean, I met some people that I don’t feel comfortable telling their name because I don’t want to — …Q: Are you scared?…Yes…”

DeCamp, a former Nebraska state senator and decorated Vietnam War vet, told TomFlocco.com “there are tons of pictures still left; law enforcement is currently looking for them,” adding, “you can also assume there are senators and congressmen implicated; otherwise this would not be such a big issue.” But no federal official has stepped forward to protect Rusty Nelson’s life, as Congress would be reluctant to hold hearings or force a federal prosecutor to probe its own members for sex acts with children–still punishable by law.

I’m saying this because society keeps thinking someone else is going to protect both children and adults (women specifically) from abuse. While my case has no foster care, adoption efforts, or child abuse allegations in it — the principles remain. How many times do people have to reach out for help, only to find out most entities (including individual families & relatives!) — have their own priorities, and when one gets down to it, will sacrifice up to a point, but are not willing to literally sacrifice their comfort, and — most important — their myth that this country, where they live (sometimes quite nicely) is fundamentally just and good. And that their TAXES are paid in order to delegate life’s tough problems to others, who are handling it pretty well.

Nope.

This is why I came to the conclusion (after years of this) that the best defence is a good offence; that although independence, self-sufficiency, and the ability to physically defend onesself are resented by systems that profit and exist on constant streams of the needy, SEEKING THIS STATE is always better – for all! — than seeking protection.

The Tom Flocco article (2005) states clearly testimony from the abused children, trafficked in one case through foster parents in Nebraska, connections to George Bush Senior and intentional use of these photos to get favorable legislation passed in Congress. If there was opposition, Larry King could blackmail the opposing side. The situation is entirely sick:

..If they wanted to get something passed through the legislature, he would put some people that were against it in a compromising position. By using us boys and girls…Judge Urbom: Was this by your being the sexual partner of that person?…Yes…Judge Urbom: …Any estimates of how often you participated as the sexual partner of one of these persons that he wanted to get some kind of control over?…There were times when it would be four or five in a night…on probably a couple thousand times…sometimes dozens of times with the same person…” [U.S. District Court testimony, 2-5-1999, pp. 146-151]

Curiously, Paul Bonacci told investigators that the sex ring was based out of Offutt U.S. Air Force Base near Omaha, having been taken there to be abused since he was three years old in 1970. At Offutt, Paul said he was “trained” by tortures, heavy drugging and sexual degradation. [Offutt AFB played a major role immediately following the 9/11 attacks as George W. Bush made the base his post-attack headquarters for a short period.]

(There is testimony from young women also on the article).

Perhaps keep this in mind when you are writing a Congressperson asking for help regarding child abuse. WHY such a huge industry? When a child wefare worker “Walters” reported, credibly — the report was ignored, as below:

Presidential indiscretions–or criminal acts?

According to a Nebraska state police report, Nebraska Foster Care Review Board letter to the Attorney General, Nebraska Senate’s Franklin committee investigative report, and a 50-page report by Omaha’s Boys Town welfare case officer Mrs. Julie Walters,

by my count, that’s 4 sources!

pedophile victims Nelly and Kimberly Webb detailed a massive child sex, homosexual and pornography operation run out of Nebraska by Larry King–but with close ties directly to the Congress and the White House. . . .

(paragraphs later, not easy reading):

In spite of four polygraph tests administered by a Nebraska state trooper who said he was convinced Nelly was telling the truth, in December, 1990, a Washington country, Nebraska judge [David Quist, I believe] ignored Julie Walter’s 50-page report, numerous debriefings of the girls by foster care officials and youth workers stating the sisters told the truth–specifically about George Bush Sr., and dismissed all charges against their foster parents Jarrett and Barbara Webb, who Nelly and Kimberly said had allowed them to be abused.

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Did you ever wonder where all these abusive parents came from? Who raised them? Since Child Abuse is obviously a heinous crime, why are there so many participants? What is it about human nature that we collectively don’t understand about ourselves, such that there’s still a booming industry in Child Protection?

Why would a state Senator and her husband have to die while exposing this industry in Georgia? This is the conclusion several people have come to who were close to the Schaefers, although the Georgia Bureau of Investigation quickly labeled it a murder/suicide. (see HERE, among other places).

I am simply coloring this section GREEN, regarding the Schaefer’s CPS expository work (with its links underlined) in green, to distinguish from what follows, after which we can end this difficult post – for a holiday season. Perhaps state by state individuals can do their own work — but it must be shared, as obviously children are being flown OUT of state for trafficking purposes too. In the long run, this also becomes a FINANCIAL issue, as also the Franklin Coverup was — as in Franklin Credit Union. Larry King did time for embezzlement, not child abuse. It seems the two go together, and if major child traffickers are caught for money crimes, not child trafficking crimes — but it stops them — perhaps that’s a message on which direction to investigate. Quite honestly, I don’t think most of us can handle the vicarious trauma even of consciousness of how far down is the ugliness (within America, ruling circles). But, what is the cost of living unconscious lives? Or our delayed bill when what we can’t face now, comes back stronger, later, and right next door?

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED

Garland Favorito
404 664-4044

REFERENCES

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

Mrs. Schaefer had found during the last few years that:

– Georgia housed children in a foster home with a known pedophile who molested the children.

– Habersham County failed to remove six children from a home where they were being abused and tortured.

– Georgia turned two girls over to a California father who had a pornographic video business.

A report that she produced on these remarkable cases can be found at the fight CPS web site:

http://fightcps.com/pdf/TheCorruptBusinessOfChildProtectiveServices.pdf

Nancy Schaefer was interviewed extensively by talk show host Alex Jones about corruption in Child Protection Services nationally. A multi-part series of her interview and an Eagle Forum presentation can be found on You Tube here:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=nancy+schaefer&search_type=&aq=f

More details on the video she was working on can be found on the Alex Jones Channel of You Tube at:

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=WILLIAM+FAIN&aq=f

In addition, former Senator Schaefer led opposition to HB582 and SB304. These two bills, introduced by her fellow Republicans, would have likely increased child sex trafficking if passed during the 2009 or 2010 sessions. These bills would have made it legal for teenagers to participate in certain illicit acts. The bills would have effectively removed the legal authority that police have to pick up teenagers and get them into protective custody so that they can no longer be pimped for those acts.

PV Pop-Quiz: Who were the idiotic State Reps sponsoring HB 582 (analysis of HB 582 here by Sue Ella Deadwyler) in the 2009-2010 Legislative Session, and who were the idiotic State Senators sponsoring SB 304 (op-ed here on SB 304)? Inquiring minds should find out for themselves

The age of consent in Georgia is 16.

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

December 4, 2011 at 4:37 pm

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

with one comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AN EXPENSIVE REMEDY IN SEARCH OF A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and she also wrote:

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

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

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

Personal:

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

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

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

and “Healthy Relationship,” this one:

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

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

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Dba Relationship Skills Center

2010

$64,938

990

13-4280316

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

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

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recipients

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Back to TAGGS and our HM grantees)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

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

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

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

ward Number: 90FE0104

Award Title: HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1

OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)

Organization: OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (OFA)

Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

Award Abstract

Title Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1

Project Start/End /

Abstract Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1

PI Name/Title Howell, Patty Vice President of Operations

Institution

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

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

HM/FR GRANTEE BEHAVIORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO — in some detail, and FYI —

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

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

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

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

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

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

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using Federal TANF Grants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce
Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young people
Covenant marriages

Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it

Making laws more “family friendly”

e laws

The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by

Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human

Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

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

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

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

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

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKC, Dean Blevins, OKC Music,Oklahoma City Alumni, Oklahoma City Media, Oklahoma City Radio, The Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

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

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

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

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

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

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

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

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

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

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

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

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

PER CURIAM.

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

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

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

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

(SMILE): [2]Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit

So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too, this being 1974;

So in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma. Moral: There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . .. and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues. But wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their theories…

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

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

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

From OMI site:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Child abuse & neglect

More than fifteen thousand (15,518) are abused or neglected

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

By

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How could Bush not have seen this mess coming? Regier was a GOP party
hack in Oklahoma with an undistinguished track record in the family
services bureaucracy. An ultraconservative Christian, his byline had
turned up on two published papers that espoused spanking kids, even if
it caused “welts and bruises.”

A scalding report by the governor’s chief inspector general has
revealed that high-ranking DCF officials handed out fat and dubious
contracts to pals and political cronies, and accepted gifts, favors
and lodging from outside contractors.

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Different, 2009 article quoting the 2004 one): There have been numerous child abuse stories because of neglect from the Department of Child & Families. Jeb hired Jerry Regier to run DCF. Regier spent more time rewarding cronies than keeping children from being abused.

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

Includes this section:

Family Research Council

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

Federal government career

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Viewpoint: Promise Keepers — Watch as Well as Pray, by Congressman Jesse L. Jackson Jr.

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

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

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

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

(and he goes to accurately characterize the group):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(to be continued)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”

Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

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

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

Communities & Character Councils

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

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

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

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

AND also at this address (3rd organization):

Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

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

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

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

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

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

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

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

The Academy of Leadership & Liberty

Beam’s Industries, Inc.

Burbridge Foundation

Cartridge World USA

Character First

The Institute for Church and Family

National Christian School Association

Oklahoma Christian University

Oklahoma DHS – Finance Division *** links to Adoption Announcement, and banner “Stronger Families Grow Brighter Communities.” & “Casey Families Programs” link.

Salt and Light Leadership Training

TC Magazine

Wishing Well

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

Products — pricey!

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

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:

OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"

* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%

Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

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

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

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Concluding statement):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background Data and Research

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

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

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

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

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

These barriers consist of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

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

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

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

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

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

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

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

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

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

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

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

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Using Federal TANF Grants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKC, Dean Blevins, OKC Music,Oklahoma City Alumni, Oklahoma City Media, Oklahoma City Radio, The Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

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

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

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

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

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

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

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

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

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

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

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

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

PER CURIAM.

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

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

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

(and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]”Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit”

So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too. This being 1974; so in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma. Moral: There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . .. and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues, but wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their theories…

(Is this the same Burbridge Foundation as in Oklahoma, or that sponsored that Governor’s Leadership Conference? Possibly. I’m not going to stress over this today.)

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

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

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

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

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

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”

Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

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

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

Communities & Character Councils

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

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

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

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

AND also at this address (3rd organization):

Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

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

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

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

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

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

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

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

The Academy of Leadership & Liberty

Beam’s Industries, Inc.

Burbridge Foundation

Cartridge World USA

Character First

The Institute for Church and Family

National Christian School Association

Oklahoma Christian University

Oklahoma DHS – Finance Division *** links to Adoption Announcement, and banner “Stronger Families Grow Brighter Communities.” & “Casey Families Programs” link.

Salt and Light Leadership Training

TC Magazine

Wishing Well

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

Products — pricey!

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

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:

OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"

* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%

Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

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

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

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Concluding statement):

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background Data and Research

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

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

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

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

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

These barriers consist of:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

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

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

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

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

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

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

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

Here’s a 2010 (June 24, 2010, to be specific) Heritage Foundation article complaining about increasing entitlements Obama’s escalation of welfare roles (true) and how the “success” of TANF should be applied to other federal programs.

Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements:

Principles of Reform and the Next Steps

June 24, 2010

Do you know who the Heritage Foundation is?
Do you know who funds them? or where to find out?
Do you know who they fund, or where to find out?
Could you participate pro or con in this argument, supporting it with any facts?
Do you agree or not?
Can you put those arguments in a different context than they do?

They proclaimed:

Abstract: The growth of welfare spending is unsustainable and will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue. President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request would increase total welfare spending to $953 billion—a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in FY 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration. To bring welfare spending under control, Congress should reduce welfare spending to pre-recession levels after the recession ends and then limit future growth to the rate of inflation. Congress should also restore work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and apply them to other federal welfare programs.

They also said of TANF that it was a success. Yet — in reality — it is the means by which expansion of the welfare state — particularly after faith-based organizations were invited in — was assured. The track record is that MANY of these are not just incompetent — but chronically dishonest, and when caught (as I tend to stay) in one state, simply hop over to another. I can name names and organizations and dates, sometimes States, of the “hops.” They obtain web resources through HHS “compassion capital” or other grants, and this last season, our government just gave over $1 million GRANT to ICF International, LLC (or whatever it’s proper current name is) a group currently doing $1 BILLION business with the Feds, and with an agenda to transform communities through (basically, media domination).

Listen to this:

Reform should be based on five principles:

Slowing the growth of the welfare state. Unending government deficits are pushing the United States toward bankruptcy. The U.S. simply cannot afford the massive increases in welfare spending planned by President Barack Obama. Welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.[1] Congress needs to establish reasonable fiscal constraints within the welfare system. Once the current recession ends, aggregate welfare spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. After this rollback has been completed, the growth of welfare spending should be capped at the rate of inflation.

Promoting personal responsibility and work. Able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or to prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Food stamps and housing assistance, two of the largest programs for the needy, should be aligned with the TANF program to require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work for a minimum of 30 hours per week. (see ## my footnote)

Providing a portion of welfare assistance as loans rather than as grants. Welfare to able-bodied adults creates a potential moral hazard because providing assistance to those in need can lead to an increase in the behaviors that generate the need for aid in the first place. If welfare assistance rewards behaviors that lead to future dependence, costs can spiral out of control. A reformed welfare policy can provide temporary assistance to those in need while reducing the moral hazard associated with welfare by treating a portion of welfare aid as a loan to be repaid by able-bodied recipients rather than as an outright grant from the taxpayer.

Ending the welfare marriage penalty and encouraging marriage in low-income communities. The collapse of marriage is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of children in the U.S. were born out of wedlock; today, the figure is over 40 percent.[2] Most alarmingly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African–Americans is 72 percent. The outcomes for children raised in single, never-married homes are greatly diminished.Current means-tested welfare programs penalize low-income recipients who get married; these anti-marriage penalties should be reduced or eliminated. In addition, government should provide information on the importance of marriage to individuals in poor communities who have a high risk of having children out of wedlock. Particular emphasis should be placed on the benefits to children of a married two-parent family.***

Limit low-skill immigration. Around 15 percent ($100 billion per year) of total means-tested welfare spending goes to households headed by immigrants with high school degrees or less.[3] One-third of all immigrants lack a high school degree.[4] Over the next 10 years, America will spend $1.5 trillion on welfare benefits for lower-skill immigrants. Government policy should limit future immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The legal immigration system should not encourage immigration of low-skill immigrants who would increase poverty in the nation and impose vast new costs on already overburdened taxpayers.

**Never mind that this has been done now — for years — and at statewide level. Can we reasonably assume that no one at the Heritage Foundation knows this?

##FN2 — how about requiring recipients of diversionary programs from child support and TANF to document that THEY worked at least 30 hours a week? And have incorporated, and that their incorporations have actually been proper, are current, and if required to, filed a 990? I’ve seen dropped loose ends of $50K a pop (SolidSource in Van Wert, OH comes to mind) or others have found dropped loose ends of $227,000. MOreover, we have child support privatized to outside organizations, such as MAXIMUS — themselves caught in fraud and overbilling — and THEY continue to receive government benefits from the US in the form of renewed contracts, even after paying, for example $30 million in settlement fees over these matters.

So I say, let’s put the focus on the MACRO-ECONOMIC trends — namely allowing corporations and HHS / DOJ /DOE to get in bed with them to determine whether future employees of these corporations eat, have safe drinking water, and have access to decent educations (not just skills training for globally noncompetitive jobs in the same corporations!)

POINT 4, above:

. . .encouraging marriage in low-income families. The Collapse of Marriage is the Major Factor in Child Poverty Today.

No it’s not. That’s a single-source, single-interpretation of the causes of poverty.

Now, I could debate that at least logically, following the words “Sez who?” and “Who Sez those are the only experts?” and then poke some holes in the rhetoric.

Could You? Should You? Or don’t you care about the use of taxes and public policy any more?

Go to the actual laws:

THE LAWS IN QUESTION:

PRWORA link:

PUBLIC LAW 104 – 193 – PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA,Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With Americaand was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R -FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.^[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”.^[2]

H. REPT. 109-276 – DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005

Back to search results

(Wikipedia note — TANF Reauthorization was contained in this);

The reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was also contained in the bill, as was the provision for the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. Part of the TANF reauthorization reduces the threshold for passport denial for child support arrearages under 42 USC 652(k)to $2,500.

Senate bill S. 1932 passed the Senate, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice President Dick Cheney, and House bill H.R. 4241 passed the House 217-215. The Senate bill was signed by President George W. Bush on February 8, 2006.^[2]

[Dispute over legal status

A dispute arose over whether both houses of Congress had approved the same bill. Those contending that the bill is not a law argue there were different versions of the same bill, neither of which was approved by both the House and the Senate. They argue that the document signed by the President would not have the force of law, on the ground that the enacting process bypassed the Bicameral Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (For what wikipedia is worth, find this interesting….)

P.L. 109–171, Approved February 8, 2006 (120 Stat. 4)

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

* * * * * * *

SECTION 1. [42 U.S.C. 1305 note] SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005”.

Has sections on TANF & Child Support.

SEC. 7101. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS FUNDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010.

(a) [None Assigned] In General.—Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (adjusted, as applicable, by or under this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005^[275]) shall continue through September 30, 2010, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through fiscal year 2010 at the level provided for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2004 (or, as applicable, at such greater level as may result from the application of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005), except that in the case of section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority only through fiscal year 2010^[276] and in the case of section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, no grants shall be made for any fiscal year occurring after fiscal year 2005.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 7301. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

(etc.)

PRESIDENT BUSH’s REMARKS ON SIGNING DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005:

The Deficit Reduction Act also reauthorizes welfare reform for another 5 years. Welfare reform has proved a tremendous success over the past decade. By insisting on programs that require work and self-sufficiency in return for Federal aid, we’ve helped cut welfare cases by more than half since 1996. Now we’re building on that progress by renewing welfare reform with a billion-dollar increase in child care funding and new grants to support healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.

One of the reasons for the success of welfare reform is a policy called charitable choice which allows faith-based groups that provide social services to receive Federal funding without changing the way they hire. Ten years ago, Congress made welfare the first Federal program to include charitable choice. The bill I sign today will extend charitable choice for another 5 years and expand it to the new healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. Appreciate the hard work of all who supported the extension

of charitable choice—including the good- hearted men and women of the faith-based community who are here today. By reauthor- izing welfare reform with charitable choice, we will help millions more Americans move from welfare to work and find independence and dignity and hope.

The message of the bill I sign today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and respon- sible at the same time. Spending restraint de- mands difficult choices, yet making those choices is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. One of our most impor- tant responsibilities is to keep this economy strong and vibrant and secure for our chil- dren and our grandchildren. We can be proud that we’re helping to meet that respon- sibility today.

Now I ask the Members of the Congress to join me as I sign the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

NOTE: The President spoke at 3:31 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. S. 1932, approved February 8, was assigned Public Law No. 109– 171.

{{He also began by distinguishing between DISCRETIONARY and MANDATORY spending:

At the same time, my budget tightens the belt on Government spending. Every American family has to set priorities and live within a budget, and the American people expect us to do the same right here in Washington, DC.

The Federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary spending and manda- tory spending. Discretionary spending is the kind of spending Congress votes on every year. Last year, Congress met my request and passed bills that cut discretionary spending not related to defense or homeland security. And this year, my budget again proposes to cut this spending. My budget also proposes again to keep the growth in overall discre- tionary spending below the rate of inflation

AND ARRA:

Wikipedia:

(Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion ofunemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

TEXT of the LAW:

H.R.1 — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)

(thomas.gov)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – (Sec. 5) Designates each amount in this Act as: (1) an emergency requirement, necessary to meet certain emergency needs in accordance with the FY2008-FY2009 congressional budget resolutions; and (2) an emergency for Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles.

TITLE II (Commerce, Justice, ….)

Makes supplemental appropriations for FY2009 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for: (1) the Office of Inspector General; (2) state and local law enforcement activities; (2) the Office on Violence Against Women; (3) the Office of Justice Programs; (4) state and local law enforcement assistance; and (5) community oriented policing services (COPS).

. . .

Subtitle B: Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals – (Sec. 2101) Amends part A of title IV (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) (TANF) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish in the Treasury an Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs (Emergency Fund). Makes appropriations to such Fund.

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make a grant from the Emergency Fund to each requesting state for any quarter of FY2009-FY2010 if the state’s average monthly assistance caseload for the quarter exceeds its average monthly assistance caseload for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year. Requires the amount of any such grant to be 80% of the excess of total state expenditures for basic assistance over total state expenditures for such assistance for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year.

. . . .

(Sec. 2102) Extends TANF supplemental grants through FY2010.

(Sec. 2103) Makes technical amendments to the authority of a state or Indian tribe to use a block grant for TANF for any fiscal year to provide, without fiscal year limitation, (carry over) any benefit or service that may be provided under the program funded under the block grant, including future contingencies.

(Sec. 2104) Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to suspend for FY2008-FY2010 the prohibition against payments to states with respect to their plans for child and spousal support collection on account of amounts expended by a state from support collection performance incentive payments received from the Secretary of HHS (thus allowing such additional payments during such period).

(just pointing out, from the CRS summary, that certain parts affect TANF & Child Support, I.e., TITLE IV-A, IV-D of Social Security Act.

CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT OF 2010 (passed one year ago — 11/19/2010!)(you may need to re/search from Thomas.loc.gov) 111th Congress, H.R. 4783

Title VIII: General Provisions (AND YOU”LL SEE WHY FATHERHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, PLUS MARRIAGE EDUCATORS, WERE REJOICING OVER THIS ONE):

Sec. 802) Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to require an employer to report to the state Directory of New Hires, in addition to other information, the date services for remuneration were first performed by a newly hired employee.

Subtitle B: TANF – (Sec. 811) Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]) of title IV of the Social Security Act to continue grants to states for temporary assistance for needy families programs through September 30, 2011.

(WONDER WHERE WE’RE AT ON THIS NOW …..)

Requires preference for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood grants to be given to entities that have previously: (1) been awarded funds; and (2) demonstrated the ability to carry out specified programs successfully.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES, DO YOU THINK, THAT (2) WILL BE MONITORED?

Directs an entity seeking funding for both healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood promotion to submit a combined application assuring that it will carry out such activities: (1) under separate programs; and (2) without combining funds awarded to carry out either such activities.

Revises the definition of “healthy marriage promotion activities” to include marriage education and other specified programs for individuals in addition to nonmarried pregnant women and nonmarried expectant fathers.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REALLY EXIST. FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTHY MARRIAGE GRANTEE (I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.) was characterized in a recent AZFFC.org publication as the “Sacramento affiliate” of this fathers and families coalition — although the title then said “Healthy Marriage” and recently reads something like (last I heard) “Relationship Education Institute” or such.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) for FY2011: (1) $75 million for healthy marriage promotion activities; and (2) $75 million for promotion of responsible fatherhood activities. (Current law authorized $150 million, combined, for both programs in specified fiscal years.) Limits appropriated funds awarded to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community entities, including religious organizations, for activities promoting responsible fatherhood to $75 million (current law has a $50 million limit). Requires amounts awarded to fund demonstration projects testing the effectiveness of tribal governments in coordinating the provision to tribal families at risk of child abuse or neglect of child welfare services, and other tribal programs, to be taken in equal proportion from such separate appropriations for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) to the Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs such sums as necessary for payment to the Fund in a total not to exceed: (1) for FY2011, such sums as are necessary for amounts obligated on or after October 1, 2010, and before enactment of the this Act; and (2) for FY2012, $612 million. (Current law reduces such appropriations by specified amounts.)

Well, I may regret hitting “PUBLISH” on this one, but here goes. . . . .

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

November 9, 2011 at 5:15 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Child Support, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with Access-Visitation, Annie E Casey, Blackwater, Broekhuizen Prince Focus on the Family Promise Keepers & Ultra-Conservatives in Govt, Burbridge Foundation, California "RRF deadbeats" among HHS grantees, California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Child Support, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, Due process, Education, Expanding the Welfare State from TANF forward, Family Impact Seminars (distributions), family law, Family Research Council, fatherhood, Feminists, Forcing System Change through Faith-based Initiatives, Heritage Foundation (DeVos funded), HHS-TAGGS grants database, Jerry Regier, Motherhood, Oklahoma Marriage Initiative & Public Strategies Inc., PREP(r) Peddling through Public/Private Partnerships, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Theodora Ooms, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., Wade Horn, What happens in California when your aren't paying attention to your legislature..., women's rights

Child Support-TANF “The Emperor Has No Clothes.” Part 1: Rise and Expansion (“Spinning”)

This person is a mother, and having trouble getting “Access Visitation” services from organization whose names say “Father,” while the supporting legislation, however, says “parents,” which she is. By “having trouble” I mean, there has been no help whatsoever, and there is no mother-child contact at all. the case is typical. As far as I know this person is not a welfare caseload, though probably would qualify easily. If the purpose of these funds is to reduce poverty, it has backfired. However, that’s not my main argument. That homelessness was a direct result of the supporting legislation for putting welfare funding to groups like this:

10/03/11 – ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

What grandiose and beneficial sounding words: “Healthy Marriage & Responsible Fatherhood.” What makes us think this can be purchased, and that by increasing centralization, then distributing without oversight, poverty and “unhealth” will somehow result? Unfortunately the thinking is more like this: I work, my wages are taxable, I don’t want to go to jail, don’t rock the boat too much. Too much radical change is too much social unrest. …. We don’t want riots, so I will continue to be obedient to the powers that be, rather than run up against them and risk losing even more..

But the closer I look at these grant awards, and the grantees themselves, the more shocked I am at the Take the Money & Run element. And at another disturbing one. Not including funds LOST in the system (through grantees that don’t file, states that don’t distributed funds they’ve collected, etc.), the profits are increasingly going simply to very much FOR-profit organizations that are good with PR and Media. Three examples that come to mind are:

PREP, from two professors at UDenver, withlongstanding relationships with grants-funded investigations. They incorporated to form “PREP, Inc.” which your tax dollars are helping market, and I can show how and where. These professors are both also Advisory to the huge “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative”
BOOT Camp for New Dads (Originating from a California professional, being marketed to hospitals, who must pay a “licensing” fee, around $3,000)
TWOGether corporate affiliations (I’ve found so far in TX & PA, but probably all over by now)
Dibble Marriage Institute Curricula (The Dibble Marriage Institute basically IS an off-loadable set of curricula & toolkits.

These groups take the Kids’ Turn model one step farther– it’s more automated curricula, and it’s being distributed through more federally (usually HHS) supported avenues. Businesses contracting with the federal government (and states) is nothing new — but we are talking about what has to be immoral — businesses using the theme of protecting children, and saving America, eliminating poverty (etc.) — and using that to form new businesses along the MLM or Direct Marketing Model, dispensing trademarked boilerplate material — and doing it through nonprofits.

The organization and collaboration of the marketing plan is definitely with HHS involvement. Here’s an example on a “CHILD WELFARE INFORMATION GATEWAY.” Keep in mind that to this administration, child welfare and father involvement are synonymous, due to federal policy. EXAMPLE:

The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children

Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau Rosenberg, Jeffrey., Wilcox, W. Bradford.

Year Published: 2006

Section II
8. Fatherhood Programs

Nationally and locally, there are numerous fatherhood programs that strive to meet the various needs of the many different fathers and families. These programs fill the gaps left by social service agencies, which have limited funding, suffer from case overloads, and are unable to offer activities beyond the scope of their responsibilities.

8.5 Examples of Fatherhood Programs

As the manual has shown throughout, there are numerous needs and reasons to strengthen the roles of fathers. A wide range of programs exists to meet many of the needs of fathers and their children. The following were selected as examples of programs that span the fatherhood initiative spectrum.

“The Fatherhood Initiative Spectrum,” I love it….

Boot Camp for New Dads (BCND)
Helping new fathers. {{See below}}
The Children’s Trust Fund of Alabama
Meeting the needs of noncustodial fathers

{{LGH note: My post “Footloose in Tuscaloosa” needed followup, which points to this Trust Fund}}

The Dads 101 Program and Male Involvement Campaign
Working to prevent shaken baby syndrome

This, if anything, would seem to be a vital program. Even so, my last post (before this one) shows how a black father spent a year in jail improperly, on accusation of in part having shook his baby. Turns out a Shaken Baby Syndrome type group had just been funded; within one month or so from formation of the Child Safety Program at Penn State, they had two children in foster care and Dad in jail, and what looks like suppression of contrary witnesses (i.e, there was another cause of the symptoms) from the same Child Safety Program team! The couple sued. See also “Courthouse news” which reported on this one.

Dads Make a Difference Program
A school-based program led by teens

Family and Community Violence and Prevention Project and 50/50 Parenting
Working to prevent family violence and to improve couples’ relationships

Fathers and Children Together (FACT)
Working with incarcerated fathers

The Fathers Network
Working with fathers of children with special needs

First Things First
Strengthening families through public education campaigns

Golden Dads
A national campaign to promote responsible fatherhood

Great Beginnings Start Before Birth
Working with fathers-to-be and their partners

Leading by Example
A faith-based fatherhood initiative and mentoring program

Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP)
Enhancing and supporting healthy marriages

Project Fatherhood
Helping at-risk fathers learn how to parent effectively

Project MECCA and Another Choice for Black Children
Supporting children and families during and after adoption

Shalom Baby – Bootcamp for New Jewish Dads
Working with fathers prior to and immediately after birth

Stay-At-Home Dads
How to start a playgroup or local dad-to-dad chapter

BootCamp for New Dads is a trademark, goes back to this corp. & person.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2004518	02/14/1997	ACTIVE	DADS ADVENTURE, INC.	GREG S BISHOP

Gregory Bishop wrote a 1994 article praising Optima, which oversees 5% of Orange County’s $10 Billion health care system. He has a connection to the hospital system, and markets BootCamp for New Dads. As described on “Dads Adventure” site:

Dads Adventure, Inc. Provides Major Funding & Outreach
Formed to reach more new fathers and help fund Boot Camp for New Dads, Dads Adventure, Inc. publishes Hit the Ground Crawling: Lessons from 150,000 New Fathers. Crash Course for New Dads: Tools, Checklists and Cheat Sheets and Dads Adventure magazine, and operates DadsAdventure.com. Together, they take full advantage of emerging media technologies to meet the various learning styles of the younger generation of men. Dads Adventure, Inc. also financed the development of Boot Camp for New Dads, and provides major funding for ongoing operations through sponsorship fees and royalties.

Maybe it’s a great product. However, this is definitely a “emerging media technology” with some of these funders — as they fund the expansion of “Boot Camp for New Dads.”

In addition to our partners Boot Camp for New Dads is fortunate to have a strong network of local supporters who share our mission and goals. They include:

Boot Camp Coaches who month after month lead our workshops and prepare men to be fathers.

Program Coordinators who champion Boot Camp within their sponsoring organizations and work to obtain the resources each program needs.

Veterans dads who return to Boot Camp with their baby to pass on what they have learned to the next group of rookie fathers.

New moms who encourage their spouses to participate in Boot Camp and appreciate the critical role they have in raising their child together.

Funding Support
Funding for the expansion of Boot Camp for New Dads has been generously supplied by the following organizations

Annie E. Casey Foundation {{funds other marriage/fatherhood projects, in a big way}}

Irvine Health Foundation

Johnson & Johnson Foundation

Orange County Commission on Families and Children

Pacific Life Foundation

Windgate Charitable Foundation

In addition, Revolution Studios has supplied substantial funding to BCND for movie rights to Greg Bishop’s life and Boot Camp for New Dads.

I’d heard of “BootCamp for New Dads” before, but actually tracked who it belonged to and where it came from (California) in the process of trying to locate the actual corporate status (if not income) of someone on another group, “Ohio Practitioners Network for Fathers & Families” and correlate its self-description with the State of Ohio record. As often happens, the records do not tell the same story, with the website typically claiming a longer corporate history than it has.

Below, I also took a quick review of the DIBBLE INSTITUTE (which is ALSO not filing its charitable registry in California, where it resides)

It’s time to say NO! to the off-roading of public expenses into private profits based on, we’ve always done it this way, at least since the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, which is when the child support system (principal funding & enabling institution got underway). Mainstream Media discussion of these awards is nearly ZERO, although interagency, association-specific, and conference-based discussion of these awards is how to get more of them and justify getting more.boiI looked at some of the grantees, and recognized several. Top Group: “HEALTHY MARRIAGE”:

Healthy Marriage Grantees

Legal Name Organization	City	State	Award Amount
Auburn University	Auburn	AL	$2,489,548
Healthy You, Inc.	Dothan	AL	$681,956
John Brown University	Siloam Springs	AR	$724,428
Arizona Youth Partnerships	Tucson	AZ	$634,536
Creciendo Unidos	Phoenix	AZ	$359,796
Cambodian Association of America	Long Beach	CA	$570,000
The Dibble Institute for Marriage Education	Kensington	CA	$794,846
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	Sacramento	CA	$798,825

“Kensington, CA” is a wealthy part of Berkeley. Dibble is a Distributor (as I understand it) and many of the other grantees are dabbling with their materials.

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
THE DIBBLE INSTITUTE FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	114381	Charity	Current	BERKELEY	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

The pattern they follow is similar to many grantees. Big Talk, Big Claims on Website, Major co-collaboration, and short shrift when it comes to complying with local LAWS that charitable organizations (in CA) have to actually register ANNUALLY as charities, and as corporations. Why is our government continuing to give major funding to groups that don’t? Is there more than meets to the eye, is it more than just “we’re understaffed and overwhelmed,” that the Office of Attorney General never seems to catch up with these groups who don’t file — at ALL??

Dibble address is a PO Box in Berkeley, they began in 2002 (says this record) and rapidly increased both assets and income (probably through HHS and foundation grants). NO founding documents are available on-site, no tax returns (at least in California) and unless their returns are sitting at the OAG, and there’s a shortage of data entry clerks, they are doing so illegally, from what I can see (note disclaimer). I think I see just fine — because other groups in the similar situation, and with less “failure-to-file” history DO get scolding letters from the OAG: “Where’s our $75 fee for registration?”

iscal Begin:	01-OCT-09
Fiscal End:	30-SEP-10
Total Assets:	$758,255.00
Gross Annual Revenue:	$1,337,654.00
RRF Received:	19-MAY-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached:	Y
Status:	Accepted

Check the 990 finder:

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Dibble Fund CA 2009 $537,324 990 23 68-0435573

Dibble Fund CA 2008 $874,877 990 18 68-0435573

Dibble Fund CA 2007 $696,077 990 18 68-0435573

Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2006 $161,204 990 16 68-0435573

Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2005 $94,274 990 14 68-0435573

Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2004 $78,488 990 16 68-0435573

Dibble Fund for Marriage Education CA 2003 $92,429 990 18 68-0435573

Dibble Institute for Marriage Education CA 2007 $721,321 990 18 68-0435573

TAGGS LISTING, meaning how much HHS grants have they gotten. Does not include contracts, just grants:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION BERKELEY CA 94707-0881 ALAMEDA 948592779 $ 3,679,498

At least $1 million has been Healthy Marriage// an ongoing one (above) is reaching Teens, and another 2011 grant, “Building Brighter Futures,” use “Discretionary”

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0010	BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES	1	00	ACF	09-27-2011	948592779	$ 794,846
Fiscal Year 2011 Total:								$ 794,846

WELL, WELL, WELL — another Grant Series includes grants to several of the I-failed-to-file/we changed our name/ OOPS! category of grants recipients, nationwide – – the “90FM” series. There are 70 grants including $2,500,000 to “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,” which does not exist as a corporation (or nonprofit) any more.

Before this (Probably leading up to the renamed “Building Brighter Futures” is the 20065-2010 grant award 90FE0024, a total of $1.7 million. Shouldn’t this group have to send off an RRF from time to time (like ever?). ALthough we, the public, cannot view this, it’s my understanding they have to tell the OAG their Schedule B of donors (or donors over $1K) so someone is keeping track of any improprieties, i.e. donations correlating to legislation being pushed, or to at least PRETEND to avoid conflicts of interest when, for example, someone running the local grants allocation in the county determines who gets the contract. Or when there’s a judge on a board — or a custody evaluator — and a judge is driving business to the nonprofit, or contributes to it as well.

Interesting, The Dibble Operation has two different 990 filings with two different revenues for 2007 (Plus a few different names entered):

address 728 Coventry Road, Kensington, CA a modest (for these parts) single-family residence. Nearby streets are named Stanford, Oberlin, Beverly, etc. Coventry possibly named after a Cathedral in England.

What they are doing with this grant described here — teaching that cohabitation is bad to Los Angeles Teens, and other skills. http://www.dibbleinstitute.org/

The Dibble Institute has been awarded a $794,000 grant for up to three years to teach youth and young adults in the Los Angeles Unified School District healthy relationship skills. The grant is from the Administration for Children and Families. …

THIS IS HOW IT WORKS: Become a Nonprofit. Get a grant, hire a curriculum designer, get more grants, and market it, helped with gov’t funding, in gov’t funded institutions. This need not be necessarily limited to the divorce arena — why not go for the public schools, too?

The website has a store, plus some free resources, and a log-in for “Grant Instructors” (only) to access their materials:

Grant Instructor Login

Welcome! Thank you for participating in The Dibble Institute’s Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant. Access resources to help you

Teach the relationship skills program you selected — or —

Report back to us on how well you did and get your benchmark payment

Login Here:Password: Are you interested in changing the world and getting paid to do so? Then, The Dibble Institute wants to talk with you! We are looking for qualified instructors or youth workers who will teach healthy relationship skills to teens. Our program provides FREE curriculum, student materials, and a benchmark payment to you upon successful completion of the teaching and reporting. To learn how to apply and participate, please contact Natalie Middleton by phone 877-435-8033 or email:Natalie.Middleton@publicstrategies.com. Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant Number: 90-FE-0024/03.Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families.

Notice that PUBLIC STRATEGIES is a *.com, not a *.org — it’s a FOR-profit, and I’ll bet a very good profit, too. The grant series “FE” is pretty evidently “Fatherhood Education.” Not exactly gender-neutral, eh? “PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC.” is Oklahoma-based, and if you use my “search” field on this blog, I have elaborated upon who they are. Or google “Mary Myrick.” The HHS appears to have “made” this PR firm, very few of their clients are NOT somehow related to the major Oklahoma Marriage Institute. (OMI) and the originators of some of the product above (for example, “PREP”) are Advisory to, as I recall, OMI.

ABOUT US: The Dibble Institute:

The Dibble Institute for Marriage Education, a nonprofit organization, helps young people learn how to create healthy romantic relationships now and in the future.

It is indeed a nonprofit organization, and even has an EIN#. However, according to the OAG website it CERTAINLY is not in compliance as to filing, and doesn’t seem likely to any time soon. Too busy moving product and finding new markets, I guess, to fill out a one or two-page form and send it the registration fee.

We offer tools for teaching the practical skills essential for enhancing friendships, dating and love. Just as important, we assist teens in creating the personal vision that keeps them on a positive path.

It’s an unreporting to the state of California nonprofit organization, and as such has to be I believe operating OUTSIDE the confines of the law, while marketing materials to Los Angeles schoolchildren, as enabled by this grants system. Charles Dibble (itself) was an aircraft engineer. Now his Institute is designing web pages and curriculum, lots of them — perhaps young people can be taught to operate like aircraft engines, predictably, fail-safe, and perhaps all the parts of them can be organized, coordinated, and fine-tuned with attitude adjustments. Is that desirable? Look at the panorama of programs from this one group. I sincerely doubt the founder was hurting for a retirement income (more likely something to do with his retirement), but certainly it’s got to be a good one. PARTICULARLY IF NOT PAYING STATE TAXES AND ACCOUNTING PROPERLY FOR MONIES RECEIVED.

The Dibble Fund itself appears to be a curriculum which other grantees, such as TWOGether in Pittsburgh, PA, utilize:

Curriculum & Program Credibility: The TWOgether Pittsburgh High School Education Module for Healthy Relationships meets the requirement for the Pennsylvania Department of Education Academic Standards for Family and Consumer Sciences. The selected curriculum is The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education, which includes two components: Connections: Dating & Emotions and Connections: Relationships & Marriage.

(I was aware of a TWOGether in Texas, and gather they have now expanded):

TWOgether Pittsburgh is a coalition of like-minded agencies and individuals who believe in the strengthening of marriages. The coalition includes Family Guidance, Inc., as the lead agency, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Women’s Center and Shelter of Greater Pittsburgh, Smith Brothers Advertising, and a team of Evaluators led by Dr. Stanley Denton.

TWOgether Pittsburgh is the most intensive marriage support initiative ever in the greater Pittsburgh area. It is a five-year, $8.35 million federally funded project to strengthen marriages and families in the region. (Healthy Marriage Initiative Websitehttp://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage )

Apparently this is a baby corporation — only 2 years old.

Twogether GP, LLC 3916468 Limited Liability Company Active 11/10/2009

Twogether, L.P. 3916633 Limited Partnership Active 11/12/2009

Rec

Based out of a 3-bedroom, 3-bath home in Allentown, PA, whose (or which area’s) market values took a nosedive in Nov. 2011


FAMILY GUIDANCE, INC.	399002	Non-Profit (Non Stock)	Active	2/13/1964

FAMILY GUIDANCE, INC. is overtly evangelistic Christian, and hooked into the HHS/ACF terminology and grants system.

This about us page is unusually detailed and admits that in 2005, it was very much involved in ACF funding.

STATEMENT OF MISSION

Family Guidance, Inc. exists to bring hope and a future in Jesus Christ to vulnerable children and families of all cultures throughout western Pennsylvania.

. . . (Note federal funding, religious influence, and Fatherhood Emphasis throughout — although both men and women pay taxes that help support this, not to mention, and atheists and people of non-evangelistic-Christian religions)

In October 2000, the Manhood Mentoring program was launched to reach high-risk fatherless teenage boys, and DADDs (Dedicated and Devoted Dads), was born in 2001. Dr. Leckie retired on December 31, 2001, and became Founder and Retired Chairman.

In 2004, Family Guidance embarked on a dramatic initiative to expand and improve the quality of the ministry’s camping program. Check out the progress of our Camp Capital Campaign.

In 2005, Family Guidance embarked on a exciting initiative called the Learning and Mentoring Program (LAMP.) In conjunction with the Gang Free Schools Project run by the Pittsburgh Board of Education, Family Guidance is helping to reach and mentor kids who are at risk for Gang-related activity.

In the Fall of 2005, The Marriage Works was introduced. This is a program funded through the Administration for Children and Families which is a partnership between Family Guidance, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry and the National Fatherhood Initiative. The program provides marriage enrichment, couple mentoring, and fatherhood and parenting classes to couples who reside in the East End of Pittsburgh. This became a springboard for the TWOgether Pittsburgh Initiative, launched the next year.

This is a narration, step by step, of how federally-supported (faith-based) organizations collaborate and form new little babies. As it says in Genesis, “Be fruitful, and multiply, replenish the earth.” Only they are doing corporations & curricula, not babies.

In the Fall of 2006 TWOgether Pittsburgh was introduced. This is a coalition comprised of Family Guidance, the Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, Smith Brothers Advertising and project evaluator, Stanley Denton. This initiative, unprecedented in scope in the Pittsburgh area, seeks to partner with 30 local congregations to provide marriage enrichment, pre-marriage preparation, couple-to-couple mentoring, and divorce prevention. TWOgether Pittsburgh will also provide education on marriage and families in high schools and a media campaign regarding the benefits of marriage. The program is funded through a five-year grant from the Administration for Children and Families.

TWOGether Pittsburgh contains a name that sounds familiar to me, but notice the phrase: “Parents, Fathers, or Blended Families.” Talk about “the invisible mother….

Ken MacLeod
Program Director, Marriage Preperation for Couples and
Marriage Enrichment for Parents, Fathers, or Blended Families

California Secretary of State search on “DIBBLE” Corporations. Two pagers

HOW DID WE GET TO THIS POINT? OF SUPPORTING PR COMPANIES AND OTHER WEALTHY FIRMS AS A WAY TO REDUCE THE WELFARE CASELOAD, ABUSE, ETC.? HOW DID WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE MONEY GETS COLLECTED, THEN LOST, BUT WHAT IS DISTRIBUTED, GETS DISTRIBUTED FOR ORGANIZATIONS THAT, LIKE STREETWALKERS, LINE UP THEMSELVES AND SOLICIT BUSINESS WITH THE HHS/ACF, LOOKING FOR A “JOHN”?

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT: RISE & EXPANSION.

I think I have evidence we need an overhaul of the HHS — not just the OCSE part of it. Collectively, it is behaving like this, and the figure at the front of the pack does not represent a present or former President. But it does represent some REALLY bad executive orders, and eventually, laws. My evidence is not in this post, which is simply reminding us of some of the HOW of the expansion of the welfare state — through the child support system expansion to include non-welfare cases. ALL of these reforms appear to have come after the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) finally was (forced?) to register with its own EIN# and incorporate, well over a decade after it apparently began operating (illegally, tax-dodgingly) in the Los Angeles County Courthouse at 111 Hill Street. (Beware AFCC post summarizes some of this)

Everybody cheer and look to our leaders…..

On October 17, 2003, a U.S. Senator Robert Byrd used this fairy tale for an analogy. He is indignant and saying it’s time to stop — referring to a different topic. I am not nearly so eloquent, so here is his, as posted the next day at “commondreams.org”:

The Emperor Has No Clothes

by US Senator Robert Byrd
Senate Floor Remarks
October 17, 2003

In 1837, Danish author, Hans Christian Andersen, wrote a wonderful fairy tale which he titledTheEmperor’sNewClothes. It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. It is the story of the Ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his appearance and his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour of the day.

One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers. They convinced the Emperor that they could weave the most wonderful cloth, which had a magical property. The clothes were only visible to those who were completely pure in heart and spirit.

The Emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work immediately. The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature, began to feign work on empty looms.

Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came back exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of them could see a thing.

Finally a grand procession was planned for the Emperor to display his new finery. The Emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth, inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments.

Under a royal canopy the Emperor appeared to the admiring throng of his people – – all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the rogue weavers’ tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of heart.

But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the Emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes.

Always make sure to have some children without tact (or Ph.D.) or conflict of interest, or fear — in your life. Fear or public embarrassment makes for stupid behavior, and ignorance of what is a more realistic danger, to be handled. . .. . Is that a beautiful analogy or not? The rogues completely understood the social order — but they forgot the kids.

Senator Byrd was talking about the war in Iraq, and how it was rushed through the Senate; I will shortly compare it to another “rushed through” legislation that has cost us dearly also, over time. His next statement:

That tale seems to me very like the way this nation was led to war. . . .

We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen.

We were told that the throngs of Iraqi’s would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared.

We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence has ever been produced.

We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy “yellow cake” from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air.

We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind.

There have been some so-called, in fact self-called, “prominent thinkers” many years ago, but they have turned out to be “vapid thinkers” — or rogues. I believe, rogues. What I’m about to show is too outrageous for mistake, and certain characteristics show a similarity with the weavers in the fairy tale. Like a recent Harry Potter movie, a swish of the hand, a little vapor, and a protesting dwarf gladly let the imposter into the vault. Eventually, looking daft and with a silly smile on his face, he was vaporized by the resident dragon, having forgotten how to cow the beast with noise. …. In addition to weaving wonderful tales, there was a strong-arm rushing through of the legislation:

Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the Administration’s policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room — that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods � have had our patriotism questioned. Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice. We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag.

The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms.

Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world’s greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill has been rushed through this chamber in just one month. There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87 billion, without a single outside witness called to challenge the Administration’s line. ***

Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I quote: “I don’t have time. I’m completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.”

** that is EXACTLY how some of the marriage/fatherhood legislation, and in particular the access/visitation portion of welfare reform, got passed.

In 1996, as part of welfare reform, some legislation was rushed through (this is hearsay, but credible given how accurate the rest of her work has been, from Liz Richards of National Alliance for Family Court Justice) at the 9th hour by (none other than) Ron Haskins, creating the “access visitation” loophole to welfare reform. I do not think even those of his party knew about it. This legislation expanded the purpose and intent of the 1975 Child Support Law — TItle IV-D of welfare – based on a theory which has yet to be proven true. A quick summary, I don’t want to be too pedantic, just to review the expansion:

Excerpted from the 2000 House Ways and Means Green Book, “Child Support Enforcement Program“

In 1950, when only a small minority of children were in female-headed families, the Federal Government took its first steps into the child support arena. Congress amended the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) law by requiring State welfare agencies to notify law enforcement officials when benefits were being furnished to a child who had been abandoned by one of her {{interesting….}} parents. Presumably, local officials would then undertake to locate nonresident parents and make them pay child support. From 1950 to 1975, the Federal Government confined its child support efforts to these welfare children. With this exception, most Americans thought that child support establishment and collection was a domestic relations issue that should be dealt with at the State level by the courts.

Note: “Dealt with at the State level by the courts….”

By the early 1970s, however, Congress recognized that the composition of the AFDC caseload had changed drastically. In earlier yearsthe majority of children needed financial assistance because their fathers had died; by the 1970s, the majority needed aid because their parents were separated, divorced, or never married. The Child Support Enforcement and Paternity Establishment Program (CSE), enacted in 1975, was a response by Congress to reduce public expenditures on welfare by obtaining support from noncustodial parents on an ongoing basis, to help non-AFDC families get support so they could stay off public assistance, and to establish paternity for children born outside marriage so child support could be obtained for them.

Well, like most institutions, why limit a good thing to the original purpose?

The 1975 legislation (Public Law 93-647) added a new part D to title IV of the Social Security Act. This statute, as amended, authorizes Federal matching funds to be used for enforcing support obligations by locating nonresident parents, establishing paternity, establishing child support awards, and collecting child support payments. Since 1981, child support agencies have also been permitted to collect spousal support on behalf of custodial parents, and in 1984 they were required to petition for medical support as part of most child support orders.

So here begins the Federal INCENTIVE influence . . . Federal AFDC already existed…. Now read the next paragraph carefully, and if you remember any of my former posts about missing in action “Undistributable Child Support” (already collected), and/or the outsourcing to private companies which then sometimes end up defrauding the public, being sued for the fraud, and paying multi-millions in settlement, then going on to get more contracts where they can do it again — then listen to this (2000) description:

Basic responsibility {{translation: If parents ask, your screwups ain’t our fault}} for administering the program is left to States, but the Federal Government plays a major role in: dictating the major design features of State programs; funding, monitoring and evaluating State programs; providing technical assistance; and giving assistance to States in locating absent parents and obtaining support payments.

So, when the Government began to give matching funds, it also began to demand more of a role in designing the systems – – removing the center of control further from the states: “Federalism” — but for a good cause, to reduce welfare and make the world a better place by reducing poverty . . . except for ONE thing: the addition of clientele — I’ll bold the wording:

The program requires the provision of child support enforcement services for both welfare and nonwelfare familiesand requires States to publicize frequently, through public service announcements, the availability of child support enforcement services, together with information about the application fee and a telephone number or address to obtain additional information. Local family and domestic courts and administrative agencies handle the actual establishment and enforcement of child support obligations according to Federal, State, and local laws.

Actually, by 2000, the process had been removed from the courts and required (by the Federal Emperor Government) to be handled in a statewide distribution unit. In short, it wanted more CONTROL. I can see some sense to the idea that a parent who flees to another state to avoid supporting his offspring might require some federal coordination — BUT — that’s not what was written into the 1996 Welfare Reform law…

Alternately, the states could forfeit the federal funds to help collect. . . .The child support program generally does not provide services aimed at other issues between parents, such as property settlement, custody, and access to children.

As of the year 2000, that statement was false. The Child Support program as a net to haul in individuals perhaps behind on it, or to help them abate arrears, also encourages (fathers) to take advantage of some new improved programming:

In 1996, Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, abolished AFDC and related programs and replaced them with a block grant program of TANF. Under the new law, each State must operate a CSE Program meeting Federal requirements in order to be eligible for TANF funds.

The states did not have the option of the former AFDC programs, which were abolished. THey have populations needing help — and they could either line up (see graphic above) and toot the horn, soliciting more clients for the child support program — including NON-welfare parents — or they could personally deal with hungry people, including single parents — themselves, after they had gotten used to federal help.

In addition to abolishing AFDC, Public Law 104-193 made about 50 changes to the CSE Program, many of them major. These changes include requiring States to increase the percentage of fathers identified, establishing an integrated, automated network linking all States to information about the location and assets of parents, requiring States to implement more enforcement techniques, and revising the rules governing the distribution of past due (arrearage) child support payments to former recipients of public assistance.

Note: locating the assets of parents. If one is going to have a good court case, finding out where the assets are is real important. Anyhow, “many of them major” is an understatement.

In 1998, almost $3.6 billion was spent by State child support programs to collect $14.3 billion in child support. The combined Federal-State program had 55,300 employees. (HIRING 55,300 people– including attorneys and no doubt computer specialists — to reduce the public expense of welfare…..)

REMOVING CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM DESIGN FROM THE COURTS, AND GIVING IT TO AN APPOINTEE BY THE HEAD OF HHS, WHO IS A PRESIDENTIAL APPOINTEE. As it says, government By, Of, and For the People, as dictated by ONE person in authority. Note: Formerly it had been in the courts.

THE FEDERAL ROLE

The Federal statute requires the national child support program to be administered by a separate organizational unit under the control of a person designated by and reporting directly to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Presently, this office is known as the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE).The Family Support Act of 1988 required the appointment of an Assistant Secretary for Family Support within DHHS to administer a number of programs, including the Child Support Enforcement Program. {Wonder what other programs . . .. .}

Currently, this position is entitled the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families.

Tell your grandchildren how we got the OCSE. They should know.

As of 1996, this article shows up, Child SUpport Enforcement (CSE) officially got into custody matters –but those are matters at a state level, right? NO matter, the centralized system had a better idea — and $ 10 million was allotted to it.

Child Support Enforcement and Visitation — Should There Be a Federal Connection? (WIKILEAKS, “CRS REport for Congress” updated June 20, 2000) (read at least the gray inset at the top).

In recent years, Congress has moderated its position against using federal CSE funds to promote enforcement of visitation rights. In 1988, it authorized CSE funding for child access demonstration projects in six states, and in 1996 it (1) permitted the Federal Parent Locator Service, which is under the direction of the Administrator of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, to provide information on the location of custodial parents and children to noncustodial parents and (2) authorized an annual $10 million entitlement of CSE funds to states to establish and operate access and visitation programs. Some view these recent steps as too intrusive on state and domestic court authority, while others contend they are long overdue and do not go far enough.

OBVIOUSLY not — these are now heading up towards $1.7 billion, thanks to those profiting from the $10 million and programs set up and enabled by this.

The same author, and type of report, in 2007 (spanning the years 2002-2005) has a lot to say, but I’m reporting the “OTHER” factor, which crops up only on page 9 — interesting, becasue the intent of child support enforcement is allegedly to get it to the children. This talks about where it wasn’t happening:

Child Support Provisions COnsidered but not Enacted

Congressional Research Service Report RL33881

Child Support Provisions Considered But Not Enacted During the 2002-2005 Welfare Reauthorization Debate Carmen Solomon-Fears, Domestic Social Policy Division February 15, 2007

Abstract. This report provides a brief discussion of 12 child support provisions that were considered during 2002-2005 within the context of welfare reauthorization but not enacted in P.L. 109-171 or any other federal law. To the extent that some of these provisions had broad support, they may be considered again in the 110th Congress. The Administration has included several of the provisions in its FY2008 Budget.

(NOTE: This was only Wikileaked in 2/2009 – not being I supposed broadcast too widely). From page 9:

In recognition that custodial parents rely heavily on child support to meet their children’s basic needs, both House and Senate bills over the last several Congresses have included a provision that would have required the Secretary of HHS to submit to the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee a report on the procedures states use to locate custodial parents for whom child support has been collected but not yet distributed.

At least our Congressmen seemed to understand that sometimes money is collected, but not distributed, in any business, and possibly was being in this system also. The thought that that Secretary of HHS ought to show some accountability for the huge amount of control given him/her. Obviously the measures didn’t actually PASS though, to do this.

According to the proposal, the report must include an estimate of the total amount of undistributed child support and the average length of time it takes undistributed child support to be distributed. Also, to the extent the Secretary deems appropriate, the report must include recommendations as to whether additional procedures should be established at the state or federal level to expedite the payment of undistributed child support.

Although data are available from FY1999-FY2005 on undistributed child support collections, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has stated that during much of that period the amounts may not have been accurate because state CSE agencies had different interpretations of what constituted undistributed collections.22

Possibly because the system was too complex, possibly through CSE obfuscation or poor communications.

In 2002, a former Commissioner of the Office of Child Support Enforcement, Sherri Heller, said that the problem of undistributed collections has always existed. However, the Commissioner stated, “automation is helping us to quantify the problem that has always been there. I don’t think that automation or state disbursement units created the problem of undistributed collections. I think it’s shone a spotlight on it.”23

Undistributed child support collections increased from $545 million in FY1999 to a record $738 million in 2001, and dropped to $479 million in 2004. In FY2005, nearly $497 million in child support was collected but was not distributed to custodial parents; 60% of that amount was in the process of being distributed24 and 40% ($201 million) was considered unresolved,25 and thereby had a lower probability of being distributed to custodial parents.

Because I’ve picked up this image, let me quote the article too, Posted on September 26, 2011 by Bryan Thomas in “NOMIZO.com”

(posting it doesn’t mean I’ve analyzed the author’s position and agree with it — it means that, in addition to the illustration, a few choice phrases suited my purpose today…)

The emperor has no clothes, cash, credit, or credibility

Emperor is being used here as a synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is used to represent the whole. In reality, the entire U.S. government is in danger of losing the confidence of the American people and the world. In all of the debt ceiling news coverage during the past few months, one major element seems to be missing. It is the simple conclusion that our government has forgotten what leadership is and what leadership does.

Well, too many of us have adopted a “we need an emperor” mentality, forgetting who helped create the many problems that supposedly such a strong leader might rescue us from. We also have DEFINITELY forgotten that this country came out of revolutionary thinking in the history of the world — the concept that religion should be put under restraint, and monarchs, and that certain unalienable rights — the right to live, to have liberty, and to pursue happiness, was granted to the people not by monarchs, but by a “Creator” And that their purpose in existence is not to furnish someone else’s wealth, gotten by treachery, deceit, or force, OR abusive taxation without representation.

Fourthly, our government leaders are operating by a “Double Standard” and are not following the financial principles that all American citizens and businesses are expected to obey. . . . Somehow, our government has developed a spirit of entitlement that enables them to operate above and beyond these financial laws and principles. In the process, they have forgotten that the money they are spending is not theirs, but it belongs to the American people. . . .

Does it? Well, for one our leaders have put us in permanent and impossible to get out of hock to the Federal Reserve Board, and then pretend that if (the rest of us — not the leaders) tighten our belts, we might just be OK — which is called lying. We bought our currency at interest, then took it off the gold standard, then made sure that in the local schools, most people are taught values, not math, history, literacy, or how to become financially independent in the way that people who are running the place did. That old trend to replace law with monarchy is always there — it’s human nature when power is handed over.

Fathers, Mothers, Nonparents, Taxpayers : WHO are you working for? And if you pay taxes where are they going? What’s happening to the grants distributed, largess to the largest and smallest companies who dance to the tune set long ago from Washington, D.C.?

I’ll tell you who cannot tell you where your taxes went, as the dollar declines in value hurting the most people who have nothing BUT dollars (no land, no assets, no offshore bank accounts, and in fact, little grasp of the economic system, just of how to last til the next paycheck and try to make sure there is one.)

My ridiculous title reflects some states a single trail led me to, these past two days, when I learned about the October 3, 2011 announcement of $119 million more in Healthy Marriage and Fatherhood Grants went. Here’s the list:

News and Media Releases:

2011

Oct-Dec

10/05/11 – ACF awards $28 million to improve well-being for children in child welfare

Let us not forget that this version of improving well-being = putting more fathers back with the babies, and selling programs like “Boot Camp For New Dads,” or “PREP,” plus of course abstinence education material through “faith-based community organizations.”

10/04/11 – ACF announces $2 million in grant awards for Tribal TANF – Child Welfare Coordination

10/03/11 – ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

I am under 8,000 words, and not finished with this topic yet. “To Be Continued . . . . . ”

I am going to post the 70 recipients of the new grant series starting “90FM” (but it’s still CFDA 93.086, which is Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood category). I am angry about the dishonesty in a number of grantees previously researched, in particular the chameleon “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.” I sense money laundering — otherwise, they could pick an incorporation, FILE, and stick with it.

Also reprehensible is the amount and style of self-referrals; it’s basically the country-club atmosphere feeding off welfare funding, while the public at large figures someone is actually doing something about welfare, or that this money is going to help feed, clothe, house, or provide health care to needy children and families. It ain’t. It’s getting diverted & lost in the system, and NOT being tracked from those distributing it, or another arm of government, either!!! If you’re not angry enough to act after some of this, you’re probably either numb from some other cause, or on drugs in order to think about it.

The AFCC recently has on their site a pretentious declaration styled after the Declaration of Independence, rather than a straight religious creed (which it, in effect, is). They state “WHEREAS” (yada yada yada), emphasizing that there is a “CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER” from lack of resources to the courts.

This group is not unionized and doesn’t need to be — they are running the judicial system nationwide, and get activist judges in high places, and help pass legislation favorable to their particular groups. I have caught them repeatedly at this (SB 557, Family Justice Center Alliance, or an attempt to actually write “Kids’ Turn” into the California Law — (Gov. Gray Davis vetoed it). In Ohio, a similar action was able to write the spinoff group, “Kids First” into the Procedures and get its name on to the court from for ANY custody modification. Citizens of Pennsylvania are onto this and have been reporting it, but I believe it’s still there. How is this not a form of racketeering, with the exception that this group has enabled to get their activity (along with domestic violence and child abuse, kidnapping, stalking, etc.) DE-criminalized by lobbying for laws to legitimize professional niches they have created (Parent Coordination, and pushing Parent Education, Counseling, Supervised Visitation, etc.).

MANY of these groups including the one I just showed above, are not just “faith-based” but outright evangelistic. What they want is your money and access to your children, for mentoring purposes. I have dealt extensively with religious circles, and know how this works. It comes from the conviction that a theocracy is certainly better than limiting religion to the restraints that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, and others realized it HAD to be if the republic, and the country would stand.

BUT — and don’t forget this — NOT all the Marriage/Fatherhood grantees are in it for evangelization. Money, itself (and access to young children without their parents around for “transformative” group therapies) are equally potent motivators. And I have to acknowledge that this must be so; if they were as values-driven as they claim to be, we would see more corporate status-maintained, charitable-registrations-kept-up-to-date grantees. WE aren’t.

Does the HHS care? I don’t see that it does — they are still doling out the largess, as is the Ways & Means Committee and whoever rubberstamps this legislation — away from the public radar — year after year.

(GRrrrr! !!)

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

October 9, 2011 at 3:26 pm

Double-Dipping into Public Finances: OK because “Republicans are doing it too,” and other same-old/news…

TANF = “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.” Its funds are helping propagate and expand needless programs in the family law arena that hurt both fathers & mothers and definitely don’t produce what they promise, nor are they properly monitored.

Child Support nonprofits then run state, regional, and at least one national conferences on how to turn normal cases into Title IV-D (welfare) cases; then money goes into problems designed from top-down, not bottom-up.

Meanwhile (and parallel), associations comprised of Family Law professionals, themselves sometimes tax-dodging &/or not properly incorporated/registered nonprofits hold conferences on how to profit from Title IV expansion, and force parents (and kids) into classes and programs they neither want, nor need, sometimes billing them for it. Interest maintained in child support undistributed is lost, or retained improperly (which has been acknowledged at federal level, although you won’t find it on the evening news), leaving an incentive to NOT distribute funds.

Overall, it’s producing public blight and undermining due process.

A friend of mine put this Change.org information out, and NOW is the time to talk to legislators about this in common sense terms. She summarizes:

Why this is Important

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

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

(the “Contingency Fund” is Federal provision of money to states in years of economic downturn; it’s receipt is provisional depending on the states behavior & spending).

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

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

Access and Visitation historically has been $10 million (not $1.7 billion) per year, and has even at that level been a source of protracted custody litigation, and a gender-specific (fathers emphasis) attempt to change the judicial process into an “out-come” based process, which is establishing another form of government, essentially. Because doing this is illegal at the state level, the federal grants say they just “facilitate” programs to increase access and visitation of noncustodial parents. The organization “Kids’ Turn” which I’ve highlighted (SF and San Diego, CA nonprofits) benefits from these grants, which fund “parent education” among other things. It’s my understanding that most judges and family court lawyers are not really hurting for cash flow. There are states trying to make “access visitation” programs mandatory for every custody modification, as I recall, and it was one of Obama’s promises (through HHS) to a fathers and families group to do this. I’ve written plenty of this topic, search it on the blog….)

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

This is talking about the 66% Federal incentive to states for child support enforcement (which could also include such activities as fatherhood programs, marriage education, parenting classes, etc., as I understand it:) This particular link refers to ARRA (I’m just providing general glossary of the concepts)

BACKGROUND:

A Federal match of 66 percent is available for State administrative costs of carrying out child support enforcement program activities under title IV-D of the Social Security Act (Act). ARRA temporarily changes the child support authorization language to allow States to use Federal incentive payments provided to States in accordance with Section 458 of the Act as their State share of expenditures eligible for Federal match. This change is effective October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2010. The requirements of Section 458(f) of the Social Security Act and 45 CFR 305.35 regarding “reinvestment” of incentive funds remain in effect.

This change is in effect for any incentive funds expended during FY 2009 and FY 2010, including incentives earned and not expended in prior years (i.e., prior to October 1, 2008). Incentive payments expended during FY 2008 (October 1, 2007-September 30, 2008) are not eligible for additional Federal funds.

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

A family with its civil and legal rights intact is likely to be a healthy family. What, really, are those being used for?

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

Yes, former President George Bush lives: Abstinence Education.

You know what that is? Obviously it doesn’t apply to our Congressional Leaders (see previous US Presidents, Governors, and other legislators, or Rep. Weiner. Federal Grantswire says that entities “soliciting” to teach teenagers (and I kid you not, some parents caught in custody battles!) how not to have sex can get formula grants to do this:

Program Information

Authorization (040):

Title V, Section 510 of the Social Security Act.

Objectives (050):

To enable States to provide abstinence education, and at the option of the State, where appropriate, mentoring, counseling, and adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity, with a focus on those groups which are most likely to bear children out-of-wedlock. The Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) appropriated funding for this program through FY 2014.

Types of Assistance (060):

FORMULA GRANTS

Uses and Use Restrictions (070):

Pursuant to Section 510(b)(2) of Title V of the Social Security Act, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program that:
(A) has as its exclusive purpose, teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity;
(B) teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school age children;
(C) teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems;
(D) teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of human sexual activity

Turn off that recent movie, “What Number Are You?” in which a woman runs up sex with 20 men and believes that her odds of finding the right one are going to decrease if she goes over this…. Also turn off “Crazy Stupid Love” in which one ladies’ man teaches a monogamous jilted husband how to pick up women, which of course he does easily with a makeover and more domineering attitude. Also pay no need to the endless procession of married Congressional leaders caught in the act, or trying to get some action going (Rep. Weiner using Congressional gym as backdrop for lewd photos of himself; LA Times, “New Half-naked Photos: Rep. Weiner calls for press conference” June 6, 2011, just in time for Fathers’ Day…; some tweet’s of a man’s crotch were reported; he represents portions of Brooklyn & Quuens, and this was his 7th term…)

No, Abstinence education isn’t aimed at everyone. And it’s not because those pushing it as a group really do believe in abstinence for themselves: It’s aimed at poor people who might have children that become welfare recipients, and while I won’t mention color, I’ll relate that the Congressional Record in passing welfare reform certainly did. It’s not that we really disapprove of sex outside marriage, or promoting promiscuity as desirable, if not the ideal — but really, what this is about (besides the business angle of getting the grants — which probably aren’t tracked any better than the A/V grants or collected child support is) is allegedly the public debt load, and as a friend of mine put it, the ruling elite which — face it (or look at Congress), still are white males, not wanting to lose their place in society by greater fertility among people of color. By sharing the characteristics, poor white men, and with their participation in fatherhood ego-bolstering activity, can share in some of the trickle-down glory & control by programs that restore control over women and children who dismissed or left them, sometimes for very valid reasons…

(But I’m getting off from the budget angle here, sorry).

Seriously:

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

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

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

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

These frivolous programs spend without restraint and direct money to places HHS cannot identify (as noted by the OIG and GOA reports on the second page.) There is no oversight. DHHS’s position is that once the money goes to the states, they are not responsible for oversight. Fraud is rampant, yet the OIG does nothing to enforce the laws to protect families.

90% of the parents paying child support are fathers. Using child support enforcement programs as a vehicle, these extortion based programs force fathers to elect between criminal penalties and inciting “high conflict” family court litigation to create a “need” for their own publicly funded services. These irresponsible programs cash in on the “incentives” by placing children in unstable homes, and then starve the entire family onto some sort of public assistance. We can identify no legitimate purpose for these programs and request that Congress take the following actions:

(for more, click on the link):

. . . . Below here is me collecting various articles and thinking aloud about this whole mess. Quite honestly, I’m tired!

You might be too if you lived in California!!

“Almost” comical, if I don’t think about it too hard:

Some Gov. Jerry Brown appointees get pension and paycheck

Gov. Jerry Brown had vowed to rein in pension costs. But some of his appointees are receiving double payments totaling more than $200,000 a year.

Ann Ravel, the chairwoman of the California Fair Political Practices Commission,… (Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

September 29, 2011|By Shane Goldmacher and Patrick McGreevy, Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Sacramento — Every month, Ann Ravel gets a paycheck from her salary as chairwoman of California’s ethics watchdog agency and a second, bigger check from her public pension as a retiree.

The double payments, which total more than $305,000 a year, represent the kind of costly pension perk that Gov. Jerry Brown has vowed to rein in.

. . .

But since he assumed office nine months ago, Brown has appointed numerous officials like Ravel to state jobs in which they can simultaneously collect a full salary and a public pension.

One is earning $234,000 in combined wages and pension to serve on California’s state’s unemployment board, which the governor wants to eliminate. Six Brown appointees to the state’s parole board are layering wages atop pensions.

“That should be against the law,” said Marcia Fritz, a certified public accountant and president of the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, which seeks to end what she called “double dipping.”

“It violates the whole premise of having a retirement program,” she said.

California law forbids rank-and-file state employees to draw full-time government wages and state-administered retirement benefits at the same time. But an exemption exists for political appointees to more than a dozen powerful boards and commissions, where members can legally earn both.

Taxpayers are footing the bill. The state treasury must cover $3.51 billion this year for California’s beleaguered pension system, known as CalPERs, though payments to active state employees account for a fraction of that sum.

As a candidate, Brown pledged to stop pension abuses. In March, he rolled out a 12-point plan for reducing pension costs that included “limits on post-retirement public employment.”

But only six weeks earlier, the governor had appointed Ravel, 62, to chair the Fair Political Practices Commission

HEY, Isn’t that the group that ruled against county benefits going to California Judges, who by law were to be paid by the state? Richard Fine, etc.?

ANyhow, it must be OK because Republicans do it too.

“The Republicans were doing it too,” said Ravel, a Democrat.

The same day Brown appointed Ravel, he also tapped Robert Dresser as the $132,179-a-year chairman of the state’s Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. Dresser, 70, defended taking the salary while receiving $102,955 in annual pension payments after decades as a state attorney.

“What I am doing is consistent with state policy and law,” he said.

“It is unclear from state records how often such appointments occur….”

It is unclear from state records how often such appointments occur, but previous governors also made them.

. . .

A group of GOP legislators sought to ban the double earnings in budget negotiations with Brown earlier this year.

When those talks collapsed, Republicans introduced their own measure, but it never received a hearing in the Democratic-controlled Legislature.

Now, taxpayers are stuck “paying for double dipping at the expense of real programs such as education and public safety,” said Sen. Tom Harman (R-Huntington Beach), one of the Republicans who had been in discussions with the governor.

The issue has come before the Legislature before. In 2009, state senators grilled Anthony Kane, a Schwarzenegger appointee to the parole board, about his retirement as a deputy prison warden and his subsequent collection of a pension and board salary.

“That was not my goal, to retire and come back and be a commissioner. That wasn’t the plan,” Kane said, according to a hearing transcript.

The state Senate declined to confirm Kane then. Senate leader Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), one of Kane’s questioners, pledged new legislation to end the exemption for political appointees.

He never introduced such a bill.

NO — He introduced a bill to retroactively immunize California Judiciary for taking county-paid bribes in cases before them where the County was a party — that’s the SBX-211 that got rammed through right around the time, these guys were getting REAL fed up with Mr. Fine’s whistleblowing…..I blogged it.

WHILE WE’re HERE — about those Judicial Disclosures (Form 700s):

Fair Political Practices Commission Described (Chairman is salaried, the other 4 are paid $100/day). THe Political Reform Act was passed by a ballot measure in 1974, to:

The Political Reform Act is designed to assure that:

State and local government serve all citizens equally, without regard to status or wealth

Public officials perform their duties impartially, without bias because of personal financial interests or the interests of financial supporters

Public officials disclose income and assets that could be affected by official actions and disqualify themselves from participating in decisions when they have conflicts of interest

Election campaign receipts and expenditures are fully and truthfully disclosed so voters are informed and improper practices are inhibited

Elections are fair

No laws or practices favor incumbents

The state ballot pamphlet gives useful information about state measures so voters can be less dependent on paid advertising for information

The activity of those who lobby the state legislature is regulated and finances disclosed to prevent improper influence on public officials

(etc.).

Link to Info on “Statement of Economic INterests (form 700) forms.”

A statement of Economic Interest (FORM 700) is a state form on which state and local government officials publicly disclose their personal assets andincome that may be materially affected by their official acts. Agency employees, including some public officials who are designated in a conflict of interest code are required to disclose certain financial interests according to the disclosure categories assigned to that position in their agency’s conflict of interest code.

Certain public officials, including public officials who manage public investments, are required to disclose all financial interest. These officials make full economic disclosure in accordance with state law, rather than their agency’s conflict of interest code.

Download Form 700 from the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Judges file with the clerk of their court; retired judges are to file directly with the FPPC (in California). Now we know where to get those forms from, too. 2010 RonKayinLA Article summarizes the California Judicial Scandal in taking county benefits payments while ruling over cases involving the count(ies) “No man is permitted to try a case where he has an interest in the outcome.”

Here’s a Fair Political Practices Commission article (also in the LA Times) reporting on how a well-known campaign manager witha modest lifestyle was engaging in some very illegal practices for major politicians, including Senator Dianne Feinstein, whose daughter, the Hon. Katherine Feinstein, presides over the SF Unified Court system, which was recently closing all those courtrooms for lack of cash, and arguing with the AOC / Judicial Council about how to keep some of them open…

Dubious Durkee Doings? (my title):

ARticle 1 — Sept. 23, 2011:

Dianne Feinstein’s campaign sues bank and Kinde Durkee, alleging fraud [Updated]

September 23, 2011 | 12:59 pm

Sen. Dianne Feinstein is suing her former treasurer and her campaign’s bank for fraud and breach of contract, alleging that the bank was complicit in a massive fraud case that has rocked the political world.

The suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on Friday against First California Bank, Feinstein’s former treasurer Kinde Durkee and her company, Durkee & Associates.

Durkee was arrested Sept. 2 on a federal fraud charge after allegedly embezzling possibly millions of dollars from her clients, who include Feinstein and many other prominent California Democrats.

The complaint alleges that First California Bank was “at the heart of the illegal transfer out of plaintiffs’ accounts.” It quotes a letter from the bank to clients acknowledging that it appears Durkee had commingled funds and made transfers between accounts and that the balances credited to any given account may not accurately reflect the funds belonging to the associated campaigns.

“Despite knowledge of this pervasive pattern of misconduct, First California Bank continued to provide banking services to Durkee and Durkee & Associates, LLC, for many years, happy to collect the fees and interest generated by the scores of accounts Durkee maintained at the bank,” the complaint stated, going on to suggest that other banks and professionals may also have been complicit.

The complaint cites multiple instances of checks written without authorization and misreported fund balances, including a balance summary dated July 2 that reported Feinstein’s Senate account had a balance of $2.3 million when, in fact, its balance was about $266,000. Bill Carrick, Feinstein’s longtime campaign consultant, said the full extent of the funds taken from Feinstein’s account is still unknown because the bank has not handed over records.

ARTICLE TWO

The politicians and consultants who trusted the Long Beach resident with millions of dollars saw little to hint that she might become vilified as the ‘Bernie Madoff of campaign finance treasurers.

(after descriptions of what a modest and low-profile lifestyle she and her husband led….)

…As the treasurer considered the “platinum standard” in California, Durkee oversaw at least 360 bank accounts for almost 100 candidates, six dozen political action committees, about 60 Democratic clubs and committees and a handful of nonprofits. The ongoing federal investigation has triggered turmoil in state Democratic circles, with politicians, including members of the Los Angeles City Council and Congress, locked out of their accounts and worried that millions of dollars may be lost. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein had $5.2 million, according to Durkee’s last report, but the bank can find just $662,101.

“I never saw her driving a Ferrari. She lived a very non-pretentious life,” said state Sen. Louis Correa (D-Santa Ana), who met her when he first ran for office 17 years ago. “You see a persona and then you see this, and the picture doesn’t fit.”

The image that emerges from Durkee’s political world is of an intentionally low-profile player who rarely discussed her personal life. She had a sweet voice and a pedigree that inspired trust. She was the protege of a Los Angeles accountant {{Glazer}} who had a national reputation for his ethical standards and the daughter of a beloved Lutheran minister memorialized as “gracious, warm, caring and ever-present.”

Ya gotta watch out for the religious ones, I keep telling us!

Durkee registered Durkee & Associates as a limited liability corporation four years after Glazer’s death. She lists herself as the owner and her husband and her two sisters as members. The firm’s website said it had been in business since 1972. Her rates were cheap and politicians found her responsive.

The top one here? (which shows a Burbank address):

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
200327910101	09/22/2003	ACTIVE	DURKEE AND ASSOCIATES, LLC	LAURENCE ZAKSON
199928710057	10/12/1999	ACTIVE	DURKEE PROPERTIES, LLC	DONALD L. JONES

“Everybody knew Kinde Durkee was the person to go to,” said state Sen. Gloria Negrete McLeod (D-Chino). “She was just the nicest person you could ever talk to.”

Federal investigators say Durkee admitted she had misappropriated money for years and filed false campaign finance reports. A Times review of those campaign records for about 180 state and federal committees found that she reported they had $9.8 million in cash on June 30. But First California Bank put the value of all Durkee-controlled accounts it could identify on Sept. 21 at $2.5 million. Durkee also had at least one account at City National Bank.

Durkee’s arrest on suspicion of mail fraud stemmed from the allegation that she drained $677,181 from an assemblyman’s account and, making about 30 complicated transfers, used it to pay business and personal expenses.

…

Durkee has been accused of covering up for an employee who embezzled. Two years ago, state Sen.Christine Kehoe (D-San Diego) learned from state auditors that a Durkee employee had embezzled $57,166 from her campaign. She called for a criminal investigation in a six-page letter that detailed how Durkee failed to tell her of the theft and filed reports that did not disclose it. A state audit concluded that the same employee siphoned $8,244 from state Board of Equalization member Jerome Horton, but again Durkee’s firm did not report it. Durkee paid at least some of the money back.

The treasurer rarely drew much media attention. But in 2007, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that Durkee was the treasurer of Californians for Obama, which raised more than $10,000 but spent much of it on expenses, including payments to Durkee’s firm. Asked to explain her involvement, a Durkee representative said: “She does not talk to reporters.” In 2009, the news broke that Kehoe had fired Durkee.

Durkee did have a public record that her loyal clients simply brushed aside. Since 2002, the state Fair Political Practices Commission has assessed fines 11 times against committees that used Durkee as treasurer. Durkee typically cooperated with these investigations, sometimes accepting blame and paying the fine. Earlier this year, she did just that, agreeing to pay $13,000. But that case became her firm’s undoing.

A commission investigator noticed that Durkee appeared to shift money from client accounts to her firm’s without permission and shuttle some back when needed to cover checks. The FBI was alerted.

john.hoeffel@latimes.com
patrick.mcgreevy@latimes.com
jean.merl@latimes.com
Times staff writers Abby Sewell and Richard Simon contributed to this report. Copyright © 2011, Los Angeles Times

November 16, 2010 (Can’t wait to read the November, 2011 version of this letter):

from the Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Services, courtesy David A. Lebryk, Commissioner

“Dear Citizens of the United States” —

[Summarized annual report].

In accordance with the provisions of Section 114(a) of the Act of September 12, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 3513(a)), I am transmitting herewith the Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances of the United States Government for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2010.

This statement presents budget results and the cash-related assets and liabilities of the Federal Government with supporting details.

We have receipts of $2,161.7 billion, which is $57.4 billion more than 2009
We have outlays of $3,456.0 billion, which is $64.1 billion less than 2009 outlays
Obviously, the “outlay” number is bigger than the “intake” — by $1,294.3 billion, but that was less than last year.

(for those of you who had a public school education, but somehow made it to this page anyhow, I note that there was no decimal given on the $3,456 billion. By supplying one, I get $1,294.3 (not .2) billion, but after a while, billion, trillion, it tends to blur, right?… 0.1 Bill is only $100 million, that ain’t a whole lot overall.

Where this money comes from, “RECEIPTS BY SOURCE” shown in a nice pie chart. — 42% is INCOME tax, 40% is “Social insurance and retirement receipts” (i.e., payments into SS & retirement accounts, nationwide?) – and a whopping 9% “Corporate Income Tax,” 3% Excise (sales) taxes, and 6% “other” OUTLAYS BY FUNCTION (4% for Education and Training, 20% for Social Security, and TANF comes under “income security — 18%)

WHOSE MONEY IS IT? WHERE DOES IT COME FROM? 42% INCOME TAX (on individual wage-earning persons), 9% CORPORATE TAXES

WHO DECIDES HOW THIS MONEY IS SPENT, REALLY?

Foundations & Corporations that influence political campaigns, politicians, and “craft” legislation to favor their interests.

Have you heard of ‘ALEC” – American Legislative Exchange Council” ??

Preview

In their terms:

Our Mission

The mission of the American Legislative Exchange Council is…

…to advance the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty, through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public.

…to promote these principles by developing policies that ensure the powers of government are derived from, and assigned to, first the People, then the States, and finally, the Federal Government.

…to enlist state legislators from all parties and members of the private sector who share ALEC’s mission.

…to conduct a policy making program that unites members of the public and private sectors in a dynamic partnership to support research, policy development, and dissemination activities.

…to prepare the next generation of political leadership through educational programs that promote the principles of Jeffersonian democracy, which are necessary for a free society.

History . . . . if you can spell Neo-Con, very Big Business:

Former ALEC chairmen (a roster of legislators….)

More than 30 years ago, a small group of state legislators and conservative policy advocates met in Chicago to implement a vision: A nonpartisan membership association for conservative state lawmakers who shared a common belief in limited government, free markets, federalism, and individual liberty. Their vision and initiative resulted in the creation of a voluntary membership association for people who believed that government closest to the people was fundamentally more effective, more just, and a better guarantor of freedom than the distant, bloated federal government in Washington, D.C.
At that meeting, in September 1973, state legislators, including then Illinois State Rep. Henry Hyde, conservative activist Paul Weyrich, and Lou Barnett, a veteran of then Gov. Ronald Reagan’s 1968 presidential campaign, together with a handful of others, launched the American Legislative Exchange Council. Among those who were involved with ALEC in its formative years were: Robert Kasten and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin; John Engler of Michigan; Terry Branstad of Iowa, and John Kasich of Ohio, all of whom moved on to become governors or members of Congress. Congressional members who were active during this same period included Senators John Buckley of New York and Jesse Helms of North Carolina, and Congressmen Phil Crane of Illinois and Jack Kemp of New York.

Let’s talk JUST a little bit about Paul Weyrich. Here’s a nice photo from Wikipedia, and some data:

Paul M. Weyrich (October 7, 1942 – December 18, 2008^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]) was an American conservative political activist and commentator, most notable as a figurehead of the New Right. He co-founded the Heritage Foundation,^[5] a conservative think tank and the Free Congress Foundation, another conservative think tank. He switched from the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church to that of Melkite Greek Catholic Church and was ordained protodeacon. (Protodeacon is an honorific rank given to certain married deacons in Eastern Christian churches. )

In 1966,^[5] he became press secretary^{[citation needed]} to Republican U.S. Senator Gordon L. Allott of Colorado.^[5] While serving in this capacity, he met Jack Wilson, an aide of Joseph Coors, patriarch of the Coors brewing family. Frustrated with the state of public policy research, they founded Analysis and Research Inc., in 1971, but this organization failed to gain traction.

(Weyrich)….Founding the Heritage Foundation

Can you spell, Unification Church monies, National Parenting Day and Sun Myung Moon? ???

Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a New Right think tank. Its stated mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of “free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” It is widely considered one of the world’s most influential public policy research institutes.

History

The Foundation wields considerable influence in Washington, and enjoyed particular prominence during the Reagan administration. Its initial funding was provided by Joseph Coors, of the Coors beer empire, and Richard Mellon Scaife, heir of the Mellon industrial and banking fortune. The Foundation maintains strong ties with the London Institute of Economic Affairsand the Mont Pelerin Society.

With a long history of receiving large donations from overseas, Heritage continues to rake in a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars from Taiwan and South Korea each year.

In autumn of 1988, the South Korean National Assembly uncovered a document revealing that Korean intelligence gave $2.2 million to the Heritage Foundation on the sly during the early 1980s. Heritage officials “categorically deny” the accusation.

Heritage’s latest annual report does acknowledge a $400,000 grant from the Korean conglomerate Samsung. Another donor, the Korea Foundation – which conduits money from the South Korean government – has given Heritage almost $1 million in the past three years.

. . .

Meanwhile, there was also a connection between Heritage and the Rev Sun Myung Moon (founder of the Moonies). This first appeared in a 1975 congressional investigation on the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA) activities in the US.

The report noted, “In 1975, Ed Feulner … was introduced to KCIA station chief Kim Yung Hwan by Neil Salonen and Dan Feffernan of the Freedom Leadership foundation”.

Salonen was head of Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church in the United States. The Freedom Leadership Foundation (FLF), a political arm of Moon’s Unification network, was linked to the World Anti- Communist League.

In the early 1980s, the KCIA began making donations to Heritage Foundation. In turn, Heritage established an Asian Studies Center.

And

AND I want to point out (again) along with the ultra-conservative influence and agenda, the same funders and policy-influencers at this 501(c)3 are often — VERY often — found also behind fatherhood and fathers’ rights institutes at universities, projects to demonstrate how fatherhood will reduce welfare roles, “Fragile Families” studies, etc., etc.

Another set of factoids, these are from “Sourcewatch” on the Heritage Foundation: I posting a LARGE section for effect. Remember, above, the 9% corporate tax (and that this group is a NONProfit….)

Funding

The Heritage Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation. In its annual report it states that “we rely on the financial contributions of the gemeral public: individuals, foundations and corporations. We accept no government funds and perform no contract work.”

2006 Budget

In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defense contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giant Microsoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), Pfizer, PhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). ^[2]

Historical funding

Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:

Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation

Scaife Foundations: Sarah Mellon Scaife, Scaife Family, Carthage

John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.

Castle Rock Foundation

JM Foundation

Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation

Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.

Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation

Roe Foundation

Rodney Fund

Ruth and Lovett Peters Foundation

Orville D. and Ruth A. Merillat Foundation

Bill and Berniece Grewcock Foundation

Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation

William H. Donner Foundation

Walton Family Foundation (as in, Wal-Mart….)

Armstrong Foundation

John Templeton Foundation

William E. Simon Foundation

Right Web says of the Heritage Foundation:

“The foundation received $2. 2 million from the Federation of Korean Industries in the early 1980s. Initially it was believed this donation came from the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (which would make the Heritage Foundation a foreign agent of Korea), but the Federation later stated that the donation came at the encouragement of the KCIA.”

“The Heritage Foundation’s income has increased every year since 1981. The progression has been: 1981–$7. 1 million; 1982-$8. 6 million; 1983–$10. 6 million; 1984–$10. 7 million; 1985-$11. 6 million; 1986–$14. 0 million; 1987–$14. 3 million; and 1988–$14. 6 million. In 1988, foundations provided 38 percent of Heritage’s income, individuals provided 34 percent, and corporations gave 17 percent; the remainder came from investments and sales of materials.”[5]

That information came from “ALEC EXPOSED” …..

ALEC Corporations

ALEC is not a lobby; it is not a front group. It is much more powerful than that. Through ALEC, behind closed doors, corporations hand state legislators the changes to the law they desire that directly benefit their bottom line. Along with legislators, corporations have membership in ALEC. Corporations sit on all nine ALEC task forces and vote with legislators to approve “model” bills. They have their own corporate governing board which meets jointly with the legislative board. (ALEC says that corporations do not vote on the board.) They fund almost all of ALEC’s operations. Participating legislators, overwhelmingly conservative Republicans, then bring those proposals home and introduce them in statehouses across the land as their own brilliant ideas and important public policy innovations—without disclosing that corporations crafted and voted on the bills. ALEC boasts that it has over 1,000 of these bills introduced by legislative members every year, with one in every five of them enacted into law. ALEC describes itself as a “unique,” “unparalleled” and “unmatched” organization. It might be right. It is as if a state legislature had been reconstituted, yet corporations had pushed the people out the door. Learn more at ALECexposed.org.

So here comes Paul Weyrich:

In 1973, persuading Joseph Coors to put the money in, Weyrich and Edwin Feulner founded the Heritage Foundation as a think tank^[5] to counter liberal views on taxation and regulation, which they considered to be anti-business. While the organization was at first only minimally influential, it has grown into one of the world’s largest public policy research institutes and has been hugely influential in advancing conservative policies. The following year, again with support from Coors, Weyrich founded the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress (CSFC),^[5] an organization that trained and mobilized conservative activists, recruited conservative candidates, and raised funds for conservative causes.

Under Weyrich, the CSFC proved highly innovative. It was among the first grassroots organizations to raise funds extensively through direct mailcampaigns. It also was one of the first organizations to tap into evangelical Christian churches as places to recruit and cultivate activists and support for social conservative causes. In 1977, Weyrich co-founded Christian Voice with Robert Grant. Two years later, with Jerry Falwell, he founded the Moral Majority. Weyrich coined the phrase “Moral Majority”.^[8]

Over the next two decades, Weyrich founded, co-founded, or held prominent roles in a number of other notable conservative organizations. Among them, he was founder of the American Legislative Exchange Council, an organization of state legislators; a co-founder of the Council for National Policy, a strategy-formulating organization for social conservatives; co-publisher of the magazineConservative Digest; and national chairman of Coalitions for America, an association of conservative activist organizations. The CSFC, reorganized into the Free Congress Foundation, also remained active.

Under the auspices of the FCF, he founded the Washington, D.C.–based satellite television station National Empowerment Television (NET), later relaunched as the for-profit channel, “America’s Voice”, in 1997. That same year, Weyrich was forced out of the network he had founded when the network’s head persuaded its board to force out Weyrich in a hostile takeover. Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates says this was “apparently for his divisive behavior in attacking GOP pragmatists”.^[9]

From 1989 to 1996, he was also president of the Krieble Institute, a unit of the FCF that trained activists to support democracy movements and establish small businesses in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union.^{[citation needed]}

Frustrated with public indifference to the Lewinsky scandal, Weyrich wrote a letter in February 1999 stating that he believed conservatives had lost the culture war, urging a separatist strategy where conservatives ought to live apart from corrupted mainstream society and form their own parallel institutions:

More from the ALEC website “History” page….

From Clearinghouses to Think Tanks

Following the end of the Reagan Administration, the Task Forces, under the leadership of Delaware State Senator Jim Neal, gradually began to shift from clearinghouses of ideas submitted by ALEC members into freestanding think tanks and model bill movers. They began to actively solicit more input from private sector members, seizing upon ALEC’s long-time philosophy that the private sector should be an ally rather than an adversary in developing sound public policy.

To date, ALEC’s Task Forces have considered, written and approved hundreds of model bills on a wide range of issues, model legislation that will frame the debate today and far into the future. Each year, close to 1,000 bills, based at least in part on ALEC Model Legislation, are introduced in the states. Of these, an average of 20 percent become law.

http://notseeamerica.com/ALEC-Alumni.html

Here’s an article on Wisconsin’s historic (progressive) opposition to “for-profit bail bonding” (criminalized in other countries) and ALEC — which is funded in part by for-profit prison operator, “CCA” (Corrections Corporation of America) — is trying to get that very practice into Wisconsin:

Wisconsin’s history and public policy reflects the red/blue divide. It is the state that gave birth to the Republican Party, which supported slavery abolition, and the John Birch Society, which opposed the civil rights movement. In the first half of the 20th Century, the state elected both progressive hero Robert “Fighting Bob” LaFollette and right-wing extremist Joe McCarthy. It is the state that elected both former Senator Russ Feingold (D) and Representative Paul Ryan (R).

Wisconsin also produced Paul Weyrich, who in 1973 co-founded both the Heritage Foundation and ALEC (and in subsequent years, Free Congress and Moral Majority). Weyrich’s ALEC, it seems, has been a factory for many of the state’s most recent right-wing policy initiatives.

Wisconsin’s Progressive Traditions Resist For-Profit Prisons and Bail-Bonds

Elements of Wisconsin’s criminal justice system reflect Wisconsin’s progressive traditions. Since 1979, Wisconsin has been ahead of most U.S. states in banning commercial bail-bonding (46 states still use it), joining the rest of the world in recognizing the practice as unacceptable (it is criminalized in countries like England and Canada). Posting another person’s bail for profit has a record of corrupting the sentencing process, and puts the decision of whether an accused person goes free in the hands of a profit-oriented business.

…Both the for-profit prison industry and the for-profit bail-bond industries have done so through ALEC, the national organization that facilitates corporate-sponsored “model bills” for legislators to introduce in their states.

ALEC and For-Profit Criminal Justice

The American Bail Coalition (ABC), the for-profit bail bond industry’s national organization and lobbying wing, calls ALEC the industry’s “life preserver”. ABC pays for ALEC membership, and a representative sits on the ALEC corporate board (the “Private Enterprise Board”) as well as ALEC’sExecutive Committee. The trade group boasts that “during its two decade involvement with ALEC, ABC has written 12 model bills fortifying the commercial bail industry.”

The nation’s largest private prison operator CCA is also an ALEC member and funder, and pays for a seat on the “Public Safety Task Force” that approves ALEC model legislation dealing with crime and penalties. Since the late 1980s and 1990s, ALEC has created model bills that lengthen sentences, which have dramatically increased incarceration rates, and bills that privatize prisons, putting more of those inmates under the control of for-profit corporations.

Wisconsin politicians have long ties to ALEC. Former Governor Tommy Thompson was involved in ALEC’s early years. Milwaukee’s groundbreaking “school choice” program was based on ALEC model legislation. ALEC alum Scott Walker’s first act upon becoming governor was to introduce an omnibus “tort reform” bill mirroring many ALEC bills. But, the state’s progressive traditions have thus far trumped efforts by ALEC’s Wisconsin legislators to open the state to commercial bail-bonding and private prison industries. But they are still trying.

http://www.prwatch.org/news/2011/07/10902/alec-profit-criminal-justice-and-wisconsin

Many of the problems with ALEC are mirrored (probably on a smaller scale) in the practices of the AFCC conferences, surrounding the family law field. Conferences are held out of state, policies set, new fields discussed and invented, and without scrutiny by the average taxpayer or litigant. The practice undermines the concept of justice, and full information available to the person going in front of a judge for a decision in their case. ANyhow, here’s the description of ALEC:

ALEC Exposed

Almost always drafted outside of the state with little or no input from state residents (but significant input from corporate interests), ALEC bills have made substantial changes to laws in all 50 states and in some ways determined how state taxpayer dollars are allocated. The full list of legislative membership in ALEC is not public, and legislators introduce ALEC bills in the legislator’s own name. ALEC conferences allow elected officials to hobnob with some of the wealthiest corporations in the world, often behind closed doors and without public scrutiny. This secrecy has prevented state residents from holding their elected leaders accountable for passing laws that serve out-of-state corporate interests at the expense of the individuals that live, work, and vote in the state.

This practice is good for the corporations, and bad for the public in general. THey do not have a seat at the policymaking table, and are misled into thinking their legislators are simply legislators. ALL of this is enabled in part by the class distinctions made possible by the income tax (competition of nonprofit with for-profit corporations), changes ot the tax laws in the 1980s, and the increasing restriction of options the non-wealthy have to live their lives privately, and as they please so long as its not hurting or cheating somewhere else.

I recommend reading this article — although I am new to awareness about ALEC, the effects are tangible. A Wisconsin Professor Conlon began to out them, and the GOP

A visit to the “About” menu on ALEC’s website will give you a sense of the organization’s history, its current members, and its funders. But to get to the true depths of collusive corruption, you need to visit the site’s “model legislation” page, the gateway to all the bills ALEC has drafted. Unsurprisingly, you can’t view that legislation unless you’re a member.Alas, becoming a member of ALEC isn’t so easy. You have to be an elected Republican legislator (PDF) who pays roughly $100 per biennium to join after being thoroughly vetted, or you can become a “private sector” member (PDF) by paying a few thousand dollars minimum depending on which legislative domains are of the most interest to you.You can’t find out which Wisconsin Republican politicians are members of ALEC unless you’re a member because ALEC won’t provide it. You could ask Wisconsin representatives, but you won’t get an honest answer. Loopholes in Wisconsin’s strict open meetings laws (PDF) were created by Democrats and Republicans alike to allow them to push their own party’s agendas. Because of these loopholes, Wisconsin Republicans are able to hold secret meetings with ALEC to plan their lopsided legislative strategies whenever they want with no public knowledge or intervention.

ALEC’s partners play an important role in Wisconsin and other states in pushing their dreamt up legislation aimed at enriching them while destroying everyone else. The State Policy Network (SPN) is important to ALEC because they coordinate the activities of a wide variety of conservative “think tanks” at the state level throughout the U.S. Many publications from these “think tanks” can be accessed and downloaded from the SPN website.

For Wisconsinites, two important SPN members to note include the MacIver Institute for Public Policy, and the Wisconsin Policy R

Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/305144#ixzz1ZfX2Veb6

OUR U.S. Receipts, by Source, (2010) PIE CHART AGAIN: 42% from taxpayers, 40% from contributions to Social Retirement, insurance, and 9% from corporations, who are writing the laws we live by, funding universities, and influencing politicians.

Income security— Income security benefits are paid to the aged, the disabled, the unemployed and low-income families. Included within this classification are programs such as general retirement and disability, public assistance [TANF, right?] and unemployment compensation. Outlays for these benefits were $624 billion in fiscal 2010—an increase of 16.9 percent or $90.1 billion over the fiscal 2009 level.

United States Central Summary General Accounts Ledger

I would like to post this link just as an overview (for the non-accountants among us) of just how many different places assets can be held, and in how many different forms. Scroll (down) to where it shows “Miscellaneous accounts” 1012, 1016, 1053, 1054 — which are

Miscellaneous Asset Accounts:

1012 U.S. Treasury Miscellaneous Assets $20,685,324.88 twenty-point-six million

1016 Federal Reserve Banks, Deferred Items $1,375,803.06 (I dont know meaning of the term “Deferred Items.”)

1053 U.S. Treasury – Owned Gold $11,041,058,821.09 eleven-point-oh-four-one million

1054 Gold Certificate Fund, Board Of Governors Of The Federal Reserve System2 $-11,036,836,601.1 negative eleven-point-oh-three-six million

1423 U.S. Currency With The International Monetary Fund $143,609,533.65

(and etc.. such as …..) 1670 Receivable For Forged, Or Incorrect Payment Of All U.S. Government Checks 1840 Deposits In Transit To The Treasury Account 1869 Deposit In Suspense, Electronic Funds Transfer 1870 E-Commerce Collections 1875 Undistributed Disbursing Transactions

(Agencies Reporting On Statement Of Transactions, FMS-224 – Revised)

Total Miscellaneous Asset Accounts $-483,509,607.91 (ie, in the hole just under $500 million)

Total Asset Accounts (including other than “Misc.”) – $1,135,885,827,712.54

Footnotes 1, 2: “1/ Major sources of information used to determine Treasury’s operating cash include Federal Reserve Banks, the Treasury Regional Finance Centers, The Internal Revenue Service Centers, the Bureau of Public Debt and various electronic systems. Deposits are reflected as received andWithdrawals are reflected as processed.

2/ The difference between Gold and Gold Certificates represents 100,000 fine troy ounces of unmonetized gold held by the U.S. Mint as assurance that Gold Certificates are fully backed by Reserve Gold.

Thank you, another Republican President for ending the gold standard and making the U.S. dollar a total “fiat currency”; (Wikipedia) ”

Fiat money is money that has value only because of government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat, meaning “let it be done”, as such money is established by government decree. Where fiat money is used as currency, the term fiat currency is used.

Fiat money originated in 11th century China,^[1] and its use became widespread during the Yuan and Ming dynasties.^[2] The Nixon Shock of 1971 ended the direct convertibility of the United States dollarto gold. Since then all reserve currencies have been fiat currencies, including the dollar and the euro.^[3]

(from the same general site, I am looking at the HHS ANnual report 2010 balance sheet):

Administration For Children And Families General Fund Accounts

. .Family Support Payments To States, Administration For Children And Families, Health And Human Services

Fund Resources: Undisbursed Funds (Dept. 75, Account 1501) Beginning of Year Balance: $887,346,371.55

Appropriations, and other Obligational Authority: $4,665,683,723.63 (THIS IS THE “$ 4 BILLION” figure we keep squawking about)

Outlays (what actually got paid out) .. . . . . . . . . . $4,422,869,054.30 (somewhere around $243 million still waiting, earning interest?)

End of year balance, undisbursed funds under this category — $1,130,161,040.88

PART TWO, or is it FIVE?

If the average citizen did what some court-affiliated corporations and political appointees regularly do, they’d be in jail.

Here’s a link to some that are, courtesy the IRS:

The IRS Reports some Recent Trophies

“Examples of General Fraud Investigations — Fiscal Year 2011“

For those of us whose minds don’t naturally run towards, how can I get away with it, the fine distinctions between: tax evasion, money laundering, embezzlement, a Ponzi scheme, and obstruction of IRS investigation of income tax evasions, mail fraud, straightfoward stealing through forging signatures (being in position such as bookkeeper or accountant, and able to do so), or simply flat-out “stealing state funds” this roster of recent IRS deadbeats is sort of a primer.

Many of these closely resemble some behaviors that appear (got to clear myself on this one!) to characterize the initial start-up behavior of the main court organization Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, in Los Angeles.

I’m putting this “primer” up because the approach “but they just don’t understand my case” has not been working for most parents. Put yourself in the judge’s shoes, a little more, by understanding court operations. It is the parents’ turn to start understanding how the courts actually work, meaning, who’s running them, and how they are financed. And get over the idea that one can be guaranteed whoever is wearing the black robes and manning a gavel, is per se of noble character, though I’m sure many ARE. Respect the position, but make sure those in it — and the administrative agencies surrounding them — are held accountable!

“Class is in session — pay attention!”

In this example, a Minnesota State Auditor abused her position to enrich herself, some relatives, and a check-cashing company that helped with the conspiracy. This auditor got audited, and has to pay it back:

Former Minnesota Department of Revenue Employee Sentenced For Stealing $1.9 Million in State Funds

On September 7, 2011, in Minneapolis, Minn., Pamela Marie Dellis, of Lindstrom, was sentenced to 60 months in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and money laundering. Dellis was charged along with two co-defendants on January 7, 2011, and pleaded guilty on March 7, 2011. On August 9, 2011, Dellis’s niece, Laurie R. Sondrall, of Minneapolis, was sentenced to 27 months on one count of conspiracy. Dellis’s sister, Nancy T. Sondrall, of Brooklyn Center, awaits sentencing. All three defendants will be required to pay back more than $1.9 million in restitution.

In their plea agreements, the defendants admitted that from January 12, 2005, through September 17, 2010, they conspired to defraud the State of Minnesota by embezzling funds by creating false tax refund checks. According to court documents, as an auditor with the Minnesota Department of Revenue, Dellis’s job, in part, was to process tax overpayments. In numerous instances, however, she falsified records to create the impression that a taxpayer was owed a refund due to an overpayment when, in fact, that was not the case. Then, she drafted a refund check or a “transfer of funds,” made payable to her sister or niece, for the false refund amount. Dellis admitted using variations of her co-conspirators’ names on the checks and transfers to make it more difficult to detect that the refunds were not legitimate.*** To cash the checks, Dellis and her co-conspirators sometimes sought the services of a check-cashing business and then divided the check proceeds. On other occasions, the checks were deposited into an account, in an effort to conceal the source of the funds, and then withdrawn and shared by the co-conspirators. In all, Dellis was responsible for more than 200 fraudulent tax refund payments, totaling approximately $1.9 million.

*** parallel from the family court system in Los Angeles, as investigated by Kelly O’Meara. I admire this woman’s work, whose credits include:

For her work, The National Foundation for Women Legislators named O’Meara Investigative Reporter of the Year in 2001 and the following year, the Citizens Commission on Human Rights gave her their International Human Rights Award.

Other major investigative reports that O’Meara filed while at Insight include a 12-part series entitled How the Money Works, that probed Federal agency financial reporting. Her examinations of annual updates of department and agency audits focusing on missing money showed that trillions go unaccounted for at agencies such as the Department of Defense and the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

In another series, U.S. Money Laundering, O’Meara looked at Enron, the Bank of New York and an estimated $500 billion of annual money laundering in the U.S. financial system. She also explored the relationship between Washington and capital markets.

In her series, Local Government Corruption, O’Meara investigated corruption in county governments and the judiciary, specifically the County of Los Angeles court system. She was the first reporter to break the story of the Los Angeles judges’ slush fund account and trigger an independent audit of that account, which has since been transferred to the county. **She received the 1999 Friend of the Child Award from the California Protective Parents Association for her articles on the Los Angeles family courts.

(**where it is STILL unaccounted for….) Another investigative story might be WHY so many so-called children’s advocates chose to ignore this information in building their reform movements. Don’t get me started…. The same groups also by and large ignored Mr. Fine while he was sitting improperly jailed for reporting it!

Here’s another one:

California Man Sentenced on Tax Charges

On July 29, 2011, in Sacramento, Calif., Owen Charles, of Pleasant Hill, was sentenced to 51 months in prison. Charles was convicted on January 14, 2011, of tax evasion, fraudulent use of a social security number and false statements to a federal agency. According to testimony presented at trial, Charles claimed to believe that the law only required him to pay income tax on his federal retirement. An IRS audit determined that between 2001 and 2003, he had failed to pay more than $1.2 million in taxes, interest, and penalties on income from, among other things, real estate sales and rental properties.

A person who can sell real estate and function as a landlord is smart enough to understand that income is taxable…. If $1.2 million was the taxes, interest, and penalties, what was the actual income?

Upon learning that he was being audited, Charles took measures to frustrate IRS collection efforts. He did three “cash out” refinances of his million-dollar Benicia home; he moved money into nominee accounts; and he disguised his control of those accounts by using a false social security number, shell corporate names, and another person’s name. In 2001, Charles wired more than $900,000 to a bank account in the Turks and Caicos Islands. Charles also claimed to have been living under a vow of poverty while driving luxury vehicles and controlling more than $1 million in assets.

Unbelievable. The fraudulent use of a social security number has been cited in child support cases as well; see “How To Destroy a Nuclear Physicist” and Maximus recycling an old child support case (after his kids were emancipated) and going after him, again:

In 1998, two years after Tony’s youngest child was emancipated, Maximus/Child Support Enforcement created a case in which Mary Ann was alleged to have had a male child two (2) months before that she claimed was Tony’s. At this point Tony had had no contact with Mary Ann for 20 years.

Notice of this action by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement appeared to be a “recycling” of the original 1991 case without providing justification for the action. Tony requested a DNA paternity test but that was immediately denied by Maximus/Child Support Enforcement in Tennessee on the basis that the “mother” would not allow a paternity test to be done.

Eventually, Tony was able to avoid this obligation by proving to the Missouri Court that he could not have been anywhere near Mary Ann at the time of the conception and the case was dismissed. In addition, in 2004 he learned that the alleged child never existed. The last child that Mary Ann had was in 1991, after which she had her Fallopian tubes ligated. This information surfaced in conversations between Mary Ann, Tony, and Amanda in 2004.

As is common in cases such as Tony’s, child support enforcement never gives up. According to Maximus/Child Support Enforcement, a “Final Administrative Order” was filed in the St. Louis County Circuit Court in July 1999 claiming an “arrearage” of $11,000. A Tennessee case number was assigned in violation of federal law (one state cannot amend another state’s original court order for child support and make a new case out of it) and this practice is illegal per decree of the U. S.. Supreme Court.

Here are a few involving attorneys — such as, a former district attorney:

Former District Attorney Sentenced for Tax Evasion

On June 1, 2011, in Lafayette, La., Joseph Floyd Johnson was sentenced to 18 months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release and ordered to pay $179,661 in restitution. Johnson was employed as an assistant district attorney with the Lafayette Parish District Attorney’s Office from 1995 until at least July 2010 and he was also engaged in the private practice of law beginning around 1989 until at least July 2010. Based on the taxable income Johnson earned, he owed federal income tax.

According to his plea agreement, in November 2010, Johnson admitted that he willfully attempted to evade federal income tax by failing to prepare and submit a tax return for the tax year 2003 on or before April 15, 2004, as required by law. He also admitted to committing other acts such as concealing the nature, extent and location of his assets to the IRS, making false statements to IRS agents, placing funds and property in the names of nominees to attempt to hide the true ownership of the assets, making checks payable to others to conceal assets from the IRS, paying creditors instead of the government and depositing checks into a client trust account to conceal the nature of the funds and give the appearance that the funds were neither income nor assets. According to the bill of information, as of July 2010, Johnson failed to file federal income tax returns for 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008 despite the fact that he was required to do so by law.

The guys’ a public employee, an attorney and just figured he didn’t have to file income tax? ???

Minnesota Attorney Sentenced For Tax Evasion

On May 26, 2011, in Minneapolis, Minn., Samuel Alfred McCloud was sentenced to 18 months in prison and two years of supervised release on one count of tax evasion. McCloud was also ordered to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service and the Minneapolis Department of Revenue in the assessment and collection of taxes, interest, and penalties owed by him.

McCloud pleaded guilty on December 9, 2010. In his plea agreement, he admitted concealing $595,000 from both the IRS and the Minnesota Department of Revenue. Between 2004 and 2006, McCloud worked at two law firms, but he instructed clients to write checks to him directly rather than making them payable to the law firms. McCloud admitted depositing or instructing others to deposit those checks in bank accounts held in the name of another person as well as in the name of several sham corporations. In addition to failing to report the income, McCloud failed to pay state or federal taxes on it.

Cute. Seems like no one wants to pay taxes. Some form nonprofits, and others work and just attempt to flat-out hide their income. Others think “large” in schemes to defraud the innocent . . . . .

Do Not try to evade Income Taxes or any other kind of taxes illegally For PEte’s sake don’t copy the AFCC folk and start forming all kinds of corporations to give an appearance of actually being more than (basically) one association with an agenda — getting as many mental health practitioners as possible a great retirement plan, and tax-deductible air fare and hotel accommodations in fun places to think up the next set of schemes to be forced on the parents and their children.

But there is nothing wrong with taking a hard look at who is paying the taxes, and asking WHY the conversation all over the TVs, and the Child Support Enforcement Agencies, and the Think Tanks is about “creating” and/or finding jobs, jobs, jobs — [which would produce income tax, income tax, income tax for the 42% of government receipts for its operations, which we can safely say are mostly run by corporations, corporations, corporations influencing legislators….] when the fact is, the wealthiest people don’t even work that many jobs — instead, they create family and other foundations (including in other countries), tax shelters, they start, develop, go public with and sometimes buy & sell corporations; they invest in stocks, trade commodities or currencies markets, and in the resulting spare time because their income is NOT tied to a 9 to 5 (or 7 to 7pm) jobs, can meet with each other to figure out what legislation will best suit their business interests — not yours, THEIRS. And/or they have adequate technology to market their businesses and conduct videoconferences, etc.

They possess and work in an entirely different field of ideas, attitudes and expectations, one of which is to manage people and run business, or at times, countries…..

The U.S. Public Education system exists, in part, to make sure that not too many youngsters learn these skills, and to groom them for their appointed future as employEES — not business owners or day traders, or investors. Heck, literacy and math, history and economics are hardly taught. There iS, however, a values war being run through the schools, and the metal detectors, lack of privacy and civil rights, and herd-mentality-treatment and such communicate to the average student what his or her future just might be if that student does not color within the lines. Scant mention is made of how much is paid to politicians campaigns to keep this system going.

I’ll bet THIS article is a good one (podcast, though). Note: “CCHR” appears to be a Scientology outfit, but neither Blumentield nor O’Meara are, that I’m aware of.

The Drugging of Our Children and Decline of American Education

CCHR Int

Jun 19, 2:42 AM

Watchdog Radio with guest Samuel Blumenfeld

2010-11-15_watchdog_radio_episode_46_with_samuel_blumenfeld.m4a

72.1 MB

Where, Oh Where, has Los Angeles County’s Money gone?

This is good reading (and a decade old) in O’Meara’s / Insight’s follow-up on whether, say, is anyone at Los Angeles going to, er, pay some of those 30 years of back taxes? And trying to get a few more answers about WHO knows how much cash is being collected. Remember, this is “OLD” news, yet who even bothers to talk about it any more , and what (if anything) was resolved?

Found on a Yahoo Groups discussion: posted July 21, 2001:

and at
http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200107304.shtml (but “insightmag.com” appears to be a defunct domain….)

A Financial Fiasco Is in the Making

By Kelly Patricia O’Meara (July 30, 2001)

komeara@…

An alleged slush fund for the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association may be the tip of an iceberg of misappropriation of government money in Los Angeles County.

“Put your concerns in writing and mail them to me.” Click; the line goes dead. The voice on the phone was that of Los Angeles Superior Court Presiding Judge James Basque* as Insight pressed him to explain whether the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association (LASCJA), of which he is the chairman, has made any attempt to pay 30 years of back taxes to county, state and federal authorities.

(CHART inserts, mine, from the CA OAG site): Notice, it has no EIN#!

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EX550137 Charity Exempt – Active LOS ANGELES CA Charity Registration Charity

1

Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected.
You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information

Full Name: LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION FEIN:

Type: Mutual Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2062529

Registration Number: EX550137

Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration

Issue Date: 12/31/1990 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/1991

Registration Status: Exempt – Active Date This Status:

Date of Last Renewal:

Address Information

Address Line 1: 111 N HILL ST RM 204 Phone:

Address Line 2:

Address Line 3:

Address Line 4: LOS ANGELES CA 90012

Annual Renewal InformationRelated Documents

No Related Documents

Prerequisite Information

No Prerequisite Information

IRS Return Data

And the Secretary of Site record for the corporation shows 1997. OK . . . . .

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2062529	12/10/1997	ACTIVE	LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION	FREDERICK R BENNETT

(and a different room….)

Entity Name:	LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION
Entity Number:	C2062529
Date Filed:	12/10/1997
Status:	ACTIVE
Jurisdiction:	CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:	111 N. HILL ST RM 546
Entity City, State, Zip:	LOS ANGELES CA 90012
Agent for Service of Process:	FREDERICK R BENNETT
Agent Address:	111 N HILL ST RM 546
Agent City, State, Zip:	LOS ANGELES CA 90012

Which is most definitely the courthouse itself:

Stanley Mosk Courthouse

Central District
Stanley Mosk Courthouse on Hill St.
111 North Hill St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012

It has been more than two years since Insight broke the story of the Los Angeles Superior Court judges earning money off the books by providing minimum continuing legal education (MCLE) classes to attorneys in the courtrooms. The fees collected were deposited into a private bank account that has come to be known as the $100,000 “coffee and flowers” fund (see “Is Justice for Sale in L.A.?,” May 3, 1999).
The problem with this arrangement is that, apparently to cover for the fact that the judges weren’t paying taxes on this income, whether earned or extorted, the LASCJA illegally used the employer-identification number (EIN) of the County of Los Angeles. In time the county politely asked the learned jurists to stop using that number. But no criminal charges were filed against the judges and no one raised the issue of making good on back taxes. So when Basque abruptly ended that telephone conversation, Insight decided to take another look at the status of that private bank account and to revisit the Los Angeles County Superior Court Finance Office.

Insight put its “concerns” about those back taxes in writing, as requested by the presiding judge, and hand-delivered the formal request to his chambers. Basque neither responded to the questions nor agreed to a meeting, instead deferring to the county’s counsel, Frederick Bennett.**

(notice, also the registered agent of this corporation / alleged nonprofit with no EIN#) (yet!)

Although Bennett says that he “has some background information concerning the [judges] association,” not once in his three-page response did he discuss whether the judges have made any attempt to pay what could amount to 30 years of back taxes and penalties. Instead, he obfuscates, rambling on that he is “informed and believes the association has used its own taxpayer’s identification number since approximately 1997, when the county auditor [J. Tyler McCauley] indicated that would be the better practice.”

Which number is …. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ?

For the LASCJA to use its own identification number, as required by law, is a “better practice?” What about it being illegal for the judges to have enjoyed their private income for so many years under the county’s EIN? Not a word. But Bennett continues to defend the judges by explaining that “the association does not pay taxes,” as he is “informed and believes that it is an organization exempt from taxes.”

Bennett provided a copy of the LASCJA’s year 2000 federal IRS 990 Form indicating the organization’s tax-exempt status but advised that the information he was providing should be verified with the LASCJA’s attorney, John J. Collins of the Pasadena law firm of Collins, Muir and Traver.

Collins had less information than Bennett. It appears that Collins can only speak about the LASCJA back to the winter of 1997, when he first began representing the association. Asked if he is aware of any efforts by the judges to pay taxes on these large sums of money earned during the 30-year period, Collins tells Insight: “I can’t speak about that because I don’t know they made any money.”

(NOTE: appears to be when it registered as a separate corporation, possibly because of prompting from some of these investigators….)

That assuredly is a lawyerly response, given that Collins admitted to having read Insight’s earlier article about the LASCJA which contained details about checks being deposited into the judges’ private Bank of America account. It at that time contained a little more than $100,000.
Neither Collins nor the judges have addressed the issue that, based on the bank records, large sums of money may be owed in back taxes. Furthermore, based on correspondence from Collins, it is clear that the association’s counsel is much more informed about the status of the account than he lets on.
Since Insight began looking into the “slush fund” of the Superior Court judges and their finance office, requests for information have been submitted by private citizens, including Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, Calif. He became involved in the Superior Court’s financial matters because of problems his daughter was having in a child-custody case. In February 1998, Bryer made a statutory request through Collins to inspect the LASCJA’s records. Collins refused, saying LASCJA “is not a public entity nor an exempt organization as defined under this statute.” He stated that “the Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association is a private organization and its documents, including financial records and tax information, are confidential and not subject to disclosure.”

While Collins says the LASCJA is a “private” organization, according to California Secretary of State Bill Jones, the association filed for tax-exempt status in December 1997 — well within the time frame of Bryer’s request for inspection of the records. When Insight reminded Collins about this correspondence, the lawyer once more stonewalled, saying: “I’m not giving you any opinion on that. That’s not part of my function. I’m not telling you what their legal status is. Everything that’s out there is a matter of public record. You’ve got the filings, the informational returns and that’s enough for you to come to your conclusions.”

Meanwhile, the LASCJA continues to use the county courthouse for its private business. According to documents filed with the California secretary of state, the LASCJA lists the courthouse at 111 North Hill Street as its business address. Then there is a letter from Collins dated November 2000 stating that “the tax returns for 1998 and 1999 have been deposited in Room 119 [the Superior Court Finance Office] of the Central District Court. … you should ask for Mr. Alf Schonbach, who is the court administrator–finance and accounting.” Despite assurances from county auditor McCauley that the judges no longer were conducting their private business from the court premises, Collins continues to direct inquiries about the LASCJA to the court’s finance office.

Schonbach long has been a key player in the oversight of the LASCJA account. And it is Schonbach who was in command of the Superior Court Finance Office when one of his underlings, Gregory Pentoney, and an attorney friend, Robert Fenton, cooked up a scheme to collect $5 million in unclaimed sums deposited — and long forgotten — in the county’s Condemnation and Interpleader [C&I] trust fund. Pentoney and Fenton pleaded guilty to one felony count of taking a bribe and receiving a bribe. Pentoney was sentenced to two years in state prison; Fenton received 16 months.

USlegal definition” “Condemnation”

Condemnation suit is a judicial proceeding for the purpose of taking property by eminent domain for public use upon the payment of just compensation for such taking. It is also known as condemnation proceeding. Such a proceeding adjudicates all rights, including ownership and just compensation, as well as the right to take the property.

and “Interpleader”

Interpleader is the procedure when two parties are involved in a lawsuit over the right to collect a debt from a third party, who admits the money is owed but does not know which person to pay. The debtor deposits the funds with the court (“interpleads”), asks the court to dismiss him/her/it from the lawsuit and lets the claimants settle their dispute in court.

Interesting . . . .

so, here is a Fenton Appeal on the case:

[PDF]

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA …

caselaw.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/B152057.PDF

File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
Jul 1, 2002 – against Fenton and Pentoney. Fenton and Pentoney subsequently pled “no contest” to violating Penal Code sections 67.5 (bribing a ministerial …

And, moreover, here is Marv Byers (?) Johnnypumphandle’s commentary on the fact that the City of Glendale omitted a “Statement of Economic Interest” (for Fenton, while he was working as its City Attorney?); gets kind of like a mystery here, I understand!:

BEGIN of PUMPHANDLE QUOTE:

”

enton / Pentoney – arrested August 28, 1998

Latest News

January 25, 2001 – The case has been moved to Dept Q, Judge Wolf, and will now be heard on February 9 at 8:30 am. We understand that Judge Wolf has previously ruled favorably for Fenton.

January 11, 2001 – In a related case, LC043853, which is to be heard in the Van Nuys Court, Dept. C24 on January 25, 2001, Robert Fenton had sued the City of Glendale to recover his ‘costs’ in scamming money from the County of LA which was routed to the City of Glendale. The suit was tabled until the criminal case was resolved. As we all know, Fenton went to jail for his part in the bribery scheme. When he was working for the City of Glendale as their City Attorney (so he could act for Glendale in getting LA County funds), Glendale was required by law to have a Statement of Economic Interest on file for all public officials that represent the City. Guess what? Glendale took part in the scheme by ‘overlooking’ this requirement. The City of Glendale has no Statement of Economic Interest. If it were not for the crime committed while Fenton was in office, Glendale should only be sanctioned. But now, it looks like Glendale was in on the scheme an tried to hide Fenton’s connections. This is criminal activity that needs investigation by the State Attorney General’s office.

Older News

August 11, 2000. Robert Fenton was sentenced today to 16 months in the State Prison System. However, Judge Waldrip specified that Fenton was to be processed through the LA County Restitution Center (???) in order to earn back the fines that were placed on him. Sentencing for Gregory Pentoney was continued to September 8th at 1:30 pm in Judge Waldrip’s court. (8th floor, 700 Civic Center Drive, Santa Ana,CA).

4 Cases of Restitution came before Judge Waldrip. He denied restitution for Marvin Bryer, Rose Jensen, and the City of Glendale (Glendale has a suit pending against Fenton that would also address the restitution.). The Judge met with counsel for almost an hour prior to the sentencing to work out the details – Restitution was granted to the LA Superior Court in the amount of $24,000. Although, an estimate of $61,000 (for the interest on the stolen money) was claimed by the Superior Court, the figure of $24,000 was approved by the Judge – pending acceptance by the LA Superior Court which was not present at this hearing. $16,000 to be paid by Fenton – $8000 to be paid by Pentoney. Because of this seemingly high amount, the judge reduced Fenton’s fine from $10,000 to $5,000.

We believe that there are hundreds of cases that Fenton and Pentoney used to defraud LA County out of much more money than has been uncovered in this case. (Although there were many counts of theft in this case, all other counts but one were dismissed by Judge Waldrip.) The Crusaders will be looking into these many other cases to see if the money can be returned to the taxpayers.

So far, we have not determined that any of the money was returned to the County since the ‘return money’ checks we found were made out to the LA Superior Court which is funded by the State of California.

October 15, 1999 – Over a year later, Fenton and Pentoney’s bail has been reduced to $100,000 and now Pentoney (public defender Walter Katz) has filed a 170.1 to recuse all the judges in LA County. The recusal was granted by Judge Hess and the case is being moved to Orange County. All judges in LA County are unable to hear this case. (Does this mean they are all connected to the scheme? And why did it take a year to learn that all the judges must be disqualified in this case?) . . .

“Since substantial sums are involved due to compounding interest, municipalities and even private citizens working for the municipalities sometimes subsequently try to locate the cases in which they believe money is owed. But success is limited, the prosecutor said, because the county refuses to provide outsiders with a blanket list of all such cases.

Pentoney, however, is charged with providing that information to Fenton, who, between December 1995 and November 1996, submitted 99 requests for disbursements of more than $5 million from the trust accounts on behalf of various municipalities.”

END OF PUMPHANDLE QUOTE...

To understand this some (why not?), read the various Los Angeles articles describing the crime, and scheme — how Pentoney had to sell Fenton insider information about accounts that still had compounded interest due the municipalities in emininent domain cases. In other words, a city (municipality) wants to grab some land. They have to deposit money into an account (“condemnation”) until the case is finished, that money gets compounding interest. I’m sure it adds up. Sometimes the cities forget to collect the interest too — and then “bounty hunters” can go try and get it back. Problem: The county didn’t want to ” ‘fess up” where such funds were so cities could go get them back, even though those funds belonged to the cities….

Amazing what one finds looking for simple information. I found this on a Yahoo groups “Family court reform” message — Marv Byer was looking for Gregory Pentoney’s ex-wife, who it appears he also cheated in a property matter, failed to disclose to a judge during the divorce, and guess what — it looks like Pentoney got custody of the children (because his ex-wife is paying him child support!) As Pentoney went to jail, that meant the former Mrs. Pentoney ended up paying child support to the jailed Pentoney’s girlfriend. Marv Byer wants to help her, and I can imagine is at the time rather peeved at having disc overed the scam affecting his own daughter’s custody case, no doubt….

Marv Bryer wants to know where to find Irene Pentoney, formerly married to
Gregory Pentoney of Los Angeles.

“You should have money coming to you. Your ex husband cheated you out of
community property. He is going to State prison for bribery.

While you were married, your husband failed to disclose that he had money in
escrow in a housing complex he was buying. It is located at 7336 Unit #66 in
Downey. He didn’t list it as community property, although he signed for it
while he was married to you.

He did not disclose the escrow account to the judge, and after the divorce he
lied on public record. He held up the final property closure until after the
divorce was final. Then he went to a notary and did a quit claim on the
property. He swore that he had made an error in his grant deed and he swore
he was NOT married when he signed. This is a lie. His statement is perjury.
In addition Pentoney quit claimed the property as a “gift” to himself as an
unmarried man and to his father and mother.

Then on March 8, 1995 Gregory Pentoney allowed Melissa Wall to start a
criminal enterprise from that property using a dba Morris and Associates
Bookkeeping Service. On Nov 1, 1996. the police raided the house and found
checks from Robert Fenton to Morris. The checks were confiscated by the DA
and are the subject matter of a bribery scheme and conviction. The case is
People vs Pentoney BA173392 in Orange County.

In case you’re a little mixed up: Pentoney was the finance employee, Fenton was the outside attorney. For Pentoney a.k.a. connected to “Morris and Associates” out of Pentoney-owned property( that he possibly cheated his ex-wife out of during a prior divorce) are paying FENTON, then was Morris and Associates a money laundering situation?

As I (again) read the “Beware AFCC” post of “stopcourtorderedchildabuse.” (FYI — itself a nonprofit claiming to be a nonprofit that I haven’t yet located… and run by another AFCC member (at least at one point) family lawyer also running ANOTHER training operation, Child Abuse Solutions, claiming to be a nonprofit whose registration may be a PO box in Berkeley, but which nonprofit registration I haven’t found yet — and is in this same business, training court professionals…. …… ) .. The timeframe is very closely connecting this information with the origins of the AFCC, and connecting the origins of the AFCC (Los Angeles COunty Superior Court Judges Slush Fund) with the habit of tax evasion and other not so legal activity . . . . . .. and then we learn that the bank account in question was Bank of America (formerly Security Pacific) which the man Charles Rossotti (See this post), also formerly IRS and with stock in the accounting used (then) in L.A. — it gets very interesting indeed.

HERE: And I paste the relevant paragraphs into the link title (hover cursor to read)

While he was pleading not guilty, he and his parents sold the property in
violation of criminal forfeiture laws. There is criminal victim restitution
laws that appear to allow you, the former Mrs. Pentoney, to have a claim on
the sale of this property.

Even knowing that this is true, the DA nevertheless allowed Gregory Pentoney
to increase your child support that you will be paying to him while he is in
State prison, The money will go to his girl friend who is now his wife, and
who is caring for your child while Gregory Pentony is in prison. This is
wrong. Please contact us. “

AND HERE, (MOREOVER) IS MARV BRYER PUBLICIZING HOW THE PEOPLE V. PENTONEY TRIAL WAS SHIFTED, QUASHED, AND DISAPPEARED, ETC. VERY INTERESTING READING. HE BELIEVED THAT THE PENTONEY CASE WAS KEY TO THE L.A. AREA “RICO,” AND PENTONEY’S. HIS BAIL WENT SOMEHOW FROM $1.5 MILLION TO $100K. BYER BELIEVES THEY LET HIM OFF SO HE WOULDN’T RAT THEM OUT.

As a result of a series of Insight articles about theft from the C&I trust account, Schonbach was directed to produce a listing of the unclaimed funds and make it publicly available. This currently reflects a balance of a little more than $54 million but does not include the “zero-balance” cases, where principle [“principal”] has been paid but interest still is accruing. Insight’s articles also prompted the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors in September 2000 to request a special audit of the C&I account — at a cost to taxpayers of $18,000 — which eventually was made public last February. (2001)

The accounting firm of Vasquez Farukhi & Co. conducted the special audit of the C&I trust account and stated it did not find “any material misstatements in the Condemnation and Interpleader Fund.” In other words, the C&I account is in good shape. But is it?

For the purposes of defining the fund Vasquez Farukhi explained that the “SK4 [Condemnation and Interpleader Fund] was established by the County of Los Angeles for the Superior Court of the county to account for four types of deposits consisting of eminent domain [condemnation] deposits, interpleader [deposits for credit relief], nonbondsmen bail deposits and deposits made in compliance with judicial order.” Having been advised by Los Angeles County Treasurer Joe Spillane that the county takes in between $400 million and $600 million a year, financial analysts tell Insight it seems odd that the C&I fund audit would reflect a mere $54 million.

Even more odd is that no one in the county government could provide Insight with a bottom-line figure of how much cash was collected through the C&I fund for fiscal 2000 alone. Spillane explained that he had little or no knowledge of the court’s finances. He receives a bottom-line figure from the auditor but has no clue about the deposit specifics. “We’re not looking,” explains Spillane, “for each of the individual deposits for each of the funds. That would be impossible.

Impossible? WHY?

Any individual being audited would have to give a reconciliation, some backup documentation! THis is part of good business practice. I have seen other county records (in FL) where the transfers by clerks of the court are shown. THey deal with huge amounts, but it’s their responsibility.

My function is to account for funds that are in the treasury, balance those to our bank accounts and our investments and have cash available for disbursement.” Spillane insists, “The auditor has the detail. I don’t know what is in the condemnation fund because it’s a fund that we don’t maintain.” Claiming to have exhausted his knowledge of how the money moves in Los Angeles, Spillane recommended that Insight speak with McCauley, the county auditor — a task easier said than done.

Several weeks passed before McCauley allowed a brief telephone interview and, while the agreed-upon focus of the conversation was to provide a bottom-line figure on the amount of cash being collected at the Superior Court, the auditor said he could provide few specifics. For those, he said, Insight would have to go to Schonbach in the Superior Court Finance Office. And, of course, Schonbach refused to discuss the court’s cash collections

SCHONBACH appears on the other timeline as well (to which I’m sure Bryer’s and some NAFCJ reporting went in as well):

Begin quote from:

History of the AFCC – Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

COURT CANCER METASTASIZES Metamorphosis of the Conference of Conciliation Courts into the Association of Family Conciliation Courts A Guide to Destroying Children BY MARV BRYER

1995:

• Also in May, Deputy Executive Officer to Auditor Judy Call (who is on the signature card for the LASCA and person who signed the checks to cash and to judges) sent a letter to Tyler McCauley, LA County Auditor- Controller (who is doing the audit). The letter stated that Judy wanted all the money transferred from the (Subject: transmission of administrative responsibility for the LA Superior Court Judges Account ) to transfer LASCA account to the judges. • LASCJA is still not registered at IRS or FTB or city. The only identity belonging to the account is the Auditor-Controller because the tax number is for LA County. None of the money has been reported to IRS. (just like if I used Marv’s SSN and opened an account…and then got a job using Marv’s SSN. He would be reported to IRS if he didn’t report taxes after cutting the W- 2. If I don’t pay taxes, they will come after the ID and Marv) a Federal crime

• Also in May, a letter saying Confidential from Tyler McCauley to John Clark, admitting that there was an attempt to charge Marv $2000 which Marv called extortion. Admitted that the checks that Pentenoy gave Marv should have gone into the Court revenue, not into the private fund for judges. • Marv’s daughter subpeoned the Auditor’s investigation file. The Auditor admits they are doing an investigation but refused to give the file to her.

1996

August 6, Marv sued Pentenoy and Patricia Higgins for fraud and lying about court money.

DA raided the court with a search warrant and shut down work in Finance Dept.

• November 1, DA raided Pentenoy’s office, car, home (which is the same as Morris and Associates) and Judy Call’s office, locked up the computers and home [of?] Robert Fenton in Encino (who was bribing Pentenoy) and hid evidence.

Reminder. The L.A. County D.A.’s office around this time must’ve been Gil Garcetti’s, which was also sitting on undistributed child support, a.k.a., topic of Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit (Richard Fine). … So while they are racing around to prosecute crime, remember who it is ….

(Marv was busily suing and now could not get to the evidence.) • November 7, DA made another raid on Finance Dept and took a package marked “Marvin Bryer”, Pentenoy had notes on Marv.(Unconstitutional because no new search warrant…still don’t know what first search warrant said)

• Dec 10, the Daily Journal reported the raid. (Since 1900, LA has been stealing money from the public. Pentenoy had lists of all the money that was stolen in Eminent Domain (when take people’s money) and Interpleader Accounts. He and Al Schonbach take it to the dumpster, but Pentenoy went to the dumpster later and retrieved it.)

1997

Marv Bryer subpoenaed all bank statements.

The LA Superior Court Judges Association bank statements state they have been a customer since 1962.

This LASCJA has to be the beginnings of the AFCC. It is doing the same thing and has the same behavioral problems, like ETHICS!

1998

LA Superior Court Judges Association corporation incorporated Jan 1, 1998 {{see above, 12/10/1997, close enough}}….

Registered with IRS and Secty of State/FTB with a new EIN # after Marv subpoenaed the bank statements.

2000

Hypothesis: CCC became the AFCC which became the JMEF which became the LASCJA.

NOW I am back to the Kelly O’Meara article, above: The same journalist then goes on to describe how a faulty computer system may have let about $59 billion go missing from HUD around 2000:

Perhaps taxpayers in Los Angeles will have time to find out what happened to all those millions.
Meanwhile, Insight pressed on trying to obtain a bottom-line figure for cash taken in by the court. McCauley’s office finally provided a 37-page computer printout that allegedly reflects the court’s cash deposits for fiscal 2000. Although the printout provides a monthly ending balance for credits and debits, the report provides no details about the source and amounts of the debits and credits represent, providing only the unauditable lump-sum transfers.
As one accountant put it, “This is archaic. It’s ridiculous to think that a county as large as Los Angeles can’t program an accounting system that reconciles the books on a daily basis and [that] also can easily produce specific information about various accounts and provide yearly fund balances. It’s just absurd.”

Faulty Number Crunching

How could the books for the County of Los Angeles be in such a mess if the authorities there weren’t trying to hide something, critics ask. At least some of the problem appears to lay with the computing system. The Countywide Accounting and Purchasing System (CAPS) is a product of American Management Systems (AMS) and has been used in Los Angeles since 1987. IRS Commissioner Charles Rossotti is the founder and former chairman of AMS and remains a major stockholder in the company that provides computing services not only to Los Angeles County but to key federal agencies, including the IRS.

Charles Rossotti is Georgetown, Harvard, very smart, characterized with 5 others who founded AMS as “whiz kids.”

As Insight recently reported, due to severe problems with its AMS accounting system, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was unable to balance its books under the recently departed secretary Andrew Cuomo (see “Cuomo Leaves HUD in Shambles,” March 5) and, in 1999, was unable to account for $59 billion (see “Why Is $59 Billion Missing from HUD?” Nov. 6, 2000). ** Not surprisingly, under pressure from Insight, HUD since has decided to scrap the HUDCAPS computer program. But others have had similar problems with AMS finance systems, including the states of Mississippi and Kansas. Then again, as any auditor will be glad to confirm, there is nothing like institutionalized confusion to cover for and invite corruption.

(SMILE….)

** I started to read this $59 Billion article, and feel it should be on the post. Look below…..

Results of search for “AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS” returned 9 entity records. (likely no relation, but interesting enough….)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

C0602191 07/03/1970 SUSPENDED AMERICAN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.

C0941617 10/01/1979 DISSOLVED AMERICAN DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

C1170493 03/07/1983 SUSPENDED AMERICAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. LLOYD C OWNBEY JR

C1167394 01/21/1983 SUSPENDED AMERICAN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. ANTHONY J THOMAS JR

C1132885 01/21/1983 DISSOLVED AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS DAVID L ANDERSON

C1327378 12/28/1984 DISSOLVED AMERICAN RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. JOHN L TUCKER

C1096092 11/09/1981 SURRENDER AMERICAN STORES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS COMPANY C T CORPORATION SYSTEM

C0842796 04/05/1978 SUSPENDED PAN AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC. ** RESIGNED ON 03/18/1991

C1093417 10/21/1981 FORFEITED SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AMERICAN CORPORATION ** RESIGNED ON 10/31/1994

Modify Search New Search

Charles Rossotti’s background sounds almost frighteningly competent. HEre it is, in “The Carlyle Group.” I have no idea what happened to AMS functioning in California, but imagine an archaic management system run by an IRS commissioner? WHen the issue is getting the figures out so someone pays taxes on them?

http://www.carlyle.com/team/item5829.html (Global ALTERNATIVE Asset Management….)

Charles O. Rossotti

Senior Advisor

Washington , DC

Segment : Corporate Private Equity

Fund : U.S. Buyout , U.S. Growth Capital

Industry : Technology & Business Services

Charles O. Rossotti is a Senior Advisor focusing primarily on investments in the fields of information technology and business services. He is based in Washington, DC.

Prior to joining Carlyle, Mr. Rossotti served from 1997 to 2002 as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service, the federal agency that serves 175 million taxpayers and employs 100,000 people. As a result of his leadership, the public’s rating of the IRS increased greatly and relationships of trust with Congress, tax professionals and business groups were restored, and the agency’s effectiveness turned around.

In 1970, Mr. Rossotti co-founded American Management Systems, Inc. and until 1997 served at various times as President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman. AMS grew through his tenure, becoming a major international business systems consulting and systems integration firm with revenues of more than $1 billion. AMS clients include Fortune 500 companies and federal, state and local government agencies in North America and Europe. In 1979, AMS was one of the first technology services firms to go public.

Mr. Rossotti earned his A.B. in economics, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University and his M.B.A., with high distinction, from Harvard Business School. In 1970, he received the Distinguished Civilian Service Medal from the Department of Defense. In 2002, he received the Alexander Hamilton Medal from the Department of Treasury. In 2003, he received an Alumni Achievement Award from Harvard Business School.

Mr. Rossotti is on the Board of Directors of Carlyle portfolio companies Apollo Global, Booz Allen Hamilton, Compusearch Software and Wall Street Institute. In addition, he currently serves on the Board of Directors of Bank of America Corporation and AES Corporation, a publicly-owned global electric power company.

Bank of America is distributing California Child Support (the Statewide Distribution Unit).

In addition to his business activities, Mr. Rossotti serves on the Boards of Capital Partners for Education and the Comptroller General’s Advisory Committee of the Government Accountability Office (GAO). In 2005, he served as a member of President Bush’s advisory panel on reform of the income tax.

Not exactly too comforting that AMS (and this IRS commissioner) had a DOD background: Wikipedia:

But only after a year, Rossotti went to work for the Office of the Secretary of Defense. From 1965 to 1969, Rossotti worked for Robert McNamara, becoming Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Systems Analysis at age 29.

In 1970, Rossotti and several DOD colleagues co-founded American Management Systems, a technology and management consulting firm. Rossotti served as Chief Executive Officer from the late 1980s to the mid-1990s.

IRS Years

In 1997, Rossotti was named Commissioner of Internal Revenue by then President Bill Clinton where he served for 5 years.

He was considered a reformer, upgrading the agency’s technology, as well as turning the IRS into a more customer service oriented agency. Rossotti received a waiver from the Clinton administration that allowed him to retain his AMS stock in a blind trust.

Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud (“F.R.A.M.E.D.” and other topics)

with 18 comments

(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):

Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.

Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.

This blog discusses

“Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From: “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010 / Bruce Eden

And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.

Family Court Judges order such onerous child support amounts in some cases, along with alimony, daycare, medical expenses, and other expenses, that the father can’t survive. He ends up becoming despondent, leaves his job and drops out of sight. He loses all contact with his child(ren) as a result. This is the government’s ultimate goal.** Breaking up of father-headed families (and then mother-headed ones when there are no more fathers, wherein, the government will come for the children without any resistance)

2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)

**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit. The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.

By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare, against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty. Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”

At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed. That’s the game, folks. Promise protection, then fail to deliver. Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit. What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit. To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems. These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.
Read the rest of this entry »

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

July 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm

Posted in Business Enterprise, Child Support, Context of Custody Switch, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Parent Education promotion

Tagged with Access-Visitation, Child Support, custody, Due process, HHS-TAGGS grants database, incest, Intimate partner violence, Kids' Turn, men's rights, obfuscation, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet].

with 9 comments

This post title with a “shortlink” attached is:

Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-JR”. Note: for normal URLs (web addresses), upper or lower case alpha doesn’t seem to matter, but I’ve learned that within this domain (WordPress) and in such short-links, it does.

LGH UPDATE NOTE: My current table of contents only goes back to Sept., 2012; this is a June 15, 2011 post (early on in this blogger’s learning curve!) so would only be found by search, some other link reference to it, or by Year/Month/Date through the “Archives” (by month) on this blog.

I added some quick (not thorough) updates on Overcoming Barriers at the bottom in response to a comment submitted March, 2016…including tax returns, California corporate registration (Massachusetts could also be searched).

For a December 2017 Update (which at first I thought might fit in here), see:

Revisiting Reunification Camps and Treatments, The good Clinical Psychologist Just Want to Help Traumatized People and “Families in Transition” (or “Transitioning Families”), the Good, Ole Court-Ordered (and of course (™)’d Service Model) Way. Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8cC” and this was written Dec. 16, 2017, starting as a post update to [another] one for which I wanted to cite to this older post on reunification camps for “estranged” families, but from different angle of approach, as that one explains in the first few paragraphs. After that, on “Revisiting Reunification Camps,” above, I get into looking at what isn’t apparently a large operation, but one with connections in more than one state to the family court system. It’s in draft, but will be a short post and out Dec. 16 or 17, 2017. [Published Dec. 21 + (additions/clarifications) 22nd] //LGH.

I expect to publish (shortly) a follow-up to the Reunification Camps post above, some information I came across recently which connects the AFCC-drenched providers of at least three camps (Two mentioned here, one featured in my recent post above], the new one trademarked only 2016 (described in the above post) whose lead psychologist apparently was on-call from the NCMEC (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children) who shortly after Jaycee Dugard (and the two children born to her 18-year-long kidnapper rapist and herself) were rescued, was put in touch with Dugard who then (2009/2010) got a $20M settlement from the State of California and set up the JayC Foundation (of very modest size, but it seems in part supporting the reunification camps used ALSO to force-feed alienated children back in to the parent’s life, particularly in cases where the alienation is connected to litigation around the issues of abuse/domestic violence by the “targeted” parent (the one the kids don’t want to see).

(TRANSITIONING FAMILIES, STABLE PATHS (Abigail M. Judge (“clinician”) Boston, S.Florida, with involvement from Transitioning Families clinician R. Bailey. who has a recent book out co-authored with one of the co-founders (mentioned below in THIS older post) of “Overcoming Barriers.” In addition, in the context of a recent case (2015) of Judge Gorcya and 3 children aged 9-14 ordered into “juvie detention” for refusing to have lunch with their father then, at last check, attempts to get them for aftercare into some Reunification camp — the Detroit Free Press (now part of USA Today franchise) reporting said the Judge was hoping to get them into Warshak’s “Family Bridges” or one modeled on it — in Toronto, Canada!!, while Dr. Bailey was quoted in the context). I’m taking bets (just kidding) on how long Gorcya has been (if she is) an AFCC member and how much of that county’s system the association controls. Michigan is also long home, at least by organization name, to a batterers’ intervention coalition (BISC-MI). //LGH 12/22/2017.

I was just going to add a very short update (that comment, it seems, in March 2016), but instead added a section on renewed Parental Alienation discussions, and the socialist “re-education camps” in Viet Nam after South fell to the North, in 1975. Similar in other countries. Major quality and scope difference — but force is force, and at some levels, it’s also a form of psychological, personal violence. In my opinion. So, the original (written/published in 2011) post begins in maroon font and below a double-line after the following paragraphs and a few quotes:

Speaking of how to continue keeping “Parental Alienation” conversation going — and ordering services to undo it through the family courts — I recently noticed that a “Dr. Craig Childress” (Craig A. Childress, Psy.D.) is resurrecting parental alienation under a different theory; I have some comments on it over at Red Herring Alert (a wordpress blog). “Same old, same old” with new window dressing and tactics (Childress recommends pressuring providers who do NOT recommend IMMEDIATE, safety-for-the-child total separation from the alienating parent (i.e., “mom” typically) through their licensing board, if this could be categorized under some existing DSM-defined disorder.

You cannot really argue with self-referencing, self-congratulating circles of experts on this matter which is why I recommend a more interesting angle of approach: If they incorporate, find tax returns and corporate records; if they get contracts with the courts, or government grants to run “reunification camps” and similar therapy for parental alienation (in its old or new classifications), pay attention to the details!

The technique and ability to re-indoctrinate people in groups, as well as children, was also in common use in socialist countries; I believe the term used was “re-education camps,” referring to those in South Viet Nam after the fall of Saigon in 1975: Search “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps: A Brief History” (that’s supplemental reading, from a man’s father’s oral history — he lived through such camps — from “Choices” program at Brown; see website) or “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.”

The second link introduces and describes the various levels. I wonder, in the USA, why the country is so heavily invested in a class of professionals whose purpose seems to be behavioral change and keeping up-to-date with tactics and strategies for re-indoctrinating children, women and men into their proper social relationships with each other and particularly after one or more of the same has spoken out about some prior injustice, or sought to escape being subjected to abuse by a family member. These camps apparently went on from 1975 – 1986 until people still being held were allowed to emigrate to the US.

“Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.” Posted 4/17/2014 by “kubia”

Following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, Vietnamese Communist government began to open hundreds of “re-education” camps throughout the country. Those camps, as Hanoi officially claimed, were places where individuals could “learn about the ways of the new government” through education and socially constructive labor.

In 1975, it was estimated that around 1 to 2.5 million people1, including former officers, religious leaders, intellectuals, merchants, employees of the old regime, and even some Communists, entered the camps in the hope that they could quickly reconcile with the new government and continued their peaceful life. However, their time in those camps did not last for ten days or two weeks as the government had claimed.

Re-education Camps Levels

The re-education camps were organized into five levels. The level-one camps which were called as study camps or day-study centers located mainly in major urban centers, often in public parks, and allowed attendees to return home each night. In those camps, some 500,000 people2 were instructed about socialism, new government policy in order to unlearn their old ways of thinking. The level-two camps had a similar purpose as the level-one, but attendees were not allowed to return home for three to six months. During the 1970s, at least 200,000 inmates entered more than three hundred level–two camps2.

The level-three re-education camps, known as the socialist-reform camps, could be found in almost every Southern Vietnam province containing at least 50,000 inmates2. Most of them were educated people and thus less susceptible to manipulation than most South Vietnamese in the level-one and two camps. Therefore, the inmates (or prisoners) in these camps had to suffer poorer living conditions, forced labor and daily communist indoctrination.

The last two types of camps were used to incarcerate more “dangerous” southern individuals – including writers, legislator teachers, supreme court judges, province chiefs – until the South was stable to permit their release. By separating members of certain social classes of the old regime, Hanoi wanted to prevent them from conducting joint resistances and forced them to conform to the new social norms. In 1987, at least 15,000 “dangerous” persons were still incarcerated level-four and level-five camps2.

Camp Conditions and Deaths

In most of the re-education camps, living conditions were inhumane. Prisoners were treated with little food, poor sanitation, and no medical care3. They were also assigned to do hard and risky work such as clearing the jungle, constructing barracks, digging wells, cutting trees and even mine field sweeping without necessary working equipments.

Although those hard work required a lot of energy, their provided food portions were extremely small. As a prisoner recall, the experience of hunger dominated every man in his camp. Food was the only thing they talked about. Even when they were quiet, food still haunted their thoughts, their sleep and their dreams. Worse still, various diseases such as malaria, beriberi and dysentery were widespread in some of the camps. As many prisoners were weakened by the lack of food, those diseases could now easily take away their lives.

Starvation diet, overwork, diseases and harshly punishment resulted in a high death rate of the prisoners. According to academic studies of American researchers, a total of 165,000 Vietnamese people died in those camps4.

The End of “Re-education” Period

Most of the re-education camps were operated until 1986 when Nguyen Van Linh became the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He began to close the harsher camps and reformed the others5. Two year later, Washington and Hanoi reached an agreement that Vietnam would free all former soldiers and officials of the old regime who were still held in re-education camps across the country and allowed them to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). As of August 1995, around 405,000 Vietnamese prisoners and their families were resettled in the U.S6.

– See more at: thevietnamwar.info/vietnamese-re-education-camps/..

The forced “Reunification Camps” (far less harsh, but still forced, and still designed to produce an attitude change) have their professionals willing to engage in these practices.

I think it must take a certain kind of mentality, if not personality aberrancy, to believe in this and what’s more preach about it and take in business to engage in it.

For some reason, those “Re-education camps” remind me of, though lesser in degree, the same idea as, for example, “overcoming barriers.” It’s still based on force — and who knows how many similar programs are operating around the country. As I write this, the Grazzini-Rucki runaway teens were reported (in 2016) to being re-indoctrinated to like their father (who they’d run away from as young teens), while the mother, until recently, was incarcerated for parental interference. See my more recent 2016 posts).

Here’s a sample. I see he’s from Pasadena, California (Los Angeles area). To see it in better formatting (the “copy” function sometimes removes all spaces between words!) click on link:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/165394444/Dr-Craig-Childress-DSM-5-Diagnosis-of-Parental-Alienation-Processes#scribd.

C. A. CHILDRESS, Psy.D.LICENSED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, PSY 18857

547 S. MARENGO DR., STE 105 • PASADENA, CA 91101 • (909) 821-5398

Page 1 of 10

DSM-5 Diagnosis of “ParentalAlienation”

Read the rest of this entry »

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

June 15, 2011 at 3:54 pm

Posted in AFCC, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, Metaphors for Family Law, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Tagged with Access-Visitation, AFCC, BenjaminGarber PhD, Child Molestation, David Medoff PhD, Demosthenes LorandrosPhD, domestic violence, Douglas Darnell PhD, Due process, Family Bridges tm, Isolina Ricci, LSOTP=Licensed Sex Offender Treatment Provider, obfuscation, Overcoming Barriers (Mass Entity also reg in California), Parent Education promotion, PCANH, Peddling Reunification Programs, Peggie Ward PhD, Piled Higher and Deeper in NH, Pruetts, Reunification Camps, Richard Warshak PhD, Robin Walton Brown TX, Ron Haskins, Studying Humans, Supervised Visitation, Terr L. Bauer LCSW LSOTP, The Hon Debra Lehrmann TX Supreme Court AFCC, The Hon Sean Dunphy MA judge, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.

Let’s Eliminate OCSE — the Office of Child Support Enforcement — and why.

with 6 comments

No, that’s not a joke. I’m serious.

Or, we could just continue to watch this institution gradually eliminate the Bill of Rights, and the U.S. Constitution, in fact the entire concept of individual rights whatsoever, in favor of social(ism) science run amok.

This post also ran amok (as you can see) but the links are valuable.

The OCSE has to go. It’s out of control, and is hurting men, women, and children — generation after generation– while loudly proclaiming it is, instead, helping society, families and kids.

WHAT DO YOU WANT — A SOCIAL SCIENCE SOCIETY, OR LIBERTY?

Obviously, it’s either/or, not Compromise/And. Even the experts know this:

Do government sponsored marriage promotion policies place undue pressure on individual rights?

Karen Struening

Abstract

The dominance of social science research in the debate over the Bush Administration’s Healthy Marriage Initiative may explain why questions regarding the proper role of government in regulating adult intimacy (!!!) have received little attention. Social science research focuses on outcomes such as well-being and health. In contrast, rights-based legal theory considers whether state action undermines the rights of individuals. In this article, I intend to shift the debate over marriage promotion policy from questions of child well-being to questions of individual rights. I will ask the following questions: Do individuals have a liberty interest in making their own choices about intimate relationships, such as marriage? Do federally-financed (and frequently state-run) marriage programs compromise this liberty interest? Are there any constitutional grounds for objecting to marriage promotion policy?

Either we recover the OCSE from its fatherhood-dispensing-propaganda (and fundings) — repeal (or defund) the Access/Visitation grants system entirely. There is no question, whatever its grandiose proclamations, the system is rife with corruption, has failed, and hasn’t even reduced TANF, allegedly the purpose for its existence.

Let alone the dubious ROI for this agency — Can you spell Four Billion?

Yes, +/- Four Billion (federal incentives), courtesy the IRS, to fix families, support children by adding “fatherhood.” which as I point out elsewhere, is one of several “hoodlums” used to justify stealing time and money from honest people and transferring them to dishonest.

$4,000,000,000

I’ve uploaded (hopefully) and linke two PDFs to this post to illustrate the cost and the personnel investing themselves into the system. One is primarily charts the other, primarily rhetoric. Please browse the Dept of HHS/Administration for Children and Families (“ACF”)

(Federal)

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS, including for FY 2012, and historic back to 2002. Its charts speak loudly as well as this paragraph justifying some of the expense:

Promoting Access and Visitation. The budget provides $570 million over ten years to support increased access and visitation services and integrates these services into the core child support program. The first step in facilitating a relationship between non-custodial parents and their children is updating the statutory purposes of the CSE program to recognize the program’s evolving mission and activities that help parents cooperate and support their children. The proposal also requires states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders. The proposal also would encourage states to undertake activities that support access and visitation. Implementing domestic violence safeguards is a critical component of this new state responsibility. These services not only will improve parent-child relationships and outcomes for children, but they also will {{??}} result in improved collections. Research shows that when fathers are engaged in the lives of their children, they are more likely to {{or is it “will”?? the program has been going on over 15 years. Don’t we know which it is yet — “more likely to,” or “will”?}}meet their financial obligations. This creates a “double win” for children – an engaged parent and more financial security.

and paragraphs like this:

Budget Request – The FY 2012 request for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support programs of $3.8 billion reflects current law of $3.5 billion adjusted by +$305 million assuming Congressional action on several legislative proposals, including those supporting a newly proposed Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative. The Budget promotes strong family relationships by encouraging fathers to take responsibility for their children, improving distribution policies so that more of the support fathers pay reaches their children, and continuing a commitment to vigorous enforcement. The Budget increases support for states to pass through child support payments to families, rather than retaining those payments and requires states to establish access and visitation arrangements as a means of promoting father engagement in their children’s lives.*** The Budget also provides a temporary increase in incentive payments to states based on performance, which continues an emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency and will foster enforcement efforts.

**(This program has been known to promote mother ABSENCE from lives of the children after custody-switching enabled through mis-use of program funds in conflicts-of-interest with custody hearings…Despite more and more mothers becoming noncustodial, this program still remains father-centric. )

Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative

The CSE program plays an important role in facilitating family self-sufficiency and promoting responsible fatherhood. Building on this role, the FY 2012 budget includes a new Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative to encourage non-custodial parents to work, support their children, and play an active role in their children’s lives.

After I sent this document to Liz Richards, of NAFCJ.net, I got the following response:

OCSE cannot override federal and state law; it cannot initiate legal disputes without the approval of both the assumed litigants. It cannot override standing court orders.
But this IS what the OCSE agency and been doing for years – and they believe they can get away with this fraud, because nobody is scrutinizing them.

You should not believe anything they claim about their policies and procedures which sounds good. They have been hiding their corruption with “sounds good” analysis for as long as I’ve been following them. They say one thing – and do the opposite.

Of the hundreds of women who contacted me each year, some are custodial mothers, and nearly none of them actually collect the support owed to them.
The local state agencies stonewall them for months and even years.

Once woman with a N. CA child support case got told by the San Fransico c.s. agency they couldn’t send her the support check because they hadn’t [earned] enough interest on it yet. After she made strong complaints about this dishonest practice – they sent a check a few days later.

The OCSE even admits they have a policy of “retaining” undistributed but collected support to earn interest on it and to declare it “abandoned” and split this collected money 60/40 between the federal and state c.s. agencies. (eg illegal confiscation of other people’s money).*** Even the HHS General Counsel, David Cade, admit to me this was the official policy.

I believe the whole agency should be shut down and the few vital services they have be transferred to Dept of Treasury.

Liz Richards

(**great example discovered by Richard Fine, resulting in the infamous Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit. This extremely disturbing case over county abuse of privilege in MILLION$$ IN L.A. County CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS ALREADY COLLECTED shows how corruption responds to corruption uncovered — Mr. Fine in jail, an attempt to intimidate him and a warning to others who might think to follow in his footsteps. As far as I can tell, this case was eventually dropped, although eventual Mr. Fine was released from solitary coercive confinement, at age 70!)

(This BUDGET document is found at: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2012/cj/CSE.pdf)

AGAIN — what ROI, what overall good really comes out of this department, as reported by anyone who is not in on some of its many scams? She writes: “I believe the whole agency should be shut down and the few vital services they have be transferred to Dept of Treasury.”

I’m so glad she’s come around to my way of thinking, after I read enough rhetoric to gag on justifying the elimination of child support for most kids, and the inability of actual, legitimate abused children and/or spouses (primarily mothers) to EVER get free from abuse, resulting sometimes in their deaths at the hands of a father over a court-ordered visitation and after death threats and molestation had already been identified. Alternately, they can just be impoverished needlessly, and society can be robbed of working parents while these parents instead go to court and suffer more legal abuse and trauma, often for years.

I ALSO UPLOADED a “Reviving Marriage in America: Strategies for Donors” philanthropy roundtable talking about the foundations backing to these movements. File it under “what your social worker and child support advocate, your local domestic violence agency, or local legal aid office, didn’t and won’t tell you — but should have — about who’s really behind the fatherhood movement.“)

Looking at both these documents, I have to ask: how much priming the pump is needed to produce a few good fathers, or get child support enforced? Are these indeed producing good fathers, and if not, who gives a damn? The jet-setting, conference-presenting, politically connected fatherhood program administrators? The family law judges, attorneys, evaluators (basically, all AFCC membership categories) whose nonprofits profit from this arrangement? The funeral homes, who get extra business when some Dad goes haywire after separation? The press, who reports the casualties?

An article from the “Institute for Democracy Studies” (Sept. 2001, VOl. 2, issue 1), lead article by a “Lewis C. Daly” focused on the “Charitable Choice: The Architecture of a Social Policy Revolution” cites the Bradley Foundation’s influence, and provides a flowchart with National Fatherhood Initiative and the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives central underneath. They point out the “Heritage Foundation” connection (which I’ve noticed) and that a certain Kay James (directing the US Office of Personnel Management at the time — and as such placing “vast numbers of individuals throughout the White House national security apparatus, government agencies (etc.) ) endorsed the resolution of the 1998 Southern Baptist Convention (regarding wifely submission to husbands) — an endorsement that caused former President Carter to resign from this group in protest of its treatment of women.

“O Say Can You See?” what’s happened to the “land of the free” (or even the concept of the land of the free….)

“OCSE”: CLEAN IT UP OR SHUT IT DOWN:

The more I read about this, the more outraged I get at tax dollars being used for social science rhetoric — most of it a combination of belief, myth, and confusion of results with causes.

While promising delivery on child support — the fact is, it extorts both mothers and fathers in the courts to consume services and classes they don’t need, such as parenting education classes produced by judges-and-attorney-run nonprofits with unholy alliances with the family courts (kids turn, etc.). (Kids Turn & look-alikes)
It s a guaranteed formula for reducing and eliminating child support, sold under the guise of doing the opposite.
The Access Visitation grants system, per se, while not huge — is the doorway to ever-expanding initiatives (fatherhood, marriage-promotion, etc.) — that undermine due process and individual rights.
Its own regulations indicate that the purpose of this grants system enables ONE Person in ONE Executive Branch Office to run demonstration social science projects on the populace, through the states, as I have pointed out before in reviewing 45 CFR 303.109: As such, it’s anti-democratic, and contrary to the purpose of having three separate branches of government, which was to counter potential tyranny. Section (a) basically says, there’s a need to monitor these grants. Here’s (b):

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

These significant or promising projects are going to be fatherhood promotion or marriage promotion projects. They are poorly monitored, especially after going to subgrantees once they hit the sole state agency in each state that dispenses them.

For a quick sample, tell me why the Texas Office of Attorney General (generally associated with matters of law, right?) even HAS a “Deputy for Family Initiatives,” let alone why are they using this post to expand opportunities to turn this office into more therapeutic, right-wing, family intervention schlock? (See RandiJames.com’s 2009 post, “Michael Hayes wants to Build Family-Centered Child Support” and how:

“Before his current post, he helped create and was director of the Texas Fragile Families Initiative, a statewide project involving community-based, faith-based, and public agencies to support fragile families.”

See also my comment on that post, showing Mr. Hayes flying up to Minnesota to present at a Fatherhood Summit. And about his plans for the “evolution of child support.”)

Now, when you have an Office of the Attorney General coming straight from a “Fragile Families Initiative” this tells me there is at least one foundation behind the scenes. While Michael Hayes may have got this going in Texas, “FFI” has been going strong, courtesy of at least the Ford Foundation, in NY and elsewhere, and typically links a researcher, a reputable university (or several of them) such as Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, etc. — and someone with a personal agenda getting paid to produce social science studies on how to fix America. For example, Ronald D. Mincy, Ph.D., of Columbia’s

For Dr. Ronald B. Mincy, Saving `Fragile Families’ is Personal

by Michele N-K Collison

Black people will never reach economic parity if Black children have to depend on one income and White children depend on two,” says Mincy, the architect of the foundation’s “Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative.“

{{i.e., while Mr. Hayes may have got it started in Texas, Dr. Mincy got it going, period. This is the “foundation connection.” As with President Obama’s stuttering on the word “mother” regarding his own mother, despite his obvious success in life (US President = success, right?), Dr. Mincy’s pedigree includes Harvard, and a Ph.D. in economics from MIT, teaching at Swarthmore, and heads up a

The multi-million dollar initiative focuses on increasing research about these poor fathers and their families, and working with policy-makers to create policies that encourage unwed parents to work together for the benefit of their children.

Since 1994, the Ford Foundation has spent a total of roughly $14.5 million on this issue. It is one of too few major foundations, according to Mincy, engaged in this work.

These days Mincy crisscrosses the nation giving speeches and meeting with child support officials and advocates for fathers as he tries to take advantage of the convergence of circumstances that has made fatherhood the issue de jour.

But there is a compelling personal reason why Mincy is so interested in this issue — he also grew up without his father. …

…So did many children, whose fathers served in the various wars our country has been involved in– Civil War, World War I, II, Korea, Viet Nam, Iraq, etc. Wars definitely contribute to fatherlessness. So did slavery, which routinely broke up families. Of all people who should know this, I’d think an economics expert would. Of all people who also should (and I bet does) know that “jobs” =/= “wealth” or financial independence stemming from assets which spin off enough income to live on. No, the experts are focused obsessively on “jobs” while themselves functioning, often as not, from their connections to foundations & government or university research institutes.

However, the “fatherhood” field developed in the LATE 1900s, not the EARLY 1900s or before. Why? When it was the air people breathed, there was no need to push the ideology. But now, there is some competition — and it has to be pushed. The most natural place to push fear of women, fear of feminism, is through institutions already controlled by men — faith-based ones, Congress, etc.

The “fatherhood” promoters did so in response to at some level, I believe, gut-level primal fear of women and feminism, a feminism in possible in part because women can indeed vote. It is also in fear of the reproductive capacity of people of color; this is clear from the boardroom discussions and the Congressional record. The conservative’s push into inner city churches and ministries helped split off some of the progressive and civil rights activities in those areas, and partly clean up their image, just as the recent nonprofit group “Women in Fatherhood, Inc.” [WIFI] is a more recent formulation to help clean up the obvious gender bias in the “fatherhood” policies to start with.

After graduating from Harvard, Mincy went to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he earned his doctorate in economics in 1987. He taught economics at Swarthmore College, the University of Delaware, and Bentley College, before heading to the Urban Institute in 1987.

{{“obviously” no father in the home dooms a child to academic, professional and financial failure, case in point.}}

While at the Urban Institute, Mincy directed a policy-research project on the urban underclass. His work on poor, unwed families caught the attention of the Clinton administration and he led the Noncustodial Parents Issue Group for the Presidents Welfare Reform taskforce. The group’s mission was to figure out how welfare reform could accommodate poor men. His experiences in the Clinton administration laid the groundwork for the Fragile Families Initiative.

He’s now at Columbia, degreed, decorated, publishing and promoting. Note the Foundation Connection throughout ….

Bio:

Dr. Ronald Mincy teaches Introduction to Social Welfare Policy; Program Evaluation; Economics for Policy Analysis; and Advanced Methods in Policy Analysis, and directs the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.

Dr. Mincy is also a co-principal investigator of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, and a faculty member of the Columbia Population Research Center (CPRC).

He came to the University, in 2001, from the Ford Foundation where he served as a senior program officer and worked on such issues as improving U.S. social welfare policies for low-income fathers, especially child support, and workforce development policies; he also served on the Clinton Administration’s Welfare Reform Task Force.

This tells me, he may have had input into the Access & Visitation factor of 1996 Welfare Reform. And, he’s as much as stated he has a chip on his shoulder from childhood. However directed at low-income noncustodial fathers this work has become, by targeting the child support system, this re-balancing of “welfare” has been exploited by all levels of fathers (including some multi-millionaires) and has resulted in lots of noncustodial (and some homeless) mothers after processing through this wonderful child support system plus therapy-dispensing family law system. It has pushed social science dispensaries (whether institutes or initiatives) to the top of the administrative heap. The discussion is no longer of individual rights, due process, bias — but of outcomes, of best “practices” and “promising projects.” Such language keeps the research $$ flowing and sets up a subject/object relationship between the researchers and the poor slobs with the actual problems and lives affected the most.

Only through the internet have we become more able to “eavesdrop” in on some of these conversations, and hear the incredible logic behind them, pick on the tone of how policymakers view the nation, of how Federal entitities attempt to set up a trainee/dog relationship with the states (good states get more treats [incentives], bad states will have treats withdrawn…. Clearly in such an environment, the obvious line of work is dog trainer — if one is not of sufficient drive, connections, inspiration, pedigree, (etc.) or luck to be the ones paying the dog trainers.

NEXT QUESTIONS:

HOW MANY FOUNDATIONS DOES IT TAKE

TO ELIMINATE THE US CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS?

Whose idea was it, to switch society’s main institutions from the concept of individual rights (eventually — at least in theory — including minorities & females, in that order) in favor of “social science” (next step — back to eugenics….)?

Whose idea was it to centralize rule under Executive Dept. initiatives (versus the original idea — three branches of government).

Whose idea was it to eliminate the restrictions on sectarian religion on public government?

Well, in my book, this is in great part, a 4-letter word: “B.U.S.H.” (GWB), aka Government by Executive Order.

CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF THE

Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), was established January 29, 2001, when President George W. Bush “issued twoexecutive orders related to faith-based and community organizations. The first executive order established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The second order established centers to implement this initiative at the Department of Justice, along with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development. (wikipedia)

NOT a good idea for women…..

Let alone this particular President’s (and other right-wing Republicans) curious connection with the Unification Church. Don’t laugh. See my “Shady-shaky Foundations’ post and look at that picture of Sun Myung Moon being crowned in a US Senate building. And rethink all this “Family” and “Marriage” promotion agenda in terms of this known money-laundering, criminal-enterprise cult headed by the world’s “True Parents.” Or read from the Steve Hassan’s “Freedom of Mind” site on Moon/Bush: Ongoing Crime Enterprise (2007 article) :

By the early 1980s, flush with seemingly unlimited funds, Moon had moved on to promoting himself with the new Republican administration in Washington. An invited guest to the Reagan-Bush Inauguration, Moon made his organization useful to President Reagan, Vice President Bush and other leading Republicans.

Where Moon got his cash remained one of Washington’s deepest mysteries – and one that few U.S. conservatives wanted to solve. …

…

While the criminal enterprises may have been operating at one level, Moon’s political influence-buying was functioning at another, as he spread around billions of dollars helpful to the top echelons of Washington power.

Moon launched the Washington Times in 1982 and its staunch support for Reagan-Bush political interests quickly made it a favorite of Reagan, Bush and other influential Republicans. Moon also made sure that his steady flow of cash found its way into the pockets of key conservative operatives, especially when they were most in need. […]

Throughout these public appearances for Moon, Bush’s office refused to divulge how much Moon-affiliated organizations have paid the ex-President. But estimates of Bush’s fee for the Buenos Aires appearance alone ran between $100,000 and $500,000.

Sources close to the Unification Church told me that the total spending on Bush ran into the millions, with one source telling me that Bush stood to make as much as $10 million from Moon’s organization. . . .

The senior George Bush may have had a political motive, too. By 1996, sources close to Bush were saying the ex-President was working hard to enlist well-to-do conservatives and their money behind the presidential candidacy of his son, George W. Bush. Moon was one of the deepest pockets in right-wing circles.

The “Marriage Promotion” and “Fatherhood” fanaticism definitely has Unification overtones. I first began comprehending this summer 2009, while protesting another round of fatherhood funding at the Senate Appropriations Committee. This was headed up by Rep. Danny K. Davis. Naturally, I looked him up, some, and discovered the Moonie (Unification Church) connection. I told some friends, and now they think I’m nuts for the assumption… When our leaders start crowning kings in Senate Buildings, and don’t apologize for it – which Rep Davis did not — we have to start wondering where their heads are at. (Hover cursor over the “Danny K. Davis” link for the incredible/incriminating details… When our leaders start play-acting coronations and it’s somehow a joke, I think it’s time for someone else to be put on the stand and questioned.

Now that I think of this, several Judges in the SF area were found in a similar charade. Poormagazine.com alerted us to this. Photo is from 2002 AAML (Amer. Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers) gathering, apparently. It was accompanied by a spoof of the tune to “Camelot,” called “Familawt.” Compare to “coronation” photo(s)

The Round Table
Queen Dolores Carr (San Mateo)
Queen Charlotte Woolard (SF)
Queen Marjorie Slabach (SF)
King James Mize (Sacramento) King Gary Ichikawa (Solano)King David Haet (Solano)
Queen Beth Freeman (San Mateo) not pictured

Compare:

I’m not against a little light-hearted fun, but given the state of the family law system (and the increasing god-like attitudes found in the Executive Branch overall, towards the rest of the country), this is more than disturbing — perhaps it represents the true regret of some elected leaders and public “servants” (such as the judges/commissioners) that there is no title of royalty available, at least per our founding documents, in this U.S.A., which got its start protesting such abuses of power from England….

There is also a unification connection to an Arizona legislator, (1998 article on “Parents Day”). Sorry I’m not an Arizona resident following their elections, but here’s a 2007 article:

(www.bizjournals.com) “Arizona state legislator and member of Unification Church weighs bid for US Congress”

The Business Journal of Phoenix — August 29, 2007
by Mike Sunnucks, The Business Journal

State Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, is considering a challenge of freshman Democratic Congressman Harry Mitchell in next year’s elections.

Anderson, who is in his seventh term in the Arizona Legislature, has formed an exploratory committee for a possible run against Mitchell.

Anderson is a Realtor and a member of the Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s Unification Church. If elected, he would be the only member of Congress to be part of the Unification Church.

The Republican lawmaker cited Congress’ low approval ratings in considering a run. In the Legislature, Anderson has favored tuition and school tax credits; abstinence education programs; and removing junk food and sodas from public school vending machines.

UNIFICATION CONNECTION:

Given what this particular organization represents, worldwide (criminal enterprises, money laundering, and cult activity), the simple math should tell us: (1) The Office of Faith-based Initiative comes from Bush by Executive Order, not popular mandate (2) Bush & GOP ties close to Moon & Moon’s money. (3) Some faith-based groups are just too danged misogynist, and turn a blind eye to wife-beating and molestation. Some women became single to start with, because they found no way to stop this in their local communities. Moreover, many faith-based (husband = head of the household) groups also encourage men to control the finances, thereby when they separate, actually CAUSING, rather than SOLVING, additions to the welfare role.

The co-founders of the influential National Fatherhood Initiative include the first appointee to this Office, i.e., Don Eberly. The other co-founder of the National Fatherhood Initiative is Wade Horn. Successor (?) Ron Haskins was instrumental in passing the Access/Visitation funding mentioned above. Combined with the powerful influence of foundational wealth, their social-science, religious-based myths rhetoric is distributed nationwide, and also funded unwittingly

Then come back here.

The HERITAGE FOUNDATION (with Unification church ties….) has its FAMILY & RELIGION page, and objectives, including developing a rhetoric. Yep:

Cultivate an environment in which the permanent institutions of family and religion can flourish and fulfill their role in maintaining ordered liberty in America.
Develop the best research and accompanying rhetoric that will strengthen and unify the current pro-family constituency and win over new target audiences to preserve the institution of traditional marriage and restore the family to its central role.
Unite religious and economic conservatives more effectively around the goal of restoring the family to its central role, both legally and culturally, and reviving religious liberty.
Shape a healthy public discourse that appreciates the historic and continuing significance of religion and moral virtue in American civic life. {as signified by the pedophile priest scandal, and coverups?}

THEY SAY:

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

Family and religion are foundational to American freedom and the common good.** For example, the married family plays an important part in promoting economic opportunity: children raised by never-married mothers are seven times more likely to be poor when compared to children raised in intact married families. Meanwhile, religious institutions and individuals form the backbone of America’s thriving civil society, providing for the welfare of individuals more effectively than government programs. Yet the role of these institutions in maintaining ordered liberty is poorly understood, and policy and social developments have factored in undermining their important contributions.

**Not for young women, and middle-aged women honor-murdered for being too Western, or for divorcing.

**This must be why we have the First Amendment, to enable Congress — naw, let’s just work through other arms of government — to establish a state religion called “marriage and family/fatherhood” etc….. and facilitated by some of the most misogynist groups around, including faith groups that don’t permit ordination of women, require celibacy for their priests, and believe that Eve is responsible for bringing sin into the world, primarily because she acted independently from Adam in talking to someone besides her husband.

Here’s a sample Abstract of a Heritage Foundation report on Marriage as the cure for poverty:

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

Published on September 16, 2010 by Robert Rector

Abstract: Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware that its principal cause is the absence of married fathers in the home. Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon, yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.

The rationale for pushing fatherhood through the child support system is that these engaged fathers will then contribute child support to the home, which would then help reduce poverty. Seems to me that using kids as child-support bait is not a good idea. Seems to me that anything that requires THIS MUCH POLICY PUSHING (and rhetoric-production) IS NOT COST-EFFECTIVE FOR KIDS.

Has anyone considered the custody-battle factor? When Moms go for child support, Dads go for custody and have federal help in this. Perhaps PART of the poverty factor is that both parents are being taken out of the workforce to litigate, but only one of them is getting the federal government on HIS side in the family law venue. Besides which child support contractors such as Maximus, Inc. (look ’em up!) have been caught in embezzlement, fraud (repeatedly, and in the millions) yet still get multi-million-dollar contracts after paying millions to settle. I personally think that until we either make a determination to root out fraud from this system — which would have to be consistent, local, diligent, and probably done by mothers and fathers NOT in think-tanks or on the federal (county, or state) “teat,” — we can safely assume that this is where a good deal of the nation’s wealth and GDP is going. Everyone gets a cut but the actual children….

Look at Maximus, Inc.’s range of services:

Look at one review of this group in TN, and the cases, to date, involving embezzlement & fraud:

Thursday, May 28. 2009

Maximus signs $49M Tennessee child support deal

Your private information may have just gotten more vulnerable in state of Tennessee. In a deal that is qualified as the largest state privatization deal up to this point has been awarded to “Government Health Services Provider Maximus, Inc.” to provide services that the state is paid to provide to its residents under a federally mandated social security program known as Title IV-D. (42 USC 651). The contract details, we are working on, but Maximus, Inc. will be doing the government’s job in locating absent parents, establishing paternity, carrying out support orders and medical support orders, processing interstate cases, and providing customer service. This comes as a surprise because just last month there was a Former Child Support Services Employee Arrested in Tennessee for selling confidential records.

I am in the process of obtaining the government’s documents associated with these contracts, stay tuned for more information. We have some legitimate fears of access to citizen’s private data that have not been found guilty of any crimes being placed in unregulated databases that are accessible by unsavory characters that aim to make a profit with identity theft.
Over the past several years we have noticed a climate ripe for embezzlement, identity theft, invasion of privacy, and more. Just this year the Federal government removed some protections to the taxpayer to stop the continuous growth of these agencies. The reversal of the tax payer protection policy that was originally implemented under the Budget Deficity Reduction Act of 2005, paves the way for more disastrous consquences for taxpayers.

Just in June 2008, Delaware Child Support Program Employees were caught stealing from taxpayers and the children. Just over a year ago, we demonstrated how Theft was Running Rampid in State Child Support Programs. The widespread lack of accountability in these programs continues, without sufficiently limiting access to private data and ensuring digital fingerprints are placed on all data in the various systems nationwide, there will continue to be fraud on the taxpayers and the participants of Child Support Enforcement programs.

The Child Support Enforcement program continues to be plagued over the past several years of documented fraud, identity theft, embezzlement, bribery schemes, and more.

Here’s a report from Canada complaining that this giant company has already run into problems in 5 US states:

B.C. Contractor Maximus Mishandled Public Funds in U.S.

Liberals, as part of privatizing push, gave a $324 million contract to a firm with a history of controversy in five states. A TYEE SPECIAL REPORT

By Scott Deveau, 3 Dec 2004, TheTyee.ca

In its move to privatize PharmaCare and the Medical Service Plan, the provincial (CANADIAN) government hired a company that was found by the state of Wisconsin to have misappropriated public funds.

The same company, Virginia-based Maximus Ltd., has been embroiled in controversies in four other states, involving accusations of mismanagement, overspending or improperly receiving information while seeking a contract. … …

U.S.-based giant

The company, which is one of the largest providers of outsourced business and information technology to governments, has 280 offices in the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands and more than 5,000 employees worldwide. It provides a range of services from welfare, educational and judicial programs, to debt collection agencies on student loans and child support.

Bill Berkowitz tracks a lot of conservative funding, and wrote a famous article nailing Bush’s payoffs to certain individuals pushing marriage promotion (Wade Horn, Maggie Gallagher, etc.). This 2001 report Prospecting Among the Poor: Welfare Privatization (co. May, 2001, Applied Research Center) summarizes the situation and deals with the Maximus, Inc. group, first, including its troubling practices in Wisconsin:

Discriminatory Practices

The Milwaukee Business Journal reports that, on top of the company’s financial shenanigans, “16 formal gender or racial discrimination complaints have been filed with the Milwaukee office of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, against Maximus or one of its subsidiaries. In addition…as many as a dozen internal grievances were filed with the company’s human resources office related to unfair promotion practices.”34

Linda Garcia is an organizer with 9to5, a national nonprofit grassroots organization working to empower women through securing economic justice. Garcia has observed the activities of Maximus first-hand from the front lines in Milwaukee. “The public has not been served well by privatization, “ she says. “The standards of accountability and monitoring have been practically non-existent. We’re not seeing decent services provided to the community or a decrease in poverty or homelessness.” Garcia, who has been working on behalf of the women involved in the discrimination suit against Maximus, believes discriminatory practices “may be widespread” at Maximus’ MaxStaff entity, which seems to be “funneling women to low-paying jobs in order to quickly receive the bonus staff gets for placements.”35

2001 Prospecting Among the Poor- Welfare Privatization~ Berkowitz

The bonus principle cited here exists in virtually any custody battle; in court cases easily become the “kickback” principle, opportunities to overcharge or double-bill, and opportunities to “buy” a decision, especially as the family law system is known for wide discretion given to judges.

In the Access and Visitation grants (and the expanding other grant systems they attract or work alongside, through the child support agency, as in Texas), the presence of (poorly-monitored) federal incentives, multiple nonprofit sub-grantees, and program facilitators with connections to the courts, makes an atmosphere ripe for case-steering when the stakes are, children and child support.

So I recommend scanning this report and considering its implications. I’m glad that people like Mr. Berkowitz have reported on events that took place while I, and other families, were struggling with their individual cases, and also to survive in their own households. Excerpts:

INTRODUCTION

Even before the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 was signed, sealed, and delivered to the states, the conservative Reason Foundation’s William Eggers and John O’Leary had lauded “aggressive” privatization initiatives in New York, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Georgia.

New York Governor George Pataki, chair of the Privatization Task Force of the Republican Governors Association, had argued at a meeting of governors that it was time for the immediate repeal of federal barriers to privatization at the state and local levels:

…

The privatization of welfare was a triumph for many Republican as well as some Democratic governors, and for conservative national and state legislators.

Policy analysts at right-wing think tanks and policy institutes were also elated. In a 1997 speech, Lawrence W. Reed, President of the conservative Midland, Michigan-based Mackinac Center for Public Policy, touted privatization as the wave of the future:

….

Bernard Picchi, growth stocks analyst for Lehman Brothers, estimated that the potential market (for welfare privatization) could easily be more than $20 billion a year. Others placed the target figure as high as $28 billion, more than 10% of the national expenditure on welfare recipients.15

…CHARITABLE CHOICE:

In addition to unleashing predatory corporate forces, the Personal Responsibility and Work Reconciliation Act of 1996 contains the first enactment of a concept conservatives call “charitable choice.” Far from expanding anyone’s choices, “charitable choice” forces state and local governments to include religious organizations in their pool of bidders for service-delivery contracts.

Cathlin Siobhan Baker, Co-Director of The Employment Project, explains although religious organizations have received government funding over the years for emergency food programs, childcare, youth programs, and the like, they were expressly prohibited from religious proselytizing. Baker writes: “Gone are the prohibitions regarding government funding of pervasively sectarian organizations. Churches and other religious congregations that provide welfare services on behalf of the government can display religious symbols, use religious language, and use religious criteria in hiring and firing employees.”50

…

On January 29, [2001] amidst great fanfare and surrounded by Christian, Muslim and Jewish religious leaders, President George W. Bush signed an executive order cre- ating a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As governor of Texas, Bush has been a strong advocate for charitable choice, supporting the notion that faith-based organizations take over a large part of the provision of a broad array of government services. One of the things the new White House Office will do is help religious groups compete for billions of dollars in government grants.

During the presidential campaign, Bush called for “armies of compassion” fielded by “faith-based organizations, charities and community groups” to help aid America’s poor and needy. In an opinion piece for USA Today, Bush laid out his plan for taking “the next bold step in welfare reform,” proposing $80 billion over 10 years so that faith-based organizations can become “our nation’s most heroic armies of compassion.” He also proposed a $200 million federal initiative to “sup-port community and faith-based groups that fortify marriage and champion the role of fathers.”51 The ceremony at the White House was only Bush’s first step toward fulfilling his campaign promises.

Right-wing ideologues find charitable choice attractive because it not only reduces government involvement in service-delivery but also injects their religious and “moral framework” into the welfare debate. Welfare is no longer a question of poverty or the economic inequities in our society; the debate is framed within such time-honored right-wing moral premises as an epidemic of out-of-wedlock births and the lack of personal responsibility – behaviors that conservatives believe contribute to the general moral breakdown of our society.

Not only has the web changed the workplace, it has most certainly also changed government. However the policies forced on the poorer population are geared to the industrial economy, a 9 to 5 mentality, a public education mentality, a faith-based mentality.

The welfare concept eliminates and discourages single parents from supporting themselves in creative ways (including through this internet). Its assumption that poverty has to do mostly with fatherlessness is nonsensical, and dishonest — when many times it may relate instead to a present, and abusive, father. Failing to distinguish one case from another, and listening primarily to their own rhetoric, social scientists in key positions + political appointees force basic “solutions” on the entire society, and stick society with the bill as well. It is basically taxation without representation.

The only people escaping this taxation without representation are those profiting from it — who run or own nonprofit businesses, have or benefit from private foundations or wealth — or in some other way have learned to maximize profits, reduce expenses, and make their expenses, including conferences on how to keep the systems going, tax deductions.

These people are not uniformly two-parent income, or even stable-marriage families. Heck, some (including Presidents & legislators) are not even faithful to their own wives. So how dare they preach to the rest of us, who are not quite so wealthy, or don’t have backing to get into political office, on our morals and work ethic?

In the “Payments to States for Child Support Enforcement and Family Support Programs” (links above), on page “271” there is an Appropriations History Table, from 2002 through 2009. Its simple, (two-column) and speaks volumes. The costs range from $2+ billion to $4+ billion, and always with an advance of $1billion or so. ALWAYS the appropriation is higher than budget.

The Philanthropist Roundtable (Reviving Marriage in America, link above) lists these benefits to Marriage. Are you in agreement with all of them? If not, do you want your IRS payments to go towards pushing marriage education, (let alone abstinence education for parents), do you want families EXTORTED into high-stakes custody litigation through the child support system, do you really believe that we should have such foundations running our lives through major institutions?

If not, take some time to read the links I’ve provided here, which prompted this piecemeal protest post. Really these are TAX issues. Perhaps more of us should focus on establishing foundations and stop working W-2 jobs;; there has to be a better way. Anyhow, rich conservative foundations declare:

The Benefits of Marriage

Benefits for Adults

1. Married men and women have lower mortality rates and tend to have better overall health than their single counterparts.

2. Married couples tend to have more material resources, less stress and better social support than people who are not married.

3. Married men are less likely to abuse alcohol.***

[[potential cause of divorce — wife gets tired of living with a chronic alcoholic. Hence, those who stay married might indeed drink less…]]

4. Both married men and women report significantly lower levels of depression and have better overall psychological well-being than

their single, divorced, widowed and cohabitating counterparts.**

[[Exceptions: marriages with abuse, or chronic infidelity. Which definitely is depressing and affects psychological well-being!]]

5. Married African-Americans have better life satisfaction than those who are single.

[[! ! ! How are these people checking out African-American’s “life satisfaction” quotient? Apparently, it’s important not to have too many angry, dissatisfied African-Americans around. After all, the prisons are already overcrowded, and with US already the largest per-capita jailor on earth, what’s a ruling elite to do if the anger spills over?]]

6. Married men report higher wages than single men and have been found to be more productive and more likely to be promoted.

[[So women should marry and stay married to encourage men to work. Single working parents, single nonparents should also contribute to the federal marriage movement, because without marriage, men are simply not as motivated to work. Potential cause — the wife at home is supporting the guy, or the wife at WORK is supporting the guy. What about married mother’s wages or likelihood of promotion? Knowing the high potential for divorce, women should (sure, yeah….) most definitely go for marriage, because it’s good overall for the nation, even if they sacrifice their financial futures post-marriage, ending up eventually on welfare, in court, and fighting for custody of their children with a federally-funded fatherhood mandate run through the child support system?]]

7. Married women tend to have substantially more economic resources than single women. The economic benefits of marriage are especially strong for women who come from disadvantaged families.

[[I really wonder where this statistic comes from… There are obviously exceptions, some of them in abusive religious marriages, some where, at times, a woman was sought from another country to make some babies for a US resident.]]

Benefits for Children

1. Children from families with married parents are less likely to experience poverty than children from single-parent or cohabitating families.

2. Children born to cohabitating couples have a higher chance of experiencing family instability, a factor that has been linked to poor child well-being.

3. Children from married, two-parent families tend to do better in school than those who grow up in single-parent or alternative family structures.

4. Children from intact, two-parent families are less likely to experience emotional-behavioral problems.

5. The more time children live in a married, two-parent home, the less likely they are to use drugs.

6. Children who grow up in a married, two-parent family are less likely to have children out of wedlock in their future relationships.

7. Women with married parents are less likely to experience a high-conflict marriage.

8. Single mothers report more conflict with their children than married mothers.

[**depending on date of this report, one factor may be this agenda being run through the family law system to start with — as it has been since 1996 at least, which guarantees ongoing court litigation where one parent wants to struggle, and the case was flagged for program funding to help ONE side do this.]

9. The rate of infant mortality is lower among married parents.

10. Children living with their married, biological parents are less likely to experience child abuse.**

[[see note on married men drink less. Child abuse by either parent is a deal-breaker for most marriages. And, what about also the ongoing situations where the child experiences abuse on visitations with the noncustodial parent — such cases would fall under “not living with their married biological parents” — but who is the perpetrator? If someone is willing to abuse a child initially, whether married or single, would life be better if such parents were together, and the abuser had daily access?? This statements imply doesn’t handle many situations.]]

What this entire report fails to address is that domestic violence can turn lethal within marriage, or leaving a marriage.
Moreover, an on-line “find” (search) in this report of the word “father” (which covers fathers, fatherhood, fathering etc.) shows 23 occurrences. The corresponding search on “mother,” only 7. That’s imbalanced, and typical of certain sites sponsored by conservative foundations.

A token reference to the fact that for some, marriage has problems occurs here, in context of the tail end of an inset about marriage education movement. Notice, no mention is made that some marriages result in death by femicide. This is virtual denial…..

“Feminist leaders at the time emphasized the dark side of marriage for women whose husbands refused to be equal partners to their working wives and women trapped in abusive relationships. {{note order: not equal partners, and just a token, vague reference to “abusive” which is then dropped. Completely:…}}

The mainline Christian churches emphasized pastoral sensitivity to divorced people and single parents, which seemed inconsistent with proclaiming the unique value of life- long marriage. {{meaning, to be consistent, churches who believe in lifelong marriage should be harsh to divorced people and single parents? which harshness of course would be inconsistent with the gospel record of their hero, Jesus’, sensitivity, including to a woman caught in adultery, a poor widow, a woman with an issue of blood, and so forth…}}

The conservative Christian churches still preached about life- long marriage but were not organizing programs for couples to help them achieve such relationships.”

OK, so the Bradley Foundation acknowledges there are churches with thoughts about divorce. But ….

Do we or do we not have other religions in this country? (But none mentioned here?). How about Islam — what about Shari’a? Does marriage promotion apply here also? Because the Muslim and the Christian/Jewish (let alone agnostic/atheist) concepts of marriage are radically different from each other. Should the US move towards the Shari’a model because marriage is “good” for a nation? How could any discussion of this topic among conservative foundations just “forget” other major world religions, let alone that First Amendment is intended to protect religious choice — not push one variety of it on all of us through governmental institutions.!

Nonie Darwish at Temple University (April 2011) — these are Youtubes of a presentation, and a following Q&A. I haven’t viewed them (fresh off a Google search to you), but have read at least one of her books:

Nonie Darwish: Shari’a Law & America at Temple University

Q&A to the above presentation

This is another reason why the US should NOT allow religious groups to be grabbing federal funds to collect child support and promote fatherhood. What if the group favors shari’a law, which goes like this:

Shari’a, that is Muslim law, controls the private as well as the public life of the woman.

In the Western World (including America ) Muslim men are starting to demand Shari’a Law under which wives can not obtain a divorce and men have full and complete control of their children. It is amazing and alarming how many of our sisters and daughters attending American Universities and other parts of the Western world are now marrying Muslim men and submitting themselves and their children unsuspectingly to the Shari’a law.

By publicizing the information below, I hope to help enlightened American and other women avoid becoming slaves under Shari’a Law:
1. In the Muslim faith, a Muslim man can marry a child as young as 1 year old, consummating the marriage by 9.
2. A dowry is given to the family in exchange for the woman who becomes a slave.
3. Even though a woman is abused she cannot obtain a divorce.
4. To prove rape, a woman must have four male witnesses.
5. Often after a woman has been raped, she is returned to her family and the family must return the dowry. The family has the right to execute her (an honor killing) to restore the honor of the family.
6. Husbands can beat their wives ‘at will’ and do not have to say why the beating occurred.
7. A husband is permitted to have 4 wives and a temporary wife for a limited period at his discretion.

The goal of radical Islamists is to impose Shari’a law on the world, ripping Western law and liberty in two. If that happens, Western civilization will be destroyed. Westerners generally assume all religions encourage a respect for the dignity of each individual. Islamic law (Shari’a) teaches that non-Muslims should be subjugated or killed in this world.

Peace and prosperity for one’s children is not as important as assuring that Islamic law rules everywhere in the Middle East and eventually in the world.

While Westerners tend to think that all religions encourage some form of the golden rule, Sharia teaches two systems of ethics – one for Muslims and another for non-Muslims. Building on tribal practices of the seventh century, Sharia encourages the side of humanity that wants to take from and subjugate others..

While Westerners tend to think in terms of religious people developing a personal understanding of and relationship with G-d, Shari’a advocates executing people who ask difficult questions that could be interpreted as criticism.

This woman should know — and has earned the right to speak on it. The blurb:

“Darwish was born in Cairo and spent her childhood in Egypt and Gaza before immigrating to America in 1978, when she was eight years old. Her father died while leading covert attacks on Israel. He was a high-ranking Egyptian military officer stationed with his family in Gaza. When he died, he was considered a “shahid,” a martyr for jihad. His posthumous status earned Nonie and her family an elevated position in Muslim society. But Darwish developed a skeptical eye at an early age. She questioned her own Muslim culture and upbringing and later abandoned Islam.” (For Christianity, incidentally).

What about a woman who has escaped a violent marriage, and may wish to partake, for once, in a better one — but because of the family law system, is doomed to struggling with custody until all kids turn 18? Should she suffer, should the next potential partner suffer alongside, because some people believe that the problem with this country is out-of-wedlock fertility, unhappy AFrican American couples (read the list!) and of course the cause of child abuse and poverty is fatherlessness – not failure to prosecute child abusers properly, or economic policies that exploit wage-earners and outsource child support collections to corporations like Maximus, Inc., famous for fraud, gender discrimination, embezzlement, and poor performance?

We do not need cults (Unification Church), Crooks, or Misogynist Faith Institutions running the child support system as if there was a war on fatherhood by virtue of women having gained some options in the mid to late 1900s, including to vote, and an uphill fight that was.

We do not need another caste system — or royalty — created through welfare policies based on myths, which then undermine the primary documents on which our country has been founded by trying to tip the court favor towards fathers based on a job-based workforce system and inferior educational system.

As Berkowitz wrote in 2001 (above), Welfare Privatization is a cash cow, a big one, and Charitable Choice may fall hard on women overall, given how many religious groups already do. Those in the (expanding) bureaucracy get to inhabit lofty positions writing about the poor while those poor often live lives at risk from their partners, their neighborhoods, and the myth that the legal system exists for them — and not for those running it.

OCSE – TANF – FATHERHOOD PROMOTION, MARRIAGE PROMOTION — PRIVATE CONTRACTORS CAUGHT IN EMBEZZLEMENT AND FRAUD — GOP PRESIDENTIAL CONNECTIONS WITH INTERNATIONAL MONEY-LAUNDERING, CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE (the Unification Church) & CULT — and PRIVATE WEALTH (whether honestly or dishonestly gotten) RUNNING AND RESTRUCTURING GOVERNMENT, HIGHER EDUCATION, LOWER (EARLY CHILDHOOD) EDUCATION, AND SO ON.

Let’s begin with this Eliminating this Child Support System — which garnishes wages and has the power to put a man or a woman in jail, or homeless, if they don’t pay up, farms out collections to companies known for gender, race discrimination, fraud, embezzlement, and poor performances (Maximus), selling private information and in general tearing up the lives of innocent people (but still getting multi-illion$ contracts). While its federal fatherhood focus is indeed sexist, it is also equipped to turn on EITHER gender, depending on the case, and get away with it. Which, while the original concept was — child support — the “evolution” of it is becoming more and more like an episode of “Aliens” only more frightening.

Which is just too big and too entrenched.

Sounds like a good idea, on the surface: I briefly took welfare (food stamps) and the county went for the father to pay themselves back. They could be the “bad guy” in the situation, protecting me. But in practice, I see, they’ve had a makeover, and are more interested in being the nice guy (and enrolling men in fatherhood programs, access visitation programs, etc.).

I thought it was a great transitional idea immediately after marriage to have someone besides myself (for a change) asking the father of my children to pull his own weight, like I was, and to do so without in-home assault & battery privileges. We got a child support order when I got welfare help (rather than ask him for help myself). Not having the operational structure laid out in front of me, I thought that my getting OFF the system would be the end of the story, and they could go their way, and I mine, end of acquaintance. What did I know about the federal incentives, or how the interest income — of pooled, undistributed collections — was a real low-hanging fruit for the operation, and by withdrawing

Not so, not with all these grant programs and federal incentives flying around the place; not when within my own state, the same jurisdiction that basically spawned the family law industry was caught with its pants down, sitting on millions of collected child support (and its interest) until one father and one attorney caught them at this (John Silva, Richard Fine).

SO, LET’s ELIMINATE — OR AT LEAST BOYCOTT — THE ENTIRE AGENCY. HELP YOUR NEIGHBORS NOT NEED CHILD SUPPORT. KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IN ADVANCE. WARN MOTHERS LEAVING VIOLENT RELATIONSHIPS. AND TELL YOUR LOCAL LEGISLATOR (FIND OUT IN ADVANCE IF HE OR SHE IS ON A “NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE” LEGISLATIVE TASK FORCE — MANY ARE…) THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! If a program takes over $4 BILLION just to enforce, and is still resulting in increased welfare loads, is not well-tracked, and has already been caught in repeated scandals — then it’s simply not worth the investment.

Mothers of minor children can only do so much, but one thing we can do is boycott (boycott seeking child support if you can. Or marriage — or sex (believe me, it’s been discussed in some groups I know) — or the family law system. You might get dragged in, but don’t go voluntarily — and publicize — put the warning labels out on blogs — they won’t reach mainstream media — and encourage them to find another way to live; there has to be one.

Decent Single Mothers AND Decent single Fathers AND decent non-parents (single or married) should figure out what we have in common, start asking hard questions about this OCSE agency and how it spends its funds. Meanwhile, we should work TOGETHER (unilaterally) to boycott it until it gets the message we are serious.

Most will not, or cannot, because their lives are already so entwined in and dependent upon this system, whether for work, for their kids’ school, or they are simply already employed by the huge bureaucracy. Or, their free time weekends is soaked up volunteering at the local faith-based organization…

FOUNDATIONS AND WELFARE POLICY:

Foundation after Foundation are writing the policy, through government institutions…. When one considers what foundations are, to start with, tax-exempt, one wonders about the arrangement. The Lynde and Larry Bradley Foundation (who published the “Marriage Guidebook — strategy for donors” I linked to, above) also is sponsoring another welfare think-tank in Wisconsin, with the “same old” players included that re-wrote welfare to include more Dads. Hmm. Wasn’t Wisconsin having LOTS of fiscal/political problems recently?

During the conference, an eclectic group of national thinkers will address the intersection between welfare policy and issues such as: parental involvement, especially fatherhood; {{now WHY doesn’t that surprise me?}} child well-being; marriage and divorce; family living arrangements; and non-marital sex, pregnancy, and child birth. Attendees will gain a better understanding of what the state of Wisconsin — and the nation as a whole — can (and can’t) do to build a welfare policy that has strong, stable families at its center.

The discussions will be moderated by former White House and Congressional welfare-policy advisor Ron Haskins of theBrookings Institution in Washington, D.C. The luncheon speaker will beWade F. Horn, a former Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation in Milwaukee substantially supports WPRI.

This is hardly an “eclectic” group. Where are the feminists, where are the representatives from people affected by these policies? Where are the atheists who believe in separation of church and state? However the phrase “group of national thinker” (what is a “national thinker”? someone who wants to run the nation???) reminds me of the National Fatherhood Initiative self-description as having been founded by a “few prominent thinkers” (egotism, much?)…..

Presenters:

RON HASKINS — INSTRUMENTAL IN TACKING THE “ACCESS AND VISITATION” LANGUAGE ONTO WELFARE REFORM AT THE 9TH HOUR…

WADE HORN — CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (PRIVATE NONPROFIT WITH HHS)

ALSO GOING TO BE PRESENTING: DAVID BLANKENHORN:

“David Blankenhorn is founder and president of the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan organization devoted to strengthening families and civil society in the U.S. and around the world. Blankenhorn is the author of several books, is a frequent lecturer, and has been featured on numerous national television programs.”

{{another Bush appointee, per Wikipedia: “In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Blankenhorn to serve on the National Commission on America’s Urban Families.^[4]^[2]^[5] Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonpartisan organization focused on responsible fatherhood, in 1994.“}} Blankenhorn is anti-gay, but not anti-polygamy, it seems……

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

May 16, 2011 at 7:43 pm

Posted in Business Enterprise, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Tagged with Access-Visitation, Beware, Bill Berkowitz, Boycott, Bradley Foundation, Bush-Moonie connection, Child Molestation, Clean up, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, Due process, DV, fatherhood, Feminists, Hazards of Charitable Choice, Healthy Marriage perks for Healthy Marriage promoters, Institute for Democracy Studies (IDS), Maximus Inc., Michael Hayes, Motherhood, Nonie Darwish, OCSE, OCSE -- boycott? Shut down? Eliminate? Beware!, OFCBI Office of Community and Faith-Based Initiatives, Privatization of Welfare, Ron Haskins, Shari'a law, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Social Science v Rights, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., Wade Horn

	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…

Funding Opportunity Title:	Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants
Funding Opportunity Number (FON):	HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CG-0170
Program Office:	Administration on Children, Youth and Families
Funding Type:	Discretionary
Funding Category:	Cooperative Agreement
Announcement Type:	Modification
CFDA#:	93.254

Post Date:	06/02/2011
Application Due Date:	06/27/2011

Sponsor:	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Collaborators:	Pennsylvania Department of Health American Academy of Pediatrics
Information provided by:	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:	NCT00727116

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

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

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Dibble Fund	CA	2009	$537,324	990	23	68-0435573
Dibble Fund	CA	2008	$874,877	990	18	68-0435573
Dibble Fund	CA	2007	$696,077	990	18	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2006	$161,204	990	16	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2005	$94,274	990	14	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2004	$78,488	990	16	68-0435573
Dibble Fund for Marriage Education	CA	2003	$92,429	990	18	68-0435573
Dibble Institute for Marriage Education	CA	2007	$721,321	990	18	68-0435573

Organization Name	Registration Number	Record Type	Registration Status	City	State	Registration Type	Record Type
LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION	EX550137	Charity	Exempt – Active	LOS ANGELES	CA	Charity Registration	Charity
1

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C0602191	07/03/1970	SUSPENDED	AMERICAN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.
C0941617	10/01/1979	DISSOLVED	AMERICAN DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
C1170493	03/07/1983	SUSPENDED	AMERICAN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.	LLOYD C OWNBEY JR
C1167394	01/21/1983	SUSPENDED	AMERICAN FACILITIES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.	ANTHONY J THOMAS JR
C1132885	01/21/1983	DISSOLVED	AMERICAN PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS	DAVID L ANDERSON
C1327378	12/28/1984	DISSOLVED	AMERICAN RECORDS MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.	JOHN L TUCKER
C1096092	11/09/1981	SURRENDER	AMERICAN STORES MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS COMPANY	C T CORPORATION SYSTEM
C0842796	04/05/1978	SUSPENDED	PAN AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC.	** RESIGNED ON 03/18/1991
C1093417	10/21/1981	FORFEITED	SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT AMERICAN CORPORATION	** RESIGNED ON 10/31/1994

Posts Tagged ‘Due process’

…

SHARE THIS POST on...

PART I (first comment on the topic from Scranton PT):

SUMMARY

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.

Other Funding The ABA solicited and obtained additional project funding from the private sector and government, including:

PARTS II & III:

RWJF + ABA = UFCs + Drug Courts (cont’d.)

First Annual

SHARE THIS POST on...

INTRO:

(1) AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS. NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS AS THEY DID.

The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too: Parenting Coordination: A Bad Idea

From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!

AFCC could care less. They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.

(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —

(3) The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive.

Dad accused of killing son wants custody rights to surviving kids; judge lets him have unsupervised contact (Orlando, Florida)

About Jennifer Jackson

Where we are going…

Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

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

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

SHARE THIS POST on...

Adoption Bonuses — Why Not Support the Biological Parents Instead?

The Per-Capita Bounty on Breaking Up Families**

“A Whole New Industry — A Sweet Marketing Scheme”:

I can’t help but wonder why we don’t give this same level of support to the children’s parents in the first place?

“I know that I’m feeling pretty smug and superior about being part of such a socially advanced and compassionate society. How about you?”

+ + + + + + + +

Trouble with TAGGS.hhs.gov — the free HHS Database for the Public:

CFDA# Selections

(1) Adoption Exchange Assoc. (MD)

Total Actions (under grantee) $ 39,674,027

Showing: 1 – 18 of 18 Award Actions (1995 – 2011)

(2) Harmony Adoptions of Tennessee, Inc.

Total awards (this grantee) 2007-2011: $ 5,434,761

(3) Latino Family Institute (CA, Los Angeles area)

Total awards (grantee) since 2000 = $9,947,145

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

SHARE THIS POST on...

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

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

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

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

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

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

What Is TANF?

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

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

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

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

Includes this section:

Family Research Council

Federal government career

Communities & Character Councils

What Is TANF?

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

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

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

Communities & Character Councils

. . .encouraging marriage in low-income families. The Collapse of Marriage is the Major Factor in Child Poverty Today.

No it’s not. That’s a single-source, single-interpretation of the causes of poverty.

Now, I could debate that at least logically, following the words “Sez who?” and “Who Sez those are the only experts?” and then poke some holes in the rhetoric.

Could You? Should You? Or don’t you care about the use of taxes and public policy any more?

Go to the actual laws:

[Dispute over legal status

P.L. 109–171, Approved February 8, 2006 (120 Stat. 4)

SHARE THIS POST on...

Section II 8. Fatherhood Programs

8.5 Examples of Fatherhood Programs

Section II
8. Fatherhood Programs