Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and "Conciliation" — Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Author Archive

Why Court-Connected Nonprofits must Reproduce like Rabbits, and Invent New Fields of Practice…

leave a comment »

Well, one great reason might be that they are continuing to lose their business licenses for minor details like failing to file, filing incomplete tax returns, or failing to pay the huge filing fees (like $50).  Or perhaps they just got on the wrong side of the Office of Attorney General or Secretary of State by doing this so often the public started to notice. . .. who knows.  I just noticed this recently — and then a few closer looks showed so much of this that I’ve had to sort them into generalized “court-connected nonprofit” categories.   These samples are from California only, and show approximately that when one category of service is closed down, the AFCC-inspired conferences make sure that the sails are set with different names (but all heading approximately the same direction) — expanding problem-solving courts.

  • SUPERVISED VISITATION FIELD

— CALIFORNIA (casual search on the words “supervised visitation.”):

Business licenses:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3283419 02/08/2010 ACTIVE CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICE PROVIDERS BOBBI JONES RICHARDS
C2497170 01/17/2003 SUSPENDED INLAND ASSOCIATION OF SUPERVISED VISITATION MONITORS, INC. SUZETTE MOHAMMED
C3274277 01/25/2010 ACTIVE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SUPERVISED VISITATION CHAPTER MARIE FISHER
C2967452 02/08/2007 SUSPENDED SUPERVISED VISITATION SERVICES, INC. JUSTIAN RISSO
C2726276 02/03/2005 SUSPENDED SUPERVISED VISITATION, INC. MICHELLE CHRISTINA FULLER
C1978892 09/13/1996 SUSPENDED THE FAMILY TREE – A SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAM ANNEMARIE CIVELLO

Modify Search New Search

Charitable Status, same word search:


Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
SUPERVISED VISITATION, INC. Charity Not Registered VAN NUYS CA Charity Registration Charity
1

  • Family Resource Centers (81 listed in California):

(These are often functioning as supervised visitation centers too, so I thought I’d look.  They seem to have a hard time staying in business):

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C3047952 09/13/2007 ACTIVE AMERICAN CANYON FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER SHERRY TENNYSON
C2114197 07/03/1998 SUSPENDED AZUSA FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. LARRY FETTERS
C2868331 03/01/2006 SUSPENDED CALIFORNIA FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C1813639 01/06/1992 ACTIVE CHALLENGED FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER JUDITH REHLING
C2651993 05/19/2004 ACTIVE CHRISTIAN FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER MIRIAM GUDINO
C2648602 03/24/2004 SUSPENDED COACHELLA VALLEY FAMILY & BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER, INC. WILLIAM PROUTY
C1940548 05/18/1995 SUSPENDED COMFORT CONNECTION FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER HEDY S HANSON
C2234740 04/28/2000 ACTIVE COMMUNITY AND FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER JOHN BENAVIDES
C3360561 02/18/2011 ACTIVE CUYAMA VALLEY FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER KIM EICHERT
C2749315 05/27/2005 ACTIVE DEL NORTE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER JENNIFER ENGLAND
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

(those little#s at the bottom are how many pages of listings….)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2727755 03/25/2005 SUSPENDED DR. NEIL SCHMIDT FILLMORE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, INCORPORATED NORMA PEREZ-SANDFORD
C2223865 02/18/2000 SUSPENDED EASTERN SIERRA FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER DEANNA JOHNSON
C1570162 09/24/1990 SUSPENDED EXCEPTIONAL FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER LORA A. KELLER
C1843672 07/26/1993 ACTIVE EXCEPTIONAL FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. DIANNE K LOVELL
C1916314 11/07/1994 DISSOLVED FAMILY COMPUTER RESOURCE CENTER LINDA CROSSMAN
C3353924 03/01/2011 ACTIVE FAMILY DYNAMICS RESOURCE CENTER SANDRA A WILSON
C2506557 04/14/2003 ACTIVE FAMILY EDUCATION RESOURCE CENTER KENNETH F. PATTERSON
C2442161 07/05/2002 SUSPENDED FAMILY FINANCIAL RESOURCE CENTER, INC. DIANA V KARRINGTON CEDENO
C1951037 10/03/1995 SUSPENDED FAMILY FOCUS RESOURCE CENTER LORI WALKER
C2505515 04/15/2003 SUSPENDED FAMILY ONE STOP RESOURCE COMMUNITY CENTER INC. AVIS MCGURT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1865515 08/25/1993 SUSPENDED FAMILY OPTIONS RESOURCE CENTER, INC. DAVID F ELLISOR
C0540249 02/05/1968 ACTIVE FAMILY RESOURCE & REFERRAL CENTER OF SAN JOAQUIN KAY RUHSTALER
C2126626 11/20/1998 ACTIVE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER COLLABORATIVE OF THE EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY BRUCE W WADDELL
C2972452 03/12/2007 ACTIVE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER OF TRUCKEE ADELA M. GONZALEZ DEL VALLE
C2512983 04/14/2003 ACTIVE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER, INC. ELIZABETH KOZELL
C2496174 02/03/2003 SUSPENDED FAMILY RESOURCE LIBRARY AND ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY CENTER YVETTE ONEIDA BAPTISTE
C3079894 03/19/2008 SUSPENDED FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK CENTER INC. MARIA GARCIA
C2580838 01/29/2004 SUSPENDED FAMILY RESOURCE NETWORK CENTER, INC. GERALDINE VORIS
C2773889 10/03/2005 DISSOLVED FAMILY RESOURCE PSYCHOLOGICAL COUNSELING CENTER INCORPORATED LEXI WELANETZ BURSIN
C2121332 09/24/1998 SUSPENDED FAMILY SENIOR RESOURCE CENTER INC. ROBERT BAKER

And even in the up and coming field of:

  • COLLABORATIVE LAW:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2233795 04/24/2000 ACTIVE COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAWYERS** MARK A. NELSON
C2897092 06/14/2006 DISSOLVED COLLABORATIVE WELLNESS MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPY INC GEORGE FREDERICK CENKNER
C2126626 11/20/1998 ACTIVE FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER COLLABORATIVE OF THE EAST SAN GABRIEL VALLEY BRUCE W WADDELL
C3241857 02/01/2010 ACTIVE KERN COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAW SOLUTIONS STEPHEN C KLINK
C2507710 03/21/2003 ACTIVE LOS ANGELES COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAW ASSOCIATION (LACFLA) FREDERICK J. GLASSMAN

(more on this later, because what’s advertised on various individuals’ websites often isn’t found here, or under “dba” either, i.e. “doing business as.”)

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
***COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAWYERS Charity Not Registered OXNARD CA Charity Registration Charity
1

If this is a non-profit, when is it planning to get registered as one, so we can appreciate the articles of incorporation and  “program service accomplishments” from the IRS 990s it’s going to file?

 

Entity Name:

COLLABORATIVE FAMILY LAWYERS
Entity Number: C2233795
Date Filed: 04/24/2000
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 300 ESPLANADE DRIVE, SUITE 1170
Entity City, State, Zip: OXNARD CA 93036
Agent for Service of Process: MARK A. NELSON
Agent Address: 1170 ESPLANADE DRIVE, SUITE 1170
Agent City, State, Zip: OXNARD CA 93036

 

The address 300 Esplanade, Suite 1170, Oxnard, CA leads to Mr. Nelson and 5 other attorneys listed on his site (4 other man and one woman).   He lists among his professional accomplishments what I think is intended to be this nonprofit — only under a different name:

Mark Nelson
– Nelson Comis Kahn & Sepulveda LLPState Bar Association, Board Certified Specialist in family law, with strong background in business and real estate. Twenty-nine years experience practicing in Litigation, Collaborative and Mediation Models.

Web Site www.calattys.com
  Member Since 6/1998

 

300 Esplanade Drive
Oxnard, CA  93030-0238

Memberships / Noteworthy Activities

  • Collaborative Family Law Professionals, Inc.    Co-foundlnq Director of non-adversarial alternative dispute resolution
    group involving specially trained lawyers, mental health professionals and accountants working with selected clients; President 2003,
    Director and Treasurer 2000-present

Nothing by this specific name seems to show up, presently, perhaps I’m missing it.  I think that the registered agent for a company probably ought to use that company’s name (or a fictitious name / dba) on the site, right?

How many of this bunch of “Collaborative Law Professionals” (Marin County site) stopped collaborating long enough to file THEIR incorporations and nonprofit statements?  As people at least dealing with attorneys (if they’re themselves attorneys, they are most likely AFCC members, and at least rub shoulders regularly with such), surely they know about these basic protocol:

 

California Collaborative Practice Groups

Collaborative Council of the Redwood Empire
Collaborative Practice Group of Contra Costa
East Bay Alliance of Collaborative Professionals
Sacramento Collaborative Practice Group
Collaborative Practice Silicon Valley
Collaborative Practice of San Mateo County
Collaborative Practice of Santa Cruz County
San Francisco Bay Area Collaborative Practice Group
Collaborative Divorce
Los Angeles Collaborative Family Law Association
Coalition for Collaborative Divorce
Collaborative Divorce Solutions
A Better Divorce
Collaborative Family Law Group of San Diego

U

 

 

Anyhow (actually, I looked up several of these), moving on to my favorite category of court-associated nonprofits to poke fun at, perhaps because they’re such a model for others, the same phenomena is happening, I gather, with:

  • PARENT EDUCATION FIELD:

Business License status:

Results of search for ” KIDS TURN ” returned 2 entity records.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C1657442 12/29/1989 SUSPENDED KID’S TURN CLAIRE BARNES
C1970774 06/05/1996 ACTIVE KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO JAMES REYNOLDS DAVIS
How does an organization whose Board includes the current supervising judge of the SF Unified Family COurts — get its business license suspended?    Or are they intentionally shutting down the doors now by letting it lapse?
Talk about a power-packed board of directors here:  Anything “LLP” or “Esq.” represents the legal profession, you’ve also got Ph.D.’s and business people, plus we have already covered that millionaire Halsey Minor, although painfully dinged during a divorce, as I recall, probably has plenty left.

Board of Directors

Jeffrey Abadie — Partner, Sand Hill Advisors LLC
Gregory C. Abel, Esq. — Family Law Attorney, Whiting, Fallon, Ross & Abel, LLP
Gladys Ato, Psy.D. — Argosy University
Claire N. Barnes, MA — Executive Director, Kids’ Turn
Gerard F. Corbett — CEO, Redphlag LLC.
Leslie O. Dawson — Glenn & Dawson, LLP
Dr. Tara Fields — Therapist; Media
Raymond Jones, Ph.D — Retired from Notre Dame de Namur University
Steven Kinney — Pacific-West Regional Director; National Consortium for Academics and Sports
The Hon. Patrick Mahoney, Supervising Judge — San Francisco Unified Family Court
Halsey M. Minor — Principal, Minor Ventures
Ellen Winick Stross, Esq. — Family Law Attorney
Suzie S. Thorn, Esq. — Parliamentarian (nonvoting member) Family Law Attorney

Allison Thorson, Ph.D. – University of San Francisco
Stacey Welsh —  Wealth Adviser, United Capital Financial Advisers

Allison Thorson (I just looked her up) is UCSF Faculty, fresh out of a communications Ph.D. from Nebraska.  She speaks enthusiastically about connecting with an existing Kids Turn Board Member (Corbett) and voila — I guess it’s good to have a UCSF faculty contact to promote Kid’s Turn, and here she is:

Faculty Feats: Professor Allison Thorson (early 2011)

Our second “Faculty Feats” focuses on Professor Allison Thorson and her work with Kids Turn, a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to helping families dealing with separation or divorce.  Professor Thorson is currently serving on their Board of Directors and is leading a support group for parents going through divorce.

Professor Allison Thorson

I asked Professor Thorson how she became involved with Kids Turn:

“I first learned about Kids’ Turn (www.kidsturn.org) at a USF mentoring event.  I was at the event to meet with students and connect them with members of the San Francisco community.  Little did I know that I would be the person making connections that evening.  It was at this function where I met Gerard Corbett, Founder and CEO of Redphlag LLC, who is also a member of the Kids’ Turn Board of Directors.  As Gerry and I made small talk, I happened to share that my research generally focuses on family communication surrounding hurtful and or unexpected events.  Before I knew it we were exchanging business cards and making plans to connect again.  After learning more about Kids’ Turn, their programs, their mission, and meeting individuals associated with the organization in the weeks following my initial encounter with Gerry – I just knew I had to be involved.  I had never met a group of individuals this passionate about helping children and families in times of transition.”

You can read more about Professor Thorson’s research in an article for USF News here:http://www.usfca.edu/newsroom/Research/After_Infidelity__Trouble_for_Parent-Child_Relationship/

Congratulations to Professor Thorson for her service to this important organization.  It is great to have our faculty involved in the local community in this way!

Mr. Corbett has been a technical writer and scientific programmer for NASA, and besides, is CEO of a company himself.  I’m sure he could comprehend the importance of maintaining a business license for an organization he lists on his “About us” page.   Redphlag delivers

“Consulting, Coaching, Counsel & Communication”

At least as of 2008:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
200815210101 05/30/2008 ACTIVE REDPHLAG LLC LEGALZOOM.COM, INC. (C2967349)
The top row represents the original Kid’s Turn from San Francisco, as we see at 1242 Market Street, 2nd Floor:
Entity Name: KID’S TURN
Entity Number: C1657442
Date Filed: 12/29/1989
Status: SUSPENDED
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 1242 MARKET ST 2ND FLR
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
Agent for Service of Process: CLAIRE BARNES
Agent Address: 1242 MARKET ST 2ND FLR
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
Claire Barnes is very well known, and in some of the same circles as Suzie Thorn, whose law firm sits on the 5th floor of 1242 Market Street here.  Photo below after I explain a bit.
This gets interesting, because on the 5th floor of the building is a prominent family law firm, Schapiro & Thorn, who are helping guide families (especially well-heeled families) through the maze of the family law system, with a very professional web design and close connections to Kid’s Turn — in fact, the founding paperwork detailed that this organization’s physical site would be the 2nd floor of this building.  Which it appears the Thorn family have majority ownership** in:
(**simplified description of some information from a 1986 ABA article interviewing Ms. Thorn, including on the purchase of the building and the decision to focus on family law, not to mention staff member Joe Thorn is “Managing Partner for 1242 Market Street Limited“) and of course the Calif. Secretary of State also lists this business:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
198501800044 01/18/1985 ACTIVE 1242 MARKET STREET, LTD. SUZIE S. THORN
Firm Location
Schapiro • Thorn • Inc.
1242 Market Street, 5th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102
1240 - 1242 Market Street, San Francisco (built 1908)

Guidance Through the Family Law Maze

Schapiro-Thorn is a firm that resolves challenging family law problems and guides clients through the divorce process in the most positive manner possible.

We place particular emphasis on cases involving high-value assets. We also handle mid-level cases that present complex property division issues, as well as those which involve interstate and international child custody disputes.

Our attorneys have extensive experience in the family law area. They are assertive litigators and astute negotiators who are dedicated to achieving our clients’ goals and protecting their rights.

…here to help you through the legal maze of divorce and related family law issues…

They are very professional and have been around a long time; in fact when a SF examiner author wanted to interview a family attorney on the impact the closure of three SF family courthouses (article is below), a Thorn & Schapiro attorney’s opinion was solicited — Ms. Mehmet.  Ms. Thorn is a Board Member of Kids’ Turn, among a lot of other international experience, and Ms. Mehmet certainly promotes it as well.

A Team of Advocates and Professionals

Attorney Suzie S. Thorn, was one of the first female family law attorneys in California. For over forty years, she has represented clients with dedication and professionalism. She leads a team of attorneys and professionals who are committed to protecting the rights, families, and assets of clients during and after the divorce process.

(from individual page on Ms. Thorn):   Currently, Ms. Thorn is a Trustee of the International Commission on Couple and Family Relations Trust, a United Kingdom Registered Charity, as well as a Member of the Board of Kids’ Turn, San Francisco, a charitable organization which endeavors to assist families and especially children through the rigors of the divorce process. …

Ms. Thorn has served on the Executive Committee and as Chair and Treasurer of the Family Law Section of the California State Bar. She has served as Judge pro tempore and Section Law Judge pro tempore for the San Francisco Superior Court.

Or (from the ICCFR pages):

Suzie S Thorn (USA) is a prominent matrimonial lawyer in San Francisco. She is President  of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Foundation, of the Suzie S Thorn Family Foundation, and of Schapiro-Thorn Inc. Her initial contact with ICCFR resulted from liaison between the Commission and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts in 1993. She became a Board member in 1995. She was the innovative founder of the ICCFR Trust of which she is now a trustee.

photo

As a matter of fact, Ms. Thorn helped set up this ICCFR Trust to start with, it says:

Suzie S. THORN Esq. (USA) is a prominent matrimonial lawyer in San Francisco. She is President the San Francisco firm of attorneys Schapiro Thorn Inc. and of the S.S.Thorn Family Foundation, and from 2006 to 2008 was President of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers (AAML) Foundation, She is a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers and of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. She has been a Board Member of ICCFR since 1995 and was instrumental in setting up the Trust. Suzie is one of the three Founder Trustees of ICCFR Trust

The ICCFR is about Family Relations and Couples — and under its international listing “useful links” if one scrolls down to see “US” — it is well-represented by three (3) organizations (for all 50 states):

I’m sure that’s just a coincidence, though.  As is Claire Barnes’ (of Kid’s Turn) presence in the ICCFR as a Commission Board member:

Claire Barnes

photoClaire Barnes (USA) has been the Executive Director of Kids’ Turn, San Francisco, for the past seven years. That organisation helps children made vulnerable by family breakdown. She is also Chair of the Volunteer Council of the San Francisco Symphony. Claire and husband Alan have participated in ICCFR conferences for some years and she joined the Board in 2005, taking on the position of Treasurer in June 2008.

Also found reviewing Isolina Ricci’s famous book, Mom’s House, Dad’s House(.com) see scrolling testimonials.  This of course would be wise; Dr. Ricci has been  “Statewide Coordinator and Administrator of the CaliforniaStatewide Office of Family Court Services, Administrative Ofice of the Courts,  (“AOC”) Judicial Council of California.”  As they administer the funds that go to Kid’s Turn, I”d have to assume they are in some agreement on both its function and mandating mediation for California divorcing separating couples:  @ 1992:   “California is now in its 11th year of mandatory child custody mediation, with a current yearly case volume statewide estimated at 65,494. This article (by Ricci + 2, in Family Court Review) profiles the variations in programs and mediation styles in 56 of the state’s 58 Superior Courts. Two research studies provide the basis for the information on program structures, case activity, procedures, agreement formats, recommendations, facilities, security, and fees.”

Or, for another illustration of Isolina Ricci’s positioning with the family law situation, ”

  1. Isolina Ricci

    Issue

    Family Court Review

    Family Court Review

    Volume 30, Issue 2, pages 169–184, April 1992

(Not published on-line til 2005, and only people who know this publication exists, and could afford to subscribe, may have realized the strategic planning that went into expanding the concilliation code into extra, add-on, “problem-solving”  services — like Kids’ Turn represents perhaps the heart — but certainly not the entirety of.  This becomes relevant as now both the nonprofit organizations AND even courthouses are getting shut down through budget crises.)  As the abstract says:

This article describes the implementation of landmark legislation in California that provided for services and statewide coordination of family mediation and conciliation courts in California. The article describes the overall management design and its underlying principles, projects, and the five major statewide areas of services.

And in case I haven’t made my point yet, this is also classic AFCC — and here Dr. Ricci was presenting last October (2010), in anticipation of an audio book and workbook for “Moms House Dad’s House” — at the Texas AFCC / University of Houston Law Center conference, on “Children in the Middle.”  “(Children in the Middle being another prosperous nonprofit benefitting no doubt from the same federal grants programs), Texas Chapter of AFCC being of also in the nonprofit business.

ANYHOW:

Obviously, Ms. Thorn is well-acquainted with forming foundations, charities, and trusts – at home and abroad.

Ms. Thorn, Brent Seymour and Yasmine Mehmet have earned designation as specialists in Family Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.  Ms. Mehmet came to San Francisco from Canada in 1996, and is a decorated, tri-lingual family law specialist.  Either she works out of two offices (including 1242 Market, here), or one of the websites is more current than the other, however it’s clear she is endorses Kid’s Turn; it’s listed under “Resources” on the Sansome Street law practice’s site: (for photo to the right).

Law Office of Yasmine S. Mehmet

505 Sansome Street,
6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

And under “resources” just a few are listed — the most important ones, presumably:

Below is a list of resources related to family law matters. Please be aware that the Law Office of Yasmine S. Mehmet is not responsible for any information or advice received on or through these sites and will not be held liable for their content.

Thank goodness the Volunteer Legal Services Program still has its business license & nonprofit status!
C1179677 02/16/1984 ACTIVE SAN FRANCISCO BAR ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM TIELA CHALMERS
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
SAN FRANCISCO BAR ASSOCIATION VOLUNTEER LEGAL SERVICES PROGRAM 054598 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
(Note:  these links won’t be active — the search expires; one has to search the name from main page again to find them).


and they’re not running out of money, I think, although I’m sure not of customers, either.
Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
Total Assets: $1,997,655.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $3,741,592.00
RRF Received: 16-NOV-10
And as required (at least to my knowledge) it’s stated who it’s getting its government funding from:
Quite a few courts are supporting this cause.
Description of Mission (missing from the California site, available on the 990s at the NCCSDataweb.urban.org, which apparently gets them from the IRS):

Briefly describe the organization’s mission or significant activities:

V LSP’s mission is to enhance income, self-sufficiency, and general quality of life for economically marginalized persons by ensuring they have access to the legal and related social services available to help them.  Program Service Accomplishments, helping with restraining orders is listed first:

FAMILY LAW PROJECT ASSIST INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN INCLUDING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WITH LEGAL MATTERS INCLUDING MARITAL DISSOLUTIONS, CHILD CUSTODY, CHILD SUPPORT, RESTRAINING ORDERS, GUARDIANSHIPS, CONSERVATORSHIPS, WILLS, POWERS OF ATTORNEY AND PROBATE ISSUES ASSISTANCE WITH APPLICATIONS FOR RESTRAINING ORDERS INCLUDES A RESTRAINING ORDER CLINIC WHICH ASSISTS IN PRO PER LITIGANTS IN GETTING RESTRAINING ORDERS AGAINST THEIR ABUSERS 2,372 CLIENTS SERVED IN 2009  (Cost, $619,655); EVICTION DEFENSE ($267,525) and HOMELESS ADVOCACY ($!,307,774)

and “OTHER” expenses ($175,322).
Their Executive Director (Tiela Chalmers in the year I’m looking at) is paid $106K from this organization & $16K”other” ), and the CFO Jonathan Bond got $159K  from this and about $27K “other”…  The reporting seems very detailed and observant of tax codes.
They apparently are doing better than a few other Legal Aid Societies (i.e., concept of pro bono help) around the state:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2099226 01/04/1999 SUSPENDED COMPOSERS AND LYRICISTS LEGAL AID SOCIETY, INC. JEFFREY GRAUBART
C0338301 05/16/1957 MERGED OUT LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ALAMEDA COUNTY CLIFFORD SWEET
C0367310 01/21/1959 SUSPENDED LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF FRESNO COUNTY
C0353376 04/18/1958 SUSPENDED LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF MONTEREY COUNTY KATHERINE E STONER
C0354322 05/09/1958 ACTIVE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY ROBERT J COHEN
C0239653 10/14/1949 SUSPENDED LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF PASADENA LAURALEA T SADDICK
C0354863 05/21/1958 ACTIVE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN BERNARDINO ROBERTA SHOUSE
C0281422 12/28/1953 ACTIVE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO GREGORY E KNOLL
C0403086 09/28/1960 ACTIVE LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY ANTONIO ESTREMERA
C0347936 12/19/1957 SUSPENDED LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SANTA MONICA DAVID M DURST
Maybe all these busy volunteer lawyers (or their leaders) forgot to register as a charity, or didn’t report completely who their donors were, like Kids’ Turn San Diego
Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF MONTEREY COUNTY Charity Not Registered PACIFIC GROVE CA Charity Registration Charity
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF ORANGE COUNTY 006611 Charity Current SANTA ANA CA Charity Registration Charity
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF PASADENA Charity Not Registered EL MONTE CA Charity Registration Charity
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN BERNARDINO 006478 Charity Current SAN BERNARDINO CA Charity Registration Charity
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SAN DIEGO 004078 Charity Current SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 004401 Charity Current SAN JOSE CA Charity Registration Charity
LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF SANTA MONICA Charity Not Registered SANTA MONICA CA Charity Registration Charity
LEGAL AID SOCIETY PASADENA 004488 Charity Delinquent CLAREMONT CA Charity Registration Charity
1
(Which calls into question, perhaps, what type of legal aid might be coming one’s way for free, although I don’t want to undermine the concept. I just question what the family law arena is doing handling criminal matters).  Alameda County still has “Legal Aid Society of Alameda County” as a referral # so hopefully they’ll figure out sooner or later that it “merged out.”
A national listing site I like to use:   “NCCSDATAWEB.URBAN.ORG” shows yet a different set, including a new one (to us) — of San Mateo; although I searched active and inactive, ti didn’t pull up the Alameda County one.
Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section $$Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2011  951994337 Legal Aid Society of Orange County CA 1960 03 8,919,391 7,176,615 990
2010  951869806 Legal Aid Society of San Diego CA 1957 03 7,311,311 3,825,027 990
2009  941534842 Legal Aid Society of Santa Clara County CA 1965 03 4,320,684 1,942,380 990
2010  942783401 The Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center CA** 1982 03 4,243,438 7,245,740 990
2010  951997024 Legal Aid Society of San Bernardino CA 1960 03 2,112,591 493,138 990
2010  941451894 Legal Aid Society of San Mateo Co CA 1960 03 1,686,585 3,489,676 990
2008  951621026 Legal Aid Society of Pasadena CA 1951 03 0 0
**the 4th one here happens to be in San Francisco, incorporated in 1982: @ 180 Montgomery St Ste 600 San Francisco, CA 94104.
I don’t mean to fixate on legal aid societies, but for someone who’s spent as much time on 990s and vendor payment records and other county websites, sometimes a detail will stay in my mind, without the reference.  I am looking for (haven’t found yet) the particular pro bono legal service (SF area or East Bay) which closed down, transferring ALL its assets to a different nonprofit, which had two “Program service accomplishments” (purposes) only:   1.  to help indigent clients (nonspecific) and the other, 2., to help noncustodial parents with access to their kids.  Hmm, I was thinking, was this why women sometimes can’t get pro bono legitimate help with child support enforcement, or to defend themselves against a custody challenge by someone who they formerly had a restraining order on?   This is a 990 I read recently, and possibly with ties to either Oakland or San Francisco.
ANYHOW —
So I am wondering what caused this longstanding and famous nonprofit Kid’s Turn (San Francisco), also recognized for some years as a nonprofit vendor to the City and County of San Francisco, and a sub-grantee to the famous access & visitation grants system (through California Judicial Council),  to lose its business license, and how come the copycat organization further south in California, Kids’ Turn San Diego — got dinged for not filing properly? — read on:

Charity Status (all nonprofits orgs. are required to as well register with the Office of Attorney General when they are doing business in the state — which I assure you this one has been — as are commercial or nonprofit fundraisers.  ON that front, things aren’t going quite so well):

In California, I just searched for “California Office of Attorney General Charitable Trusts” (or similar term), the “Registry,” to get to this:

http://rct.doj.ca.gov/MyLicenseVerification/Search.aspx?facility=Y  A search page with many fields pops up (this varies from state to state):

Record Type:   –All–  Charity  Fundraising Professional  Raffle
Registration Type:   –All–  Charity Registration  Commercial Coventurer  Commercial Fundraiser  Fundraising Counsel  Fundraising Event  Raffle Registration  Raffle Report
Secretary of State or Franchise Tax Board Number (numbers only):
Organization Name:
State Charity Registration Number:
DBA:
FEIN (numbers only):
Registration Status:   –All–  Awaiting Reporting  Closed  Closed – Inactive  Complete  Confidential Trust – Terminated  Current  Delinquent  Dissolution Pending  Dissolved  Exempt – Active  Exempt – Dissolution Pending  Exempt – Dissolved  Exempt – Form 990-PF Required  Exempt – Inactive  Expired  Extension  Inactive  Incomplete  Incomplete Financial Report  Merged Out  Never Registered – Dissolution Pending  Never Registered-Dissolved  No Raffles  Not Registered  Public Financing  Registered  Registered – Bank Trust  Rejected  Revoked  Suspended – Bond Canceled
County:
City:
State:   –All–  AA  AE  AK  AL  AP  AR  AS  AZ  CA  CO  CT  DC  DE  FL  FM  GA  GU  HI  IA  ID  IL  IN  KS  KY  LA  MA  MD  ME  MH  MI  MN  MO  MP  MS  MT  NA  NC  ND  NE  NH  NJ  NM  NV  NY  OH  OK  OR  PA  PR  PW  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VA  VI  VT  WA  WI  WV  WY
ZIP Code:

and according to this page, the San Diego Kids Turn isn’t doing quite so well with its filings and compliance:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type RegiRegstration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
KID’S TURN 075606 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 102902 Charity Delinquent SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity
1

The incorporating articles for both organizations read identical except for the words “San Diego” in the latter one.  Details here show:

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: KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO FEIN: 330724932
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1970774
Registration Number: 102902
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 12/31/2005 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2012
Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status: 3/12/2010
Date of Last Renewal: 3/28/2011
Address Information
Address Line 1: 16935 WEST BERNARDO DR. Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SAN DIEGO CA 92127

They are filing their 990s, at least did as of 2010, but apparently there was an issue with actual listing their donors, paying the $50 filing fee, and in short complying with what charities have to do in California, resulting in what would seem comical communications from the Attorney General’s Office to a nonprofit founded by people already doing LOTS of business with the courts, and full of judges (etc.) on their boards over the years:  Please send us the COMPLETE list, and also how about the registration fee?


This is happening in so many fields I’m going to have to categorize them by whatever the latest terminology fad happens to be.  Supervised Visitation was easier, so I’ll start there and in California.  Why not — after all, the state is nuts!

almonds-vitamin-e-lg

California is Just Nuts!

(but, with the USDA, forces farmers to treat “raw” almonds with PPO,

a carcinogen rejected by both the EU and the American Motorcycle Racing Association as unsafe

if they refuse to steam, irradiate, roast or blanch the life out of them before selling them as “raw” anyhow….)

AND, while it’s clear that California LOSES (or hoards) millions of $$ of child support and reportedly fails to collect $1 billion more, give or take some, and doesn’t know what its own vendors are doing, really, in some jurisdictions — (two letters:  “SF”) it has no trouble going after the real threats to society and miscreants — raw milk enthusiasts and organic gardeners.

This is a link to a 2011 raid; I already blogged on part of the 2010 raid (?) on my “Milk Sucks” posts.  Where’s a SWAT team when you really need it?

Raw Food Raid: Armed Agents Bust Raw Milk & Cheese Sellers 

Assault on independent health accelerates as retailers charged with conspiracy, ‘mislabeling cheese

CONSOLIDATED UPDATE: Multiple sources have confirmed the fact that all three individuals arrested– James Stewart, Victoria Bloch and Sharon Palmer– are being charged with ‘conspiracy’ related to the sell of unpasteurized raw milk products.

This reportedly includes sections of the California Penal Code Section 182a. Additional charges may also be pending, including a charge of ‘mislabeling cheese’ for Sharon Palmer, was arrested during a raid of Healthy Family Farms. As video of the raid on Rawesome Foods (also raided in 2010) demonstrates, Feds not only seized cash and raw milk supplies (much of which was also dumped out) but also mangos and other fresh, organic produce. Activists have planned a protest tomorrowoutside the L.A. County Courthouse to demand the release of the raw food retailers, each held on bonds reportedly exceeding $120,000.

————-

VIDEO OF RAID: Police Seize Cash, Produce, Dump Raw Milk

Moreover,  seems like we are always trying to create new disciples (fill in the blank)  — and try, contrary to the independent spirit that supposedly marks the U.S. — make sure no one teaches a contradictory one.  Yeah, sure! It looks like both Prop 8 and Stop SB 48 may be on the ballot next fall:

PROP 8

We (so to speak) passed Prop 8 banning same-sex Marriage.  Calif. has a reputation to uphold, and naturally protested it, then of course the “pro-family” (whatever that means anymore) protested the protest (see “protectmarriage.com”)

Not quite off-topic as the marriage/fatherhood promotion grants I’ve been blogging we’ve seen go to anti-gay groups that take their message to Africa…

The next stage in California’s Proposition 8 court case is set for September 6 when the Supreme Court of California will hear arguments on whether Prop. 8 supporters have legal standing under state law to appeal the overturning of California’s gay marriage ban.

Following federal Judge Vaughn Walker’s August 2010 ruling that California’s 2008 voter enacted ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, proponents quickly filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit. However, Vaughn Walker’s original ruling raised serious doubts as to whether Prop. 8 supporters, due to the particulars of how they came to defend the same-sex marriage ban, have the right to appeal.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/next-stage-in-prop-8-case-set-for-sept-6.html#ixzz1VWtjLYH9

Next Stage in Prop. 8 Case Set for Sept. 6

SB 48 and “Stop48” and “FAIR”

Now there’s SB48 (Leno) which reads in part:

Pupil Instruction Prohibition of Discriminatory Content

Existing law prohibits a governing board of a school district from adopting instructional materials that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons because of their race, color, creed, national origin, ancestry, sex, handicap, or occupation, or that contain any sectarian or denominational doctrine or propaganda contrary to law.

This bill would revise the list of characteristics included in this provision to include race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, sexual orientation, and occupation, or other characteristic listed as specified.

Existing law requires that when adopting instructional materials for use in the schools, governing boards of school districts shall include materials that accurately portray the role and contributions of culturally and racially diverse groups including Native Americans, African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, and members of other ethnic and cultural groups to the total development of California and the United States.

That’s only 6 designations.  I’m sure there are students from almost every continent and culture stuck in California schools — have we got all basis covered yet?   What about Muslim-Americans?  Isn’t failing to name that as a protected category discriminatory?  President Obama didn’t forget this category, nor has the mainstream press — but no mention in to protect in the textbooks?  What about Middle-Eastern Americans?  In 2007 the Governor of Maryland “Executive-Ordered” into being a Commission on Middle Eastern American Affairs.   There is a “middleeastern.maryland.gov” just like at the federal level there is a “fatherhood.gov” (speaking of “executive-ordering into being,” 1995….). what’s with California — behind the times?  What about Latin-Americans?  And there were even some (around the time of the last census) demanding space as “Southern-Americans, as in Confederate  (per Washington Post, 2010):

Federal Eye – Eye Opener: Group wants southerners to put ‘Confederate Southern American’ on the Census:

Happy Friday! With roughly one week until census forms are due, a group of Confederate rights activists is urging southerners with Confederate ancestors to declare themselves “Confederate Southern Americans” on census forms in order to qualify for national origin protection under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Federal law makes it illegal to discriminate because of a person’s birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. The South North Carolina-based Southern Legal Resource Center believes that people with ancestors who were citizens {{as opposed to noncitizen slaves?…}} of the Confederate States of America should be entitled to ethnic identity and protection since the country no longer exists.

Talk about nostalgia!  However, if people want to believe that fatherlessness causes abuse, or that the U.S. was better cut off below the Mason-Dixon line, fine (well, sort of) just don’t waste my tax dollars teaching all kids this — especially if I have no kids.   I mean, the California textbook industry has already so denuded the texts of colorful language that one can’t speak in anything but an affected tone — already!  Per Dianne Ravitch, in The Language Police, i.e.
 

Sins of Omission

Diane Ravitch explains why textbooks are tedious.

  Now “bias” is used to mean the appearance of any idea or term that references a specific aspect of a non-utopian society in any educational material. Under this bloated definition, anything that could potentially offend anyone must be excised from textbooks and standardized tests.
and she points out that California and Texas being the largest states, all it takes to eradicate a word is lobby the Board of Education in either state — which we all know is “so” apolitical — in a particularly vocal manner.
 
Because most states require statewide adoption of textbooks, there is intense competition among the major textbook companies for the business of the states with the largest education systems, especially California and Texas. However, this competition only occurs among the four major publishing houses, each of which has taken over many smaller companies, and only one of which is American-owned. Because of the high cost of developing textbooks that meet the guidelines of the market (large sums have to be spent marketing textbooks to state Boards of Education), there is an effective barrier to entry in the textbook market. Furthermore, since California and Texas are the largest markets for which books are chosen by the state, only publishers who consistently win their approval can remain on the market. Thus, all it takes to forever banish a word or image from schools across the nation is a well-placed, vocal group to lobby the Board of Education in either of these states.
 
Apparently it offended the makers of plastic bags that the environmental curriculum in California disses plastic bags.  No discriminating against the American Chemistry Council in California Textbooks.  AFter all, that bag made in 19xx is going to be around for a LONG time . . .like around 1,000 years before it decomposes.
See “Plastics Industry Edited Environmental Textbook”  from the Center for Investigative Reporting.  (Entering reading if you live out of state, if not, well that’s our California, and yes, they ARE serious, alas…).   
 
So here we go with SB 48 ……

This bill would revise the list of culturally and racially diverse groups to also include Pacific Islanders, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans, and persons with disabilities.

I must be disabled — because no matter how hard I try, I cannot comprehend what makes California legislators, educators, or textbook manufacturers (oh — I forgot, the only North-American one is probably Scholastic from New York anyhow) think that children and youth can be completely immunized from racism, sexism, sexual-orientation-ism or religious bias OUTside the school system by sitting through artificially-engineered prose inside it.  Even if use of cell phones on-campus is banned, which some places, it is.

Anyhow, pick your team:  STOP 48 the California “FAIR Education Act” because it costs to much,

or STOP “STOP48.”  It could be overwhelming, EQUALITY CALIFORNIA (LAWeekly last month), if:

Some critics think it’s the wrong time to push for such an expensive ballot measure since a Prop. 8 lawsuit, in which a federal judge found the 2008 initiative to be unconstitutional, is still working its way through the appeals courts.

Gays and lesbians in California could be overwhelmed on the political front lines and financially if both the anti-gay history ballot measure and the pro-gay marriage initiative are placed on a 2012 ballot.

In 2008, gays and lesbians spent more than $40 million in trying to defeat Proposition 8, the successful ballot measure that banned legalized same-sex marriage.

Talk about conflicted!

California Schools 49th out of 50 in 2009

By WIRE SERVICES

Story Created: Jan 15, 2009 at 4:11 PM PDT

California ranks next to last in states where the adult population has at least a high school education, according to a report released by the California Faculty Association at Cal State Los Angeles.

Ranking 49th out of 50 states is an indication of the state’s deteriorating educational status in recent decades, according to “California at the Edge of a Cliff,” by Thomas G. Mortenson.

Mortenson is an independent analyst living in Iowa and a senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education in Washington, D.C.

As of 2007, California ranked 14th in the nation in terms of college educated members of the workforce over 25 years of age, a drop from eighth place in 1981, according to the report.

“Other states have made greater gains in building a college educated workforce and moved past California,” Mortenson stated. “California is slipping toward educational and economic mediocrity among states on this critical measure of state competitiveness, prosperity and success.”

State tax fund investment in higher education has declined by 40 percent since 1980, according to the report.

Possibly because to say anything in a textbook is going to offend someone else who will start a referendum about it.  And of course we all know, the more money your pour into something — like the schools, or child support centralization and expansion, or the courts — the better off it is for everyone.

Take for example, San Francisco’s Superior Court system:  Obviously either someone hasn’t been pouring enough into it (where are Kid’s Turns profits when you need them, hey?) — either that or there are some holes in the accounting somewhere, and what’s been poured in doesn’t equal what’s coming out the other end…

But in the press, it is of course failing because, and only because, of a budget crisis:


By: Ari Burack | Examiner Staff Writer | 07/19/11 4:00 AM
Meredith Grier
Buried: The Superior Court’s Meredith Grier goes through paperwork from open cases. The court will have a larger backlog thanks to cuts in state funding. (Examiner file photo)

It takes at least six months to get a divorce in San Francisco, and now unhappy couples can add at least a year to that, thanks to planned budget cuts to the Superior Court.

Katherine Feinstein, the Superior Court’s presiding judge, gave a dire outlook to reporters at a Monday news conference, reiterating the court’s plan to lay off 200 employees and close 25 courtrooms in late September.

The budget recently approved by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature sliced hundreds of millions of dollars from state courts. San Francisco is facing a $13.75 million deficit, or 15.6 percent of its operating budget.

“We’re left with one painful, unprecedented option, which is a reduction in service that is so severe that it will, for all practical purposes, dismantle our court,” Feinstein said.

OUR court?

WHOSE court is it, precisely?  Because I was looking at the payroll recently:  Not the vendor payments (see last post) but the salaried, public employees.

This is the Job Descriptions list & chart.  FOr salary, click on the Salary link, I have it above and below this list of positions:

Click on any Job Code number to view the Job Description. The documents are in PDF format. You may print and save any description that you desire.

JOB CODE

CLASS TITLE

144

Traffic Hearing Officer

148

Court Manager

155

Court Reporter Coordinator

165

Director, Probate

176

Director, Training

185

Director, Information Technology Group

192

Court Administrator

195

Executive Assistant to the Presiding Judge

201

Court Supervisor I

202

Court Supervisor II

245

Drug Court Coordinator

261

Mental Health Coordinator

265

Assistant Director, Probate

268

Supervising Family Court Counselor/Mediator

272

Fiscal Services Supervisor

274

Fiscal Systems and Services Manager

285

Court Computer Systems Manager

291

Supervising Court Administrative Secretary

310

Court Legal Research Assistant

311

Court Staff Attorney I

312

Court Staff Attorney II

316

Senior Court Staff Attorney

362

Probate Investigator

365

Probate Examiner

366

Dependency Mediation Assistant

368

Family Court Counselor/Mediator

370

Administrative Analyst I

372

Administrative Analyst II

375

Court Training Specialist

351

Court Computer Systems Engineer I

352

Court Computer Systems Engineer II

353

Court Computer Applications Analyst

354

Court Computer Applications Programmer

355

Court Computer Facilities Coordinator

410

Deputy Court Clerk I

420

Deputy Court Clerk II

430

Deputy Court Clerk III

432

Trial Delay Reduction Coordinator

441

Court Paralegal

442

Executive Assistant, Juvenile Justice Commission

444

Court Alternative Dispute Resolution Coordinator

450

Building Services Technician

470

Administrative Services Technician

472

Fiscal Technician

474

Senior Fiscal Technician

475

Training Technician

476

Personnel/Payroll Representative

491

Court Administrative Secretary

495

Secretary to the Presiding Judge

500

Court Reporter

876

Director, Human Resources

879

Director, Fiscal Services

899

Court Executive Officer

985

Court Commissioner

990

Superior Court Judge

Current Superior Court Salary Schedule  (find Job # on list below, click here for Salary ranges for that particular #)

Feinstein continues:

Most of the effects will be felt in civil cases, where litigants can anticipate years of delays, according to Feinstein. Reduced office hours for court clerks will make filing and obtaining information more difficult. Feinstein warned of long hours waiting in line just to pay a traffic ticket, and months to get a copy of a criminal or civil court record.**

**And that’s IF you are lucky and well-connected… and if you can afford it, or have a fee-waiver if you can’t .  When you finally get it, it may or may not be an accurate record, according to a Joseph Zernik, DDS — with the implementation of PACER (electronic docketing) there is now a dual system in place anyhow.  See:

Dual Electronic Docketing Systems of the United States courts examined with focus on application at the Central District of California

By installing PACER AND CM/ECF, the US courts introduced a sea change in operations of the courts, with no legal foundation.” In a paper entitled “Notice of Electronic Filing,” Joseph Zernik writes, “The authority for implementation of CM/ECF is often cited as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allow Local Rules of Court. However, the implementation….was not via Local Rules of Court.” Zernik goes on to note that “the detailed rules of implementation of PACER and CM/ECF at the Central District of California, for example, were only provided in an ‘Unofficial Manual’…”

“This is the biggest shell-game fraud in the history of the legal process,” states Zernik.

In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place – one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. In so doing, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. Specific court records, which used to be standard part of the public docket, were subject to restrictions, and public access is now denied to such records. The courts created two docketing and access systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. The spokesperson for PACER stated that while there were indeed two systems in place, one was for public access and one was for filing.

Apart from the obvious issues raised by such two separate systems Zernik uncovered further cause for alarm. When the court systems became computerized, the common law practices also altered, subtly and nearly undetectably. The prior procedure, which required that an authorized Deputy Clerk of the court stamp each paper “Entered” and endorse it with his hand signature to attest to the entering of documents into a given case docket, was altered with no legal authority.

If that’s a little complicated to understand, understand this:  within one week of a certain reporter translating it into more basic concepts (see “California public schools, above”) Zernik was pulled over and arrested — a story she then told August, 2010, in “The Prisoner” (remind anyone of Richard Fine yet?).

Dr. Joseph Zernik had become very persistent. The fifty four year old former college professor had been accumulating a large amount of data supporting his perceptions that the US federal courts and the Los Angeles court system were involved in systematic fraud upon those accessing those courts. Zernik alleges the fraud appears to be linked to the digitalization of court records, when the new computer systems introduced layers of obfuscation to previously transparent processes.

Dr. Zernik, who has a PhD in molecular biology and a holds a doctor of dentistry degree and had taught at both the University of Connecticut and the University of Southern California, decided to make his findings public. He launched a campaign to get this information into the hands of the media, and began emailing and calling various publications and reporters. The information was technical and fairly complex and met with a somewhat puzzled but polite response from reporters. Zernik had become adamant that the impact of this fraud decimated many of the constitutional protections that our justice system promises. In the face of an unresponsive press, he went ahead and registered at examiner.com and was attempting to master the journalistic skills to write his findings as news reports, himself.

On January 31, 2010, this reporter, having toiled over pages of Zernik’s evidence, agreed to write an article summarizing his findings. Within a week, Joseph Zernik was arrested and jailed at Twin Towers in Los Angeles. Joseph Zernik had never been jailed before.

Zernik reports being pulled over on February 6, 2010 by the LaVerne police. Zernik relates that the police did not inform him he had broken a traffic law nor did they write him a ticket. Instead, he states that he was asked if he were indeed Joseph Zernik. When he replied affirmatively, he was told that there were two outstanding bench warrants for his arrest and that he was being taken into custody. The warrants, as it turned out, were for minor vehicle related infractions that were about two years old and which Zernik believed had been resolved. Zernik, who drives an unusual and easily distinguishable make and model of car, thinks he may have been under surveillance.

What happened then and in a subsequent arrest on February 19th is tantamount to a Disneyland “Mr. Toad’s Wild Ride,” littered with court documents issued from non-existent courts, finessed records and computer irregularities of the type which Zernik had previously pigeonholed as fraudulent in other cases.

Well, part of the court records include transcripts.  Let’s look at COURT REPORTERS, who are paid by the County as are most court employees except the Judges:

Court Reporter Coordinators (a court transcript is of course a witness to the proceedings in any trial or hearing) earn from $107K to $130K annually, and is a highly qualified position:

to provide verbatim official records of all testimony and court proceedings in cases heard before the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, and during Grand Jury proceedings; and to do related work as required.

which reports to:

REPORTS TO

Court Judges, Court Commissioners, and Assistant Chief Executive Officer.

That gets interesting, because a JUDGE (I learned – after the fact) is quite different from a COMMISSIONER.  For example, in who pays the salaries:

985C  Court Commissioner = PAID BY THE COUNTY.

(Last Changed:  7/1/07)  $72.7830/hour  $5,823/biweekly 12,664/month $151,971/year

BUT the CCSF (City and County of SF) pays apparently benefits, @   $4.5498   $ 364  $ 792    $ 9,500/year

990C Superior Court Judge = PAID BY THE STATE (as opposed to all the others, above – – on the schedule)

(last changed 7/1/07)  STATE  $85.6269/hour,  $6,850/biweekly   $14,899/month   $178,789/year

XXXX

Presiding Judge . last changed 1/1/07. . . . (etc.) = $185,941/year)

This data from “SUPERIOR COURT SALARY SCHEDULE As of 9-4-10″

We have already, I believe, established that the citizens are paying through the nose almost everywhere, including paying public employees, allowing public employees to separately collaborate and form nonprofits with high membership dues, and then letting these nonprofits directly bill the local county (and/or city) to pay those huge membership dues, AND training fees.

The training conferences are great expeditions away from the noise and din of the local, irate, taxpayers or people protesting social service cutbacks, to collaborate on the next shapeshift and new name for their field of practice.

I became aware of this recently when I got bored with looking at who got the grants and tried to take a better look at what they were doing with them.  When one goes to the local comptrollers website and starts searching vendor payments (see last post) or, what gets even MORE interesting, vendor reports.  Like what the City’s own auditor has to say about the city’s processes, or lack thereof.

To basically summarize it, San Francisco basically doesn’t know what’s up with its own expenditures — but several reports are rather disturbing – in fact so disturbing that they will be published here, to place alongside the cries about  budget cuts.

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 20, 2011 at 8:01 pm

How “Nonprofit” Status –ALL Nonprofit status, large & small — leads to Abuse of Individuals: Money flows towards the Visionary & Dictatorial

with one comment

In the matters I blog on, the Nonprofit Sector reigns supreme — and is often corrupt, un-caught, and unnoticed.

If I had any illusions about any “social contract” with the local social service agencies, nonprofits, or my local government, that illusion is now gone.

Instead, there is a host of nonprofits doing the work (allegedly) that serves human beings (allegedly) that (allegedly) are drastically in need of certain services. For example — a great example — teaching adult fathers about abstinence, or women leaving abuse (or trying to) about how to better get along with their ex-batterer, or else. The or else comes as much from the courts as it did formerly (or still) from the ex.

Meanwhile, faith-based organizations, often nonprofits — go after grants (and the government goes after their getting them).

Not only is it the taxes these groups do NOT pay that has an effect, but sometimes, the work the are doing is drastically restructuring society without appropriate approval by the local communities — unless these communities happen to have time to stay REALLY up on the grants system in their areas.

For example, one major nonprofit, at least west coast (and there are corresponding groups for other regions) is called “CSDA” — the Child Support Directors Association (of California):

Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  680450141 Child Support Directors Association CA 2002 06 1,070,614 1,362,005 990

California — like all other states — had to go towards a Statewide Disbursement Unit (SDU) model — or forfeit the federal welfare funding.  So in most counties, there is an agency — and this is an administrative agency, not legislative or judicial — for which taxpayers pay the salaries and expenses, as well as there was a major transition project around the turn of the millennium, when this function was removed from district attorney’s offices (where it was sometimes abused) and centralized, computerized and incentivized.

This group — and others like it — deserve an entire post, or series of posts — but today I’m just showing it as an example.

The Child Support Directors are Public Employees to start with.  Their membership in this nonprofit organization,which (as I see the website) you and I cannot join — are also paid by the public, as it is a vendor taking payments from the City and County of San Francisco, as follows (from SF Comptrollers’ Site):

Report 1230a
Data As Of : 08/07/2011
City and County of San Francisco
Vendor Payment Summaries Website
Page 1 of 1
 
Search Results by Vendor, Department, Type of Goods and Services
       
 
                 
         
Payments
   
Vendor Names
Non
Profit
Departments
Types of Goods and Services
FY 2009-10
FY 2010-11
FY 2011-12
In
Process
Remaining Balance
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS
               
   
CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
         
     
$10,012
$20,235
$0
$0
$0
     
$30,402
$15,399
$0
$0
$0
       
$40,414
$35,634
$0
$0
$0
 

Membership fees in this nonprofit appear to be just about $15.4K.  Multiply by 52? members, one per county/child support agency in California.

There is also a Regional and a National similar organization, nonprofit, of course.

I have some evidence that this group has (perhaps its the Federal OCSE that has) a goal of INCREASING — not DECREASING — the welfare roles, which is the exact opposite mandate that the child support department exists for to start with, not to mention all this fatherhood promotion rigamarole.   There are trainings and in some states, I’ve even seen legislation — to help transit non-Title IV-D (Welfare) Child Support cases back to Welfare ones.  I am figuring the reason for this is probably that there is a Federal incentive to the state (remember, 66%/34%, or approximately $2/$1 bonus payments for certain types of cases?).  Given that the federal disbursement itself also comes from the public (or capital investments, i.e., money was removed from the taxpayers by the IRS, accumulated centrally,and then disbursed by Congress (Appropriations Committee) as per budget — and the applicants/supplicants/those who have the knowhow, then go and get grants and contracts with this government.   Please forgive my overgeneralization, but basically, the government taketh away, and the government re-distributes at will, and loses count of some of what it took as well (Undistributed Child Support Collections, “UDC”) — and that’s a BIG question mark, how much went down that untunneled drain?

Other vendors (profit, or nonprofit) are paid by this department, or provide services to it as follows — these are vendor payments, not salaries, benefits, or any of that):

City and County of San Francisco 

Vendor Payment Summaries Website

Page 1 of 1

Search Results by Department and Type of Goods and Services

 

 

 

 

Payments

 

 

Departments

Types of Goods and Services

 

FY 2009-10

FY 2010-11

FY 2011-12

In 

Process

Remaining Balance

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MAINTENANCE SVCS-BUILDING & STRUCTURES

 

$9,959

$6,979

$646

$0

$19,382

 

MAINTENANCE SVCS-EQUIPMENT

 

$0

$10,751

$0

$0

$0

 

MEMBERSHIP FEES

 

$31,261

$16,167

$0

$0

$0

 

OTHER CURRENT EXPENSES

 

$106,519

$110,410

$3,045

$0

$16,357

 

OTHER FIXED CHARGES

 

$8,730

$8,800

$1,330

$0

$14,330

 

OTHER MATERIALS & SUPPLIES

 

$108,454

$158,067

$11,703

$0

$8,562

 

PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED SERVICES

 

$47,052

$51,463

$4,035

$0

$43,303

 

RENTS & LEASES-BUILDINGS & STRUCTURES

 

$1,540,562

$599,067

$167,614

$0

$106,760

 

RENTS & LEASES-EQUIPMENT

 

$0

$12,604

$982

$1,707

$17,496

 

TAXES; LICENSES & PERMITS

 

$129

$144

$0

$0

$0

 

TRAINING

 

$12,132

$24,088

$0

$0

$0

 

TRAVEL

 

$7,480

$10,100

$1,528

$120

$0

 

UTILITIES

 

$542

$33

$0

$0

$0

 

Totals:

 

$1,872,820

$1,008,673

$190,883

$1,827

$226,190

The membership fees (if you look) are 4 different groups, including the state bar, CSDA, and the NCSEA (national group).  CSDA and NCSEA are the largest, fees, and increased 2009 – 2010.  In fact CSDA, doubled (From $10K to $20K).    Maybe there are now two people functioning as a child support director in SF, I don’t know.  And the NCSEA stayed around $200/year.

Then — and this is odd – under training, the public employees, whose membership ($10 to $20K per year) was paid by the City & County of SF to this CSDA nonprofit then also pays a training fee to the same nonprofit!  AND (get this) to “Fathers and Families,” although I’m sure there are plenty of mothers paying child support nowadays, particularly since FAF began training child support around the country (see Indiana, elsewhere):

 

 

 

 

 

Payments

 

 

Departments

Types of Goods and Services

Vendors

Non

Profit

FY 2009-10

FY 2010-11

FY 2011-12

In 

Process

Remaining Balance

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TRAINING

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHILD SUPPORT DIRECT

 

$10,012

$20,235

$0

$0

$0

 

 

FATHERS & FAMILIES C

x

$865

$740

$0

$0

$0

 

 

FRED PRYOR SEMINARS/

x

$0

$398

$0

$0

$0

 

 

NATIONAL CAREER DEVE

 

$0

$275

$0

$0

$0

 

 

NATIONAL CHILD SUPPO

 

$960

$2,145

$0

$0

$0

 

 

PEACH NEW MEDIA INC

 

$295

$295

$0

$0

$0

 

 

 

Totals:

$12,132

$24,088

$0

$0

$0

$10,000 — for ONE California City& County’s child support department training. I imagine the travel expenses must be to that training also? That must be quite a hefty training — but I guess as child support is such an important function in society, the directors had better be VERY well trained — or train each other very well with whatever the agenda is.  As we are not as the public able to become members (go to that site and try), I guess we’ll find out when we file to get child support enforced, or modified.  (Actually, we may or may not find out what arrangements any child support professional has made with our ex, which doesn’t seem quite equitable, but that’s how it goes…..).

FRED PRYOR SEMINARS, although listed as a nonprofit, I don’t think it is.  They are seminar-selling outfit, and for an amusing? Ripoff report dating to around the same time — from San Diego — here it is.  Peach New Media is a webinar-producing outfit, I gather.  Anyone could look up more information on either of the two groups, this NONProfit CSDA with some pretty pricy habits, and the NATIONAL CSDA.

And total what it costs taxpayers by state.

The NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION 2011 AGENDA (Note:  nonparent taxpayers are funding participation by local child support employee/directors, etc.).

THE EVOLVING MISSION OF CHILD SUPPORT:

(note:  the National website also has links to help lobbying Congress for more CSE funding, although it’s obvious (see previous posts) these organization have lost quite a bit of what they’ve already collected, and are sometimes holding collections to collect interest on a LOT of money, per state, and then not reporting that interest as program income either — but going to Congress and asking for more money next year.  Notice, that the membership fees are rather high for this group, and that it, too, is a nonprofit).  Further scanning of the agenda will show that Jessica Pearson and Jane Venohr, Ph.D.s, of Center for Policy Research in Denver, are still alive and kicking (and presenting).

2011 Policy Forum Conference

2011 NCSEA Policy Forum Conference
The Evolving Mission of Child Support
January 24-26, 2011
Washington, DC
Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill
HAVE YOU HEARD THE LATEST ON THE FUTURE OF CHILD SUPPORT?
JOIN US IN DC AND LEARN HOW THE CHILD SUPPORT MISSION IS EVOLVING
IN RESPONSE TO THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE AND SHIFTING FAMILY DEMOGRAPHICS.
NOT MENTIONED:  This organization, the collective impact of the OCSE & Local Child Support system — is affecting –not just responding too – family dynamics.  For example, when there are access visitation fundings to help noncustodial parents win any custody matters — or start a custody matter if none is yet — that is bound, among other factors, to affect family dynamics!

DON’T MISS OUT ON HEARING CHILD SUPPORT EXPERTS SUCH AS:

David Hansell, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families within the Department of Health and Human Services. Hansell is one of the speakers at the opening plenary, “The Role of the IV D Program.”, joined by
OCSE Commissioner Vicki Turetsky.

Author Kathryn Edin professor of Public Policy and Management at the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.  Her research focuses on urban poverty and family life, social welfare, public housing, child support, and nonmarital childbearing.  Edin will speak on “Fragile Fathers: Their Behavior and Engagement with their Children,” the subject of her most recent research and book.

Ron Haskins senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program and co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution and senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. Haskins will participate in the panel, From Rags to “Riches”  – Turning Unemployed NCPs into Consistent Payors, and discuss the expanded approach to child support that includes a well designed and carefully measured employment program for low-income obligors as an allowable child support enforcement strategy.

You will also hear the latest on TANF reauthorization, successful interagency collaborations, and the effectiveness of current IV-D program performance measures.

BACK TO CALIFORNIA:

I don’t know the overall payroll for this department, but here’s a job advertisement for a child support attorney:

177 Attorney (Civil/Criminal)
Recruitment #PEX-8177-057580
Specialty: Child Support Attorney
Department: Child Support Services
Analyst: Maria Kam
Date Opened: 4/1/2011 5:00:00 PM
Filing Deadline: 5/26/2011 2:15:00 PM
Salary: $47.36 – $82.98/hour; $8,210.00 – $14,382.00/month; $98,514.00 – $172,588.00/year
Job Type: Permanent Exempt
Employment Type: Full-Time

Whereas the mere Program Specialists, are along these lines (SOURCE:  Job Classifications, “Jobaps.com”)

8157 – Child Support Officer I
8158 – Child Support Officer II
8159 – Child Support Officer III

I = $49,140.00-$59,722.00 / year
III = $67,964.00-$82,628.00/year (plus benefits, no doubt)

Department Head I:  $105,950.00-$135,200.00;  $199,368.00-$254,462.00

(Keeping in mind that it’s one of the most expensive areas in the country to live, especially the City of San Francisco itself)

SINCE RENTS & LEASES are the highest expense (and drastically falling 2009, 2010, 2011, interesting), we can also look at those, too:

 

 

 

 

 

Payments

 

 

Depart-ments

Types of Goods and Services

Vendors

Non

Profit

FY 2009-10

FY 2010-11

FY 2011-12

In 

Process

Remaining Balance

CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

RENTS & LEASES-BUILDINGS & STRUCTUR

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

101 NEW MONTGOMERY T

 

$1,464,365

$567,001

$163,736

$0

$86,868

 

 

BERNSTEIN REALTY INC

 

$75,190

$30,446

$3,878

$0

$19,892

 

 

CHINESE CHAMBER OF C

x

$0

$480

$0

$0

$0

 

 

CIVIC CENTER PLAZA G

 

$800

$0

$0

$0

$0

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO CULTUR

x

$0

$1,040

$0

$0

$0

 

 

SAN FRANCISCO JUNETE

x

$207

$0

$0

$0

$0

 

 

YERBA BUENA COMMUNIT

x

$0

$100

$0

$0

$0

 

 

 

Totals:

$1,540,562

$599,067

$167,614

$0

$106,760

Per a CSDA fact sheet, 61% of its collections, out of $2.2 BILLION — are from wage garnishments.  Therefore, it’s only natural that the ideal scenario from the Wage Garnishment point of view (i.e., from the department’s point of view)  is that the noncustodial parents stay in EMPLOYEE jobs, which though cumbersome, are easier to track and administer than, say, self-employment income, or when a parent simply decides to hide income and go underground.  I have literally had CS directors tell me that if a (father) wants to avoid paying child support, he can!    (and that was from the child support agency!):

In California State Fiscal Year 2009-10, total collections were $2.2 billion. Wage withholding continues to be the most effective way of collecting support, accounting for 61% or $1.3 billion of the total collections received.

A Report of the 2003-2004 Civil Grand Jury  For the City and County of San Francisco:

SAN FRANCISCO DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES:  PUTTING THE CHILDREN FIRST

{{README! }}

The involvement of a Civil Grand Jury indicates that there are some serious problems involved; the grand jury had to report back to the presiding Superior Court Judge.  

This FASCINATING document from 2004 is the summary from a Civil Grand Jury convened, in SF, on complaints from both custodial and noncustodial parents.  It explains that the San Francisco Director of Child SUpport Services, for example, answers (or did in 2004) to two people — SF Mayor and the Statewide Child Support Director.  It states that California (this means, the public!) had paid approximately a BILLION$$ in penalties for having signed on to create a certain system, and failed to do so.    It talks about automation, and is clear from this that yet another nonprofit (Child SUpport Directors) association is involved, a Western Regional one (WICSEC — Western Interstate Child Support Enforcement Council), and is abundantly clear that while the local mandate is moreso to — collect support; due to State funding (which is from federal), the State goal is much more expansive.  AND, how they are encouraging mediation to settle the conflict, and discouraging going to court.

HHS/OIS/Office of Inspector General

Letter/Report to Jan Sturla, Director of Child Support Services (statewide)

Review of Undistributable Child Support Collections in Los Angeles {{not SF…}} County, California,

From October 1,1998, Through March 31, 2006″

(NOTE:  just 2 years after the above Civil Grand Jury Report in SF.  I don’t think an audit of the SF DCSS has been done, similar to this one)

SPeaking of that slogan, “Putting Children First” — here is a MARCH, 2011 Child Support Report (brochure) featuring an Outreach Van in D.C. — and a link to the HHS’s FY2012 Fatherhood and Child Support Initiative in the budget.  Again, I guess mothers and women just never get served with child support or wage garnishment orders, because this organization is still geared towards fathers, and pretty up front about it, too.  AGAIN, anything coming FROM the HHS is coming FROM a taxpayers’ wallets, or from what interest &/or investment income the pooled payments then produced for the government, which then can go sponsor programs called “Building Assets for Fathers and Families.”   HERE ARE SOME EXCERPTS.  Notice that for an outfit based primarily on FORCE — it sure words things quite a bit in terms of “encouragement.”  It can FORCE the collections, but other things it can only “encourage” such as good family relationships, etc.   Yes, I know this is not the most current budget (probably), but I am illustrating the pattern.

Fatherhood Initiatives in the Administration’s FY 2012 Budget

March 06, 2011

The President has a deep and long history of supporting policies that can lift up fathers— expecting them to take responsibility for their children, but also helping them be the fathers they want to be by making policy changes and offering services that encourage, not discourage, healthy and active paternal involvement.

Yes, it’s more of an emotional/social thing he’s really doing.  Here’s what it costs, those services:     

There are many facets of this Administration-wide effort, as is made clear in the President’s FY 2012 budget request. The budget request includes new investments of $305 million in FY 2012 and $2.4 billion over ten years for the Child Support and Fatherhood Initiative.

With what’s left of the United States by then (and with what the dollar is worth, which will be far less than now, at this rate — smart investors know what’s very bad business sense, i.e. squandering more money on a theory, same theory as before as to fatherhood) — it’s quite likely (?) especially now that birth control is a covered health benefit (?), there will be fewer fatherless babies, and potentially ALL mothers that don’t marry up or stay shacked up, will have their children forcibly extracted from their lives and be working low-paying jobs to support the Daddies with or without their new wives/girlfiends.

This may ? force many former mothers (if one is a mother with zero contact, that would be a “former” mother, perhaps) to move in with divorced or single Dads with their own children, newly extracted from someone else female.   Then, they together can show up as a nice heterosexual couple — which the administration still assures us is what kids need, or secondarily, custodial single Dads, and thirdly — and this is contraindicated — single mothers (for example, like the one that raised President Obama).  As such, it will ensure the children will be either in custody litigation, in circulation between homes (including potentially foster care if the conflict gets too bad), and what would’ve been their child support will instead be paying for the next round of Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grants.  Come to think of it, it’s a FANTASTIC plan for keeping an entire population fairly disrupted and easily manipulated.  (See yesterday’s post).  Potentially women will have lost major parts of their identiy and integrity as they are forced to deal, continuously, with an organization (OCSE) and layers of nonprofits (CSDA, WICSEC, NCSEA), and a bunch of religious institutions around too, perhaps — which value men more than women and talk in terms of fatherhood.  The mental health professionals (and potentially pharmaceutical corps.) will be making a killing in this climate… because when irrationality goes through the roof, some people rise to the challenge, others find ways to tune out.

This next part will just about guarantee the perpetuation of domestic violence from generation to generation, and might cause a recent escapee to wet (her) pants if she understood the implications.  Notice the lip service to domestic violence.  This is awful! For Dads, too!

  • Fostering fathers’ engagement in their children’s lives. 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. A few states currently help parents establish access and visitation agreements with significant success and modest costs.

Successes?  Seems to me there have been multiple deaths surrounding this policy!  Notice how the $10 million/year since 1996 is seriously underplayed as well as the supplementary grants surrounding it (look up Michael Hayes, Texas Office of Attorney General, and my sarcastic posts on him, or randijames.com’s).  Look up KIDS’ TURN — which was a beneficiary (through promoting parent education classes), and it’s conflict-of-interest and “where’s the money” relationships built up with the local courts (SF in particular), and its blatant agenda of promoting parental alienation (or promising to reduce it)!  I’m not done reporting on them either, there’s been quite a bit of recent news on that single NONprofit organization with an amazing amount of donors, and global connections and plans.

Let’s go over this again — this is from the same basic site:  ACF/HHS/GOV Programs, CSE (that’s “OCSE”) ACCESS VISITATION:  It refers to the year 2006:

California  State Access Program Contact:

Shelly La Botte
Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children, and the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
shelly.labotte@jud.ca.gov

Annual Federal Grant Award: $988,710

Required State Match: $109,857

Ms. LaBotte coordinates these grants, and is also involved heartily in the profession they support:  Supervised Visitation Network.  Here’s some news from one of their HISTORY page:

2007 Shelly La Botte, Nadine Blaschak-Brown and Sonia Melara host Celebrate-Educate-Innovate, May 9-12 in Millbrae, California. This annual conference is held in conjunction with the Judicial Council, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Access to Visitation Grant Program, which celebrated its 10-year anniversary. This conference marks the first time that three federal funding sources attend the conference together: Ministry of the Attorney General Office in Ontario, Canada; federal Office on Violence Against Women (U.S. Department of Justice); and federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Valya Roberts continues her presidency.

SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK IS ALSO A NONPROFIT, and IT WAS NOT A GRASS-ROOTS, LOW-INCOME DEMAND THAT STARTED IT, EITHER.  IT WASN”T EVEN EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE U.S.:  Read carefully:

A Chronology of the Supervised Visitation Network

1992 Judith Wallach of the New York Society for Ethical Culture hosts a one day meeting, attended by 40 providers and interested professionals from across the United States. Anne Reiniger, Executive Director of the New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is the keynote speaker and Rachel Dabraio of the Ministry of the Attorney General, Ontario, Canada presents first-time government-funded supervised access project. Attendees name the newly formed organization the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) and Judith Wallach serves as the President. The first edition of Sitting In, the SVN’s newsletter is published in September 1992.

Want to bet these 40 providers included quite a few from, or were solicited by, the Children’s Rights Council?  Just a hunch

Was it a nice Canadian import concept?  (doubt it just wanted to point out that the conference is going to take advantage of US nonprofit status}}

INSET — DISCUSSION OF World View and Goals of Founder of this SVN:

JUDITH D. WALLACH (from the NYSEC group above), with another Honorary Board member, graduate of the Humanist Institute, etc.:

Judy Wallach
Judith D. Wallach is an honorary trustee of the Society, having served as the first woman president for seven years, from 1994 to 2001. Prior to that, she was chair of the Social Service Board, of which she was a founder of the Shelter for the Homeless and the Supervised Visitation Project. She has also served on the board of the American Ethical Union and chaired its Fund Development Committee. During her 26 years of membership in the Society, Judy has served as chair and member of numerous committees, been a Sunday speaker and served as a wedding and memorial officiant. She has also served on the Ethical Culture Fieldston School’s Board of Trustees and its Executive Committee. A graduate of the Humanist Institute and, for 12 years, on its Board of Governors, she chairs the Institute’s Education Committee.
Her passion for the past six years has been the effort, with a group of educators and others, to start public charter schools based on the educational philosophy of Felix Adler and incorporating the essential elements of an Ethical Culture Fieldston education. Making a free, public education with ethics as its base and using a child-centered approach and a thematically integrated curriculum has been, and continues to be, her dominating interest. Judy has also been a board member and secretary of the Partnership for the Homeless, and a member of Citizens Committee for Children of New York. For the past 10 years she has chaired Palladia, Inc., a multi-site human services agency that provides residential and outpatient treatment for substance abusers, many of whom have serious mental and physical illness. She’s been on its board since 1991.
In her otherwise unoccupied time, she pursues her private practice in psychoanalytic psychotherapy. Judy is a psychology affiliate of Lenox Hill Hospital and supervises doctoral candidates in their group work. She and her husband, Sylvan Wallach, have a large, blended family spread across the U.S. and in Australia.

The  Humanist Institute and this particular set of values and philosophy, plus a passion for educating others into it, should be looked at:

HomeWe explore humanist values and train future leaders

it says “What is Humanism?” and answers:  Life in this world is the central and defining focus of humanism. We envision a world in which every individual’s worth is respected, and human freedom and behaving responsibly are natural aspirations.

I don’t think humanism is a per se a bad value.  However, nearly every religion of the world has as well as some sort of ethics, a vision or perspective of the eternal truths and principles, and quite a few of them believe in life after death, a resurrection, and not a few more, life before life in this world as well.   I am among the belief-in-resurrection crowd, and it has definitely affected my strength in standing for certain principles, and ability to persevere when things are not “naturally” going so well.  Religions often will talk of TRUTHS, not so much as values.  A good deal of the western world that we have now has been formed through literacy and a good deal of that literacy by men who stood up to some severe Religious & Political oppression by doing one very radical thing:  Translating the Bible into the common language (whether English, German, Spanish, whichever….) AND getting it into the hands of the common people; an act for which several of them were burned at the stake and hunted down like animals (I’m thinking Wycliffe, Tyndale in particular); they had monarchs pissed at them.   This affected literacy, it changed politics, and it challenged the status quo.

To create a utopian humanist society which specifically does NOT believe in eternal life, but wishes to forma  utopian world — will have to employ either force or persuasion.  It is not particularly along the themes of the (Deists, such as Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc.) who helped get this country and its constitution –based on rights of the individual, not constantly transforming the BEHAVIORS of an individual — to me speaks of a desire to train and rule the world, if piece by piece.   Moreover, it is an OUT_COME based vision, it does not seem to be a process-based vision.

Here’s how the Humanist Society sees itself:  In 1982, 45 Humanist Leaders congregated (sic!) at the University of Chicago to take a stand against Humanism’s enemies:

n August 1982, forty-five humanist leaders gathered at the University of Chicago to form the North American Committee for Humanism.  This new alliance was a response to the urgent need to defend humanism against the assaults of its adversaries and to find an effective way to bring the message of humanism to a wider public.  At this meeting the committee voted to establish the The Humanist Institute.  Since that time, fourteen classes have graduated from the program, providing over a 100 skilled leaders to the humanist community and the larger worl

Now, we are talking doctrine, dogma, and belief — I would assume, in antagonism to religious belief.  A listing of constituent groups shows that this is indeed the situation.  It is promoting secularism, atheism, and is anti-religion.  What’s going to prove interesting here is that it’s going to be QUITE comfortable with segments of the ultra-conservative, fundamentalist Christian, Jewish and probably Muslim? communities which absolutely detest the breakup of the family and for which supervised visitation is a way to maintain contact and some control with the departed spouse, and children!

Atheist Alliance International (AAI)

Atheist Alliance International (AAI) is an umbrella organization of groups and individuals in the United States and around the world committed to promoting and defending reason and the atheist worldview.

The American Ethical Union, a religious organization, is a federation of Ethical Societies, which promotes the growth of the Ethical Culture movement by supporting existing Ethical Societies and fostering new ones. We recognize the unique worth of each individual, we act to elicit the best in others and in ourselves; our faith is in the human capacity to create a better world. The American Ethical Union is a religious, educational, cultural and social justice organization.

(it’s a religious organization, but where does it stand on matters of good, and evil.  I ask because I consider child-rape, child-molestation, and child-kidnapping evil, as well as assault and battery on other human beings, and particularly upon one human being because of gender, or because one can simply get away with it — or to get the most profit off their back.  I consider those spiritual matters, at a certain level, and not subject to ongoing “reason.”  The Phil Garridos and Nancy Garridos of this world are horrible, and have had long-term problems, as the Martin Luther Kings and Mahatma Gandhi’s (not that there really IS more than one of suchpeople), the Mother Teresa’s — they had something in the inner life going on that sustained them.  These are questions that are not going to be firmly answered by government, or by institutions which SEEK to govern others’ beliefs — which schooling and training systems are.   Better to have a variety of schools and educational institutions than a monolithic one.  I think that is the message of this country (which it’s, incidentally, left long ago, but the words and ideas behind that hang, for a point of reference and conscious — in the world).  No, I am not an atheist, but neither is it my purpose in life to make the world uncomfortable for atheists!  We need variety!)

Interesting, as many of the Seven Wonders of the World were religious monuments, or monuments to the afterlife; man attempting to become immortal or preparing for it.  Think about it.  (on the other hand, how much slave labor went into building them?).

AMERiCAN ETHiCAL SOCIETY is not too much into creeds, or pinning down its beliefs, apparently.  Its motto is “DEED BEFORE CREED” Its circular logo reminds one of the DaVinci’s “Vitruvian man,” and naturally the circle (well, at least to me) reminds me of the globe — containing reality within the earth’s sphere.

(vitruvian.jpg)

My definition of “religion” is a system of imposing MY beliefs or “OUR” beliefs on someone else.  For an example of this, see Inquisition — or Warren Jeffs.  Or the AFCC’s incessant insistence on training everyone else to their standards (which are rarely, if ever, feminist, and which undermine the entire concept of individual rights (EQUAL under the law) because the family is spoken of as a unit, and the truly independent “individuals” in that relationship are the individual court-appointed professionals who get to make decisions on what to do with the family unit! They demand to “define” its reality.  I”m against that — and as such, you might say that I’m a woman “of faith” not joined to a religious group who might believe as the Freedom from Religion Foundation does.  With one exception:  It’s a nonprofit, and I’m not!

UNDERLYING this “New York Ethical Institute” and its organ of training others ,the “Humanist Institut” is a single individual, Felix Adler….  I don’t know group — that’s simply what the materials say.  AGAIN, in context, we are talking about the FOUNDING of the Supervised Visitation Network, and that, in context of what President Obama and Congress believe they (not “we”) should be doing with monies collected from the people through the IRS (and child support wage garnishment — and IRS refund intercepts. . . . . . ), as pertains to promoting fatherhood, and making access and visitation UNIVERSAL.  No more individual choice in how to separate when child support is needed.  If no child support is needed, wanted, or asked for, then more freedom may exist.  Otherwise, if a child support order shows up — a parenting plan order with a spinoff incentive to the A/V grants system and the SVN INDUSTRY (and its associated nonprofits) WILL occur.

Got it?  This is the New York Society for Ethical Culture’s cool silhouette of NY Skyline.  (and the site will also show the Vitruvian man theme, a human figure in a circle.

HEre is that Social Service Board and its intent to provide free Supervised Visitation.  Notice that this is right above a homeless shelter for women.  So women, who can be driven homeless by a violent relationship they fled, can have a free place to take their kids to visit the ex-batterer, as a court is going to order them to do.  Nice.

SSB Programs

SSB members have created, financed, staffed and sustained many rewarding and meaningful “core projects” with their dedicated efforts.  Among these are:

Supervised Visitation Project  [Temporarily Closed] providing non-custodial parents the opportunity to visit with their children in a safe and supportive environment, free of charge, eliminating their financial burden and helping bring families back together.

The supervised visitation model first came from situations where the state removed the children from abusive parents home, the goal being reunification.  This LATER became applied (got a structure?  Why not find more applications, right?) to adult, battered women leaving their men.  Is the goal reunification there, TOO?

Get that kid and that MOm back with the unrepentant abuser who needs supervision or something bad may happen?  (And in practice, it’s used on the mothers, inappropriately, or non-violent fathers — a unique ability that AFCC has been perfecting as we speak.  Parenting Coordination promotion helps….).

Homeless Women’s Shelter giving comfort and support to women in transition as they take the necessary steps to self-sufficiency, finding a new home and job.

My last (belabored, I know) point here about the beginning of the SVNetwork — is that this NYSEC, being humanist, atheist adamantly opposed to particular religions, although labeling itself as religious in a certain way — was part of an “Ethical Culture Movement” which was, it says, spearheaded by one individual who left an endowment — ironically, to “immortalize” his contribution to a better world.

Welcome

The New York Society for Ethical Culture is a welcoming home for humanists. We’ve provided non-theistic services in a congregational setting since 1876. We embrace the diversity of our city and invite all to join us in celebrating life’s joys, supporting one another through life’s crises, and working together to make the world a better place.

Ethical Culture is a religion centered on ethics, not theology, whose mission is to encourage respect for humanity and nature and to create a better world. Members are committed to personal ethical development in their relationships with others and in activities involving social justice and environmental stewardship.As an Ethical Community we are all part of something that transcends the individual experience and are enriched through our relationships with others.  As such, we have responsibilities to each other, to the Society, and to the community.

No man is an island….  Does a person even exist without a community, in this worldview?

FELIX ADLER lived 1851 – 1933, and the background rather worth posting here, as to influence:

Our Founder


Felix Adler circa 1875
Dr. Felix Adler(1851-1933) was the Founder of the Ethical Culture movement. He was born in Alzey, Germany, the son of a rabbi, Samuel Adler. When Felix was six, his father was appointed head rabbi at Temple Emanu-El in New York City and his family immigrated to the United States. Adler earned his undergraduate degree from Columbia University in 1870, and already being regarded as his father’s successor, he was sent to Heidelberg University to prepare for the rabbinate.
No mention of the Civil War.  That’s interesting….
Upon his return to America his father’s congregation asked him to deliver a sermon from the pulpit.  That address, The Judaism of the Future, created a lot of talk because he had not mentioned God.  When asked directly if he believed in God, young Felix responded, “Yes, but not in your god.”  Thus ended his future at Temple Emanu-El.  But in that address were the seeds of Ethical Culture.
During the two years following, Adler taught Hebrew and Oriental languages at Cornell University. His outspoken attitude and his convictions drew the criticism that he was”dangerous” to his students, andhe relinquished the professorship in 1876.
That same year, at the age of 24, Adler founded the New York Society for Ethical Culture. His lectures before the Society on Sundays were well known and attended, and were routinely reported on in the New York Times. Adler’s belief in deed above creed led the Society to foster projects that focused on the poor and underserved in the community. 
In 1902 Adler was given the chair of political and social ethics at Columbia University which he held until his death in 1933.  Well known as a lecturer and writer, Adler served as rector for the Ethical Culture School until his death in 1933. Throughout his life he always looked beyond the immediate concerns of family, labor, and race to the long-term challenge of reconstructing institutions like schools and government to promote greater justice in human relations. Within Adler’s ethical philosophy, cooperation rather than competition remained the higher social value.
Feedback:   Sounds like an amazing, and well-positioned, well-educated individual, who had a chair at a major NY University, and rectored his own school in later life.   Notice “reconstruction institutions like schools and government.”  Interesting .. . .. .  Now you know where at least some of the founders of the “Supervised Visitation Network” came from.  If you visit the websites, very well-constructed, you’ll also pick up how well-endowed some of these world-reformers indeed are.  Felix had a well-developed philosophy, and practices; part of the bio indicates that he started something which later became the ACLU.  I notice the ACLU often clashes with fundamentalist Christian groups as well, interesting.
Speaking of which, here’s Pacific Justice Institute now, as humanists did long ago, positioning itself to defend Nativity Scenes and The Marriage Initiative from attacks by the likes of — the ACLU and the FFRF (Freedom From Religion Foundation — see above).  This is comic relief, incidentally.  Christmas is essentially a pagan religion (are there people who don’t know this yet?) and at best a compromise; Jesus wasn’t born in December, and moreover, emphasized remembrance of his death (i.e., communion) more than his birth, even though the gospel of Luke says the Angels had a celestial (?) party at the time, especially for shepherds.
  • ACLU v. PJI over CHRISTMAS in an Oregon TOWN

The conflict was sparked last December when the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation complained about a nativity scene the town has displayed in various locations for decades. In response to the complaint, city leaders have agreed to ensure that the display is accompanied by secular symbols of the season. However, the Oregon branch of the ACLU has now gotten involved and is claiming that, even if the display follows First Amendment guidelines set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court, it still violates the Oregon Constitution because it is city-owned.

Not so, say lawyers from the Pacific Justice Institute. PJI Staff Attorney Matthew McReynolds is sending a letter to Prineville city leaders today, offering to defend the city free of charge if the ACLU files suit. The letter quotes Article I, Section 5 of the Oregon Constitution, which merely forbids giving public money to religious or “theological institutions.” There is no indication, McReynolds noted, that this provision somehow forbids a traditional acknowledgement of Christmas, and it seems more likely the provision would be interpreted consistently with the First Amendment, under which the U.S. Supreme Court has specifically approved city-owned nativity scenes.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, commented, “Every year, the ACLU and Freedom From Religion Foundation seem to attack Christmas more fiercely,

Christmas has a very strong economic base and is probably not going anywhere soon. . . . ..  AND, round two, ACLU & Pacific Justice Inc.:
  • ACLU v. PJI over Public School Parental Rights* with a Visa, California School District.
*(to most likely know about any oby/gyn services their teenaged daughters received, including abortion, birth control, etc.)

Vista, CA – The board of trustees of the Vista Unified School District voted unanimously to require that pupils obtain parental permission before leaving campus for “confidential medical services.” It is well understood that the term “confidential medical services” is a euphemism for abortion. The American Civil Liberties Union vehemently opposed the decision of the board. The legal director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, David Blair-Loy, stated, “With this action, the Vista School Board has not only defied the laws of the state of California, but they have needlessly put vulnerable teenagers in serious danger.”

Not so, says Brad Dacus who is an attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “The Education Code says that school authorities may excuse pupils for the purpose of obtaining confidential medical services without obtaining the consent of parents,” said Dacus who attended the meeting and addressed the board. “The legislature knows the difference between ‘may’ and ‘shall’ even if the ACLU does not,” he continued.

The ACLU is threatening to bring a lawsuit against the school district if it keeps the policy. Pacific Justice Institute vows to fight back in court if necessary should the ACLU instigate litigation. “If asked, PJI will defend the district without charge in the courts,” Dacus commented further.

And I would be COMPLETELY remiss if I didn’t mention this duel:
  • ACLU v. PJI in San Francisco, predictably, over Same-Sex Marriage (ACLU trying to get the “protect marriage” initiative off a Nov. Ballot)

JUNE 2008, ACLU and Others File Lawsuit to Stop Marriage Initiative

The ACLU, Equality California, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed suit late last week asking the California Supreme Court to yank the Protect Marriage Initiative off the November ballot.

According to a statement released by the four groups, the lawsuit argues that returning to the traditional definition of marriage would enact such sweeping changes as to revise, rather than amend, the state Constitution. Unlike amendments, revisions require that a state constitutional convention be held. Calling a constitutional convention in California is so difficult that it has not happened since 1879; a two-thirds vote of both houses of the legislature, plus a majority vote of the people, would be required.

Brad Dacus, president of Pacific Justice Institute, responded, “This lawsuit is beyond the pale. Radical gay marriage activists are showing their true colors by filing suit to prevent voters from having a say on this crucial, highly controversial issue. There are apparently no lengths to which they will not go to force their agenda on Californians. Already, they have shown no respect for county clerks and others who do not want to be involved in gay ceremonies. Now, they want to deprive all Californians of the opportunity to be meaningfully involved in this debate

In fact, this group specifically targeted the SF Bay Area as a cesspool of nonfundamentalist, anti-Christian boundary violations, and of course homosexuality and the occult.  One gets the sense they were jumping into the fray for the publicity (and fundraising); common sense says if you want schools with a particular set of values that are nonoffensive to Christians — go start some and put your kids in them.   But, no deal, I think these guys (word choice intentional), like the glamour and publicity.  Surely this will elevate them in the eyes of more conservative supporters from less spiritually dangerous neighborhoods….

August 2009, Group Opens San Francisco Office, Calling Area Hostile To Religious Liberty

 The Pacific Justice Institute has opened a new office in Oakland, California to serve the San Francisco Bay area. Yesterday’s San Franciso Business Times interviewed Kevin Snider who will head the office. Snider said: “The San Francisco region is without a doubt one of the most hostile places in the country toward religious liberties and values.”PJI’s website says it focuses on religious freedom issues such as “curtailments to evangelism by the government, … students and teachers rights to share their faith at public schools [, and] … the rights of parents … to homeschool, review and have notice of public school curriculum and presentations, and opt out their children from objectionable material….”

They held a fundraiser at what this article says is the Gayest Place in Orange County – Disney World:

The Pacific Justice Institute, which has opposed protection for members of the LGBT community under hate crimes legislation and worked against same-sex marriage, is holding a fund-raising dinner at the gayest place in Orange County.No, not OC GOP headquarters, silly. The Disney Resort district!Talk about walking out of the fire and into the bigger fire . . . with flaming feather boa intact.
gay-days-anaheim-disneyland_150.jpg
Here’s a Waldorf site describing  Pacific Justice applying to ADF for (more funds for a related nonprofit, “PLANS”) to stop public funding of Waldorf type schools,  because they are WICCA; which brings up the question about dueling nonprofits — how many can dance on the head of a pin?  Or, more specifically, how many of their legal battles, whether or not jousting against a windmill (Don Quixote-style), should we Californians be expected to fund?  After all, we have Los Angeles County in our state, and that alone is a major liability!
PLANS was incorporated on July 1, 1997 and received its tax exempt status on October 10, 2000.
. . .Comment by Waldorf Answers:

According to PLANS, the $15,000 grant was all spent in 1999, and as of April, 2000, PLANS’ legal fees had come to about $46,000.On Sun, 15 Jul 2001, Mr. Dan Dugan, Secretary of PLANS, stated on a mailing list he owns that PLANS Inc. owed their lawyer $28,566.36 for services up through the end of 2000, that he had not gotten the bill for 2001 yet, and that PLANS’ lawyers estimated that the total costs for the case could amount to $180,000.

For a full overview of the case, see a documentation page on the lawsuit.

PJI, formed as a nonprofit in 1997 (along with, evidently “PLANS”) is on a RIGHTWINGWATCH list; an EastBayExpress article here describes its activities in the SF Bay area;  apparently James Dobson is one of its supporters. It’s conservative, so that’s hardly surprising.
The one thing one will NOT find Pacific Justice Institute doing is:
  • Anything remotely feminist, such as speaking up against domestic violence, or doing anything about church’s abominable track record on wife-battering within the religious community.
  • Anything very social-justice or community REALLY service-oriented, such as literally helping poor or homeless people in the form of food banks, shelters, or taking ’em in.  And this area has plenty of homeless.   I guess someone else will handle that.  Glide Church in SF & others put a dent in the situation, many others do — not this group.  They’re concerned more about kids’ souls and spirits than their bodies, apparently — and not at all about adult female bodies in abusive religious marriages.
ACLU DOES address many of these issues, along with LGBT rights, it actually has women’s rights.  (“What would Jesus have Done?”)
The ACLU is our nation’s guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.

HISTORY page (from the site) sets it in a historic context:

In the years following World War I, America was gripped by the fear that the Communist Revolution that had taken place in Russia would spread to the United States. As is often the case when fear outweighs rational debate, civil liberties paid the price. In November 1919 and January 1920, in what notoriously became known as the “Palmer Raids,” Attorney General Mitchell Palmer began rounding up and deporting so-called radicals. Thousands of people were arrested without warrants and without regard to constitutional protections against unlawful search and seizure. Those arrested were brutally treated and held in horrible conditions.

In the face of these egregious civil liberties abuses, a small group of people decided to take a stand, and thus was born the American Civil Liberties Union.

The ACLU has evolved in the years since from this small group of idealists into the nation’s premier defender of the rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Again, an article connects Felix Adler — predecessor of Judith D. Wallach’s and others’ establishment of this “Supervised Visitation Network” in the 1990s — clearly to the ACLU.  1933, the year he died, had Federal Reserve Board signficance (see bottom of yesterday’s post) . . . . .

Felix Adler (August 13, 1851 – April 24, 1933) was a Jewish religious humanist thinker, educator, and social reformer who founded theEthical Culture movement.

Adler developed his thoughts based upon Kantian ethics and American transcendentalism developed by Ralph Waldo Emerson andHenry David Thoreau. Adler found ethics as the common ground for and at the root of diverse religions, spiritual doctrines, and humanist thoughts. While Adler understood the values of religious teachings, he found adherence to dogmas and sectarianism non-essential to the teachings of founders and leaders of religions such as JesusJewish prophetsBuddha, and others. Adler, thus, developed a non-theisticreligious humanism, and initiated a number of social reforms. He was particularly concerned with education and social conditions of the poor and underrepresented classes of people. He established the Ethical Culture Society which initiated the Visiting Nurse Service, the first free kindergarten for workers, and a number of other projects and programs. Adler also served on the Civil Liberties Bureau, which later became the American Civil Liberties Bureau and then the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

California (Silicon Valley) has a nice “Ethical Culture Society” also, established in 2006.  Here they are celebrating in a non-theistic manner:
(Singing at the Summer Festival)
Picture
Now, if we lined up all these anti-thetical nonprofits side by side, including the lawsuits they file against each other, or various arms of government, it’d be quite the assembly.  For example, if these are ALSO (in addition to our lovely child support departments, and nonprofit associations associated with them) taking public funding from one or another arm of the Executive Branch, i.e., a DOJ or HHS grant — then what do we have?
In effect what we have is a TON of business operations (see details on the DCSS of SF, above) — employees or possibly executive director pays, some accounting, some website maintenance, probably a brick and mortar (real physical address) somewhere entailing a lease, or real estate — office equipment business stationery, website DESIGN, telephone services (? generally), fundraising efforts, and solicitation or filling out of grants.   This can be miniscule or enormous — but either way, they are not taxed because allegedly they are providing true and valuable SERVICES to the general public, or a segment of it.
. . .
We poor slobs who are merely working — anywhere that pays rent/mortgage & kids’ educations, etc. — or even at something we love doing — and then living life so as to be solvent and not too destructive on our immediate or distant neighbors — are WE providing any altruistic services like this other class of corporations?
Are WE helping reduce the welfare roles by staying off them, even if a single parent?   (if you have an open child support order, this won’t be for long…..).
. . .
Are WE active in our local communities in beneficial ways also, for example, by volunteering somewhere as a tutor, or serving at a food bank, or actually taking time to get to know our local legislators and see what the local county supervisors, or mayors (etc.) are doing?  I’d have to say, generally speaking, YES.  And we do another very noble “patriotic” thing — we BUY GOODS AND SERVICES AS A BY-PRODUCT OF STAYING ALIVE.    And sometimes, even for leisure activity.  This means, we pay taxes on them IF we are not ourselves a nonprofit — or even for-profit, business owner.
. . . .
But we non-non-profits are by this system automatically served a business disadvantage.   Having the higher tax rate, for paying more of our life’s substance which is TIME / work energy= (earnings), we then get re-allocated to sit on the sidelines and fund — without discretion as to which side — and watch, for example Pacific Justice Institute (and the like)  take on the ACLU, the public schools, the charter schools, and whatever else hits its fancy.  But these nonprofits are not required to take on criminal activity that results in death, maimings, or wage /housing discrepancies that lead to homelessness (or constant income destruction brought on by the family law wars, or by living with an abuser who controls the resources, etc.) —
NONPROFITS — ARTS, SPORTS, etc. OK.
I’ve worked for plenty of nonprofits in my day — but they were arts organizations, I have zero question that this was bettering people across several categories, and as to young people, it’s documented to have helped literacy and expanded horizons for the future.  The arts are fantastic for individuals and for civilization, they change people and help communication, and also have been proven to literally help people mentally as well, i.e., their brains. ….
BUT, my having contributed in this manner during my prime working years means nothing when it comes to receiving services, protection, shelter, anything, including decent healthcare, or transportation — in later times.  Most specifically, even though taxes go to fund courts to get restraining orders — no one really has to enforce them!   So their real merit is only in the initial shock value, perhaps, of a fairly decent person who realized, OK, I just took it too far!
I do believe that these days are now gone with, because the antidote to that restraining order has been on the market for so many years — and it’s a RARE religious organization ever going to help a female get one anyhow (I’m speaking for conservative or evangelical groups in particular ,who have other things on the corporate brain than JUSTICE).    They didn’t help Jessica Gonzalez’s three children in Colorado.  They didn’t particularly help my children more than briefly, and later payback was more than compensatory (i.e., the payback has officially, at this point, now lasted longer than the original abuse which prompted that order).
NONPROFITS — FIX THE WORLD THROUGH TRAINING TO SPECIFIC BELIEFS, “ours”? — NOT OK!  That’s basically establishing a religion.
and NONPROFITS — to help PUBLIC EMPLOYEES EXPAND AND INCREASE PUBLIC FUNDING TO THEIR OWN PROGRAMS  – OUTRAGEOUS.
And this is precisely what is springing up around the courts and around the grants that come to the states, counties, and courthouses, plus the family resource centers, supervised visitation centers, parent education programming, professional affiliations supporting all of the above, that help THEM expand and control the fields, and you name it.   NOT OK!
(I DIDN’T EVEN MENTION “NONPROFIT FRONT GROUP YET” BUT I HAVE SOME GOOD EXAMPLES; COMING UP SOON . . . . . .
Or, on the contrary, to fund gay history in a public school system which is already so political — and inferior in quality — that it might make more sense to stop the testing, and perhaps ELIMINATE all the values- setting activities, and herd-style teaching to the test, replacing it with nothing but what the last decades of budget cuts have taken OUT of the curriculum.
  • PRO-gay or virulently ANTI-gay theme, throughout almost every public institution — a nonprofit is fighting that battle.
  • Pro-Religion or Anti-Religion, and most of the churches themselves — they are nonprofit status, mostly.
  • Nonprofit organizations to compensate for whatever the schools and incredible variety of tax-exempt churches (including the biggest one around) DIDN’t do in the first place.
  • Public employees to extort money from wage earners and then pay membership dues to congregate and learn how to do it better, and with gender bias, too!
  • Violence Against Women prevention groups and “she was just saying that to get an advantage in the divorce” groups & Fatherhood Groups — all NONPROFIT.
  • think Tanks and policy institutes, one way or the other — THEY are nonprofit.
BASICALLY, if some group’s idea is to change the world, or a little corner of it — it just about qualifies for nonprofit status.
If it’s just a boring, plain old wage-earning family trying to hold it together, in this context — they are for tax purposes “FOR-PROFIT” meaning, NO tax advantage, basically.  Wages, taxes, expenses (including child care, clothes, transportation to & from a regular job?) out of what’s left.   The model is WTE or should I say, “WTF” ? ? ?   These taxes help support those who have a tax advantage over you:
<><>
If it’s got a ridiculous idea, including defending the world from ridiculous ideas by some other nonprofit, then it can have a tax advantage:  ITS cash flow goes:
INCOME (called “revenues” as in Internal REVENUE Service) – Expenses, overhead AND fundraising (etc.)  then NO Taxes.  That’s   “IT.”  So, while this will exacerbate and hasten the day of reckoning — these groups get to spend more and fund less on the way down, resulting particularly in sometimes executive directors with actual retirement income or even wealth.
<><><><>
As I see it (and this IS a personal view) — what the whole setup does is primarily to tweak the balance away from INDIVIDUALS and towards GROUPS.
And this United States was supposedly all about individuals!    Go see the Declaration of Independence!
Far, far above, I was looking at the Chronology page of the Supervised Visitation Network.  I did a sample “investigation” on it.  Any of the other groups and participants could be investigated (looked at, as to where they are coming from . . . ..) — and would be VERY enlightening.  But at the end of the day, I am going to come out against supervised visitation for one reason:  If a person can’t be trusted with a child, for real — then they don’t see the child.  Because supervising and adult individual puts that adult — in front of watching children — into a virtual “Parent/Child” relationship with another adult, while this same adult — who is now being treated like a chid — is then supposed to maintain a PARENT/CHILD relationships with his or her own offspring.  How confusing to the kids!
Moreover, this artificial situation then has to be set up, paid for, somehow.  Who’s paying?  Moreover, it’s not made available on a gender-equal basis — because the INCENTIVES behind it (from the HHS side) are clearly targeted for FATHERS. When it comes to the VAWA side, those funds (I’ve shown us plenty) are often labeled “discretionary” and going to huge DV groups that believe people can be trained out of violence, which I am beginning to tend to doubt anyhow.   
The NONPROFIT on this:

1993 Joanne Karolzak hosts Focus on the Future in Tucson, Arizona. {{NB:  AFCC has a nice active nonprofit org. in AZ, too. }} Over the year, a convening group writes the first draft of the SVN bylaws and members nominate a 15-member Board of Directors, representing five regions across the state, including international representation. Under the newly formed Board of Directors, Rob Straus is elected as the SVN’s President.

Currently she shows up as (at least) Executive Staff on Tucson-based “Casa de los Ninos,” a nonprofit created originally by a nun to help abandoned and abused children.   Ms. Karolzak’s degree is M.Ed., meaning, her specialty is education.  This annual report of course shows it works in the family court referral A/V based fields also (in addition to foster care, behavioral health services, etc.):

Judicial Supervision. Another of our prevention-oriented efforts is our Judicial Supervision Program. Referrals come from Family Court judges. Most commonly, we work with recently divorced couples to make sure both parties are able to maintain or rebuild healthy relationships with their children. In 2009-10, our JSP team worked with 294 families and 735 children.

For how much funding and/or fees?  WHat’s that per family and who is tracking results?  Did Daddy pay more child support if he saw his kids more, or did Mommy get put on supervised visitation for allowing a child abuse report to actually surface, instead of covering it up?  Sorry for the sarcasm, but this happens!

Let’s hope there is no kickback, double-billing, or other racketeering going in that relationship.  Pima County, sounds like . . . . .

Parenting Education. Casa de los Niños offers weekly Parenting Education classes that are free and open to the public. Sessions focus on a variety of topics, and we make it a point to help parents trying to deal with specific issues in their own families. If you would like to attend a class or know someone who would, call us at (520) 624-5600 or visit our website: http://www.casadelosninos.org. In 2009-10, we offered 48 classes and hosted 895 parents. Those adults had 1,365 children living at home.

Page 11 of this annual report has a pie chart, and a ‘nose count’ (how many served, by program).  I can see immediately that IF “parent education” is by court referral, this group is prospering and moving into the, we service the courts mode (if it wasn’t there all along).     1,365 people, Parent Education; 735 “Judicial Supervision,” and 171 “Family Visitation Centers.”   PROGRAM REVENUE — 78% Government Awards ,and 16% “Donations, Grants” (non-government, presumably).

I wonder under which other corporation’s auspices it existed, in which state, or was it just pulling an AFCC, and collecting funds, but not paying taxes on them for the next four years, despite starting out pretty interntionally.

1994 Glynne Gervais hosts Supervised Visitation — A New Thread in the Social Service Fabric, from April 14-16 near the west campus of the University of Illinois in Chicago, Illinois. Participants were given tours of a few supervised visitation/child access agencies. The membership begins discussions to support the development of national standards and guidelines for the organization. In addition, Joanne Karolzak is elected as the SVN’s President.

1995 Jane Grafton hosts the first international conference in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. The president convenes the first Annual General Meeting. This conference brings representatives from outside North America, as well as representatives from the Australian & New Zealand Association of Children’s Access Services (ANZACAS) present to the membership.

1996 Mike Wilkinson hosts the annual SVN conference in Austin, Texas. Over the year, more than 40 members and multi-disciplinary subject matter experts provide feedback to the draft Standards and Guidelines, which were adopted by the membership at the Annual General Meeting. Jane Grafton is elected as the SVN’s President. . . .

1997 Barbara Pope and Sheri Kass of Family Connections host the annual SVN conference (May 17-20) in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. A sociologist from Rouen, France attends the conference. With special thanks to international faerie godmother, Gillian Mason-Johnson, SVN holds its first annual auction. Nadine Blaschak-Brown is elected as the SVN’s President.

(IT WAS APPARENTLY FIRST INCORPORATED IN FLORIDA.  AND SEvERAL YEARS AFTER IT STARTED?)

Most Recent Tax Period

EIN

Name

State

Rule Date

IRS Sub- section

Total Revenue

Total Assets

990 Image

2010

521831498

Supervised Visitation Network

FL

1997

3

218,620

31,703

990

A Chronology of the Judith Wallach President’s Award

In 1997-1998 the SVN adopts the tradition of honoring a person or persons for outstanding service and contribution to the Supervised Visitation Network. This award is named in honor of the SVN’s first host, Judith Wallach.  (HOW APPROPRIATE — now that welfare reform had passed, assuring access visitation funding for this purpose, plus any Safe Havens type funding from the DOJ as well….

 

Nonprofit listings of the Network (this is the “dba” for the state of New York):

Entity Name
NEW YORK STATE CHAPTER OF THE SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.
Current Entity Name: NEW YORK STATE CHAPTER OF THE SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC.
Initial DOS Filing Date: MARCH 28, 2005

SAFE HORIZON INC.
2 LAFAYETTE ST., 23RD FL.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, 10007  (A search of this street address shows many government functions occurring in the building; I wouldn’t be surprised to find the registered agent also a public servant)
“Safe Horizon moves victims of violence from crisis to confidence”

Safe Horizon’s Court Programs

Safe Horizon operates over 30 court-based programs throughout the five boroughs. These programs include victim/witness reception centers, supervised visitation programs, mediation services, advocacy, crisis intervention, help with court-ordered restitution, and other legal issues.

Where are we located?

We are located in all five boroughs: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island.

Louise Voccoli (registered agent) is in the Nonprofit Management Business, and this particular group has quite a bit of business going:

ouise Voccoli

AVP at Safe Horizon

Greater New York City Area 
Nonprofit Organization Management
Current
Connections

16 connections

Louise Voccoli’s Experience

Nonprofit; 501-1000 employees; Nonprofit Organization Management industry

This pdf is a 2006 report, thanks In part “Safe Horizons Staff, including the Administrative Director of the Family Court Program, Louise Voccoli

It is evaluating some Safe Havens project — i.e., these supervised visitation centers.  It shows the pattern:

 

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:   

Supervised and Unsupervised Parental Access in Domestic Violence Cases: Court Orders and Consequences

Doc’t received April 2006 [DOJ AWARD# 2002-WG-BX-0012]

NCJRS — is a government service; it’s “NCJRS.gov” — which stands for “NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE,” a literal on-line libary.  It’s huge, and operated by the DOJ “Office of Justice Programs.” 
About NCJRS

The Federal sponsors include:

U.S. Department of Justice

  Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
    •  Office of the Assistant Attorney General (OAAG) 
•  Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 
•  Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) 
•  National Institute of Justice (NIJ) 
•  Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) 
•  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
  National Institute of Corrections (NIC)


Executive Office of the President

  Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP)

OBVIOUSLY, the sponsors do not include the family law arena judges.  For that — go see NCJFCJ!  If you look under “COURTs” (lefthand link), at the bottom, there are referrals, which  may have been how I originally found NAFCJ.net.  While AFCC is listed there, it does not provide a practical/historical knowledge of who the group is, and what they do.  Nevertheless, it’s an extensive reference library in itself.
See also:  “Where can I learn more about family courts and their function?
The Courts: Family Courts section of the NCJRS Web site provides resources that help to explain the function of family courts. For additional information, you may wish to visit the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Web sites.

I remember searching — in fact literally COMBING — for help with my family law situation, which required joint custody with an ex-batterer who never had any intervention (to my knowledge) other than to be forced out of the home, which meant at least THAT area was a safe zone (supposedly), and for a short period.   I didn’t find any there, but it did keep me current on many of these groups and theories. . . ..  The spectacles one needs to put on to understand some of those groups better (such as those two) are the nonprofit organizational background as it relates to governmental (and other) funding sources, as it relates to local court programs.  But to a novice (which I was), I didn’t pay close attention to WHO were these organizations — I was ignoring the containers and looking for the contents, which is a good way to get some rhetoric — and very little practical understanding of the groups

SO, this DOJ-funded study of access and visitation (supervised, unsupervised) was presented by a bunch of people, and (listed separately) an “Emily Horowitz, Ph.D.” from St. Francis College. You know i’m going to look that one up, and here it is:

Emily Horowitz, Ph.D.

Emily Horowitz, Ph.D.
Sociology & Criminal Justice
Assistant Professor

[Interesting school, founded by Franciscans:  remember what I posted a while back (after July 4th 2011) about the Irish Slave Trade & attempted genocide started during Cromwell’s reign?  Well you’re in it:   

[my summary:   “In 1224, St. Francisis of Assissi allowed teaching of theology if it didn’t extinguish the prayer life.  In other words, learning, but not too much of it.  Not everyone could do this, but a young and learned Brother, St. Anthony of Padua, to to teach theology to the Brothers “as long as such study did not extinguish the spirit of prayer and devotion.” In the century that followed, a “Franciscan School” of scholars developed a Christ-centered theology and philosophy based on the life and teachings of St. Francis.”  ]

In the early nineteenth century, Franciscan Brothers in Ireland began schools for poor and ordinary people. Following that spirit, Brothers came to Brooklyn in 1858 to educate the large numbers of immigrants arriving in America. Those Brothers opened St. Francis Academy in 1859. The institution officially became St. Francis College in 1884 when New York State granted the school a charter. Following the Franciscan tradition, the College has always emphasized development of the whole person.  Study of the liberal arts, combined with preparation in specific fields of study, has remained a means of following the quest for truth and personal authenticity. This is the Franciscan Spirit that leads our students to take their place in the world as ethical persons committed to nurturing the Divine goodness within every human being and all that God has created.

The Franciscan Brothers of Brooklyn have been serving the Church in New York for nearly 150 years. Learn more about the life and work of the Franciscan Brothers.

ANYHOW .   .  . . .. 

Synopsis
Dr. Emily Horowitz received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Yale University in 2002Her dissertation focused on the extent to which feminist ideology persists in the institutionalized context of a specialized domestic violence court.  She has published articles and essays on the subjects of domestic violence, civil commitment policies for sex offenders, wrongful convictions, and teaching race.  She has edited a book on teaching race to undergraduates across disciplines. Her current research interests include:

Wrongful Convictions
Dr. Horowitz teaches a course on wrongful convictions and serves on the board of the National Center for Reason and Justice, an organization that raises money for those falsely accused and/or wrongfully convicted of crimes against children and adolescents.  In June 2007, she co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times about how recording police interrogations can prevent wrongful convictions. She received the 2007 Alfred R. Lindesmith Award from the Society for the Study of Social Problems for her paper, “Civil Confinement and Lifetime Registration for Sex Offenders: Why No Debate?”   Her research paper, “Growing Media and Legislative Attention to Sex Offenders:  More Safety or More Injustice?” appears in The Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies 7 (2007). Currently, she is focusing her advocacy work on the increasing criminalization of mothers and the hysteria that so often surrounds cases involving alleged crimes against children. Professor Horowitz also continues to assist noted civil rights and criminal defense lawyer Ron Kuby on a number of high-profile criminal cases involving wrongful convictions of individuals charged with crimes against children.

Does it seem odd that a DOJ study on Supervised Visitation / Safe Havens Access Centers might be spearheaded by a (fairly young?) Yale Ph.D. Psychologist with a clear focus on FALSE allegations of sexual abuse?   This is where curiosity does pay off in understanding, for example, a bit of a dilemma here.  This person is a sociologist, primarily, not an attorney and not from what I can tell, a private investigator.  She teaches (whatever her personal beliefs or background) at a small CATHOLIC university, where she focuses on false allegations of sexual abuse, and there’s a video on the site (presently) soliciting doctrinal dissertations for some of her students, I think, on this topic!   Simultaneously she sits on the board of this nonprofit, About which I am going to inflict on you the “About Us” page:

http://ncrj.org/about/

 

ABOUT US

The National Center for Reason and Justice was incorporated in April, 2002.

President: Michael Snedeker, Esq., is a criminal-defense lawyer who has successfully handled the appeals of several ritual-abuse cases in California. He is the author of the California State Prisoners Handbook and is co-author, with Debbie Nathan, of Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt.

Treasurer: Francis X. Kane is a retired accountant who spent over 30 years doing financial management and internal auditing for GTE Sylvania. He became involved in false accusation issues in 1991, when an adult daughter was pressured by a therapist into “recovering” memories of being sexually abused as a baby. The daughter left therapy and got better, retracting her accusation, and making media appearances with her father. Mr. Kane did volunteer work for the False Memory Syndrome Foundation , and is currently their Massachusetts contact person. For years he has provided personal support for the falsely accused and their families — both in Massachusetts (the Amiraults, the Souzas, Bernard Baran, Robert Halsey, Bruce Clairmont) and elsewhere (Rocco Ellis, Bruce Perkins, the Kellers, Frank Fuster, Paul Ingram, the Wenatchee defendants, etc.).

Clerk: Hugo S. Cunningham, formerly a military intelligence analyst and software developer, currently maintains web sites on Soviet history http://www.cyberussr.com/rus/ and false accusations athttp://www.cyberussr.com/hcunn/witch/. Mr. Cunningham is a long time supporter of the Amirault family and of Bernard Baran.

Directors

Dr. Emily Horowitz received her Ph.D. in Sociology from Yale University in 2002. She has published articles and presented academic papers on the subjects of domestic violence, sex offender hysteria, false confessions and wrongful convictions. She teaches a course on wrongful convictions at St. Francis College (Brooklyn, NY, USA), where she is a faculty member in the Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice. She received the 2007 Alfred R. Lindesmith Award from the Society for the Study of Social Problems for her paper, “Civil Confinement and Lifetime Registration for Sex Offenders: Why No Debate?”, and her research paper, “Growing Media and Legislative Attention to Sex Offenders: More Safety or More Injustice?” appears in The Journal of the Institute of Justice and International Studies 7 (2007).

Judith Levine is a journalist, essayist, and author who has written about sex, gender, and families for over two decades. Her work has appeared in Ms., nerve.com, and My Generation. She is a founder of the National Writers Union and the feminist group, No More Nice Girls. She is the author of My Enemy, My Love: Women, Men, and the Dilemmas of Gender and Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From SexHarmful to Minors won the 2003 Los Angeles Times book prize in the current-interest category.

Debbie Nathan is a journalist who received the Free Press Association’s H.L. Mencken award for her reporting of the daycare hysteria in The Village Voice and elsewhere. Nathan was the first journalist of national stature to write critically about the daycare cases. She is the author of Women and Other Aliens: Essays from the U.S.-Mexico Border and co-author, with Mike Snedeker, of Satan’s Silence: Ritual Abuse and the Making of a Modern American Witch Hunt.

Mark Pendergrast is an independent scholar and writer. He is the author of Victims of Memory: Sex Abuse Accusations and Shattered Lives
(as well as a variety of topics. . …) Victims of Memory is an in-depth account of the devastation caused by false memories of sexual abuse and recovered-memory therapy. It also covers the day care hysteria cases. Scientific American called Victims of Memory “an impressive display of scholarship [which] demonstrates a laudable ability to lay out all sides of the argument.”

And the ADVISORS — this is a power-packed nonprofit board, highly credentialed.  I’m wondering if survivors of long-term childhood sexual abuse– the real kind — would ever achieve (collectively) such professional status as is on this nonprofit board here:

Advisors

Donald S. Connery is a Harvard-educated author and independent journalist who worked around the world for such leading news organizations as Armed Forces Radio Service, United Press and, principally, Time & Life magazines. After years of foreign correspondence from New Delhi, Tokyo, Moscow and London, he returned with his family to the U.S. in 1968. Connecticut’s landmark Peter Reilly wrong-man case in 1973-77 shifted his focus from international affairs to miscarriages of justice. He has since investigated and reported a series of false-confession cases from Alabama and Virginia to Connecticut and and Illinois, where he serves on the advisory board of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern Law School. 

. . . 

Dr. Elizabeth Loftus is a Distinguished Professor at the University of California – Irvine. She holds appointments in the Departments of Criminology, Law & Society and in the Department of Psychology and Social Behavior. Dr. Loftus is an internationally acknowledged expert in memory and eyewitness testimony. She is the author or co-author of several books — including Eyewitness TestimonyMemoryCognitive ProcessesWitness for the Defense, and The Myth of Repressed Memory 

Susan P. Robbins, Ph.D., is an associate professor at the University of Houston Graduate School of Social Work. She holds licenses as a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW) and licensed chemical dependency counselor (LCDC) in Texas and a Diplomate in Forensic Social Work from the American Board of Forensic Social Workers. Working on a contract basis with the Texas Protective Services Training Institute, she provides training for protective service workers, supervisors, lawyers and judges on False Allegations of Sexual Abuse and also serves as a consultant and expert witness in this area

Dr. James Wood teaches in the psychology department at the University of Texas at El Paso. He has done groundbreaking work on children’s suggestibility, including experiments based on the content of the McMartin children interviews.*** His work for the past few years has focused on exposing the Rorschach test as pseudoscience. He is on the editorial board of APSAC’s journal on child maltreatment. He has done research on the way children in incestuous family situations typically disclose their abuse to child protective services investigators (he has found that these children tend to be quite forthcoming, compared to, say, how Roland Summit used to describe them as trying to keep it a secret and needing prolonged prompting). He has also studied the behavior of child protection bureaucracies in citywide systems.

The founder of this organization was a retired public school teacher who got a law degree and worked often pro bono as an appellate attorney.  It’s clear he was gripped by a certain case and passionate about it, and that this organization sprang from specific events centered around FALSE accusations of sexual abuse.  (you have the link): 

Dan Finneran: Our First President

Dan Finneran got involved in legal work for people falsely convicted of child sex abuse after reading a 1988 Village Voice expose of the Margaret Kelly Michaels “Wee Care” case in northern New Jersey. Michaels had recently been convicted of bizarre acts of ritualized abuse against several preschoolers, and her case had scandalized the metropolitan New York City area, where Dan lived

***Famous case in the 1980s, preschool situation, retired Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Aviva Bobb presided over at least part of it. Oddly, I was looking at a foundation (nothing to do with child abuse stuff) and ran across the McMartin situation. Someone also has a post  called “Judge Murders Blind Senior for Valuable Estate.”  This is not a joke; this sounds like (yet another) abuse of the probate:  The woman was kicked out of her home of 50 years and denied medical care for a diagnosed condition; removed her name from the title of the home, etc.  There’s plenty of reporting on that topic in the L.A. area.  Becoming old without VERY competent and ethical protectors these days can be dangerous to one’s health, whether one is broke, or well to do.   (Ask me how I know….)

 

Now, let’s consider this:  This nonprofit appears to have been formed in MASSACHUSETTS in 2002, same year Elizabeth Horowitz, Ph.D. here, got that Ph.D. form Yale, and clearly shares the passion (and is on its board).  Per NCCSDATAWEB.org:

 

Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  020575475  National Center for Reason and Justice Inc MA 2002 03  52,984 43,182 990

Amirault case described, 1997  There is a handwritten 2002 filing, saying it’s the first for the organization, and additional directors hand-written in, including one in the UK.     Articles of Incorporation (note:  Massachusetts Business Corp Search site very helpful, easy to use);

 

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/213712.pdf

FMS - False Memory Syndrome Foundation

http://www.fmsfonline.org/

TO BE CONTINUED:  I’m just curious why a professor with passionate connection — and organizational affiliation to a nonprofit with the False Memory Foundation as somewhat central in philosophy — would be doing on a report about mothers engaged in the supervised visitation Safe Havens programs of New York, which are often domestic violence related (child abuse, potentially also). . .. 

Would this professor bring her personal passions into restraint as a professor, and not have a bias affect her teaching?  (I’m doubting it, Yale, or no Yale).

However, it clearly does not appear at least to be a nonprofit front group, that I can see.

 

MORE FROM YOURS TRULY, the HHS!

 

FROM THE FY2012 Fatherhood Budget link, above:

 

  • These services not only improve parent-child relationships and outcomes for children, but can also lead to greater, more regular payment of child support. Research shows that when fathers spend time with their children, they are more likely to meet their financial obligations. This creates a “double win” for children – an engaged parent and more financial security. The Budget includes proposals to:
  • Update the statutory purposes of the CSE program to recognize the program’s evolving mission and activities that help parents cooperate and support their children;
  • Require states to establish access and visitation responsibilities in all initial child support orders; and
  • Encourage states to undertake activities that support access and visitation, implementing domestic violence safeguards as a critical component of this new state responsibility.

The budget also proposes continued funding of $150 million to support the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grant program. Both initiatives are part of HHS’s efforts to ensure that children have the support and involvement of both parents.

CHILD SUPPORT and FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE

The FY 2012 budget includes several legislative proposals to continue a commitment of vigorous child support enforcement, a continuous emphasis on program outcomes and efficiency, and provisions to help further encourage fathers to take responsibility for their children and to promote strong family relationships. The Child Support Enforcement program is administered by HHS’s Office of Child Support Enforcement within the Administration for Children and Families. These proposals include:

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 11, 2011 at 8:26 pm

Pathways to Responsible (Patriotism) and other Grants

leave a comment »

And other Rumplestiltskin Stuff.

This is real appropriate behavior for when the sky is falling.  The sky IS falling, right?  Can Father Fed Fix it?

What kind of SPIN can be put on it?

Read the situation, and then I’ll show you the Rumplestiltskin Spin Spending I’m referring to:

Stock Market Meltdown: 10 Tools To Help Survive the Plunge

(from Soundcloud.com,; Yorgo Nestoridis)

The U.S. stock market today continues to plunge in the wake of the S&P’s downgrade of the U.S. credit rating.Many investors — big and small — are reacting to the news by rushing to sell-off positions. All three major U.S. stock indexes are down between 5% and 6%, which has pushed the Dow down 500 points.

Lemming Exodus

(Lemmings falling into the sea of knowledge….)

We can’t offer you any investment advice, but we can point out 10 mobile apps, iPad apps and websites that should make tracking investments and the state of the market less complicated.

Yeah – we can’t slow it, but we can give you an electronic ringside seat…

  • Asian stock markets fall after US credit downgrade

    ANGKOK (AP) — Asian stocks fell Monday after the historic downgrade of the U.S. credit rating but losses were contained amid a promise by Group of Seven industrial nations to take all necessary measures to support financial stability.

Oil prices extended recent sharp losses, trading below $85 a barrel on expectations that slowing global economic growth will crimp demand for crude.

Japan’s Nikkei 225 stock average was down 1.3 percent at 9,178.30 and Seoul’s Kospi dropped 1.6 percent to 1,913.58.

Steep Grade – Downgrade

(“RTL:   giving you the right direction“)

By 
NYTimes:   Published: August 7, 2011

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng tumbled 2.6 percent to 20,409.01 while Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 pared its initial sell-off to be down 1 percent at 4,062.70.

Futures pointed to losses on Wall Street when it opens Monday. Dow futures were off 225 points, or 2 percent, at 11,177 and broader S&P 500 futures shed 23.6, or 2 percent, to 1,174.20.

(or, see “Homer:  “The scream”)
  • Ohio Gov. John Kasich said this week’s slide on the stock market “borders on alarming.”
  • Kasich, a Republican and former Wall Street banker, told reporters on Thursday that he’s concerned about the sell-off and that it reflects a lack of confidence by consumers and businesses.
  • Stocks plunged Thursday in their single worst day since the 2008 financial crisis. The Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 512 points — its ninth-deepest point drop ever — as fear about the global economy spooked investors. Thursday marked the market’s worst day since the financial crisis nearly three years ago and has given up all of this year’s gains.
  • Multiple media outlets quote Kasich as saying that businesses don’t feel comfortable investing and are sitting on cash. Kasich said things won’t get moving until businesses invest, which includes hiring workers.
  • “The conventional wisdom on Wall Street was that the economy was growing — that the worst was behind us,” said Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital, to CNN. “Now what people are realizing is the stimulus didn’t work, and we may be headed back to recession.
  • U.S. markets were already sharply lower on widespread worries, including the weak job market. The S&P 500 was down a staggering 60 points, or 4.8 percent.The Nasdaq lost 136 points, or 5.1 percent.
  • Fears about a global slowdown are at the forefront of investors’ minds amid recent weak economic data. There’s “total fear” in the market, said Bob Doll, chief equity strategist at the world’s largest money manager, BlackRock.
  • In moves that they hoped would tame financial markets, Japan’s government stepped in to weaken the yen, and the European Central Bank decided to re-enter the European bond market for the first time since March. Those decisions come just a day after Switzerland intervened to curb the Swiss franc’s rise.
  • Copyright 2011 by wtov9.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
and in the UK:


  • Global stock markets have extended their heavy losses as concerns escalate about the debt problems facing the US and the eurozone.
  • On Wall Street, the Dow index fell 2.5% as investors worried those problems could hit the global economic recovery.
  • The UK’s FTSE ended down 3.4% to 5,069, its lowest close since July 2010.
  • But yields on Spanish and Italian bonds fell sharply after the European Central Bank (ECB) intervened to try to stop the eurozone debt crisis spreading.
  • Bonds are essentially IOUs issued by governments, or companies, to raise cash. Governments issue new bonds to help pay maturing bonds, which is why it is so important that investors continue to buy them – if they do not, governments are unable to pay their outstanding debts.

yes, Bonds are virtually spun gold.  More on that in a minute….

For example:

California Communities Joint Powers Authority (interesting:)

Overview

California Communities® can assist 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations by providing access to low-cost, tax-exempt bonds (“Bonds”) to finance or refinance the acquisition, construction, installation, expansion or rehabilitation of land, buildings, and equipment. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization can finance projects at a lower interest rate than conventional financing because the interest paid to bondholders is exempt from federal (and in some instances state) income taxes.

California Communities® has issued over $24.7 billion in qualified 501(c)(3) bonds for more than 250 nonprofit organizations throughout California, including hospitals and medical centers, private educational institutions, student housing facilities, multifamily housing facilities, museums, cultural centers, and assisted living facilities to name a few.

In addition to its traditional 501(c)(3) Nonprofit Conduit Bond Program, California Communities® offers a Small Issue Public Benefit Program designed to cost-effectively assist projects ranging from $1 million to $7 million. California Communities® will work directly with the borrower to privately place the Bonds with qualified institutional buyers. The advantages of the Small Issue Program include low-cost access to tax-exempt markets, a pre-established finance team and a fixed interest rate.

There’s a nice brochure; here’s description:  “A Unique Asset for Local Government”

The California Statewide Communities Development Authority (California Communities®) was created in 1988, under California’s Joint Exercise of Powers Act, to provide California’s local governments with an effective tool for the timely financing of community-based public benefit projects.

Although cities, counties and special districts are able to issue their own debt obligations or serve as a conduit issuer of private activity bonds that promote economic development and provide critical community services, many local agencies find stand-alone financings too costly or lack the necessary resources or experience to facilitate the bond issuance and perform post-issuance activities for the term of the bonds. In response, California Communities was created by and for local governments in California, and is sponsored by the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities.

Currently, more than 500 cities, counties and special districts have become Program Participants to California Communities – which serves as their conduit issuer and provides access to an efficient mechanism to finance locally-approved projects.

California Communities® is a statewide issuing authority that derives its issuing powers from city, county, special district members known as Program Participants. Any city, county or special district is eligible to become a Program Participant Amended and Restated Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (the “JPA Agreement”).
Please click on the following links to view the Program Participants, to view Signed JPA Agreements, to review Participant Activity Reports, and to conduct detailed searches of California Communities® Projects:
Cities 358
Counties 56
Districts 69
Agencies 17
City & County 1
SCIP Cities & Counties 30
All 501

I’m just putting this in here, because it’s something people may not think about too often.  The Joint Powers Authority means they can get together and raise money for various major projects; these links let you view them.

  • The ECB’s announcement that it intended to buy up government bonds saw the yield on Spanish 10-year bonds fall from more than 6% to about 5.2% – an indication that investors think it is less risky to lend Spain money. Yields on Italian bonds fell by a similar amount.
  • Tobias Blattner, a former economist at the ECB, said the central bank’s intervention had done little to help the crisis of confidence gripping the share markets.

Speaking of “Spin,” the topic brings us to RUMPLESTILTSKIN, which seems an appropriate tale for these times:  From Wikipedia:

In order to make himself appear more important, a miller lied and said that his daughter could spin straw into gold.

I wonder what tales were spun around the time the Federal Reserve got a hold of Americans’ gold.. and then when they wanted it back, spun a tale about “hoarding it”…  (I looked it up, the “anticorruption society” link came up, reminding us that the Federal Reserve is a Criminal Cartel.

(This site has a timeline)

“On May 23, 1933, Congressman, Louis T. McFadden, brought formal charges against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve Bank system, The Comptroller of the Currency and the Secretary of United States Treasury for numerous criminal acts, including but not limited to, CONSPIRACY, FRAUD, UNLAWFUL CONVERSION, AND TREASON 

The petition for Articles of Impeachment was thereafter referred to the Judiciary Committee and has YET TO BE ACTED ON.

(excerpts):  

Excerpts:
pg 2
“Some people who think that the Federal Reserve Banks United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lender. In that dark crew of financial pirates there are those who would cut a man’s throat to get a dollar out of his pocket; there are those who send money into states to buy votes to control our legislatures; there are those who maintain International propaganda for the purpose of deceiving us into granting of new concessions which will permit them to cover up their past misdeeds and set again in motion their gigantic train of crime.”
pg 6
“The United States has been ransacked and pillaged. Our structures have been gutted and only the walls are left standing. While being perpetrated, everything the world would rake up to sell us was brought in here at our expense by the Fed until our markets were swamped with unneeded and unwanted imported goods priced far above their value and make to equal the dollar volume of our honest exports, and to kill or reduce our favorite balance of trade. As Agents of the foreign central banks the Fed try by every means in their power to reduce our favorable balance of trade. They act for their foreign principal and they accept fees from foreigners for acting against the best interests of these United States.”
and, after describing some of their activities, including wars

The Bankers Manifesto of 1892

Revealed by US Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh, Sr. from Minnesota before the US Congress sometime during his term of office between the years of 1907 and 1917 to warn the citizens.

“We (the bankers) must proceed with caution and guard every move made, for the lower order of people are already showing signs of restless commotion. Prudence will therefore show a policy of apparently yielding to the popular will until our plans are so far consummated that we can declare our designs without fear of any organized resistance. The Farmers Alliance and Knights of Labor organizations in the United States should be carefully watched by our trusted men, and we must take immediate steps to control these organizations in our interest or disrupt them.

At the coming Omaha Convention to be held July 4th (1892), our men must attend and direct its movement, or else there will be set on foot such antagonism to our designs as may require force to overcome. This at the present time would be premature. We are not yet ready for such a crisis. Capital must protect itself in every possible manner through combination ( conspiracy) and legislation.The courts must be called to our aid, debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages foreclosed as rapidly as possible.

When through the process of the law, the common people have lost their homes, they will be more tractable and easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of the government applied to a central power of imperial wealth under the control of the leading financiers. People without homes will not quarrel with their leaders.

 

That was from 1892!

  

History repeats itself in regular cycles. This truth is well known among our principal men who are engaged in forming an imperialism of the world. While they are doing this, the people must be kept in a state of political antagonism.    

The question of tariff reform must be urged through the organization known as the Democratic Party, and the question of protection with the reciprocity must be forced to view through the Republican Party.     By thus dividing voters, we can get them to expand their energies in fighting over questions of no importance to us, except as teachers to the common herd. Thus, by discrete action, we can secure all that has been so generously planned and successfully accomplished.” 

If there is one thing I have come to understand in doing this blog (and looking up family law organizations and funders) it is that the policymakers (though not themselves the “imperialists” referred above) do indeed regard the masses — with whom they often have little direct connection, and if they do, not from having personally experienced what (we) have — for example, the DV experts are not necessarily DV survivors; the low-income-fatherhood specialists are not frequently from low-income households themselves, meaning those who started the movement.  And I will guarantee you the conference crowd (judicial, mediator, attorney, psychologist, child support professionals, etc.) — are not the grassroots representatives of the interests of those they coach, counsel, order, deprive of contact with their children, and sometimes imprison.  Overall, it’s clear that there is a class of appointed (many times, SELF-appointed) teachers — and there are the hordes to be trained and intervened upon….  The “common herd.”   
I thought this might be amusing, if not a good question:

In lean times, why is $300 billion worth of government treasure simply sitting in vaults?

By James Picerno
The Atlantic
October 14, 2010

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, a neo-Florentine fortress of sandstone and limestone in Lower Manhattan, covers a city block. A battery of structural and technological defenses makes it perhaps the world’s most secure bank; it can be sealed off in less than 25 seconds. On a recent visit to its subterranean vault, beneath 80 feet of bedrock, I walked along a narrow passageway through a 90-ton steel cylinder that can create an airtight and watertight seal. On the other side was a vault with neatly stacked walls of 27-pound yellow bricks—one of the largest collections of gold in the world.

Standing next to this mass of concentrated wealth all but paralyzes one’s sense of financial proportion. But after the initial awe of this King Midas moment, a question nagged: what’s the point?

Nearly 40 years after President Nixon suspended the dollar’s link to gold, the United States still sits on far more of it than any other nation: official holdings total 8,965 tons, or roughly 260 million troy ounces, according to the Treasury Department. (Most of it is stored in Fort Knox, Kentucky; the New York Fed holds about 11 million troy ounces, along with gold reserves from other countries and international organizations.) Gold is easily convertible into cash, and America’s mountain of metal is now worth more than ever: assuming the recent market price of $1,200 a troy ounce, the value of the federal stock exceeds $300 billion. Yet in an age of soaring deficits, our gold reserves earn no income, incur huge storage and security costs, and serve no practical purpose, short of a politically unthinkable renaissance of gold-based money (see “The Tea Party’s Brain,” page 98). Why?

Getting straight answers (or any answers at all) from Washington about our hoard of gold is weirdly difficult. Yes, the government can downsize its holdings, said Congressman Brad Sherman, a member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology, through a spokesman. No, it’s not a good idea, he added, offering no elaboration. When I called to interview the subcommittee’s chairman, Representative Mel Watt, his office begged off in an e-mail, advising only that he “hadn’t studied this particular issue as of yet.”

Repeated calls and e-mails to the White House press office went unanswered. The Treasury Department referred me to the section on gold in the U.S. Code. When I pressed for more information, a public-affairs official e-mailed back: “Gold? Don’t you have anything better to write about[?]”

“I don’t think that any change in the gold policy is even on the screen,” said Dale Henderson, a visiting professor of economics at Georgetown University. “It’s a bit of a mystery to me.” As a research economist at the Federal Reserve, Henderson co-authored a study in 1997 called “Can Government Gold Be Put to Better Use?” Yes, the paper concluded: selling or loaning out some or all of the reserves is preferable to doing nothing. “It’s an opportunity cost for the government,” Henderson told me. “The country has this gold and is borrowing to finance its activities. If we’re trying to maximize the return on the country’s assets, then we should borrow a little less and sell some of the gold.”

(from….the)

IS Gold Money?  Ron Paul asks Ben Bernanke (July 14, 2011).  According to this post (with youtub), Bernanke is saying, not really.  That, I’d like to see.

Let’s go over tidbits of this 1933 action, again.  Becauase 2033 isn’t that far away — just one more generation of family court disasters.  There’s Gold, Gold Certificates, and then Federal Reserve Notes, which eventually were degraded as to what they even represented (see Money:  Bona Fide or Non Bona Fide)

FDR’s 1933 Gold Confiscation was a Bailout of the Federal Reserve Bank
moonlightmint ^ | moonlightmint 

Posted on March 2, 2011 3:15:56 PM PST by dennisw

T(Excerpt) Read more at moonlightmint.com …ACTUALLY, it’s so well (plain) written, here’s a large excerpt:

PAPER REPLACES SPECIE

 During the 1800s, paper money was suspect in the eyes of many. Nobody would ever choose a government-issue $20 note over a $20 gold coin. Gradually during the late 1800s and early 1900s, confidence in government paper money increased to the point where it was widely accepted. People accepted the money because they felt confident they could exchange it at the US Treasury or any Federal Reserve Bank for gold at any time – it even said so on the notes. {THAT WAS GOING TO CHANGE…}}   Without the gold exchange clauses printed directly on the notes, the public would have been much less likely to accept them. Silver Certificates and United States Notes circulated alongside Gold Certificates, which were legally interchangeable dollar-for-dollar.

THE “FED” AND EASY MONEY

In 1913 the Federal Reserve Bank was established and it began issuing Federal Reserve Notes the following year.

Once free of the restrictions imposed by the limitations of available physical gold for coinage, the quantity of Dollars in circulation increased dramatically. The increase was mostly in the form of paper money, not specie.

The result was an economic “boom”, also known as “The Roaring Twenties” (1923-1929). But like all artificially-induced stimulus, it came to a crash in the fall of 1929. The burden of over-extended credit was the culprit. Prior to the formation of the Federal Reserve, money in circulation consisted of copper, silver, and gold coins, United States Notes, Silver Certificates, and Gold Certificates. All of these were non-interest-bearing, were issued directly by the US Treasury, and did not have any debt associated with their issuance.

PLEASE DO REVIEW A LITTLE MORE OF THIS. . . ..  AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE EARLIER NOTES, which actually DID say “redeemable in gold on demand.”

This is a typical gold-exchange clause found on Gold Certificates issued by the US Treasury from about 1905 to 1922.

And the clause on series 1928 US Treasury Gold Certificates looked like this:

(etc.)  The, the BAILOUT.

HE BAILOUT

So along comes FDR. One of the very first things he did was issue an executive order basically outlawing the private ownership of gold bullion. US Treasury Gold Certificates were no longer legal tender when held by the general public, unless exchanged at the US Treasury or Federal Reserve Bank for other non-gold paper. The US Treasury could then transfer 6,000 metric tons of gold to the Federal Reserve as a token backing for the “full faith and credit of the United States”. Reportedly, the US Treasury sent gold certificates to the Federal Reserve in exchange for Federal Reserve NotesSo the net result of this exchange was that the privately-controlled Federal Reserve Bank held US Treasury Gold Certificates backed by US Treasury gold, while the US Treasury held Federal Reserve Notes backed by “credit”.

These actions bailed out the privately-controlled Federal Reserve bank, which as of 1933 would no longer be in danger of collapsing due to a sort-fall of 20,000 or more metric tons of gold.

As citizens complied with the new ”law” by turning in gold, the gold reserves of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve increased.After most of the public’s gold was turned in, FDR raised the official price from $20.67 to $35.00 per troy ounce.

Basically, a form of stealing.  Increase the price of what it just got — from “we, the people.”

How “convenient”. Gold-clause Federal Reserve notes were not recalled and remained in circulation. But they could no longer be exchanged for gold, except by certain foreign central banks. Those with connections were able to buy valuable assets with mere paper. Wealth was concentrated in fewer hands.

SO, ANYHOW, the MILLER SAID HIS DAUGHTER COULD SPIN GOLD.  NOW she’s in trouble!

The king heard of this and called for the girl, shut her in a tower room with straw and a spinning wheel, and demanded that she spin the straw into gold by morning, for three nights, or be executed. She had given up all hope, when an impish creature appeared in the room and spun straw into gold for her in return for her necklace, then again the following night for her ring. On the third night, when she had nothing with which to reward him, the strange creature spun straw into gold for a promise that the girl’s first-born child would become his.

The king was so impressed that he married the miller’s daughter, but when their first child was born, the imp returned to claim his payment: “Now give me what you promised”. The queen was frightened and offered him all the wealth she had if she could keep the child. The imp refused but finally agreed to give up his claim to the child if the queen could guess his name in three days. At first she failed, but before the final night, her messenger discovered the imp’s remote mountain cottage and, unseen, overheard the imp hopping about his fire and singing. While there are many variations in this song, the 1886 translation by Lucy Crane reads:

To-day do I bake, to-morrow I brew,
The day after that the queen’s child comes in;
And oh! I am glad that nobody knew
That the name I am called is Rumpelstiltskin!”[1]

Well and so forth.  I’ve been overhearing about how our government, so broke, can still spin a good yarn, and perhaps they are counting on MY daughters to come up with the gold, when the bill comes due.  This just out (at least I just heard of it):  Plenty more money for fatherhood, depending on how you define “Money.”

I have “no idea” why there would be a crisis of confidence.  SOMEONE seems confident, given the increased debt and reduced social services, the cutbacks of the courts, etc. — that there will be a resurgence of family spirit and reduction of poverty if only there were just “a few good men” around.

Good men, any more, are not found — they are produced, apparently, by the Department of Health and Human Services.  I know they’ll figure this out eventually. . . Right?

 

 

This just in from, well, a friend sent it by.  Grantwriter’s blog, self-amusatory.  Sounds like whoever came up with the grants wasn’t too interested in a lot of competitors for them.

Grant Writing Confidential header image 2

 

 

 

Office of Family Assistance Issues the “Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood Grants Program” FOA, Provides a Generous 30-Day Deadline, and Makes Mothers Eligible

July 1st, 2011 · by Isaac Seliger · 7 Comments

The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance* just issued a Funding Opportunity Announcement (DHHS-speak for RFP) with tens of millions of dollars available and no matching requirement for the Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood Grants program. This new program was apparently hidden in plain sight in a somewhat obscure piece of federal legislation named the Claims Resolution Act of 2010. In addition to resolving the wonderfully named Pigford II settlement (I am not making this up, and no, I am not going to Google Pigford II or its presumable predecessor, Pigford I), this legislation also created and funded the Fatherhood program and at least two more new competitive grant programs: the Community-Centered Healthy Marriage and Relationship (CCHMR) Grants Program and the Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project.

 

 

There is $52,00,000 available for the Fatherhood program and $57,000,000 for the Marriage program, while the ex-prisoner dads get a comparatively paltry $6,000,000. Even better, none require matching funds, which is so unusual that the fact is worth mentioning twice. It’s open season if your agency is interested in new service delivery programs, and which agency isn’t?

 

The only bad news is the deadline: all three were published on June 29, with July 28 deadlines. OFA is giving applicants exactly 30 days (including the Fourth of July, which is a family holiday) to write complex responses to new programs. Last year, I blogged about stupid deadlines. The only good news about a deadline like this: there will likely be fewer than usual applications due to the combination of the long holiday weekend, summer vacations, and the struggles inherent in new FOAs and regulations.

Tireless OFA workers did not forget to include a bit of unintentional humor in the Fathers FOA, which, despite its name, says that “programs funded under this FOA must offer services on an equal basis to fathers and mothers.” I guess it could have been called the Responsible Parenting Program, but where’s the fun in that? Perhaps the Prisoners grants must be provided on an equal basis for non-prisoners. There is also the minor problem of whether all marriages—if you know what I mean, and I thinkyou do—can be assisted through marriage grant activities. If we get hired to write this proposal, I will let readers know how I dance around this potential minefield.

 

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 10, 2011 at 8:27 pm

When “Domestic ViolenceSpeak” becomes irrelevant, almost… Let’s talk, in Duluth, then Denver…

with 3 comments

This post is dedicated to any parent who’s lost custody of her children to a batterer* through the United States system of Family Courts.  As did I.  My message is, we can change this — but it will take making a choice of who to listen to.  Possibly a hard choice.

*When I say “to a batterer” I don’t mean, that’s the only personal characteristic of the father of her kids, but that that their children did, indeed, witness violence against their mother by their father and thereafter, getting out of the situation, eventually (or immediately) had the courts switch the custody to the father.

ANYONE would like to believe that reporting domestic violence, having laws to prevent it, and even having a restraining order on, would protect you, and surely enable an escape — and that all the agencies and nonprofits talking and writing about this will hold sway and save your family & kids.

Maybe, times was — they did — but that time is LONG since gone.   Judge for yourself what to do in a climate where Washington, D.C. has strong policymakers that have believed (since at least the early 1990s) that it’s GOOD ppolicy to fund research that declares the real solution to child abuse by fathers is a father in the home.  And, as to domestic violence, the real solution to that, too, is to use the children as bait (and your tax dollars) to fund hopeful social change projects that end up — asserting (according to who pays the most) — that the REAL way to stop men’s abuse of women — is to promote fatherhood.  In fact, WHATEVER the social problem is, more training of family members who can’t get OUT of that training, is the solution.

It’s a sad day in my book when the National Organization of Men Against Sexism (“NOMAS”) which historically partners with the NCADV — has really gone down the same road.  Indeed they have, as I saw today from their site.

Someone made a wisecrack on my post Who Is Evan Stark?  BOth these authors deal with domestic violence, in fact, an Orange County Therapist with a clear AFCC and Parental Alienation tendency (which being AFCC generally entails) felt free to include both these authors in her DV section — although one has to scroll down pretty far to get to that section:

California Divorce Therapist

Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life (Interpersonal Violence)
By Evan Stark

Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody:  Legal Strategies and Policy Issues
By Mo Therese Hannah, Ph.D. and Barry Goldstein, J.D.

Handbook of Domestic Violence Intervention Strategies: Policies, Programs, and Legal Remedies
By Albert R. Roberts, Ph.D. and Marjory D. Fields, J.D.

Family Interventions in Domestic Violence: A Handbook of Gender-Inclusive Theory and Treatment
By John Hamel, LCSW

Those links, and a few more indicating (one would think) some sensitivity to DV issues, are right alongside the left column of the website, which includes:

Parent
Co-Parent Couseling & Education
Divorce Education
Parenting Plan Coordination (Special Mastering)

I believe I have demonstrated pretty much what “Parent Coordination” is about.   This website is pretty clear where its allegiances lie, yet have no problem posting both these books.  i wonder why:

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Mission Statement of AFCC:
AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association of professionals dedicated to improving the lives of children and families through the resolution of family conflict.

AFCC is a tremendous resource for professionals, including Standards of Practice for: Parenting Plan Coordination, Brief Focused Assessment

ANYHOW, in answering the comment on my Evan Stark post…

I ran across yet another analysis of this system by Mr. Barry Goldstein, who is on the National Leadership Council of “NOMAS” — has been from that platform {and several others….) promoting the book I love (anymore) to make fun of, not because it didn’t take work to assemble — but for what it doesn’t talk about.    (Graphic and link below….)

Don’t know who NOMAS is?  You should:

NOMAS | National Organization for Men Against Sexism

Pro-feminist, gay-affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men's lives.

Very positive group.  Until some more reflection, today, I thought they were right-on.  As a survivor of a relationship which defined me by my gender and function, ONLY, and then a court system which did pretty much the same thing, it’s refreshing to be around people who are not obsessed with their masculinity, or afraid to let a woman speak.  Who’s not against sexism, right?

Also, every mother who has ever been put improperly on supervised visitation after reporting DV should at least remember the contribution of Jack Straton, Ph.D. who is still NOMAS National Leadership, to this topic — although his sound advice has in practice been completely ignored; as “Supervised Visitation” is now an established part of the family law landscape.  This is good to review, so we can understand WHY sound advice got drowned out with reform-the-world theory, and a good deal of infrastructure report for it, too….

  • Jack Straton Assistant Professor at Portland State University. Founder, Men Against Rape groups in Eugene, Oregon, Washington, D.C., and Manhattan, Kansas. He has published extensively in professional journals from his research in Quantum Scattering Theory, Gender Equity, and Diversity Training Methods. He has served as co-chair of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism (NOMAS) and, as co-chair of the NOMAS Task Group on Child Custody Issues, is recognized as one of the leading writers and speakers in the country with expertise on ethical and public policy issues related to the overlap between child custody, child abuse, and woman abuse.

I could almost kiss the guy {gay or straight) for writing “What’s Fair to Children of Abusive Men?” I carried it around for quite a while, throughout the family law case in fact.  I copied it to close, er, people in my life who knew about the abuse —  who didn’t “get” the concern I had when my ex sued for sole physical and legal custody before my restraining order had expired.

Not that it made a bit of difference.  But it’s at least logical — providing a reference point that the courts AREN’T.  This dates back to 1992, 1993:

Too late to “get back to Jack’s advice?”

originally presented at
What About the Kids? Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence
National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota
from the Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues*
of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism
Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001)
c/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751
503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX) , straton@pdx.edu

What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?
by Jack C. Straton, Ph.D.


INTRODUCTION

I want to express my deep gratitude to Ellen Pence, Madeline Dupre, Jim Soderberg and the others from the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project for giving me this opportunity to speak with you. The State of Minnesota should be proud that, quite literally, the world looks to this program for guidance on understanding and ending domestic violence. I also want to acknowledge how much I continually learn from Barbara Hart, of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

I will first critically examine the criterion at the base of all custody laws today, “What is in the best interests of the children?” I will the talk about children’s choice in these matters. Then I will examine the actual effects of wife-battering on children, and develop an alternative paradigm for custody based on those effects. From this I will examine the question, “Is it ever appropriate to ever give a batterer custody of a child?”

In the process, I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. I know that it is popular these days to de-gender family conflict, to talk about “spouse abuse” and “family violence” rather than “wife beating” and “rape.” I know that we want a society in which men nurture children to the same extent that women do.

I know that fathers and mothers should both be capable parents. But if you ask “What about the kids?” I want to give you a serious answer. I cannot seriously entertain the myth that our society really is gender neutral, so to consider “What about the kids?” while pretending such neutrality is to engage in denial and cognitive dissonance. I cannot hope to arrive at an answer that will positively affect reality if my underlying assumptions are based on fantasy.

So I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control.

YEP — that’s a good talk.  But — and after enough eyars of realizing who didn’t give a crap about logic, or truth (or the kids being able to heal from a very violent relationship by maintaining a solid relationship with their NONbattering parent) — I finally realized where it was originally presented — and once I realized this I realized that it was just talk, anyhow, as far as that project was concerned.    Look at the heading…

WHY?  Because — well, because they chose a different direction, called CONCILIATION with the fatherhood extremists, with the obvious result of catapulting to the top of the domestic violence advocacy heap, when it comes to funding:

National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota
(actually this should be “Duluth Abuse Intervention Project” it seems, “DAIP” — because “DAP” (also of Duluth) is a different group.

SO, LET’S TALK DULUTH, again:

In fact, DAP began in 1979, and here comes DAIP in 1980.  DAIP got much larger because? it learned how to tap into federal funding, and kept up pretty well with the marketing component as well, which we can see HERE, in their updated website which is even more upfront about We Want to TRAIN you, and here’s how to get an OVW grant so you can afford it.  Alternately, you can also Donate, or purchase some of our products for this great cause:

These are color-coded, I notice:  GREEN for trainings (GO get some trainings, that’s “growth” i suppose)

TRAININGS

Be more effective. Learn new skills!

There are many options for getting the training you want and need:

CUSTOMIZED TRAININGS FOR YOUR COMMUNITY

DULUTH MODEL TRAININGS

FUNDING IDEAS (click on this one…..)

FAQS

…And RED for STOPPING VIOLENCE, which supposedly some of these programs will — starting with “SAFE VISITS” i.e., SUPERVISED VISITATION.

Red is the far-right link, called “CHANGE HAPPENS, HERE’S HOW

SAFE FAMILY VISITS

DAIP’s Duluth Family Visitation Center (DFVC) works to restore safety and repair harm in the lives of women and children after abuse. The DFVC supervises visits and exchanges with the child and the parent responsible for the abuse. Our focus is building safe and positive relationships.

“My child witnessed fighting and abuse for three years before we started coming here. Using the center has made a huge impact on my child in that way. If we didn’t use these services he would have continued to abuse me, mess with me, etc. If exchanges were elsewhere I know he would still pressure and manipulate me. I’d be vulnerable and he would use that to his benefit. Now he has to re-learn how to deal with our relationship appropriately. Since he can’t see me or talk to me he has no choice but to focus his energy on our child.” –Parent using the Center for monitored visits and exchanges over the last six months

Give to the families at the Duluth Family Visitation Center and give them a ticket to safe communications and exchanges of their children for years to come.

On all four of the top rows of tabs at DAIP, on the left, there is a nice and simple column with only two choices:  “DONATE NOW” (preferable?) and TRAININGS (which can be purchased — including at government grant costs).  Just in case we missed the point, on the top ALSO, the first word is “DONATE NOW” followed by “TRAININGS.”  Apparently the reader is being trained by repetition to Donate and go get some Training, even if this also getting a nice OVW grant to do so.

Great website design.  Completely puts mine to shame.  But then again — they have great FUNDING.  I put the FEDERAL (two streams), STATE (MN) and COUNTY (St. Louis County — where Duluth is) in bold; and besides this, plenty of foundations also.  Success likes success and surely any group that could get THIS amount of federal HHS funding must be the good guys (besides which, contributions are tax-deductible):

FUNDERS

We are very grateful to the following federal, state and local funders whose support enables DAIP to bring DAIP strategies to end violence to communities throughout the US and around the world:

  • Ben and Jeanne Overman Charitable Trust
  • Beverly Foundation
  • Department of Health and Human Services
  • Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women
  • Duluth Superior Area Community Foundation
  • Junior League of Duluth
  • Lloyd K. Johnson Foundation
  • Mardag Foundation
  • Miller Dwan Foundation
  • Minnesota Department of Public Safety – Office of Justice Programs
  • Northland Foundation
  • Ordean Foundation
  • St. Louis County
  • United Way of Greater Duluth

The many individual donors and local businesses that make financial contributions and donations of goods and services.

I’ve blogged the Minnesota Program Development Inc. (which is this group) before — I guess they are REALLy into developing programs, especially trainings  Just for fun, although at that time, MPDI had $18 million of HHS awards, let’s look and see what’s up to today’s date:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 55802-2152 ST. LOUIS 193187069 $ 18,901,530

  (Yep over $800K higher than last time, from HHS that is):  Categories:  “FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE  (5 yrs, so far — this probably helped spiff up the websites) and  “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES ” (5 years) and FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER  (5th year of THAT series being 2000); and VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MULTIFACETED COMMUNITY-BASED DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (began 1995, which is as far back as that database goes).  Heres’ from USASpending.gov, which will pick up any contracts, and other sources, such as DOJ:

Looking (Same DUNS#) at USASPENDING.gov — this shows 17 grants totaling $64,000 (roughly) which turn out to be training materials and video, plus some psychiatric services — often for Homeland Security or military related. If I don’t stipulate to contracts only the figure is closer to $12 million – plus.  So obviously something to lost in translation between the two databases.  But a typical grant is going to be over $1 million.  The last one listed on this databse was in 2008 and for close to $2 million for “comprehensive technical system.”  It’s definitely a going concern:

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 2004WTAXK073: 02 (Grants)
Recipient: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
202 E Superior Street , East End, MINNESOTA
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 15-0409:Violence against Women Prevention and Prosecution Programs
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.008 : VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN OFFICE TECH. ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Description:
Comprehensive Technical Assistance


SUPERVISED VISITATION IS VERY PROBLEMATIC, BUT THE SYSTEM IS HERE AND FUNDED.

IT’S ALSO STATED in federal law (Title IV) AS A WAY TO INCREASE NONCUSTODIAL PARENTING TIME, SO I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY DROP THE CONCEPT OF DESIGNATING IT AS HELPING MOTHERS AND CHILDREN IN VIOLENT SITUATION.  IT HAS ALSO SHOWED UP A NUMBER OF TIMES AS BEING ABUSED BY DOUBLE-BILLING, OVER BILLING, USING FOR NON-GRANT-PURPOSES (I.E., WHEN THE PERSON WHO’S VISITATION IS BEING SUPERVISED HAS NO HISTORY OF ABUSE, I.E.. A MOTHER IN A CUSTODY SWITCH) AND IN GENERAL, SOMETHING OF A “RACKET.”   Fathers don’t like being supervised — no one does, and it’s quite artificial situation for the children — they ALL know an act is going on, and moreover, it’s a grants-bait situation.  I do not (in case you haven’t guessed) appreciate Dr. Pence’s early work in this regard, and also don’t appreciate the flexing of $$ might to the detriment of protective mothers and the children they are attempting to protect.

Supervised Visitation is billed in Access/Visitation grants as a means to increase noncustodial parenting time.  Look it up, I’ve certainly also written it up often enough.  The theory behind this is that involved parents will be better at paying their child support and so help reduce the welfare load.

What does this have to do with NON-Welfare families?  Well, powerful forces in Congress and around the country ALSO maintain that promoting Fatherhood (which “noncustodial parent’ basically means in policy-speak) will reduce the children’s risk of growing up to be drug-users, prostitutes, victims of violence, and teen pregnancy.  Yep, even around the Dugard/Garrido case and around multiple indicators that men do, indeed, molest and rape their own children, this line is still sold — and bought.

Also buying into this theory is great for business if you are in the training business or the fatherhood business.  Formerly being in the business of helping battered women, or dealing with them in their shelters, you would know better, but those days are gone.

Let’s go back to Jack Stratton’s speech, that he gave on behalf of NOMAS , but the forum and platform was from the DULUTH program:

WHOSE BEST INTERESTS?

I want to begin by instilling in you a healthy skepticism about the “Best interests of the child” criterion that underlies custody laws today. It is important to acknowledge that the term “the best interests of the child” is so vague that some adult must state what constitutes “best interest.”

In practice courts rely on social and psychological professionals to make this determination. While such individuals are surely skilled and caring individuals, it must be admitted that they operate out of a set of professional norms that are never openly discussed, and are subject to professional fad.

I WONDER who present there, actually believed this and made a commitment to assert and follow through on this?
I believe most of us could agree with this, not including social and psychological professionals.   By the way, the subtitle to the Duluth Website is:  “Social Change to End Violence Against Women.”   This is hardly surprising:  Ellen Pence (who I gather is probably not a parent) has her Ph.D. in Sociology from Toronto, and is interested in Institutional Ethnography.
So am I, however, before that I was much more interested in staying alive and making sure in my lifetime, and in this family line, my kids understood there is NO excuse for abuse, and if you’re in it, you can get OUT.  This provided difficult, given certain institutions beliefs that if EVERYONE gets trained (at public and/or private expense) the world can  be trained to think so differently that people will stop beating up on women because they are women, and because they can get away with that.
I didn’t major in sociology, and I don’t believe that “Social Change” is going to end violence against women, because I see no evidence that it has ,and a LOT has been poured into this during the decade i was being battered at home, and the subequent decade, where the forum of family court was added, without completely removing the original danger.  And I converse with enough people to know how commonplace this is.
But I have learned eventually that I’d better get pretty smart at “INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY” myself, particularly the sort of change-the world — and because I have a great vision, and got my institution ethnographically aligned with the federal grants system, pay me for it, too, forever, we’re going to go with MY (and my colleague’s) vision which has taken MY KIDS’ child support and other peoples much needed TANF funds and diverted it to unproved theories and unaudited projects, in short, which has drained the resources I might’ve used to retain custody, or escape in one piece within 10 years or less.
Where’s the PROOF? (Is anyone still looking for it?) that Dr. Pence’s CCR (Coordinated Community Response ) model  as good or better a deterrent as allowing the victim to LEAVE the presence of the criminal, and/or other deterrents such as self-defense weapons and training in how to use them legally! for 2nd Amendment purposes, and a low-cost weapon,  should your particular batterer flunk out of his anti-violence training (or, for that matter, pass it with flying colors, without a change of heart).
JACK STRATON, again — remember, this is OLD< and Ellen Pence, Madeline DuPre and Jim Soderburg, the Duluth People, at least, HEARD this:

Children’s right to choose vs. abuser’s manipulation of a child.

I want to talk about the question of children advocating on their own behalf. As one who would like to see the rights of children recognized and affirmed, I am tempted to say that, yes, a child should have some input into a decision about with whom they will live.

Yet in the present case we have a man who, though he beats his wife, is often very charismatic to the rest of the world, and perhaps to his kids. And even if he beats his kids as well, it is known that intermittent affection can be a stronger binding agent than consistent affection. We also have a man who has demonstrated his power over another human being through brutality.

It is known that older children will sometimes join in the abuse of their mother. Since it is the older children to whom we might be tempted to accede some measure of choice, I find this mirroring of the father’s brutality disquieting. I do not ask you to take one side or the other of this question, but to be cautious until someone more wise than I can resolve the knot for you.

AND (skipping further down in the article):
BUT WHAT ABOUT VISITATION?You will note that my remarks imply that demonstrable harm to children has as its rational consequence not just termination of custody, not just requiring supervised visitation, but termination of visitation. I want to acknowledge that this is really what I mean to say.[If a child wishes to visit with the father, an affirmative attitude toward children’s rights would lead one to allow this contact, even knowing the harm it may cause, and even knowing that further contact on the part of a male child might increase his indoctrination into abusive behavior himself. However, knowing of abuser’s abilities to manipulate children’s attitudes it would be prudent to enforce a cooling-off period of 6 months or so, after which time the child might find that he or she is happier without visitation 

BUT, Jack knows that just ain’t a gonna happen, and if complete no-visitation ever happened, it wouldn’t survive appeal, i.e., in court.  Around the time he was saying this in Minnesota, I (in my state) was beginning to experience the receiving end of wife-slapping (etc. and I don’t want to review it, here), not knowing how long ago my right to safely leave the situation WITH THE KIDS was being sold under, in a different part of the USA:

I also want to acknowledge that it is a political reality of today that visitation between an abusive father and his children will not often be severed, even when the child is unwilling to go. In particular, although a judge would be in the right to establish a “no-visitation” policy in an ex parte hearing for an order of protection for the abused mother, it is unlikely that a permanent “no-visitation” order based solely on the statistical likelihood of harm to the child would survive appeal.  {emphasis mine…}

So, criminal matters get addressed in the family law system.  And this man states that he really DOES assert that NO VISITATION is appropriate to abusive fathers (and in context, this means, having been physically abusive to the wife).  But that our hands are tied by a political reality.  By 1996, this became even more of a political reality, through welfare reform, as we now know (or you do, if you read my blog!).

HOW SAD.  AND, NOW, the SUPERVISED VISITATION INDUSTRY has its genesis, and its fertilization, through the same US Government that women pay taxes to as well as men —  because very few people understand things the way this person did, long ago.
And what we have — we have the “conflation” (merging) of the policy concepts of “VIOLENCE PREVENTION” with MUST_HAVE VISITATION with SUPERVISED VISITATION INDUSTRY, so professionals can function fully in all of these fields at once, or in fast sequence, such as Karen Oehme, @ Florida State University.  Read the description carefully:  (WOW.  I notice this website got a facelift recently, too).
FSU HomeInstitute for Family Violence Studies
Does this say STOP FAMILY VIOLENCE? or STOP VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN?  or CRIMINAL RESPONSE TO FELONY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?  NO!  It’s housed in the college of social work, and its FAMILY violence (not violence against women, and this is significant) and it’s yet another institute to STUDY these things.    Ms. Oehme, an attorney obviously, looks like a nice person, and I’m sure she is against violence of all sorts.  Here’s her level of involvement:

Karen Oehme, J.D. 
Institute Director , Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation

  • Karen Oehme was named the Director of the Institute for Family Violence Studies in 2007, after serving as the Director of the Florida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation, within the Institute, for nine years. She has provided technical advice and assistance to Florida’s supervised visitation programs and has served as liaison to judges, the Office of the State Courts Administrator, the Department of Children and Families, and the Florida Legislature on child abuse, visitation, and family violence.
She, too, believes no doubt in the  “Coordinated Community Response” model from Duluth, which apparently spearheaded this.
  • Oehme received her law degree from Florida State University in 1987. Formerly a staff attorney at Legal Services of North Florida and the Guardian ad Litem Program of the Second Judicial Circuit, she is a current Board member of SVN, a two-time recipient of the Judith Wallach President’s Award for Outstanding contributions to the Field of Supervised Visitation, and the chair of the SVN Training Committee.
  • In her new role as Director of the Institute for Family Violence Studies, Oehme continues the traditions of Drs. Maxwell and Crook in providing technical assistance and training for service providers and advocates, and conducting research that increases the knowledge base about violence interventions that work.
  • Oehme believes that by collaborating with public and private organizations, by disseminating knowledge, and by advocating for effective policies & programs, the Institute will continue to serve as a catalyst for the elimination of all forms of domestic violence.

One way to intervene with an ongoing violent situation, where this involves criminal behavior, is to treat it as criminal behavior, and jail the perp, and then help get the mother and children the hell out of there; they will survive somehow, if this means briefly TANF, then let it be TANF without calling in the Fatherhood Promotion Dogs to give her opponent free legal help to switch custody back!.    We already KNOW the likelihood exists that a pissed-off perp may come back, not abashed and ashamed, but angry and ready to get revenge.  The climate is indeed ripe for this, also…..

SOON ENOUGH, when the grants and technical assistance operations are enough collaborated and entrenched in the grants stream, it eventually boiils down to the Administration’s collective solution to domestic violence is to put the father BACK in the home.  AFter all, fatherlessness leads to increased risk of domestic violence.  The language changes from taking care of violence which HAS happened with a serious deterrent that sends a message to WHOEVER tries it next — but to “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION resulting in hybrids like THIS.  Again, if you read this blog, this is review for me — only the last time I posted on this (Like about January 2011) “ENDABUSE.ORG” had a different website, nonprofit name, and physical street address.  Nice to have federal help fro shape-shifting and purpose-expansion:

Working With Abusive Men & Fathers

Working With Abusive Men & Fathers

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.
As a national leader in engaging men to end violence against women, Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund, believes that it is critical to develop new strategies to motivate abusive men to renounce their violence and help heal their families. To that effect, we have developed several projects to support practitioners from different fields that engage abusive men and fathers.

Fathering After Violence

Fathering After Violence is a national initiative developed by Futures Without Violence and its partners to enhance the safety and well-being of women and children by motivating men to renounce their violence and become better fathers and more supportive parenting partners. This groundbreaking project is based on the premise that men who use violence can be held accountable for their behavior and, at the same time, be encouraged to change it by using fatherhood as a leading approach.

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Futures Without Violence developed the National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence (NIFDV) to train and provide technical assistance to professionals who work with abusive fathers in different fields, using the Fathering After Violence framework. In partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women, we have trained practitioners from over 40 communities across the US, including: DV advocates, supervised visitation, batterers intervention and fatherhood programs, judges and other law enforcement, and child protection workers.

Of course they, too, believe that supervised visitation is a good thing, and perhaps may help train violence out of the (male) human nature by appealing to the father instinct wherever possible (?).  They are marketing to the PROFESSIONALS — not the fathers.  Because this is where the funding goes….

Fathering After Violence: Working with Abusive Fathers in Supervised Visitation (PDF)  This bears the old organization name (FVPF) — by the way, FVPF was, like MPDI, I gather, one of those “FOUR SPECIAL RESOURCE” centers above, along with the NCJFCJ in Nevada, and the Domestic Violence National hotline (in Texas) and another one up in South Dakota, though it was less influential. I think — don’t quote me on that too hard.

“This project is supported by grant #2004-WT-AX-K046 awarded by the Office on Violence Against Women, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

© 2007 by Family Violence Prevention Fund. All Rights Reserved.

Acknowledgements go to certain visitation centers, including one in Minnesota:

The Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) is extremely grateful to the many people who made this publication possible. In particular, we extend our deepest gratitude to the Safe Havens Supervised Visitation Program Fathering After Violence “Learning Communities,” who took a chance and partnered with us to explore new paths of engagement and service delivery with men who have used violence in their families. Staff from the Advocates for Family Peace *** in Grand Rapids, Minnesota, the City of Kent Supervised Visitation Center in Washington State, the San Mateo County Family Visitation Center in California, the Walnut Avenue Women’s Center in Santa Cruz, California, and the YWCA Visitation Centers in Springfield and Northampton, Massachusetts, made great contributions to this emerging field of work.

FYI, here’s “ADvocates for Family Peace” in Grand Rapids Minnesota.  First of all, the URL reads stopabuse, not stop domestic violence, which is one indicator — it’s no longer violence, it’s “abuse” which is a much softer term.  Here:

1611 NW Fourth Street

Grand Rapids, MN  55744

(218) 326-0388

 1-800-909-8336

Fax (218) 327-4052

horizontal rule

NOW AVAILABLE

Addressing Fatherhood with Men who Batter – 1st edition

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

Forward by: Ellen Pence, PHD

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

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

To preview the DVD click here

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

 SOUND FAMILIAR?  Men Who Batter don’t forfeit being fathers — they just get a lot of resources dedicated to reforming them.  This is a win/win for the trainers and for male supremacists  (I’m not quite sure whether for the fathers, but if a man thinks he can go beat on women — I don’t care so much about how well things work for him!)  Notice they lead with MARKETING, just like (probably) Melissa Scaia learned at  or with the Duluth people.

I RECOMMEND STOP THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SPEAK WHEN CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED AND YOUR EX MIGHT GO FOR CUSTODY — which if he’s an abuser, he has a motive to do and the pathway is paved for him, too…  this includes if y0u’ve had to go to a shelter.

I am not personally responsible for you, Dear Reader (?), nor an attorney, so take it with a grain of salt, and maybe just be forewarned; is there another option?

SO — IF YOU SPEAK “DOMESTIC VIOLENCE” IN A COURT OR LEGAL SITUATION, WHAT YOU WILL GET — EVENTUALLY — IS A WELL-INTENTIONED (?) FATHERHOOD PROGRAM, whatever other name it may have on the label, AND NOT LONG-TERM CONSEQUENCES FOR HIM AND SAFETY FOR YOU.  AND, YOU MAY UNINTENTIONALLY FLAG YOUR CASE FOR CHILD REMOVAL ALSO. OR FOR PROTRACTED CUSTODY LITIGATION, WHICH IS A FORM OF VIOLENCE AGAINST YOUR KIDS AND YOUR HOUSEHOLD EMOTIONALLY AND FINANCIALLY, AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY, BEING BASED ON FALSEHOODS….

We have fully evolved, 10 years after Access and Visitation (from the HHS angle) and “Safe Havens” (from the DOJ angle) into an apparent professional belief — or at least so they say — that the REAL way to stop violence against women is to pay people to promote fatherhood and hope it takes.  This publication is 4 years old; I wonder what’s next – tell women to get down on their knees again and try harder to please their abusers?  Because the courts are already in their own way telling women that protest or have resistance to whichever program is up next, that they are problematic, high-conflict and just perhaps ought to be punished by watching the ex-batterer or molester walk away triumphant with SOLE custody, and bill her for it, not including the public expense that went up to creating the situation to start with.  Here’s how they worded it, in that pdf.  I’ll “green it up” since FUTURES WITHouT VIOLENCE now has a green theme::

This publication takes as a point of departure the minimum practice standards outlined in the Guiding Principles of the Supervised Visitation Program (Guiding Principles or GP)1 and builds upon that document to propose a continuum of more advanced interventions for the engagement of abusive fathers in visitation centers. These interventions are based on the learnings from the Fathering After Violence Initiative,2 developed by the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) and five current and past SVP grantees with funding from the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW).

Fathering After Violence is a national initiative that aims to help end violence against women by motivating men to renounce their abuse and become better fathers (or father figures) and more supportive parenting partners using fatherhood as a leading approach.

Too bad they aren’t still taking adequate feedback from women who might’ve spoken about how well trying to “motivate” an abuser to change works.  Moreover, if an individual is somehow motivated and has a spiritual epiphany that it’s better to be nice to your wife and kids — what do they expect might just happen to that “epiphany” if said father goes back to his local church, which believes, for example, that “Men are from Dirt” and “Women are from Men” and should be silent in the congregation?  And because the churches, too, are re-arrnaging their cultures to attract more men and push marriage (who do we actually think was behind the healthy marriage/fatherhood movement to start with?) they tend to have a fresh stock of marriageable (trained to submit) divorces, sometimes with ready-made families, or they can help get the kids from woman#1. . . . . I mean, this talk is RIDICULOUS — but it’s funded!

No doubt, explored a little further, these too would have federal funding behind them.

Here’s what Mr. Goldstein had to say, at whatever date this was written (pre-publication of his book, though):


NOMAS | National Organization for Men Against Sexism

Pro-feminist, gay-affirmative, anti-racist, enhancing men's lives.

Here’s the article, at least part of it.  Intro and Part 1:

10 Ways Anti-sexist Men Can Help Reform the Broken Custody Court System

By Barry Goldstein,

NOMAS Child Custody Task Group

Research has now established that the custody court system’s response to domestic violence cases is deeply flawed.  Courts’ use of outdated practices, unqualified professionals, inadequate training, gender bias and other mistakes has resulted in thousands of children being sent to live with abusers.  This article explores the role anti-sexist men can play in reforming the custody court system.

Extremists who control “fathers’ rights” groups have developed powerful tactics to help abusers maintain what they believe is men’s privilege to control their partners and make the major decisions in the relationship.  Abusive fathers with little involvement with their children during the relationship are seeking custody as a way to pressure his partner to return, punish her for leaving or obtain a favorable settlement of economic issues.  Judges and other professionals, happy to see a father interested in his children have been slow to recognize abusers’ legal tactics.  The male supremacist activists have created an illusion that they speak for most fathers.  This is why it is particularly important that good men speak out for the safety of protective mothers and their children.

How are they to speak out?  What are they to say?  We’re glad you asked that — read on:

Garland Waller is an award winning producer of documentaries and professor of communications at Boston University.  In her chapter for the forthcoming book DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY, she describes the failure of the media and particularly the national media to expose the crisis in the custody court system.  Professor Waller suggests that there is a “tipping point” for this issue and once enough of the public is aware of the problem, the media will cover the issue and the public will no longer tolerate the outdated practices that have ruined so many children’s lives.

I know that’s a common theory — and it IS a theory.  It fails to account for many factors (which I just communicated to NOMAS separately this morning) for example — on what basis are we to presume that being AwARE of a problem is going to translate to outrage which will then somehow be intelligently directed to stop the situation?  As we just heard that in Syria about 2,000 protesters have been mowed down, including a baby (see recent TV news, I saw Secretary of State Hillary Clinton talking about this; it’s front-line news) — how do we imagine the increasingly totalitarian USA might handle public “intoleration” of “outdated practices.”

Here’s a JUDGE, for Peet’s sake.  Judges are also members of the public as are those who have been molesting children right along.  Also members of the public are people with certain religious backgrounds (including Christian, Muslim, and can you spell Warren Jeffs (LDS)?) — who practice and whether or not inpublic, in private most certainly do NOT have a problem endorsing sex with kids, or abuse of women: (Someone forwarded this, I don’t follow the 9th circuit….)

Aug-01-2011 23:59printcomments

9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Kozinski’s Porn Site and Legal Justice

Tim King Salem-News.comCivil Rights Attorney asks Reno Bishop Asked To Head Up Kozinski Porn Review Committee.

Porn art involving Christ and religion
Kozinski didn’t act fast enough to prevent Internet users from recording the images on his public porn site.

Here’s some data on that.  Again, the context is the that general public is generally speaking, moral — and will protest immorality.   And the article talks about what happened when a civil rights attorney protested this behavior:

(SALEM, Ore.) – The L.A. Times reported the most interesting story three years ago, about a porn site owned and operated by Alex Kozinski, the chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the time, Kozinski was presiding over an obscenity trial in Los Angeles.

Judge Alex Kozinski

He would later claim that he believed his publicly accessible Web site featuring sexually explicit photos and videos was for his private storage and claimed he was not aware the images could be seen by the public, though he admitted he shared some material on the site with “friends”.

The 57-year old judge did acknowledge in an interview with the LA Times, that he had posted the materials including, a photo of a naked women on all fours painted to look like cows and a video of a half-dressed man cavorting with a sexually aroused farm animal”.

Kozinski admitted that “some” of the material was inappropriate, but defended other sexually explicit content as “funny.”

Did the woman agree?  What about when that branches over into Children, if painting women as cows on all fours loses its capacity to stimulate?  For example, what about the Nebraska scandal called The Franklin Coverup, in which a number of people (like witnesses and investigators) DIED after some trafficked children reported who was trafficking them? And, incidentally, I have no idea why someone thought that asking a Catholic Bishop to address this would make a difference; the post overall  is hardly untainted any more….

Randolph Calvo

That was June 2009, and more than three years later Kozinski is still one of the region’s most important judges.

BACK TO Mr. GOLDSTEIN’s SUGGESTIONS — evidently he thinks like Garland Waller, that we just need to keep doing the SAME thing — only more – and it’ll change the courts.

The suggestions in this article are designed to help society reach this tipping point.

1.  Learn about the subject:  In order for men to play a role in ending these avoidable tragedies, they have to first make themselves knowledgeable about the subject.  Fortunately there is much up-to-date research and information available to refute the myths and stereotypes commonly used by those unfamiliar with this research.  On the web, good information and links can be found at web sites for the Battered Mothers Custody Conference (Batteredmotherscustodyconference.org), National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV.org), Leadership Council (Leadershipcouncil.org), Stop Family Violence (Stopfamilyviolence.org), Liz Library (thelizlibrary.org) and my web site (Barrygoldstein.net).     This is not a complete list and many other good sites will be found in the links available on these sites.

Many good books and articles containing up-to-date research and information are also available.  Men who wish to read about this topic should consider work by Lundy Bancroft, Dr. Jay Silverman, Peter Jaffe, {{URL — CLICK ME!}}, Claire Crooks, Nicholas Bala,***  Joan Zorza, Evan Stark, Michael Lesher, Dr. Amy Neustein, Dr. Maureen Hannah and Barry Goldstein.  These writers in turn cite research from other good sources.  Men should avoid articles based on flawed and biased research such as those cited by male supremacist organizations or Parental Alienation Syndrome propagandists.  

 

 

Apparently we don’t know that Nicholas Bala is AFCC and AFCC IS a “parental alienation syndrome” Propaganda organization!  Now matter how much I blog it, and before me, (like, since 1993) a woman close to the DC area with networked mothers nationwide (and overseas) ALSO have.  However these women are not habitually forming nonprofit organizations, publishing books, or trying to make a name for themselves by conferencing all over the place — and not enough of them go to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference, either.  Mo Hannah knows QUITE well about that material, but has chosen not to continue publicizing it.

For the record here it is:

For the record, the 2010 conference still will incorporate “alienation” — although it appears they are addressing the “junk science” accusation.  To show the scope of attendees, and what roles they fulfil in the courts:

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Ontario Chapter
Second Annual General Conference

THE FUTURE OF FAMILY LAW
Thursday October 14 & Friday October 15, 2010

What is the future of family law in Ontario? What will families and family law look like in 2020? Over 230 participants joined us for the second annual general conference of the Ontario Chapter of AFCC to discuss and debate these questions and more with an interdisciplinary group of judges, mediators, legal scholars, mental health professionals, lawyers, assessors, and child protection workers.

The workshops focused on topics such as maximizing the effectiveness of expert testimony, the pros and cons of presumptions {{this could also include the “rebuttable presumption against batterers getting custody, though I don’t know if Canada has this one, like much of US does}} {{it could also refer to the presumption of shared custody}} in determining custody and access arrangements, how to distinguish reliable research from “junk science”, alienation and the new DSM V, practice management in a new Legal Aid world, and the future of child protection, mediation and arbitration.

NICHOLAS BALA WAS HONORED IN 2009.  Barry left himself open to this by recommending his writings. Here’s a sampler:

Tribute to Professor Nicholas Bala
Kingston, Ontario

On May 8, 2009, AFCC’s second major event was held in cooperation with Queen’s Law School—Special thanks go to Dean Bill Flannigan, the Queen’s Alumni Folks, Dianne Butler, Deanna Morash, and Amber Ooman and everyone who participated in making this a truly amazing event and celebration to Nick.

The Tribute included an educational conference, reception and dinner. The conference showcased 4 areas of law that Professor Bala is especially passionate about, including family law, child protection law, youth justice, and child witnesses and evidence. 


Speakers included Professor Rollie Thompson, Professor Nick Bala, Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler, Mary Jo Maur, Justice Jennifer MacKinnon, Justice Emile Kruzick, Dr. Peter Jaffe, Justice Anne Trousdale, Martha Downey, Jane Long, Justice Brian Scully, Dr. Dan Ashbourne, Dr. Rachel Birnbaum, Dr. Joe Hornick, Pamela Hurley, Professor Sue Miklas, Dan Goldberg, and Justice George Czutrin.

What did Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler speak about?  In front of all those judges (justices) ?  Well, let’s first set the scope of the celebration of Professor Bala that men against sexism and domestic violence who want to reform the broken custody courts should read about, and what kind of notables were in attendance, both judicial and law enforcement, and a law firm (“LLP”).  SOunds like quite the party:

Following the conference, a reception and dinner was hosted by Justice Harvey Brownstone. The speakers included: Professor and Dean Bill Flanagan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General Ann Meritt, Justice R. James Williams, Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (Family Division), Justice Jennifer Blishen, Brahm Siegal, and Phil Epstein, QC, Epstein Cle LLP who entertained the audience with a roast to Nick and those “Bala Notes”. Nick’s 4 children (Emily, Katie, Andrew and Elizabeth) treated everyone to the song, For Good, from the musical Wicked, with amazing harmony and grace—well done!

The evening was capped by the announcement of two awards in honour of Nicholas Bala:

(1) The Faculty of Law, Queen’s University is sponsoring the Professor Nick Bala Fund for Family Law; and

(2) AFCC Ontario Chapter is sponsoring the Professor Nicholas Bala Award for Excellence in Children and Family Law. For more details and how you can contribute to the AFCC Ontario award to a law and/or social work student in family law, please contact: (name omitted: you wanna contribute, go to the website and look it up!)

Keeping in mind that we (I mean, men who want to help fix the poor, broken courts) are to investigate authors like Professor Bala and NOT “Parental Alienation Syndrome Propagandists” we read:

In addition, Professor Sanjeev Anand, University Of Alberta is editing a book with academic scholars, judges and practitioners on children and the law in tribute to Professor Nicholas Bala and his scholarly achievements.

See attached links for a taste of just some of the wonderful papers and speeches in tribute to Nick.

Professor Nick Bala’s summary paper on alienation (a full paper will be coming out in January 2010):

Excerpt — the whole PAPER is about alienation.  Some form of the word occurred 35 times.  As to abuse, as in child abuse — the word “abuse” occurred 3 times, and never in context of actual child abuse, whether molestation, neglect, assault & battery, or anything similar, which is telling.  Of the 3 times that occurred, it was initially dismissed in a phrase as to “feminists” and then, the other two times, “abuse or poor parenting” as a cause of “alienation.”  I guess in Canada — or at least Ontario, child abuse and domestic violence threats post-separation (or threats carried out) JUST DON”T HAPPEN.  You can’t tell from this company that perhpas they do — and  they LOVE Prof. Bala, clearly:

Here’s the opening statements:

Parental Alienation – Myths, Realities & Uncertainties: A Canadian Study, 1989-2008  (note: THAT’S ALMOST 20 YEARS WORTH!)
Nicholas Bala, Suzanne Hunt & Carrie McCarney Faculty of Law, Queen’s University
 
Alienation cases have been receiving a great deal of public and professional attention in the past few months in Canada. As with so many issues in family law, there are two competing, gendered narratives offered to explain these cases.
[1] Men’s rights activists claim that mothers alienate children from their fathers as a way of seeking revenge for separation, and argue that judges are gender-biased against fathers in these cases.
[2] Feminists tend to dismiss alienation as a fabrication of abusive fathers who are trying to force contact with children who are frightened of them and to control the lives of their abused former partners.

(I added the numbering above, and emphases).  OK, he’s taking the professional approach, so-called, and presenting the Pros (MEN claim) and Cons (WOMEN claim) — and pay attention, because this is the FIRST of only 3 uses of ‘abuse” in the piece.  He has correctly stated the positions, too.  But a sharp reader will notice that he’s going to play off these two opposing viewpoints without characterizing either one as wrong, or right.  He’s AFCC, and this is where a real AFCC activist can get a LOT of business for his colleagues. But before then, he has to position himself as neutral (which he’s NOT!).  He has 100% entirely skirted the issue that some mothers protest contact with the Dads because the Dads were violent towards them, and/or have abused their children during post-separation visitation, raising HELL for all concerned, especially the child:

While there is some validity to both of these narratives,    {{IS THERE?  THEN SHOW ME! — Oh, I forgot – protective mothers not invited to this assembly; its for the professionals}} each also has significant mythical elements.  

In reality, these opening paragraphs are his positioning himself as neutral, fair, and the professional in the scene.  However, where is the acknowledgment of actual child abuse EVER happening in a custody case, in this presentation.  He’s covering a 19 year period, and we all know there have fatality reviews in Canada….

The reality of these cases is often highly complex, with both fathers and mothers bearing significant responsibility for the situation.

Notice how the possibility that a child has been abused, or a mother threatened — is already eliminated.  It is not going to come up for the rest of the paper either — check yourself.  Now, if there was no abuse, and there is alienation (etc.) that’s one matter — but he has not cleared the deck yet in that matter.  Where there IS abuse, then a mother who is protesting it is functioning as a protective mother and for the best interest of her child, for which the courts and these august professionals will criticize her behavior.

Many high conflict separations are characterized by both parents denigrating their former partners and failing to support their children’s relationships with the other parent
 
Many so-called “high conflict separations” (a key AFCC phrase.  When you hear it, AFCC is here, or was recently) are indeed about some legitimate issues — and those issue ARE the topic and not the conflict per se, divorced from them.
It is THE function of AFCC (other than business expansions, etc.) to put roadblocks to discussing such legitimate issues in the face of those who need to discuss them, often a mother.  Reader further, we can see how much court involvement is warranted once one parent, or child, protests visitation.
 

Court-appointed mental health experts testified in 83% of these cases, and if they expressed a clear opinion about whether or not there was alienation, the court agreed in over 90% of the cases.

Well, just take a look at who is in attendance:  “The Court” are in many cases, AFCC members!  So naturally there will be a tendency to agree with one’s colleagues in a trade profession! !!

Party-retained experts testified in less than a fifth of cases; judges are much less inclined to agree with these experts; in only 2 cases did the court prefer the opinion of a privately-retained expert to that of a court-appointed expert about whether alienation occurred.

Party-retained experts are less likely to be AFCC members. . . . .

Where the court found parental alienation, the most common response was to vary custody to either give the rejected parent sole (47/89=53%) or joint custody(14/89=16%); whether the father or the mother was found to be the alienating parent, there was not a statistically significant difference in the rate of variation of custody.    

I’d like to SEE those stats, but don’t suppose I’m about to.  HOWEVER we see that “finding alienation” tends towards ALTERING CUSTODY, if not switching sole custody to the alienated party.   Calling “alienation” then — when it’s called (i.e., when COURT_APPOINTED MENTAL HEALTH EXPERTS testify, i.e., experts the court (justices) have some close affiliation or preference for) will tend to jeopardize custody, or certainly change it significantly.  In more than half the cases, too!

• In more severe cases, courts may both change custody and suspend contact with the alienating parent; this occurred in 9 out of 89 cases (10%).

That’s incredible, because at least in the United States I can say, even if a father has been a batterer, caused serious injury and is in JAIL, there is a program to encourage visitation.   Alienation being much more nebulous a diagnosis (depending on whether the person diagnosing was a court appointee or a private choice of one of the parties . . . . . . ) for it to cause a total cessation of custody in even 10% is more than typically happens with identified domestic violence.

This IS the crisis in the courts Mr. Goldstein wants the public to be consciousness-aware of, and for a few good men (or even lots more) to speak about  – – -and he suggest they read Bala!

• The court ordered counselling or therapeutic intervention in 37 of 145 cases in this study (26%). These orders were made both in cases in which alienation was found, and in cases in which the court rejected the claim of alienation. The most common orders were for court ordered counselling for the children (19 cases) and for the entire family (12 cases).

So much the more money for those providing it, and sometimes even potential double-billing if it’s government funded AND private billed.  See more on KIds’ Turn posts…. – – by the way, did I mention, that Kids’ Turn San Francisco’s business license just got suspended?  I wonder if conflicts of interest (and my blogging it consistently) had anything to do with that.

The (2-page summary of almost 20 years of court cases) paper concludes without a single reference to domestic violence as a cause of a child not wanting to visit the other parent, and offers its recommendation on “alienation cases.”  NOTE:  Child Protective people, apparently, were present:

Changes should be made in the family justice system to ensure that alienation cases are addressed in a way that better meets the needs of children, including:

• Education programs for parents on the effects of separation on children;  (the “KIDS’ TURN” factor — yep, in canada, too)

• Early case management by one judge of high conflict family law cases;**

**I’m going to go out on a limb here, and state why they want ONE judge in so-called “high-conflict” family law cases:  Because there are still probably some NON-AFCC judges in the courts who might see things differently, rule differently, and break up the AFCC case-switching, parental alienation racket!  AND any financial benefits associated with it.

• Early assessment by a court-appointed mental health professional;  {{translation:  AFCC member}}

(AFCC exists to bring in the mental health professionals from the start — see my page on the foundations of the family law arena, not to mention Meyer Elkin and Judge Pfaff in Southern California).

• Detailed court orders that are effectively enforced;

{{HOW?  by throwing a parent in jail who refuses to produce a child?  Do they know about the Nathan Grieco case, who hung himself over visitation, or the Wisconsin Case where Lorraine Tipton’s daughter (against whom CPS had already found child abuse, two CPS entities in two different geographies also) went to visit her father to get her MOm out of jail, or about the Cabrillo case in Maryland, where the father drowned 3 kids in a tub, despite mother (a pediatrician’s) warnings that he’d threatend to do something like that?  Or the two little boys who got kidnapped then killed (Illinois — I forget the name now)?  Or in another Northern California town, where the Mom dropped the children off at the house (unsupervised) and suddenly disappeared, resulting in one of the strangest convictions for murder around — there was no body.  Hans Reiser plea-bargained himself down, claiming innocence until he was convicted – and then showed police, while handcuffed to his defense attorney– where he’d buried his wife.   SHE wasn’t interfering with visitation.   There are so many cases like this!  In Arizona, a mother of a young child pleaded to leave the area because Dad had threatened to kill her; judge refused, bang, bang bang – mother and HER mother (as I recall) gone, another orphan for the state (Dawn Axsom).   ANOTHER one, the mother, during the week with the children, was IN a battered woman’s shelter, but they HAD to make sure the children were not alienated — FOUR children were shot over that one.  Let’s JUST not talk about it?  (or do I assume this never happens in Canada, although AFCC is quite strong here also….}}

Detailed court orders that are effectively — and for BOTH parents — enforced is a great thing.  There are already civil codes in our state mandating that — but we still don’t gt them, leaving DV victims to bargain endlessly with vague court orders, or go repeatedly to court and try to get them more specific, fi they are smart enough to figure out that their court-appointed professional had chosen to disobey his or her own rules of court.  Then, there is the matter of who will enforce?  Because the law enforcement has no duty to.  A woman lost THREE children over that one in Colorado, Castle Rock — and took the case international for help.

• Prevention of delay in resolving cases where alienation is alleged; and

Yep, nip that alienation in the bud!

• Provision of effective counselling and support services.

Although there is clearly a need for more research about the best methods of intervention in alienation cases, {{Richard Warshak’s Reunification Therapy isn’t good enough?}} there is a growing body of literature that documents the long-term emotional harm to child from being alienated from a parent.

And guess who is writing it, publishing it, and where a lot of these professionals get their money from?  Can you spell, government grants.

Nicholas Bala is a Professor Queen’s University, specializing in Family and Children’s Law. He can be contacted at bala@queensu.ca . It is hoped that the full paper will be published in the Family \Court Review (January 2010).

IN THIS SAME 2009 AFCC ONTARIO CONFERENCE< WERE SEVERAL MORE P.A. Pdfs:  here:  As I have already explored parental coordination movement in several US states, and how it got established and standardized — as well as what it’s for — I will not be reviewing these.  But to underscore the point of what AFCC is about, basically, here they are for the very curious:

Dr. Barbara Jo Fidler on parenting coordination in high conflict disputes, alienation, and interventions in alienation cases:

The “growing body of literature” is definitely growing in QUANTITY, but on having read a LOT of this, I don’t see that it’s growing much in depth — mostly in how to further spread the theory and apply it from top to bottom of the family law system, and internationally.  As we see in this conference, these professionals are constantly referring to themselves, congratulating themselves, honoring themselves ,and planning among themselves how to pull an ALIENATION CUSTODY SWITCH wherever possible and with as MANY court-associated professionals as possible.  For example ,the suggestion to get in there QUICKLY if alienation is smelled would naturally mean more years of business for any prospective parenting coordinator — the younger the child, the more years til they turn 18, which is about all that will ever end this circus, besides one parent “offing” the other parent, or kids, or both, and/or him or herself.   Or, the children just losing it, or ending up in state care (there’s such a variety of opportunity, isn’t there, in this field?).

I think I made my point there.  Now, when, exactly, and how, are Mr. Goldstein and NOMAS going to mention AFCC, please?  If they care about PAS, they should care about who is promoting it.  Is there a particular reason for forgetting to mention this, please?

Another good source of accurate information about the crisis in the custody court system is domestic violence advocates and protective mothers.

What’s meant by this is protctive mothers who follow this crowd, or someone recommended by this crowd.  For example, Lundy Bancroft (who also presents at BMCC) has a nonprofit group — closer to a cult, from my understanding of it, they are often recruiting members, and have made significant attempts to co-opt other grassroots organizations mothers have individually organized– is “PROTECTIVE MOTHERS ALLIANCE.”  They also sponsor Barry Goldstein book-promotions by blogging them.   Several women I know have had difficult dealings with this group and/or been thrown out.  An attempt was made at a BMCC conference (this is hearsay, I was not present) by PMA to collect dues from the attendees and persuade them to sign a no-compete, legally binding agreement of some sort with PMA.

Another one is called CPPA and is based in California.  This group has been made aware (and before me, too!) of many of the things I blog, but has chosen not to, probably for publicity’s sake, as they are working in concert with some of these groups whose theme is the “Crisis in the Courts.”

Domestic violence advocates are the only professionals that work full time on domestic violence issues. 

One might think that “domestic violence professionals” means basically women working at the shelters, or going to court with battered mothers, and so forth.  This is false, which a look at the activities of the leading organizations — for example, NCADV — spend their time doing.  The grants enabling them to work FT, where they do, are often for resource centers, technical assisstance, or conferencing, etc., etc.

Their information is often minimized based on the belief that they are partisan.  The advocates have the expertise to recognize domestic violence and understand the best approaches to preventing it.  Domestic violence advocates always oppose domestic violence just as firefighters are always against arson and doctors against disease.  No one considers them partisans because it is society’s policy to prevent arson and disease just as it is our policy to prevent domestic violence.  Anti-sexist men can learn from the advocates in their community and support their work.

I wish I could agree with this statement, however, I absolutely do not.  A close look at their work and work product, and their funding shows that it has increasingly become a mainstream industry with a focus on getting the grants, getting websites up and running, selling product, and utilizing DISCRETIONARY (so often) funding, while failing to inform distraught motehrs even the most basic elements of HOW the family law system really works and who (besides attorneys, judges, and custody evalutor-types) are it’s real players and who controls the game.

I do respect the work these professionals have done.  However, they are STUCK in a loop, and they have compromised women by failling to report the funding, and DO something about it when funding steers a custody case south.  Besides which, most of them are not informed, for example, that things such as “fatherhood commissions” exist, or the AFCC, or any details of the fatherhood grants network they might actually act on — by protesting. What results is a class system, in which the professional ranks higher than a reporting protective mother; like many male-based systems, it’s a hierarchy.

There are FEW things more empowering to anyone who has been through these things than actually looking at the elements, and understanding how they fit together in a clear enough way to explaint it to others.

Maybe someday I will get to have a dialogure (whether email, mail, phone, or in person) with Mr. Goldstein and NOMAS, however right now, I most certainly – as a “protective mother” cannot endorse this approach.  How do you ignore — completely — a $4 billion industry which admits that it doesn’t even know where millions of child support already collected IS, state by state?  And then admits that it’s not even going to complete auditing because it can’t afford to?

I didn’t mention very much on Denver, however, here’s a parting little diagram.  DENVER is where NCADV is, and where at least one NOMAS National Leadership person (Douglas Gertner) is — and he is quite active, apparently, in fatherhood groups.  SO take a look at this:  I chose “COLORADO/ DENVER/ Sort by RECIPIENT TYPE):

Fiscal Year = 2011
State = COLORADO
Summary = Recipient Type

Showing: 1 – 15 of 15 Recipient Types

Recipient Type

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

Community Action Organization 

98

49

$113,945,152

Educational Department 

1

1

$285,344

Environmental Organization 

2

1

-$93,510

Health Department 

153

80

$2,235,003,110

Hospital 

48

30

$38,609,460

Junior College, College & University 

23

18

$4,999,557

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation ) 

12

4

$8,156,719

Other Educational Organization 

3

2

$696,932

Other Health Organization 

91

68

$24,960,622

Other Social Services Organization 

44

24

$15,416,686

Other Special Interest Organization 

7

5

$483,690

Planning & Administrative Organizations 

5

5

$959,017

Research Institution, Foundation and Laboratory 

6

2

$1,008,553

Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment ) 

4

4

$896,116

Welfare Department 

139

38

$508,566,203

Report Total:

636

331

$2,953,893,651

Where do you think the NCADV clocks in — and, while we are in Denver, why is no one writing about the critical organizations, Center for Policy Research (CPR, nonprofit) with Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes, and Policy Studies Inc. (PSI, for-profit) with Jane Venohr, and founded in part by David Price?  These are very, very active in child support and marriage/fatherhood, and have been for DECADES.    They command policies and many grants, and are all over the country affecting where our kids grow up (with which parent).

Let’s look at (within Denver, this is) — in a few different sorts — again, 2011 only.  This is by “Award Class”
City = DENVER
Fiscal Year = 2011
State = COLORADO
Summary = Award Class

Showing: 1 – 5 of 5 Award Classes

Award Class

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

BLOCK 

56

10

$357,600,522

CLOSED-ENDED 

58

23

$40,083,727

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

99

61

$25,851,853

DISCRETIONARY 

342

212

$227,029,109

OPEN-ENDED 

81

23

$2,303,328,440

Report Total:

636

329

$2,953,893,651

Notice that  the largest class is OPEN-ENDED, and after that BLOCK, then “DISCRETIONARY.”  (funny, aren’t we trillions in debt.  Well, guess I’ll take it on faith that this is wellspent).

AWARD ACTIONS SUMMARY

Printer-friendly Version

Fiscal Year = 2011
State = COLORADO
Summary = Recipient Class

Showing: 1 – 10 of 10 Recipient Classes

Recipient Class

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

City Government 

26

12

$8,290,618

County Government 

29

16

$11,242,186

Federal Government 

1

1

$0

Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 

184

106

$104,486,965

Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations 

125

70

$133,607,667

Other (Towns, Villages, American Indian Tribes) 

30

14

$3,873,800

Private Profit ( Large Business ) Organizations 

1

1

$99,395

Private Profit ( Small Business ) Organizations 

184

132

$31,902,721

Special Unit of Government 

1

1

$469,737

State Government 

1,209

780

$2,984,340,913

Report Total:

1,790

1,133

$3,278,314,002

Notice the nonprofit PRIVATE and nonprofit PUBLIC together have quite some clout — $238 million together, more than city of County combined.

Now, I sorted by “recipient” which comes out (160 lines) in 4 pages:   Here’s page 1, and note that a “$0” entry indicates a grant in previous years:

Recipient Number of
Award Actions
Number of
Awards
Amount
ABLELINK TECHNOLOGIES INC 1 1 $ 447,666
ADA TECHNOLOGIES, INC 4 4 $ 242,715
ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 3 1 $ 3,126,726
ADAMS STATE COLLEGE 1 1 $ 75,721
AEROPHASE CORPORATIION 1 1 $ 0
AKRON UNITED METHODIST CHURCH 3 1 $ 363,665
AMERICAN HUMANE ASSOCIATION 1 1 $ 0
BLUESUN INC 1 1 $ 265,431
BOLDER BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC 1 1 $ 300,000
BOULDER COMMUNITY HOSPITAL 1 1 $ 146,250
BOULDER NONLINEAR SYSTEMS INC 1 1 $ 343,966
CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHODICES 1 1 $ 807,495
CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY 11 4 $ 975,896
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  $ 0
CHAFFEE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 2 1 $ 0
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 10 2 $ 6,247,659
CITY OF LAKEWOOD 1 1 $ 978,068
CLAYTON/MILE HIGH FAMILY FUTURES PROJECT 1 1 $ 1,608,719
CLINICA CAMPESINA/RURAL HEALTH CLINIC 5 2 $ 9,543,260
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 104 27 $ 441,207,205
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 1 1 $ 285,344
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS 5 1 $ 6,633,747
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS 10 3 $ 6,157,102
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 22 6 $ 62,206,167
CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY & FINANCING 28 11 $ 2,178,285,580
CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF ALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE 3 1 $ 523,152
CO ST DEPT OF STATE 2 1 $ 83,737
CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTH&ENVIRONMENT 104 55 $ 50,637,370
CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTHENVIRONMENT 13 10 $ 5,133,015
CO ST Judicial DEPT Denver Juvenile Probation 2 2 $ 668,173
COLORADO CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM, INC 2 1 $ 1,008,553
COLORADO CENTER FOR NURSING EXCELLENCE 1 1 $ 296,955
COLORADO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 8 3 $ 5,878,928
COLORADO COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK 3 1 $ 1,084,406
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 3 2 $ 423,993
COLORADO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COALITION  $ 231,771
COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH  13  $ 1,584,051
COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES 1 1 $ 300,000
COLORADO RURAL HEALTH CENTER FCHSD-RPH-A4 1 1 $ 180,000
COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES 3 3 $ 1,088,067
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY 129 91 $ 28,997,195
COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY PUEBLO 2 2 $ 67,614
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE HEAD START 90 45 $ 96,150,863
COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF MOUNTAIN PLAINS STATES 3 1 $ 469,942
COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT 3 1 $ 9,274,313
CORGENIX MEDICAL CORPORATION 1 1 $ 295,053
COSMID CORPORATION LLC 1 1 $ 27,168
CRESTONE INC 1 1 $ 496,897
CRIPPLE CREEK/VICTOR SCHOOL DIST R1 2 1 $ 149,736
Colorado Department of Agriculture 2 1 $- 93,510
Page Total: 619 313 $ 2,925,205,824
Report Total: 1,790 1,137 $ 3,278,314,002
WAIT Training 1 1 $ 0
  (WAIT training is marriage/ fatherhood promotion, guess none this year so far);
I’m going to run the year 2010 (which has only 82 receipients):

City = DENVER
Fiscal Year = 2010
State = COLORADO
Summary = Recipient

Showing: 1 – 50 of 82 Recipients

Recipient

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

Big Brothers Big Sisters of Colorado, Inc. 

1

1

$250,000

CATHOLIC CHARITIES, ARCHODICES 

4

2

$1,132,906

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY 

6

4

$1,011,863

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

4

1

$50,000

CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL 

11

3

$7,511,604

CLAYTON/MILE HIGH FAMILY FUTURES PROJECT 

5

3

$3,407,902

CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

117

42

$497,398,864

CO Dept of Insurance 

1

1

$1,000,000

CO ST COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION 

2

2

$984,407

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

3

2

$1,250,779

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS 

4

1

$6,560,592

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL AFFAIRS 

5

1

$6,043,816

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES 

35

12

$62,925,197

CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH CARE POLICY & FINANCING 

42

14

$2,689,815,580

CO ST DEPT OF HEALTH, DIVISION OF ALCOHOL & DRUG ABUSE 

3

1

$579,341

CO ST DEPT OF STATE 

1

1

$173,995

CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTH&ENVIRONMENT 

159

73

$86,731,149

CO ST DEPT PUBLIC HLTHENVIRONMENT 

12

9

$5,198,375

CO ST Dept of Human Services, Div. of Behavioral Health 

1

1

$3,352,000

CO ST Judicial DEPT Denver Juvenile Probation 

3

3

$992,490

CO ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

9

5

$3,118,899

COLORADO CANCER RESEARCH PROGRAM, INC 

2

1

$959,745

COLORADO CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC 

1

1

$222,750

COLORADO COALITION FOR THE HOMELESS 

7

3

$5,678,037

COLORADO COMMUNITY HEALTH NETWORK 

1

1

$874,080

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 

5

3

$489,123

COLORADO DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES 

1

1

$140,212

COLORADO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COALITION 

1

1

$245,382

COLORADO FOUNDATION FOR PUBLIC HEALTH 

2

1

$42,857

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

16

11

$2,177,115

COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES 

1

1

$275,000

COLORADO RURAL HEALTH CENTER FCHSD-RPH-A4 

4

4

$1,152,037

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE 

1

1

$299,258

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INSTITUTE HEAD START 

108

55

$125,495,857

COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF MOUNTAIN PLAINS STATES 

1

1

$314,637

College Invest 

3

1

-$207,000

Colorado African Organization 

1

1

$197,308

Colorado Department of Agriculture 

1

1

$195,497

Colorado Nonprofit Development Center 

1

1

$95,700

Colorado Regional Health Information Organization 

3

2

$22,106,777

DENVER CITY AND COUNTY MAYORS OFFICE 

9

3

$16,706,595

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS 

9

6

$709,016

DENVER HEALTH & HOSPITAL AUTHORITY 

35

23

$18,546,785

DENVER INDIAN HEALTH & FAMILY SERVICES, INC 

3

3

$455,942

DENVER MUSEUM OF NATURE & SCIENCE 

2

1

$176,757

Denver Indian Family Resource Center 

2

1

$203,603

Dept of Defense Def Fin Acct Svc 

3

1

$2,206,282

EMPOWERMENT PROGRAM 

3

2

$850,000

FAMILY STAR 

6

2

$2,101,571

Hands and Voices 

1

1

$0

Page Total:

661

316

$3,582,200,682

Report Total:

877

470

$3,661,831,141

And page 2 shows that “WAIT training” got some money, this year:

Recipient

Number of

Award Actions

Number of

Awards

Amount

ISOGENIS INC 

2

2

$851,668

LOHOCLA RESEARCH CORPORATION 

1

1

$0

LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF COLORADO 

1

1

$119,000

METROPOLITAN STATE COLLEGE 

2

1

$408,076

MILE HIGH COUNCIL ON ALCOHOLISM AND DRUG ABUSE 

2

1

$399,977

Mental Health Corporation of Denver 

7

5

$1,773,332

Mercy Housing Colorado 

2

1

$400,000

NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES 

9

6

$1,717,208

NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION 

2

1

$25,000

NATIONAL JEWISH HEALTH 

84

65

$32,527,156

NATIONAL JEWISH HOSPITAL & RESEARCH CENTER 

2

1

$431,000

NATIONAL JEWISH MEDICAL & RESEARCH CENTER 

33

17

$8,675,826

PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC 

1

1

$525,000

PHARMATECH INC 

1

1

$154,707

PHASE 5 INC 

1

1

$311,324

REGIS UNIVERSITY 

2

2

$164,077

ROCKY MOUNTAIN SER/JOBS FOR PROGRESS, INC 

5

2

$15,318,004

SPRING INSTITUTE FOR INTERCULTURAL LEARNING 

2

2

$520,000

ST OF COLORADO DEPT OF INSURANCE 

2

2

$280,000

STATE OF COLORADO 

2

1

$566,734

THERAPY HELP, INC 

1

1

$550,000

UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF COLORADO, INC. 

3

1

$3,523,809

UNIV OF COLORADO AT DENVER 

2

1

$0

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO AT DENVER 

1

1

$0

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER 

30

24

$6,621,326

UNIVERSITY OF DENVER (COLORADO SEMINARY) 

4

2

$934,479

URBAN PEAK 

1

1

$100,000

URBAN PEAK COLORADO SPRINGS 

2

2

$200,000

URBAN PEAK DENVER 

3

3

$266,586

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA 

1

1

$70,000

WAIT Training 

4

2

$1,196,170

colorado Community Managed Care Network 

1

1

$1,000,000

Page Total:

216

154

$79,630,459

Report Total:

877

470

$3,661,831,141

ANYONE REMOTELY CURIOUS ABOUT ANY OF THESE RECIPIENTS?   Colorado Coalition against domestic violence isn’t getting too much.  Marriage promotion is getting MUCH more.   ….  (search my blog for this group, they’re on it):

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

OPDIV

ACF 

WAIT Training 

90FE0051 

HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT: PRIORITY AREA 2 

93086

Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JONEEN MACKENZIE 

$1,010,330

CDC 

WAIT Training 

U58DP000452 

BUILDING CAPACITY FOR EFFECTIVE COORDINATION & SUPPORT FOR SCHOOL HEALTH PROGRAMS 

93938

Cooperative Agreements to Support Comprehensive School Health Programs to Prevent the Spread of HIV and Other Important Health Problems  

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

ANNA VANDERKLEED 

$185,840

Notice:  over $1 million for “discretionary” and “demo” and Noncompeting Continuation.”
I wonder what the Judicial Branch is doing with its grants (breaking it down from this database will tell a few things).
Here they are 16 categories and the Access Visitation grants at the bottom.  I see from this that a single investigator is managing a LOT of grants here.  Anyone curious about what?

Program Office

Grantee Name

Award Number

Award Title

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

ACF ACYF 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCID 

FY 2010 DATA STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$179,560

ACF ACYF 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCIT 

FY 2010 TRAINING STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$176,485

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCIP 

FY 2010 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

 

$33,615

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSCIP 

FY 2010 BASIC STATE COURT IMPROVE 

93586

State Court Improvement Program 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$176,146

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

90CA1777 

HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS TO PREVENT CHILD MALTREATMENT 

93670

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CB 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

90CA1777 

HOME VISITATION PROGRAMS TO PREVENT CHILD MALTREATMENT 

93670

Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$149,791

CMHS 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

SM059629 

THE TRAUMA PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CMHS 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

SM059629 

THE TRAUMA PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$399,457

CSAP 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

SP014018 

DENVER JUVENILE AND FAMILY METHAMPHETAMINE PREVENTION INITIATIVE 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI019277 

SAFE FAMILIES TREATMENT AND RECOVERY PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI019913 

PROJECT HOPE (HEALTH, OUTREACH, PREVENTION AND EDUCATION) 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI019913 

PROJECT HOPE (HEALTH, OUTREACH, PREVENTION AND EDUCATION) 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$442,579

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI020910 

MOTIVATION FOR ADOLESCENTS IN TRANSITION (MAT) PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$0

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI020910 

MOTIVATION FOR ADOLESCENTS IN TRANSITION (MAT) PROJECT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$299,258

CSAT 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

TI020921 

DENVER YOUTH DEVELOPMENT COURT 

93243

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services: Projects of Regional and National Significance 

DISCRETIONARY 

HEALTH SERVICES 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

LILAS RAJAEE-MOORE 

$198,915

OCSE 

COLORADO JUDICIAL BRANCH 

1001COSAVP 

FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 

93597

Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs 

CLOSED-ENDED 

SOCIAL SERVICES 

NEW 

 

$121,309

Ms Rajaee- Moore is helping with Drug Court and substance abuse issues:  http://www.reclaimingfutures.org/sites_colorado_denver
Lilas Rajaee-Moore
<><><><><><><><><><>

About Us

According to the 2009 Annual Report to the Governor by the Colorado Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Council, of the youth committed to the Division of Youth Corrections 2007-2008, more than 60 percent needed treatment for substance abuse disorders. Also, according to this report, a growing crisis in Colorado has been the influx of youth with serious mental illnesses and emotional disorders entering the juvenile justice system.

At Reclaiming Futures Denver, we are working to improve the quality of alcohol and drug treatment services available to youth in our justice system. We are doing the following to help young people in our area:

  • Strengthening our Denver Juvenile Drug Court by implementing the Reclaiming Futures model
  • Focusing on teens ages 12-17 who are involved with the court and need treatment for substance abuse and co-occurring mental health issues
  • Providing evidence-based assessments, service delivery and case management for 50 families per year over a four-year period.
They sound like a nonprofit or for-profit working for the courts, these are the partners
In general, there is room for a LOT more curiosity.  Now, out of Denver is Center for Policy Research — and while the grants you’ll see below are small, the influence of these two particular personnel and this company, is EXTENSIVE in the family law system.   As Jessica Pearson started ONE of her groups ( DNR if it was this one, or part of AFCC) with a few pages of Richard Gardner, it’s relevant to pay attention to what it does.
So far, Mr. Goldstein and friends don’t even blog or write about AFCC (which makes me feel the cause is hopeless, at least as to encouraging them to!), those whoa re at all concerned about the Family COurts, whether they are FLAWED & BROKEN, or just chugging along nicely churning out profits until the whole country goes under (which at this rate it’ going go anyhow), at which time this crowd already has influence, international connections, and probably money to get there, too.
Now, NOMAS has a leadership member in Denver.  NCADV is located in Denver,   Plenty of NOMAS activity entails some fatherhood-funded things (see their site).  They are involved in custody.  So WHY would they not report on what other influential groups (by name) are, literally, doing to affect custody in EXACTLY the oppostie direction recommended here?  Is the goal informed advocacy, or just publication?
Notice that Jessica Pearson’s name, below, was misspelled, so one has to sometimes search on other fields.  The Pearson/Thoennes combo (and the companies they represent, when Thoeness — excuse me, another CPR leadership staff, “Jane Venohr, Ph.D.” — is wearing her PSI hat — are FAMOUS in the Access Visitation field.  And — for some reason — half the domestic violence groups don’t even bring this up, or even notice it much! !!!  That’s insane, IF we are concerned about batterers getting custody!

So, here’s some food for thought.  Do a little homework, OK?

Fiscal Year

Program Office

Grantee Name

Recovery Act Indicator

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

2011

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

2011

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PHEARSON 

$0

2010

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

2010

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

2010

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$50,000

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$0

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$0

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

4

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

DR NANCY THOENNES 

$124,863

2009

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

NON 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$50,000

2008

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$124,829

2008

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0098 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$99,908

2007

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$0

2007

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$124,820

2006

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

2

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$24,730

2006

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0085 

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$198,664

2005

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0073 

CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS 

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

JESSICA PEARSON 

$100,000

2004

OCSE 

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH 

 

90FI0059 

EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTAC

1

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects  

DISCRETIONARY 

DEMONSTRATION 

NEW 

DR JESSICA PEARSON 

HERE (since it came up when I googled “Jessica Pearson Richard Gardner” is what I think is Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net)’s 2010? testimony (written) before the June 2010 House Ways and Means Committee meeting on appropriation for the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood bill.  People and agencies were lined up at the trough to get their two bits in (and I have a post or two on it from about that time).
Id’ like to post over a page of her testimony here — in this context that Dr. Pearson’s organization is still getting federal grants to tweak the courts.  It’s time to start talking about this.  If I as a traumatized broke mother WITHOUT a J.D. could figure this out, why cannot (or IS it a “cannot”) other reformers even bring this up?  Either they have been personally threatened (which didn’t appear to stop Richard Fine talking about financial corruption and government monies used as bribes, although he focused on county-level) — or they are IN On something — or they just plain old don’t care.  There IS no more excuse for leaving it to people at the botto of the food chain to talk about these issues, in part because we’ve just about already lost everything important there IS to lose in these matters, and so will speak fairly freely about what we see!
(complete with any misspellings).

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 there activities are not causing mothers any problems. HHS ACF officials confirm they do no requirement for collecting or reporting program enrollment or outcome data.

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

I am the founder and leader of the oldest (established in 1993) and largest protective-mother grass-roots groups (WWW.NAFCJ.net) We have researching the problems associated with divorcing parents for many years. 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 in the same.

The DoJ Office of Violence Against Women is very much aware of the protective mother problem and is preparing a grant study program to remedy them. (DoJ /OVW staff have confirmed to me that they are not aware of any partnering agreements between the shelter professionals and responsible fatherhood program managers. They also are aware of the negative activities of the fathers rights movement)

My research and findings have been included in a DoJ study on the negative impact of the fathers rights movement on domestic violence victims. My group is also listed on the Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Resource Center (NCJRS) web site as an official resource. (http://www.ncjrs.gov/app/topics/Topic.aspx?topicid=36 )

All the evidence I’ve observed indicates the Responsible Fatherhood programs are merely a cover for recruiting bad dads with offers of child support abatements into high-conflict litigation, giving sole custody of the children to the father and getting the mother out of picture and forcing her to pay excessive child support obligations to him. The Responsible Fatherhood promoters claims of being entirely separate from the father rights is not valid and I have plenty of documentation to prove otherwise – that the founders and have been collaborating with for years and work together and in some cases are the same people and share some of the same protocol and tactics. HHS-ACF support their agenda since the beginning and has been colluding with them every step of the way

In the mid-1990’s there was a Responsible Fatherhood program “kick-off” conference at NYC Mt Sinai Hospital which some of our group attended and observed fathers rights leaders and notorious anti-woman /pro-incest and now deceased Dr.Richard Gardner leading the conference discussion on how inner-city men would be recruited into theirgroups and activities. Gardner was observed telling the fatherhood audience how they would collaborate with responsible fatherhood people. Getting men sole custody was an important part of the plan.

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

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

OFFICAL HHS-ACF JUNE 2000 – RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM REPORT CONFIRMS INTENTIONAL MISUSE OF PROGRAM FOR PRO-FATHER LITIGATION ACTIVIES

Many reports including the HHS-ACF Responsible Fatherhood June 2000 program evaluation report done by Jessica Pearson of Center for Policy Research (CPR) states clearly and repeatedly states that program activities and objective include reduction or elimination of child support obligations and free program paid custody attorneys for fathers who enroll in the program, indicating the program is more about increasing custody litigation in exchange for not enforcing fathers’ child support obligations and providing free attorneys for father to litigate for custody. I found nothing in this 105 page report which describes program counselors dealing with or stopping negative conduct by fathers against mothers. Instead the document language shows it is all about giving the father legal advantages.

Jessica Pearson does not disclose she is founding official of the AFCC judicial organization, whose other co-founder and leaders are also co-founders of the leading fathers rights group Children Rights Council (CRC), which has many differently named local subsidiary groups- some of which are also Responsible Fatherhood program groups. The AFCC, the CPR and the CRC are essentially the same group of people and some of the started the Responsible Fatherhood groups. These programs have been developed by their people for their benefit and only their benefit. They are the local program managers and are getting referrals from the local child support and other agencies for enrollment into the Responsible Fatherhood program, with their people serving as program counselors. Some fathers web site openly solicit men into their litigation scheme with guarantees of having all their support and family abuse obligations dropped.

State program web sites and flyers displayed in courthouse openly recruit men into groups with offers of Free custody attorneys and reductions in child support obligations. Most of these flyers include reference to funding from Access- Visitation AND Responsible Fatherhood program as if they were joint programs.

HHS-ACF program managers have confirmed their department has no implementation or outcome reporting requirements for these programs and the ACF managers have a history of being outright hostile to citizen complaints of widespread program misuse for pro-father custody litigation. While posturing themselves as experts services providers for troubled families, they revert to excuses that program “oversight” is not responsibility. My extensive communication with both current and past ACF program supervisors and managers, indicates they know they are running a “beat-the-system’ scheme for abusive and dead-beat men, at the expensive of victimized mothers and children. Per their internal emails and other FOIA’d document, they meet with fathers rights leaders and collude with each other on how to block our complaints – using words such as “its not our responsibility to root out evil” and “read and delete their emails – we don’t have to worry about what happens to them” Meanwhile fathers rights emails talk about secret closed meetings between their leaders and AFC officials and program managers to plan program strategy for their benefit. The ACF Responsible Fatherhood and Access-Visitation (the fathers rights / Gardner custody program) are managed by the same ACF officials and there is close collaboration between them and the fathers rights leaders who infiltrated this agency years ago. They issues waivers and other stipulations which make it access services (which is the fathers rights custody program ) “allowable” for other ACF programs including the Responsible Fatherhood program.

Note:  The word “RESPONSIBLE” is apparently in there to distinguish the group between the more extremist and radical men’s groups around.  However, she is saying — at the policymaking level– they are NOT different, they are the same crowd.
I still believe there is a lot for women and men to collaborate on — namely, the role of this child support system in screwing up our lives and helping fund ongoing custody litigation.  I certainly will not be speaking with any fathers who have been identified and/or convicted as batterers or molesters and talk “feminazi” and redneck — however, if we can lay aside our rhetoric and solve some of the due process problems that a system of federally -funded bribes, and NO system of accountability or auditing presents — I’m thinking we can help clear out the place without violence to ANYONE, and also clear the air some.
Repeating rhetoric isn’t going to do it — we need the analysis, and a person who has examined the data him and herself, versus “follow the professional”  — will be a strong force for reform.  ANd we ALL need to be open to learn more, constantly!
My greatest learning came this year, when I made a determination to separate myself rom the “listen to my sad story” people as well as those who are selling their stories in one form or another.  Let’s talk “INSTITUTIONAL ETHNOGRAPHY” and measure it with a healthy scoop of accounting skills!
. . . . .

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 5, 2011 at 8:53 pm

Child Support Directors Association — Children’s Funds — and Raffle Tickets

leave a comment »

 

 

CHILD SUPPORT SWEEPING CHANGES AHEAD – “IMAGINE THE FUTURE” (PLENARY SESSION #1);

Plenary 1

Imagine the Future

  1. There is a wind sweeping across this nation in the child support community. New directions and new ideas are being explored as the OCSE Commissioner leads the charge to think creatively, unimpeded by conventional constraints—blue sky thinking! This exciting session— the start of our annual training conference—will put everyone on notice that child support, as we know it, is changing.

(Nice to announce this to the families receiving child support . . . . ..)

and

Plenary 3

Closing Plenary – Understanding the Role of Father Involvement in the Lives of Children Can Provide Significant Information to Public Policy Initiatives

Dr. Hillard Pouncy will share studies that examine the nature of father involvement in family life among unmarried couples.

 

The child support professionals deal with these couples and probably know quite a bit from talking to them.  There are, actually, in most counties, literal brick and mortar child support offices where mother and father can (alternately) come in and plead their causes — “reduce my support, return my license — or collect that support, and here’s where we found Dad was working….”     However, of course’s helpful to have a true fatherhood professional put the right spin on it.

What, REALLY, is all this hoopla about?  Why did this organization pop up right after a District Attorney’s office in Southern California got caught red-handed sitting on millions of $$ of money that should’ve been forward to the parents — or returned to the payor parent?

 

I am still wondering why county employees (which Child Support Directors are, and usually well paid, too) would need their own nonprofit organization for as well?

In looking at the 2010 990 filing of this one — they are very unusual in actually raising quite a bit of program service revenues.   Around $603K grants, and around $433K “program Service Revenue.”

Which turns out to be primarily the conferences.   The 2011 is priced at $425 for the entire conference, or $200 for a single day (regular price).

As we note it’s a conference AND “Expo” so I presume some other materials were also for sale during the conference.

 

The Child Support Directors Association (see my last, obnoxiously long, post) was indeed registered in California as a Corporation around the turn of the millennium, (or was it about  decade earlier, when it came to tax-exempt fundraising?)

 

Results of search for ” CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION ” returned 1 entity record.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2211149 02/01/2000 ACTIVE CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION DAVID G OPPENHEIM

(From the California Secretary of State).  Funny,

Corporation Wiki” doesn’t connect Mr. Oppenheim  to any organization whatsoever.  It recognizes the President, Iliana Rodriguez

 

In looking up when this nonprofit registered as a “Charity” (as well as obviously a nonprofit) with the Office of Attorney General — as it is required to — I made a suprising discovery that this association is quite active in raffle tickets as fundraising; and its registry of raffle tickets show how much was raised, and to what other charity the funds went, when not to CSDA itself.  As witnessed by this – I’m just showing one page out of 4 in the search results:


– – – – – –

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION EX552080 Charity Exempt – Active SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-2006 Raffle Expired SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-2006-1 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340 Raffle Registered SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-09-1 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-1 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-2 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-6 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-3 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-4 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-5 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-7 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-8 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-9 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-10 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-11 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-12 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-13 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-14 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-15 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-16 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-17 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-18 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-19 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-20 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-21 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-22 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-23 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-24 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-25 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-26 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-27 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-28 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-29 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-30 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-31 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-32 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-33 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-34 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION 4340-10-35 Raffle Complete SACRAMENTO CA Raffle Report Raffle
2 3 4

 

This page is from the first hyperlink, above (“Charity” – Exempt, Active – Charity Registration):

Their website indicates incorporation as a nonprofit around 2002, as does the Secretary of State registration.  If anyone can then explain to me this issue date of 1990, please?

Registrant Information
Full Name: CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION FEIN: 680450141
Type: Mutual Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2211149
Registration Number: EX552080
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: 925 L STREET Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SACRAMENTO CA 95814
Annual Renewal Information
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Prerequisite Information
No Prerequisite Information
IRS Return Data19

 

 

– – – – – – –

FOr example, a raffle costing nothing to do, begun around November 2005, raised a total of about $12,000 for this group:

Prereq Type: Prerequisite User Relationship: Self Automatic
Registrant: CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
Registration No: 4340-2006 Registration Type: Raffle Registration Registration Status: Expired
Date Established: Association Date: Expiration Date:
Prereq Type: Prerequisite User Relationship: Self Automatic
Registrant: CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION
Registration No: 4340 Registration Type: Raffle Registration Registration Status: Registered
Date Established: 10/20/2008 Association Date: Expiration Date:
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Raffle Event Data
Raffle Report Year: 2006
Raffle Start Date: 01-NOV-05
Raffle Location City:
Raffle Location County:
Total Funds Received from Sale of Raffle Tickets: $12,376.00
Were some or all of the Funds used for the Benefit of another Eligible Organization?
Name of Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Street Address:
Recipient Org. City:
Recipient Org. State:
Recipient Org. Zip:
Amount of Proceeds to Recipient Organization:
Contact Person for Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Phone Number:
Total Expenses for Conducting the Raffle: $0.00

 

This time, no — but some other raffle proceeds go elsewhere; often to a Children’s Fund of one sort or another, for example::

Raffle Event Data
Raffle Report Year: 2010
Raffle Start Date: 02-SEP-09
Raffle Location City: SACRAMENTO
Raffle Location County: SACRAMENTO
Total Funds Received from Sale of Raffle Tickets: $2,020.00
Were some or all of the Funds used for the Benefit of another Eligible Organization? Y
Name of Recipient Organization: CHILDREN’S FUND – HUMAN SERV. AGENCY, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
Recipient Org. Street Address: 400 HARBOR BLVD
Recipient Org. City: BELMONT
Recipient Org. State: CA
Recipient Org. Zip: 94002
Amount of Proceeds to Recipient Organization: $2,020.00
Contact Person for Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Phone Number:
Total Expenses for Conducting the Raffle: $0.00

This appears to be part of a County itself:

Human Services Agency
400 Harbor Blvd, Bldg B, Belmont, CA, 94002
(650) 802-5018 – Venue Website
The County of San Mateo Human Services Agency strives to promote self-sufficiency, increase family strength and stability, and improve community health. Together, our dedicated staff and community partners work tirelessly on behalf of our clients and working families to help them reach these goals.

San Mateo County Seal: Back to San Mateo HomepageHuman Services Agency Home

Teal circle with woman holding baby


A long list of functions (including “Family Resource Centers” — see my Footloose in Tuscaloosa post…)

on the left side includes “The Children’s Fund.”:  (the Circular logo to right  – adult and child inside olive crescent) is the “Children and Family Services” logo.  Everyone gets a nice logo. …and motto

Childrens Fund

Mission Statement

Children’s Fund History

The Children’s Fund began in 1973 as a “grass roots” effort by social workers to assist foster children and other children in San Mateo County. They wanted to provide goods and services that were not available through public funds. The Children’s Fund benefits children and teens being served by the County of San Mateo’s Human Services Agency, probation and mental health departments, as well as any children living in poverty throughout San Mateo County.”

 

Basically raffles are like the lottery and are a form of gambling — but certain nonprofits can do this.  As the California code reads:

(c) For purposes of this section, “eligible organization” means a private, nonprofit organization that has been qualified to conduct business in California for at least one year prior to conducting a raffle and is exempt from taxation pursuant to Sections 23701a, 23701b, 23701d, 23701e, 23701f, 23701g, 23701k, 23701l, 23701t, or 23701w of the Revenue and Taxation Code.

Secretary of State would show the incorporation record.  But under the DOJ / Attorney General’s Offices is more information about charities etc.:

Secretary of State or Franchise Tax Board Number – Organizations that are incorporated in California are assigned a corporate number by the Secretary of State’s office upon approval of the filing of their articles of incorporation. Organizations that are not incorporated but are required to register and report to the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry), such as unincorporated associations and charitable trusts, are assigned an organization number by the Franchise Tax Board. Either of these numbers can be used to search the Registry files for information about a specific organization.

State Charity Registration Number – Once an organization registers with the Registry, it is assigned a registration number (also called a “CT Number”). If you know the registration number, you may enter it in the search criteria.

The CT number for this group is: 2211149 and the EIN# 680450141

They have to register for running raffles annually.

If one were to click on ALL of those raffle reports above, to the Children’s Fund in San Mateo County, amounts could range anywhere from $19 to a few thousand.  I decided to use the same registry to look up the Children’s Fund, and found this:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
THE CHILDREN’S FUND FOR THE PRESERVATION OF ENDANGERED SPECIES Charity Not Registered SAN MATEO CA Charity Registration Charity
THE CHILDREN’S FUND OF SAN BERNARDINO 100979 Charity Delinquent SAN BERNARDINO CA Charity Registration Charity
1

 

The second one is apparently the same one that CSDA is raising money for, and I hope they finish registering properly, as they are doing quite a bit of business yearly.  They are at the same address, with “Rebecca Stafford, Executive Director” which is how I made the connection:

Registrant Information
Full Name: CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED FEIN: 330193286
Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1383946
Registration Number: 062080
Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration
Issue Date: 6/30/2006 Renewal Due Date: 11/15/2011
Registration Status: Current Date This Status: 11/13/2007
Date of Last Renewal: 1/14/2011
Address Information
Address Line 1: 825 E HOSPITALITY LN 2ND FL Phone:
Address Line 2:
Address Line 3:
Address Line 4: SAN BERNERDINO CA 92415
Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-01
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-02
Total Assets: $2,210,576.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $2,572,683.00
RRF Received: 18-FEB-03
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

THey are filing 990s and Founding Documents show this started (with a different name) at the Juvenile Court (Patrick Morris registered agent) with a contract for $110,000 with the County of San Bernardino and $80,000 in public donations — around 1986.    (See founding documents).   I’d say they’re doing OK…

00023AB2 Founding Documents
00023AB3 RRF-1 2009
00023AB4 IRS Form 990 2009

 

This is very good reading — Nonprofit Integrity Act of 2004.  I note that (bottom of first page) there is an accountability exemption for groups with receipts over $2 million (gross) IF they are receiving some of this from government grants AND those grants require that they account how the funds were used.   Hmmm….  Is this why there was such a proliferation of hugely successful charities partnering with government grants?

. Charitable Organizations Have 30 Days, Instead Of Six

Months, To Register And File Articles Of Incorporation

With The Attorney General’s Registry Of Charitable Trusts

[Government Code section 12585]

►Charitable corporations, unincorporated associations and trusts must file with the Attorney General articles of incorporation, or other documents governing the organization’s operations, (e.g., articles of association or trust instrument) within 30 days after initial receipt of property.

2. Independent Audit Of Annual Financial Statements Now Required For Charities With Gross Revenues Of $2 Million Or More [Government Code section 12586(e)(1)]

Charitable corporations with gross revenues of $2 million or more must prepare annual financial statements audited by an independent certified public accountant (CPA). The statements must use generally accepted accounting principles. The independent CPA must follow generally accepted auditing standards.

UNLESS — UNLESS – they are teamed up with a government grant!

►The audit requirement applies to charitable corporations, unincorporated associations and trustees required to register and file reports with the Attorney General, whenever such organizations accrue $2 million or more in gross revenue in any fiscal year.

►The $2 million-threshold excludes grants received from governmental entities, if the nonprofit must provide an accounting of how it used the grant funds.

 

How detailed an “accounting”  — anything?  Or detailed?  Because I’ve already seen about how well the government accounts for, say, child support collected and not distributed!

What’s really funny — is this on-line display bears Bill Lockyer’s name (as then-attorney General) and I found several pieces of documentation about the nonprofit his wife (Nadia) was CEO of, i.e., the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ONE-STOP SHOP, remember?) requesting this nonprofit to PLEASE register and start filing tax returns!   I then looked up the Articles of Incorporation (Nancy O’Malley, District Attorney, executive director).  There was some back and forth, and then what appeared to be a retroactively dated document? shows up.  NOTE:   There are exceptions to accountability when nonprofits combine with government grants (and/or contracts?) — perhaps this is why we are seeing such an onslaught of GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (high-level) FORMING NONPROFITS to do the work that their public offices, one would think, should be compensating them for to start with.

JUDGING BY THIS, the Children’s Fund, Inc. of 825 E. Hospitality Lane, 2nd Floor, San “Bernerdino” is doing OK with the raffles, too:

 

I just clicked on one that earned $15,000 – maybe we should FORGET about child support enforcement and all do raffles.  FOrm a nonprofit for the purpose of feeding one’s family and relieving the government of the burden of fundraising bureaucracy to collect money for the poor:

 

Prereq Type: Prerequisite User Relationship: Self Automatic
Registrant: CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED
Registration No: 421-2003 Registration Type: Raffle Registration Registration Status: Expired
Date Established: Association Date: Expiration Date:
Related Documents
No Related Documents
Raffle Event Data
Raffle Report Year: 2003
Raffle Start Date: 09-JUN-03
Raffle Location City:
Raffle Location County:
Total Funds Received from Sale of Raffle Tickets: $15,000.00
Were some or all of the Funds used for the Benefit of another Eligible Organization?
Name of Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Street Address:
Recipient Org. City:
Recipient Org. State:
Recipient Org. Zip:
Amount of Proceeds to Recipient Organization:
Contact Person for Recipient Organization:
Recipient Org. Phone Number:
Total Expenses for Conducting the Raffle: $0.00

 

 

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005-11 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-13 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005-8 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421 Raffle Registered SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 062080 Charity Current SAN BERNERDINO CA Charity Registration Charity
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002-1 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-07-16 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002-3 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003-5 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-08-15 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2007 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2006 Raffle Expired SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Registration Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2005-10 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003-4 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-7 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2006-12 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-9 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2002-2 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2004-14 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
CHILDREN’S FUND, INCORPORATED 421-2003-6 Raffle Complete SAN BERNERDINO CA Raffle Report Raffle
1

 

 

Funny how

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not even No commute costs, uniform costs, no meals out, and not printing costs — and it’s tax deductible.  A cool tax-exempt $15,000.     Remind me to work on my networking skills and contact a tax attorney!

Repeat, frequently and perhaps I, too, can pull in $2 million a year.  I’ll publicize it like this:  The purpose my charity is to reduce the $4 billion overhead for eliminating “Welfare as we know it” (and, “Child Support as we know it.”) — and it’s an innovative, demonstration project, for sure! 

 

 

  

 

 I should be nice and support some of my wisecracks about the “Alameda COunty Family Justice Center” (or ACFCJ, “Inc.”) so here you are:

 

 

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER, INCORPORATED CT0163526 Charity Current OAKLAND CA Charity Registration Charity
1

 

              Explore that a bit.  It has no FEIN listed here, yet.   APparently it started 2007, registered as a charity — finally, upon a few requests to do so — around 2010.  And the founding documents are here, which are very interesting:

 

 

 

First Notice to Register First Notice to Register
Confirmation of Registration letter Confirmation of Registration letter
1350 founding Founding Documents
97812355 Miscellaneous Documents

          

 

 

 

 The Attorney General’s office writes them in May, 2010  (First Notice to Register):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

May 27, 2010

(CT FILE NUMBER: APP 1343461)

ALAMEDA COUNTY FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER, INCORPORATED

470 27TH STREET OAKLAND CA 94612

NOTICE TO REGISTER

We have received information indicating that this organization may be subject to the registration and reporting requirements of the Supervision of Trustees and Fundraisers for Charitable Purposes Act (Government Code sections 12580, et seq.).

 

Under “Miscellaneous Documents,” they respond.  Keep in mind, again, that the CEO of this agency (from the start) is the wife of a former Attorney General and an attorney working out of the District Attorney’s office, which naturally is under the Office of Attorney General to start with.   Do they really not know which end is up (even after there is a bill pending in the California Legislature (last I heard) to make this a model training center for other justice centers, which I blogged….)

The response in August 2010:

Alameda County ronily lustice Center

Zi9!.\ FF’Ztr) A collaborative of law enforcement, govemment,. and non-profit agencies ensuing thr gll

heating of abuse vrctiii tniigh

August ll,2010

F. Gonzales Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts Califomia Department of Justice

P.O. Box 903447 Sacramento, CA 94203 -447 0

comprehensive,

cootdinated, accessib,,

“‘o ^–t-:l g F-

Re: Alameda county Family Justice center cr File # cr0r63s26 Dear Ms. Gonzales,

This is in response to your letter of August 6tr (copy attached).

The Alameda County Justice Center (ACFJC) has operated as a government agency since its inception. The C.ounty of Alameda,bistrict auorneyis office obtained a federal grant to establish the Center. It is located in a county-owned and maintained building, housing governmental and non-profit agencies working in collaboration to provide services to victims and families who have experienced family violence. It has and still operates under the administration of the District Atto*”y’, office and funded under the budget of the county of Alameda. It has no assets, all utilized assets belong to the County of Alameda.

2′ With the ever-shrinking county-budget and the need to ensure the continued operation of the A-cfJC and expanding services, a decision was made to incorporate as a non-profit and thereby maximize the potential for obtaining grants and receiving donations normally not available to government agencies. An application_for Recognition of Exemption (InS Form 1023 copy attached) has been submitted to IRS and we are awaiting their decision.

There is no annual gross revenue for these periods, as all funding is provided within the budget of the county of Alameda.

.

4- IRS form 990’s have not been submitted as the ACFJC is awaiting IRS an determination of exemption.

If you need further information or clarification, please contact me at (xxx) xxx xxxx. Thank you.  (SIGNED, Harold Boscovich….)

 

Guess the IRS will get around to this in another five years or so?  Assuming that what he said above is true.

ANYHOW, food for thought, eh?

“”,j,i!!ry

 

 

 

 

Pursuant to section 12585 and 12586 of the Act, every charitable corporation incorporated or doing business in California, unincorporated association and trustee holding assets for charitable purposes or doing business in the State of California is required to register and file annual reports with the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts, within thirty (30) days of receiving assets (which includes cash or other forms of property). Some entities, such as educational institutions, religious corporations and hospitals, are exempt from registration and reporting under section 12583.

 

In order to determine if the captioned entity is subject to registration and reporting, please submit a completed Initial Registration (CT-1), together with the required attachments, and $25 initial registration fee, payable to the Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts. Please include the“CT number” noted at the top of this letter in the memo portion of the check, and mail the completed form and check, together with a copy of this letter, to the Registry at the address set forth above.

!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 3, 2011 at 8:24 pm

“One Program, One Purpose, One System” — Contrary to purpose of OCSE, California Child Support Training Conference includes how to INcrease the Title IV-D Welfare Caseload!

with 2 comments

So I guess it makes sense that the Commissioner for Child Support, Vicky Turetsky, got an award for “reinventing government.”

(Am I the only person who thinks that’s a strange concept, especially in the hands of an agency which has the legal clout to incarcerate people if they don’t pay up, or bankrupt them into homelessness, if they do?)

The motto “One Program, One Purpose, One System” – is on the logo here.  This pdf is brimming with interesting information, and I hope you take a look at it.

From the “2009 California Annual Child Support Training Conference and Expo

That year, the sub-motto was:  “Supporting Family Self-Sufficiency.”

For next fall’s  Sept. 2011 Conference, the sub-motto  — part of a childish, politically correct multiculti-cartoon of 3 children wearing potential future hats (Fireman, Doctor, Construction) is “OUR CHILDREN” (large print):   “Today’s Investment, Tomorrow’s Future

WHOSE children, again?    Interesting, there are zero parents in the image, although the theme is always about improving “Family” relationships.

Oddly, California being a Pacific Ocean state, no representative of an Asian child made the cut.  And of course, there was no child wearing any sort of hat indicating a business owner, stockbroker, a venture capitalist, or say, multi-million$$ multinational government contractor as a future livelihood, even though many noncustodial parents this conference is targeting, are.   These children subject to child support orders (even Rep. Joe Walsh’s first three kids) are going to be funneled into employee work, perpetuating the stream of easier-to-garnish wages (or tax refunds to intercept) for the next generations…

Also, think about it:  “Today’s investment (are they people, or an investment for the child support professionals?), Tomorrow’s Future.”   Is there another kind of future, like the movie about Time Travel, “Back to the…” ?    When tomorrow gets here, it will no longer be “future.”   Did an AFCC member come up with this motto, or is the mentality contagious, to come up with inane phrases for conferences and themes, such as “Parental Alienation” and “High-Conflict Families”?  The phrase is redundant and makes no sense, a little frightening when one considers how powerful the group is….

While “Fatherhood” may not help Decent Dads,* OCSE has absolutely become a “Fatherhood” agency; this is obvious and has been for years.  Once the context of the word “fatherhood” is understood not from common usage — but from court-based and OCSE-based, and profit-based (and/or hating women-based) purposes — I think we can clear the air that decent mothers and decent fathers have a LOT in common in opposing the expansion of this industry.

(*as opposed the genuine article, good Dads, whether still with, or divorced or not married to their kids’ mothers Dads —  interacting with their children and maintaining a decent — if distant — relationship with the mothers of their children).  Do any of us REALLY want to be defined by our gender only, as a stereotype? I know I don’t!  That’s abusive — every human being has more than one characteristic, and differs from others in their gender.

Then why allow any governmental institution to exploit a stereotype?   Failing to protest some of these GROUPS & POLICIES is allowing a governmental institution — and a very dishonest one — to do exactly that. WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?   The Child Support Agency’s?  The nonprofit contractor with the local child support agency’s?  The top-notch, Ph.D.’d (often Ivy League) graduates with an unending source of professional work and income — who talk about poor people as if they were children — or, at times, dogs, or material for human (social science) experimentation?

In 1993, Liz Richards (who lives in the D.C. Area, from what I understand was a former stock broker, i.e., can read the trends & markets) formed the “National Alliance for Family Court Justice” and “out-ed” one group after another running various operations from a basis in the U.S. Department of HHS and/or from associated nonprofits working through the courts, and through the child support agency in particular.  Although her writings and work deals with the critical issues of criminal behavior towards women and children, her ANALYSIS is economic in based, and addresses conflicts of interest, and abuse of power within governmental offices.  MOreover, she has done something about it, being instrumental in getting Ron Haskins (who wrote up the “Access Visitation” code as a 9th hour add-on to Title IV legislation) booted out from doing more damage at the HHS.  Of course, he’s doing similar work now at the Brookings Institution (Some day, I am going to have a Ron Haskins post; the guy seems to have cloned himself and is “everywhere.”)

No one in the DOMESTIC VIOLENCE INDUSTRY  or CRISIS IN THE COURTS INDUSTRY (which are basically grants-supported) has been inviting NAFCJ or Liz (recently, that I know of) to participate in a conference (such as Battered Mothers Custody Conference) or write a chapter in a large book on “Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody” (Mo Hannah/Barry Goldstein, eds.).   If I were in those industries, I wouldn’t either — the information this one person and the activists on-line have been discussing and privately publishing, i.e., for free — if I may be crude, and this is probably a military phrase — would “tear ’em a new hole.”

Why? Because she addresses the use of federal grants as BRIBES in the custody case.  She talks about what appears to me to legitimately be Mafia-style systems working within government — only at many levels, it cannot be prosecuted under “RICO” because elements of the group simply get laws re-written to accommodate their policies.  And RICO is by definition “Criminal,” and “Criminal” by definition, breaking a law.

I originally came to the decision to do this blog after seeking help in a custody case with a batterer seeking to eliminate me from my kids’ lives (and have me pay him child support).  He succeeded in the first part not because of any merit in the case, but because of how the system is set to shuffle women from Restraining Order via Mediator to Family Court.  So, there is a HUGE elephant in this room, and not enough people are talking about it.   After I’d been battered and buffeted — and while they were living with me and because of this family court AND OCSE dysfunction (local child support agency wouldn’t do squat when it fell behind, despite my efforts to request they do so).   Not knowing about this system is like not knowing that your (traditional, not electric, obviously) car needs oil, has an oil filter and what kind of oil you put in it matters.

There’s a saying in Proverbs, “let a man meet a bear robbed of her whelps than a fool in his folly.”  It makes two points — foolishness will tear you up worse than a bear attack.  And the point is clear — the fiercest animal is that mother bear protecting her young.  NOT the “father.”   The father can indeed go out and propagate again, elsewhere, and usually for longer than the mothers can (as to fertile years).  The mother (talking humans), no matter HOW you look at it, takes about nine months to come up with a child, and if nursing is also happening, has a lot more physically invested in its well-being.

I believe this is why there is such a huge movement to subdue and suppress the feminine population, lest it really say, we are going to starve the funding of your system in one way or another — by going on strike at work, by refusing to have children, by refusing to marry — by whatever means necessary — this tyranny over our growing children WILL stop.

Here’s what the NAFCJ site says — and it’s blunt, as it should be:

The National Alliance For Family Court Justice, founded in 1993 by Elisabeth Richards of Annandale, Virginia, is an international group of volunteers dedicated to addressing system failure in the courts and social services resulting in retaliation against non-offending parents who complain of family abuse, especially mothers of children who disclose sexual abuse.

NAFCJ activists are dedicated to creating synergy and power through networking and lobbying for change for those caught up in the vast web of custody corruption involving such court chicanery as political pork barrel cronyism, guardian ad litem kickbacks, fraudulent psychological testing by GAL appointed evaluators and local Bar Associations who run MCLE seminars with judges (Mandatory Continuing Legal Education) concealing contributions “coffee and flower” slush funds through County Court Judicial Associations.

Through the efforts of various highly financed Fathers Rights groups affiliated with secret judicial associations of family, conciliation, mediation and juvenile courts, who are united under the guise of promoting non-litigious domestic dispute resolution along with other smoke-screen covers such as responsible fatherhood, millions of middle and lower income citizens have been deliberately cheated of their legal right to due process. The efforts of  “well-oiled” fathers rights activists who tap into “deep pockets (in their own words) of federal and private grants while traveling North America, Europe and Australia promoting pedophile friendly syndromes  such as Parental Alienation Syndrome, have effectively silenced women and children’s outcries of brutality, rape and incest to a vast array of professionals in the divorce industry.

In their lust for power and control, these bad dads have reaped a plethora of praise and manna from federal heaven through DHHS (Access/Visitation programs,  DOJ (Arbitration/Mediation) programs, Responsible Fatherhood Programs, Co-Parenting Programs, and other mislabeled Court-Based federally sponsored “Family Services.”  

Considering that the recipients of the bulk of the money goes to pay well-off guys who spend most of their time recruiting new members for their custody switching scheme and lobbying legislators for presumptive joint custody (the demise of child support enforcement for all time) and easing restrictions on incest and family violence — this sinister “snake oil” has more to do with power, lust and money than their insincere pretense for the best interests of children.

Open Letter to the Fatherhood Movement, Liz Richards’ challenge to Fathers’ Rights Leadership to admit their true agenda.

Read Liz Richards’ Letter to Ron Haskins, former staff director for the House Ways & Means Subcommittee [which has jurisdiction over a wide variety of family programs] and a co-founding Children’s Rights Council official, misused his Congressional authority to write into legislation, programs and policies which benefit Fathers Rights membership while concealing his own conflict of interest.

Liz Richards lobbied leading Congressional offices about Haskins misdeeds and conflicts of interest. Within months, Haskins quit and is now with the Brookings Institute.  Now his protégé and CRC supporter, Wade Horn, has been installed as Assistant Secretary of HHS, in charge of all DHHS “Family Programs.” See Liz Richards’s letter to Horn, as NFI President, charging him with being a CRC front.  

{{that’s a broken link — contact her if you want it, I guess.  “NFI” = National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonprofit formed in 1994}}

CRC and the Fatherhood Initiative hype claims of educating dead-beat dads how to be “responsible” in exchange for providing federally funded assistance to enforce their visitation rights through programs including the “access/visitation” program and Responsible Fatherhood programs which is nothing but disingenuous drivel, a bogus cover story for their real agenda of switching custody and giving legal advantages to fathers willing to instigate litigation for their judicial kick-back scheme

{{AND of course ongoing funding to the programs themselves.}}

If “FATHERHOOD” as practiced in these contexts is understood in a few basic terms as having very LITTLE relationship to the dictionary definitions, the clouds will begin to clear.  As practiced, it PARTICULARLY has almost nothing to do with the second definition, below.

fa·ther·hood  (fär-hd)

n.

1. The state of being a father.
2. The qualities of a father.
3. Fathers considered as a group.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


fatherhood [ˈfɑːðəˌhʊd]

n

the state or responsibility of being a father

Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

There is so much on “fatherhood” on-line any more, that in order to get a plain definition (and not all the various groups, nonprofits and associations) I had to basically add “Dictionary” to the search.  Even then, one definition came up with “as to the first person of the Trinity…..”

Fatherhood might better be characterized as the select group of people starting certain organizations which have now branched out throughout government — and “reinvented it” — which makes a whole lot of (NON)sense when the U.S. President is required to swear an oath to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution before taking office.  Here’s that oath:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States,

and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

We can do our part to hold any sitting President to that oath (for what any oath is worth these days) not by complaining about our hurts and distresses (there are legislatures for that) and asking him to intervene (what, is he a god, an emperor, or an elected official?) –thereby justifying further expansion of the Federal clout over individual states — but by insisting that certain practices be stopped because THEY VIOLATE THE CONSTituTION, including the bill of rights.  And exposing financial corruption in policy-making circles which (see Declaration of Independence) are generally closed to the public, or the intent being the general public is not invited, or made aware of their existence.

The “Fatherhood” emphasis is a religious one — and few of the founders of the US (including George Washington, who first made the oath) believed in the patronizing, condescending, and domineering vision of “fatherhood” which the religious groups now in on the grants stream have been promoting.  They believed the exact opposite and fought for it too.    Some of them were Freemasons, many were Deists, and they were literally fleeing religious threats in England, and the associated thought-tyranny which took the form of burning people at the stake, and banning their books.   See Thomas Jefferson and Reasonable Deity for a SHORT summary of some of the influences of Locke, Paine & Priestley on his thinking:

Thomas Jefferson’s religious philosophy was most heavily influenced by the writings of John Locke. Two works by Locke, A Letter on Toleration (1689) and The Reasonableness of Christianity (1695), specifically shaped Jefferson’s bill for establishing religious freedom. Locke presented a philosophical justification for religious toleration, one that Jefferson advocated in his writings and actions. Locke’s belief in toleration, that “no man, even if he would, can believe at another’s dictation” induced Jefferson’s internalization of religion. Jefferson emulated this doctrine of toleration, advocating that privacy and freedom meant everything in a personal relationship with the Supreme Creator.

Locke coupled his emphasis on toleration with intellectual support of an eventual day of reckoning before a just God, further influencing Jefferson’s understanding of religion’s role in society. Even though Jefferson rejected many orthodox Christian beliefs, he sided with Locke and whole-heartedly envisioned this day that God alone would evaluate one’s life. It was this belief in the future judgment that naturally led to increased incentives for morality linked to self-interest. The future judgment provided impetus for a society to function cohesively under the premise of universal accountability. Jefferson found this argument both reasonable and necessary to the success of United States (and the world) at large.

(from the same site):  Islam vs. Deism:

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.I believe the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

Thomas Paine,
Age of Reason

by Lewis Loflin

Introduction

English and American Deism, Unitarian Christianity, and Socinian Christianity emerged as heretics of the Protestant Reformation. All applied various degree of reason to the Bible producing faiths that combined reason with a Jesus centered ethical outlook. All rejected the Trinity, Original Sin, the Elect, Nicene Creed, predestination, and other church dogma. Like the Anabaptists they all advocated separation of religion and state which is well within Christian traditions. All advocated religious tolerance.

Given upcoming events in TEXAS, this weekend! and a Texas Governor’s public involvement — I think we’d all better read up some on the origins of the late 20th-century-OVERT switch from the U.S. Constitution to a “faith-based” government.    We are asked to “take it on faith” that the child support professionals and the marriage-mongers are good people and just love children, that’s what motivating them, even when they themselves can’t be faithful to their own wives (plural) or mistresses (plural)

Governor of Texas:

“Fellow Americans,

Right now, America is in crisis: we have been besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.”

Under “WHY”:

Who knows what can happen in our generation when we gather together to worship Jesus, fast and pray, and believe for great change in our nation?

The “Historic Precedence for National Prayer” quotes occasions from 1775 through 1841, NOT ONE of which even mentions Jesus.  While, if someone, or a group of people, can PRIVATELY pay for a Texas stadium and collect people to worship Jesus, let ’em do it — but I think it’s highly inappropriate for a Texas Governor to be involved.

Under FAQs — “What does The Response Believe”:

The Response is a non-denominational, apolitical {{??}} Christian prayer meeting and has adopted the American Family Association statement of faith.

  1. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.
  2. We believe that there is one God, eternally existent in three persons:  Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
  3. We believe in the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, in His virgin birth, in His sinless life, in His miracles, in His vicarious and atoning death through His shed blood, in His bodily resurrection, in His ascension to the right hand of the Father, and in His personal return in power and glory.
  4. We believe that for the salvation of lost and sinful people, regeneration by the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential.
  5. We believe in the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling the Christian is enabled to live a godly life.

They had better pray for a spirit of blindness, that no one follow through on what some of us have been posting — and the connection of parts of the national debt crisis to policies endorsed by the American Family Association…which is, first and foremost, a nonprofit corporation.   It’s Philosophy indicates clearly that it does not consider itself subject to the United States laws primarily, not to mention a very poor understanding of the “founding documents” it refers to, in addition to the history of the Christian faith and the Bible:

PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT 
The American Family Association believes that God has communicated absolute truth to mankind, and that all people are subject to the authority of God’s Word at all times. Therefore AFA believes that a culture based on biblical truth best serves the well-being of our nation and our families, in accordance with the vision of our founding documents; and that personal transformation through the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the greatest agent of biblical change in any culture.

Here’s the American Family Foundation (another charity) formed in 1994 (FUNNY COINCIDENCE — same year as VAWA and NFI) to raise money for other charities it approves of:

(Can girls say this pledge, too?)

The ACLU at least, is following up with some FOIA’s to find out how many tax dollars are going into this Texas Prayer Rally to worship Jesus because our founders, after all, did, too (??).  I wish them well.  The FOIA results are due out tomorrow.  They are holding a rally, with “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” to counter this one, which is indeed protected (apparently) under the First Amendment that the prayer leaders do not, themselves (apparently) subscribe to, and at least one other Congressperson is participating (from Ohio, as I recall).  See blurb here from SecularNewsDaily which indicates that the “Southern Poverty Law Center” has designated the AFA a hate group.

So, in response to “THE RESPONSE” – I have to say:

ExCU U U U se me???  First Amendment:   “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

ExCU U U Use me?   This Governor hasn’t been reading his Bible recently, or perhaps he uses an alternate Bible (and Constitution):

John 16 (ESV):  “25“I have said these things to you in figures of speech. The hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figures of speech but will tell you plainly about the Father. 26In that day you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf;

{{Just a little detail — he was speaking figuratively, not literally about so many things}}    .Also …” 22So also you have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy from you. 23In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name, he will give it to you.

So, if a group wants to go ask Jesus instead of the Father, when the Jesus they refer to said, ask the Father and NOT me — let’em go ahead.  AFter all, some of us asked the Child Support Enforcement Agency (local) to enforce child support orders — so what’s the difference?  Both indicate a tendency towards worsshipping gods that don’t deliver……Except that there’d better not be any public $$ going into that rally, and the OCSE already has our money, for the most part — because its employees are public employees, government signed, sealed and delivered.

And . . ..  as I keep saying, if this is how people read the Bible, understand basic US history, and see their position in the world — how do you expect them (when in official capacity) to be reading their local laws?    

Now, back to this CHILD SUPPORT $4 billion year enforcement industry and the nonprofit CSDA.org’s place in it:

There’s also more than one meaning to the phrase “I LOVE children.” . . . . . .    Notice, they don’t recognize parentage even on the front page of the 2011 brochure, but declare (deceitfully) that these are “OUR” children.  If they truly believe that the children’s parents (both genders) had some “Stakeholder” interest in the kids, then how come Fathers and Families was invited to speak at a child support conference, but no contingent representing Mothers (using the word ‘Mothers’) — and no contingent representing custodial parents with open child support cases?

The brand of religion that then-President George Bush opened the floodgates to by Executive Order (not popular vote) in 2001 was not the Constitution / Reason / Dialogue based kind — is entirely different in quality than that of those who wrote the Constitution. It’s dogmatic and rhetoric-based, parading around with phrases like “evidence-based” (i.e., that fatherlessness puts someone at risk of the life from hell…..)

By contrast, the doctrine of “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” backed by FORCE (through OCSE) and billing the public for it — has been, on closer examination of “Undistributed Child Support Collections” and practices which are easily eddies, private backwaters, of embezzlement opportunity, cronyism, and case-steering — is hardly in the same flavor.

Well, I supposed I’d better get down to the main points of this post

1.  OCSE literally IS a “fatherhood” organization (understood as used in practice, not common usage); in order to be a “fatherhood” organization, government has to be changed (and protections removed), and..

2.  Assuming it was ever true that the OCSE was formed in 1975 to help REDUCE welfare burden by pursuing child support to either keep families OFF welfare, or recoup funds expended FROM welfare (public burden)…that is most certainly not even the goal, or agenda — of the OCSE as it stands now.

For one, let’s look at VICKY TURETSKY’s background:**

**note — in talking in very strong, and sometimes sarcastic terms, about people with major responsibility and work experience to qualify the for it, I am not meaning personal insult (with possible exceptions of Wade Horn, Ron Haskins, and (any AFCC judge or mental health professional) etc. who are just “too much…”).  This huge bureaucracy exists, and someone has to head it up; Vicky Turetsky does.   HOWEVER, on the other hand, I represent people at the complete opposite end of the spectrum — as first a mother in a violent relationship which I finally escaped from, then a single mother with a child support order started by the County, not me.  I have years of first-hand observation across a LOT of fronts, and have seen mothers go homeless after custody-switch + wage garnishment; I have come close to it myself.  I also know that the system of welfare addresses the poor throughout as if poverty were a character flaw and certainly not a system flaw, or having an identifiable cause, one that points to any of the welfare systems’ associates (did I say “family law” yet?)   I also know that physical and economic control go together; there is rarely the first without the second, and if the second is good enough, it’s not “necessary” to beat up the person being controlled.  Fear of homelessness, starvation, and/or loss of children through loss of income to support them — will spring the trap quite well, once it becomes abundantly clear that NONSTOP LITIGATION can eradicate a work life, and quickly.

Therefore, I make no apology for talking blunt, strong, disgusted, or sarcastic — about these systems and practices; doing so will of course name names.  Just understand that I haven’t met many of these people — and if I had, it wouldn’t change my stance.  It’s the practices that are the problem.  Since people in these circles are CONSTANTLY talking about “Promising Practices” or “Evidence-Based Practices” I’m sure they’ll understand….it ain’t the people, it’s the practices, although whoever would design some of them certainly had a character problem, by not changing practices when it ends up with dead families, or kids with neither mother nor father in their lives, sometimes over child support.

Vicky Turetsky

“Vicki Turetsky was appointed as the Commissioner for the Office of Child Support Enforcement {{“OCSE”}}in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families {{HHS/ACF}}. As Commissioner, she oversees the child support program operated by each state and by many tribes.”

U.S. Territories also?   Let’s not underestimate the scope and power of this position, and the responsibility.  “each state” kind of downplays the significance.

United States (still “leader of the free world”?) has FIFTY (50) state, and territories, and the displaced Native American tribes are a different government category; in some ways they have a little more influence over their own affairs than residents of the states do.   However, that is basically ALL of the United States.  ANYONE who has a child support order may come under OCSE oversight, although the original purpose of the Program Office was to REDUCE welfare (TANF) by collecting money from one parent and getting it to the other one who had care of the children – or, to the state, if the state had grabbed the kid(s) and stuck them in Foster Care, or another institution.   (Not to be confused with Phil Garrido and Nancy Garrido’s California operation, although there seem to be a few similarities, i.e., hijacking innocent kids’ futures one way or another.)(They were on the news again recently; with Nancy relating how she encouraged little girls (evidently) to do their gymnastics for her, especially the splits, for filming purposes; while the prosecutor gave a damning report on how the system failed Jaycee Dugard and her two kids).

Ms. Turetsky brings more than 25 years of experience as a public administrator and advocate for low-income families. She is a nationally recognized expert in family policy, and has been instrumental in efforts to boost child support payments to families and to establish realistic child support policies that encourage fathers to work and play an active parenting role. Prior to her appointment, she served as the director of Family Policy at the Center for Law and Social Policy, where she specialized in child support, responsible fatherhood, and prisoner reentry policies. The author of numerous publications, she was a visiting lecturer at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and has received several national awards.
She also has held positions at the U.S. Corporation for National and Community Service, MDRC, Union County Legal Services in New Jersey, and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office. As a division director at the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, she received one of the state’s first “reinventing government” awards. She received her B.A. from the University of Minnesota and
her J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School.

Another speaker at this 2009 conference was Michael Hayes of the TEXAS Attorney General’s office.   As I blogged earlier this year, he is a fatherhood type of guy (although it’s called “Family” in his department) and was also found in Minnesota Fatherhood Summit (or some similar title — after all, it IS challenging to keep all the fatherhood summits, corporations, conferences, “Incs.” *.govs and Institutes straight), which I thought odd for a public servant based in Texas; had he attended any motherhood conferences also?  (Oh, I forgot — Big Brother isn’t into Motherhood…)..  Perhaps this is the Minnesota Connection, I don’t know).

I looked up a bit about Vicky Turetsky at the Center for Law and Social Policy.  Here’s a 1999 summary of her Testimony on the “FATHERS COUNT act of 1999:

Testimony of Vicki Turetsky

Senior Staff Attorney,

Center for Law and Social Policy 

before the Subcommittee on Human Resources,

Committee on Ways and Means U.S. House of Representatives

The proposed legislation creates demonstration grant projects that focus on low-income fathers and their children, increases the flexibility of the Welfare-to-Work program, and provides needed penalty relief to states that failed to meet the deadline for implementing the State Disbursement Unit (SDU) for child support payment processing.

The goals of encouraging marriage, promoting good parenting, and improving the economic status of low-income parents are shared by CLASP. CLASP supports a demonstration project approach to new fatherhood funding.  . . .

Chairwoman Johnson and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for this opportunity to testify today about the proposed “Fathers Count Act of 1999.” I am a Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Law and Social Policy. CLASP is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization engaged in analysis, technical assistance and advocacy on issues affecting low-income families. We do not receive any federal funding. My focus at CLASP is child support. Before working at CLASP, I was employed by Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), and helped implement the Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) pilot project for unemployed noncustodial parents of AFDC children.

among her calls for much more flexibility in these Fatherhood Demonstration Grants — she advocates that the child support agency should be a partner (naturally) and, for example, let noncustodial clients who participate in these projects get “expedited modification of arrears” (i.e., compromise — or reducing — arrears), and of course let’s not get TOO specific in actually requiring specific behaviors from the projects that help the Dads get their custody arrears modification expedited if they show up for these projects and/or classes:

Instead, the legislation should be written more broadly and flexibly to require projects to take actions designed to encourage or facilitate the payment of child support, without prescribing a specifictypeofaction. The following actions might be listed as examples in the statute:(1)full distribution of pre- and post-TANF arrears to families, (2) distribution of support while the family is receiving TANF, (3) incentives for paying support, such as TANF disregards and matching payment policies, (4) setting the initial orders of project participants based strictly on ability to pay, (5) expedited review and modification procedures for orders and arrears, (6) compromising, forgiving, or suspending arrearages upon project participation or when the parents marry; (7) dispute resolution mechanisms, (8) dedicated child support staff assigned to project participants, and (9) community-based outreach and “house call” policies.

Wow — there’s even a matchmaker facet; and as of 1999, the person now running the child support NATIONALLY had already figured out to trade project participation (by fathers) with reduction of arrears.   I’m not clear how reducing arrears for Dads showing up for classes is supposed to help the children — or for that matter adding a marriage bribe incentive — like forgive the arrears!  I won’t work off my debt, I’ll just marry her?    This is a short piece, worth reading to see where the OCSE has been coming from — set child support arbitrarily, sometimes too high; arrears racks up, and then offer the father TROUBLE (jail) or “COME JOIN OUR PROGRAM” and then help him reduce the arrears.

The segment is testimony in front of the House Ways and Means Committee requesting input on the actual legislation from a fatherhood advocate — in 1999.  At this time, with the anti-VAWA forces in full swing, most domestic violence nonprofits didn’t even bother to tell mothers that fatherhood grants (or, the CRC-AFCC partnerships) existed — at all.  Nor have they very much in the first decade this century, 2000-2010, but I’m working hard with SOME others to push back the envelope on that.  Were any battered mothers advocates up there offering testimony also?

CLASP is a nonprofit, and so is CSDA.

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION & STATE GOVERNMENT & FOR-PROFIT CONTRACTORS.

ALL THAT’S MISSING FROM THE CONFERENCE IS A CONTINGENT OF CUSTODIAL PARENTS, including Mothers that could laugh at the proceedings and fathers that would relate how the payments they provided (wage-garnished in excess at times) got lost in the mail (“UDC” balances, by state).   In 1999, a single COUNTY in California was sitting on $14 million (Silva v. Garcetti).   Who knows what the totality of 58 counties were and still are sitting on.  One thing  is for sure — neither the OCSE nor the GAO (Government Accountability Office) nor the Local Child Support agencies nor the Welfare law mandated SDU (State Distribution Units) seem to know, and I believe I made that point that they have ALL admitted this a few posts ago.…  May show a few more links to support that the counties don’t know.  (Apparently monies got lost in transit in the transition to Statewide Distribution Units, also.  What’s LOST for the intended recipients (children, while they are still children) is going to be a “found” for someone else that realizes the benefit of no paper trail to the $$.

– – – – – – –

What is “CSADA”?  Sounds official right?  This is their self-description

That’s wonderful, collecting billions (where’s their head at?) but can we talk about also DISTRIBUTING it to the households the children are living in?  When an agency can’t find a U.S. (Tea Party) Representative with over $100,000 arrears and simply (VOLUNTARILY) enter a wage-garnishment order, I have to question its efficiency.  Perhaps because this was not a Title IV-D case, it didn’t count?

Please note — the CSADA is a nonprofit group formed in 2001, same year as the “Office of Faith-Based and Community…”  A keynote speaker in this year’s also has a history in the Obama version, “Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood….””

The Child Support Directors Association of California (CSDA) was established in 2001 as a non-profit association to represent the local child support directors of California’s 58 counties. The association strives to be of service to local child support agencies (LCSA) in their effort to provide children and families with the financial, medical, and emotional support** required to be productive and healthy citizens in our society.

CSDA Annual Child Support Training Conference & Expo

When: September 19-22, 2011

Where: Doubletree Hotel, Sacramento, CA

Registration is now open for the CSDA Annual Child Support Conference and Expo! Please visitWWW.CSDAEVENTS.COM to register for the early bird rate by July 1, 2011. For more information download theCONFERENCE BROCHURE or visit our CONFERENCE WEBPAGE. Any questions, please contact CSDA Deputy Director NATALIE DILLON.

(Maybe I should go…. as an interpreter for fellow-parents, and of course to hear what the keynote speaker from Fathers and Families has to say….)

**by now, we should know the key-phrase, when a group whose purpose is to get — by force if necessary — money from noncustodial parents refers to their intent to get “emotional support” for the children, we are talking about access visitation grants (among plenty of others) AND about fatherhood; i.e., relationship counseling.

Actually, what the relationship counseling does, anyhow, is direct program monies to certain nonprofit programs (usually) run by — typically — an AFCC member, and part of their personal retirement plan (called affiliate marketing).    Like the logo on the 2011 brochure, the courses (from what I can tell) appear to be elementary, if not infantile; but the marketing plan most definitely is not.  When it comes to counseling parents, from the AFCC perspective, it’s clear that there is a fatherhood emphasis and motherhood hostility, as we see in the parenting coordinator materials from New Hampshire (see my 4-part post).

Don’t kid yourself that a “fatherhood emphasis” is actually father-friendly overall in practice.  After all, fathers and mothers pay taxes.  Fathers AND mothers pay child support (for that matter, while I’m there).  And fathers AND mothers who are having their wages garnished sometimes find that the remaining money they earn, if they are employees and have taxes withheld (AND wages garnished) AND are watching the US$ “tank” affecting their purchasing power with what’s left — are ALSO supporting hordes of professionals IN the government agency-level (County payroll) AND in the nonprofit sector who contracts for government also.

Not when groups like Maximus, caught with their hand in the till repeatedly, (caught in fraud and embezzlement and paying millions to settle — a cost probably passed on to the consumers — and in at least one case, we saw billing by estimate, not actual work performed, which the local agency didn’t even check up on) continue to get contracts.

Of course it helps to get a contract if you help sponsor a child support director’s conference….

The welcome letter to the upcoming 2011 CSDA Conference shows that the Arizona-based FATHERS AND FAMILIES has a keynote speaker in there also.  The letter is signed by Stephen GoLightly, president of the nonprofit CSDA organization AND head of the Los Angeles Department of Child Support:

On behalf of the entire CSDA Board of Directors and the 2011 Conference Planning Committee, I am pleased to announce that our plenary speakers will include Federal Child Support Commissioner Vicki Turetsky; Federal Director of the Office of Family Assistance, Earl Johnson; Ron Painter, CEO of the National Association of Workforce Boards; Dr. Hillard Pouncy, from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University; James Rodriguez, CEO/President of Fathers & Families Coalition of America and several executive level representatives from the California Health and Human Services Agency and the California Department of Child Support Services. To say that this array of speakers will be inspiring and informative would be an understatement!

WHO SHOULD ATTEND THIS CONFERENCE?  Custodial mothers, or noncustodial fathers, wondering when the UDC will be distributed, or wondering when the HHS/OIG/OAS is going to actually audit ALL of the local child support agencies in California to see which ones have been holding on to $14 million balances (like the Los Angeles DA’s office was until Richard Fine & John Silva caught up with them) — and why we should continue letting our wages be garnished when the federal government is wanting to EXPAND Title-IVD cases while failing to account for WHERE’d the MONEY GO? Apparently at least 3 California Counties lost track of funds during the transition to a SDU, and from what I can tell, there’s not even been a slap on the wrist (or a follow up audit).

So shouldn’t some actual parents with small children be invited?  But they weren’t:

The annual conference is designed to afford all child support professionals from local, state and federal government agencies, tribes, and vendors providing services to the Child Support Program with a meaningful and relevant training experience.** California and national staff, including directors, child support officers, attorneys, clerical staff, supervisors, managers, trainers, customer service staff, and account and fiscal staff will gain useful information and resources.

We invite IV-D funded court personnel including commissioners, Family Law Facilitators, and court clerks; IV-A agency staff involved with the IV-D program or interface; and other Health and Human Services staff to join us and derive the benefits from our annual conference.

**will “meaningful and relevant experience” detail exactly how to spend funds on encouraging fathers to emotionally connect with their , as opposed to sending the money TO the kids’ household, so they can have plenty of warm blankets and good food in their tummies in addition to warm and fuzzy experiences with Dad?

The Association strives to be of service to local child support agencies (LCSAs) in their effort to provide children and families with the financial, medical, and emotional support required to be productive and healthy citizens in our society.

The membership of the CSDA includes many public employees — isn’t it just part of their normal responsibilities to do some of these legislatively-mandated things?  Why form  a nonprofit to do their assigned, paid  jobs?

You know how much the CSDA costs?

Who is it, really?  Good place to start is their nonprofit filing, and an 990 or so — “NCCSdataweb.urban.org” or “Tax-Exempt World.”  WHile the former gives us more (free) information, the listing for this group at Tax Exempt world is revealing:  notice (despite all the talk about kids) what it’s Classified as:

CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION Board of Trade
(Promotion of Business)
* * * 06/200

and this is how active nonprofits are in Sacramento County (Note for the out of state:  State Capital….)

Location Sacramento County CA (California)
Number of Organizations in this County 8,637
Total Income Amount from Tax Exempt/NonProfit Organizations in this County $10,060,802,090
Total Asset Amount of Tax Exempt/NonProfit Organizations in this County $22,835,419,512
Number of Zip Codes in this County 137

Maybe one solution to the trillion $$ debt the US faces is to make a LOT harder to become a nonprofit (and keep churches out of

that tax-exempt status, too — they control a LOT of $$ and are part of the problems other nonprofits are formed to help fix anyhow!)  It would also make it harder to form a nonprofit front group (but would be much less entertaining, reading the “program purpose” statements, for example, establishing world peace, eliminating violence and prejudice against everybody or — in the case of California Healthy Marriages Coalition — targeting all fertile & infertile people in the state from the age of 15 up for marriage education and teaching them probably something along the lines of how to assemble in stadiums at public expense and call upon Jesus to solve the financial crises of the rest of the country, and or course absolve them for any participation in the problem)

(just kidding…. sort of….)

National Center for Charitable Statistics

Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  680450141 Child Support Directors Association CA 2002 06 1,070,614 1,362,005 990

FY2010 990 shows 12 voting directors and David Oppenheim as the principal officer.  A nice general purpose to this nonprofit:

TO SUPPORT LOCAL CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS IN THEIR MISSION TO PROVIDE FOR THE FINANICIAL AND MEDICAL SUPPORT OF CHILDREN.”  And in the section where people normally actually describe services provided, and the expenses, and if any grants were involved (i.e., page 2), this organization simply states:

PROMOTED AND SUPPORTED THE COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT AGENCIES IN THEIR EFFORTS TO PROVIDE FOR THE ECONOMIC WELL-BEING OF THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SERVED BY CALIFORNIA’S CHILD SUPPORT PROGRAM

Only 2 of the 12 directors are paid, Mr. Oppenheim, ED, about $130K, and Natalie Dillon, Deputy Director, $100K.  (plus hefty benefits packages).

ILIANA RODRIGUEZ PRESIDENT, SHARON A. STONE VICE PRESIDENT, STEVE ELDRED SECRETARY

RALPH MILLER TREASURER, and members CONNIE BRUNN, STEVEN GOLIGHTLY, ADELE HENDRICKSON, DAVID INGERSOLL, TERRI LOVE, PHIL LOWE, KATHIE SOKOLIK, DEBBIE FRAHM,

Always look up the addresses; it’s informative:

925 L Street
Suite 1402
Sacramento, CA 95814
USA

Apparently a very nice address.  THis is important, because collecting Billions for California’s Children can be very stressful….

925 L Street

925 L Street is located in the center of downtown Sacramento, directly across from the State Capitol.

The building is one block from the Light Rail station and Tenants enjoy close proximity to numerous restaurants, banks, hotels, parks, the K-Street Mall and Downtown Plaza. Offering sweeping views of the State Capitol and downtown Sacramento, 925 L Street puts you in the center of everything.

925 L Street’s lobby features cast bronze door handles, European Afyon marble walls, and unique wood finishes. The building was refurbished in 1997 and common areas are continually updated on a rotating basis. There is a state-of-the-art security system with an on-site officer and day porter. Direct cable television and audio links are available to the State Capitol building. A pedestrian bridge connects the building to a 7-story parking garage next door.

The state of the art security I’m sure would be important in such a volatile field as child support, which can produce irate noncustodial parents.  However, probably most of them don’t even know about this association anyhow….. nor do many of the custodial ones, I imagine…..


Hmm– this says that Suite 1402 (1,821 square feet) is immediately available (?) — here’s the floor plan:


It shares its [evidently 4-office] address “Suite 1402” in Sacramento — with Barger & Wolen, LLP, a mid-sized law firm that holds 3 (other) offices in California, and New York and London

And a “Meeting Professionals International” group who has an Event Planner of this Child Support Directors” Association on its board of Directors:

President-Elect
Lisa L. Bispham, CMP
Event Coordinator
Child Support Directors Association
925 L Street, Suite 1402
Sacramento, CA 9581

ALONG the lines of this CSDA group being for sure a “Business Promotion” type of nonprofit (the business, however, simply being supported by the Federal Government) — here’s a 2011 NCSEA (the National Child Support Enforcement Association) in January, with Executive Deputy Natalie Dillon presenting alongside known fatherhood promoters Michael Hayes, Ron Haskins, and in general talking about Child Support Payors as if this did not include mothers, still, despite about 15 years of zealous fatherhood promotion, resulting in sometimes sole custody to fathers and Moms on supervised visitation paying child support.

National Child Support Enforcement Association 2011 Policy Forum & Training Conference

DETAILED SCHEDULE  (Presenters confirmed as of January 20, 2011)

ACF Initiatives and the Evolving Mission of Child Support Kick off the conference with an engaging description of the federal vision of the child support program over the next year. The conference opens as Acting Assistant Secretary of ACF, David Hansell, shares plans for initiatives and administration priorities in the coming year. OCSE Commissioner Vicki Turetsky will describe the vision of OCSE as it relates to the larger ACF goals. NCSEA President Kim Newsom Bridges will share NCSEA’s role in implementing strategies to achieve IV-D goals. Presenters: David Hansell, Vicki Turetsky, Kim Newsom Bridges, Kelly Peiper

Who is David Hansell?   For more detail, check (at any given year), your local Fathers and Families Coalition annual conference — here’s 2011

Acting Assistant Secretary David Hansell Speaks at FFCA’s 12th Annual National Fatherhood and Families Conference

Fathers & Families Coalition of America Board of Director Member Rev. Terry Weston – Acting Assistant Secretary Department of Health & Human Services/Administration of Children and Families Honorable David Hansell – Mr. James Rodriguez, MSW, PhD Candidate CEO and President Fathers & Families Coalition of America – Dr. Nathan O’Neal Fathers & Families Coalition of America Board of Director Member.

In short, he is carrying on in the tradition of Wade Horn, who helped found the original National Fatherhood Initiative by using his position at HHS in channeling grants to it from HHS.  As late as 2006, Wade Horn is also found highly involved in Child Support, along with Ms. Turetsky, who has continued to carry the torch…. (Scroll down to the LAST page of this pdf, bottom right — Wade Horn was at this time Assistant Secretary for ACF; this 2006 Child Support Report also has a nice detail on some Special Improvement Projects and SEction 1115 grants waivers to help — families, of course, who else?), including at least two to help quickly reduce child support payments, for example, if the parent (Dad, presumably) is in jail:

Section 1115 Grants

Two 2-year projects are designed to reduce the number of cases in which large child support arrearages accumulate by quickly reviewing and adjusting child support orders when the circumstances of a parent changes.

• Maryland—to establish a program for promptly reviewing and, if appropri- ate, modifying child support orders of incarcerated noncustodial parents.

• District of Columbia—to increase services to incarcerated parents by identifying and offering assistance to those with current support orders.

Meanwhile (same year), California NOW issued an official letter crying out against some of these practices and specifically naming Wade Horn.  I think it appropriate to quote here — and then we’ll go back to how, as of 2011, the Child Support Agency and ACF leadership could give a damn:

California Member of Congress, 8/02/06

California National Organization for Women (CA NOW) is respectfully requesting that you join the call for a federal investigation, by the U.S. Government Reform Committee, into the operations of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administration of Children and Families’ Access/Visitation and “Responsible Fatherhood” programs, including those operating in California.

CA NOW believes that these fatherhood programs misuse funds, do not account for their spending nor evaluation of their programming, and encourage illegal court practices that result in harm to women’s safety and well-being. We believe that fathers’ child support arrears are frequently abated by these groups, {{have I proved that point yet?}} in violation of the Bradley amendment. We also believe that Wade Horn, Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration of Children and Families, has a conflict of interest serving in this capacity, and operates from a dangerous political ideology that actively favors fathers’ rights and seeks to minimize mothers’.

CA NOW believes an investigation would expose serious system failure and fraud in these fatherhood programs. They are funded with federal money intended for resolving parental disputes, but instead give legal representation to fathers, {{have we proved that point frequently enough, yet?}} which often results in high conflict litigation against perfectly fit mothers. CA NOW believes many fathers {{NOT “all”}} use these resources in order to avoid paying child support, and that many batterers do so in order to continue to abuse and manipulate their spouses and children through financially draining and emotionally devastating litigation, that often stretches on for years and years.  {{case in point, yours truly, and it’s a fairly typical case, also!}}

I just noticed that California NOW listed its headquarters as

926 J Street, Suite 424 — so perhaps they coulda, shoulda, walked over to 925 L street, Suite 1402 and had a conversation….

BACK TO CSDA EXEC. DIRECTOR NATALIE DILLON’s JAN. 2011 CONFERENCE ACTIVITY (AND ASSOCIATES):

10:00 AM – 10:30 AM – BREAK

10:30 AM – 12:00 PM PLENARY II Fragile Fathers: Their Behavior and Engagement with their Children Leaders from both the left and the right have derided unmarried men for failing to “take responsibility” for their progeny. New survey evidence shows that 8 in 10 unmarried fathers are still together with the mother when the baby is born, and nearly all intend to remain involved with their child. Come to find out why five years later only about half of these men are still seeing their children every week. Presenters: Cynthia Osborne, Natalie Dillon

More theory, here:

:30 PM – 3:00 PM PLENARY III From Rags to “Riches”– Turning Unemployed NCPs into Consistent Payors A noncustodial parent with a steady, decent paying job is a noncustodial parent who pays their child support obligation. ** There have been multiple attempts to develop programs to put poor NCPs to work. The early efforts had tepid results*** and many child support and labor/workforce administrators questioned whether it was possible to implement a cost-effective program that successfully increased child support payment and employment outcomes for NCPs.

**YEP, like Congressman Joe Walsh (arrears, $117K, salary $175K, but a persistent wife finally caught up with him, the federal government, who employed him, apparently didn’t…)  or Nicholas Soppa (was spending weekends in jail after running up an arrears while being paid — by the OCSE! as I recall! — to head up “Project Save Our Children.”   Apparently when it’s POOR fathers, then the Pygmalion Complex people come out of the woodwork.

***Tepid results may indicate that some analysis might have been off about WHY noncustodial parents as a whole are not paying?

And they haven’t figured out which percentage of men literally withhold payments in order to punish their ex for leaving them — or on general principles.  Or because wife/girlfriend #2 is jealous and doesn’t want it affecting THEIR relationships ,or crimping the lifestyle…

(One can see why the general public is not invited to these conferences — we’d been in the audience making catcalls and asking difficult questions….) . . . 

Today there is a new generation of NCP employment programs that have been quietly producing results, big results in fact, for child support and workforce outcomes. Find out how it works, who it takes to make it work, and why it’s worth it. Panelists will discuss the rationale for an expanded approach to child support that includes a well designed and carefully measured employment program for low-income obligors as an allowable child support enforcement strategy. Presenters: Ron Haskins, Vicki Turetsky, Gerri Fiala, Michael Hayes, Reagan Miller

(For “Michael Hayes,” just type the name into the search field of my blog — or of “randijames.com”‘s blog.  Self-explanatory…)

Nothing like a “new generation of NCP employment programs” introduced by the OLDER generation of fatherhood practitioners, such as Ron Haskins — this Brookings Bio here doesn’t acknowledge his membership as Family Law Advisory to the CRC (Children’s Rights Council) — was in this position when he drafted the Access Visitation law?  Because CRC is the “Access Visitation” provider, at least a main one….)

 

(NEXT SECTION IS RON HASKINS INFO, PRIMARILY):

 

Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

“A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty—he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

(I just wanted to confirm he was indeed instrumental in PRWORA reform…snuck it in at the last minute, without running it by his colleagues even.   Liz Richards also related that he was a batterer, and one daughter, now adult then about 13, wrote an intelligent letter to a judge pleading with the judge NOT to give her younger siblings to this man.  However, that’s hearsay; but it would make sense with the manner in which welfare reform HAS been overhauled, as to father-access no matter what, including even from prison).

Ron Haskins is a senior fellow in the Economic Studies Program and co-director of the Center on Children and Families at the Brookings Institution and senior consultant at the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore. From February to December of 2002 he was the Senior Advisor to the President for Welfare Policy at the White House.”
Prior to joining Brookings and Casey, he spent 14 years on the staff of the House Ways and Means Human Resources Subcommittee,** first as welfare counsel to the Republican staff, then as the subcommittee’s staff director. From 1981-1985, he was a senior researcher at the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.**

Another House Ways and Means subcommittee is “Appropriations.”  They decide to actually enact legislated grants (etc.) by funding.  For example, if you want to go beg for more fatherhood funding, whatever the economic climate, that Appropriatens Committee is a good place to start.  David Hansell put HIS testimony in for that Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood Bill right alongside several of us noncustodial mothers who said, “enough is enough!  STOP! — until we have some proof these programs are actually helping, and are responsibly administered!”  So Mr. Haskins staff position here is significant.

**I found a real old document by Mr. Haskins from his North Carolina days.  First, browse a resume, showing the historic sequence of positions he’s held..  From 1978 – 1985 (when CRC was formed incidentally) he was Associate Director of the “Bush Institute for Child and Family Policy” at the “Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.”  Yes, Mr. Haskins has always loved children…

Among earlier publications:

Parent education and public policy : a conference report by Ron Haskins( Book )
2 editions published in 1981 in English and held by 45 libraries worldwide
1 edition published in 1983 in English and held by 5 libraries worldwide
He also taught and lectured on history and education at UNC, Charlotte and developmental psychology at Duke University.  Haskins was the editor of the 1996, 1998, and 2000 editions of the Green Book, a 1600-page compendium of the nation’s social programs published by the House Ways and Means Committee that analyzes domestic policy issues including health care, poverty, and unemployment.

Ron Haskins in CRC Family Law Advisory Capacity, from CRC website:

“Preventing Child Abuse in an Age of Budget Deficits,” a Brookings event featuring moderator Ron Haskins, a member of CRC’s Family Advisory Board.  Held at The Brookings Institution, July 20, 2010. 
Audio and video of the event are available here on Brookings’ site. Some reaction from CRC staff and interns to the spirited debate and dialogue at Brookings:
as it says, they need plenty of studies, because as a Rev. said, “People need to keep pushing even if we do not have evidence-based findings but we know it in our gut that’s it’s working,” he said. “But people writing checks won’t continue to write checks without the studies.
The religious version of this could be phrased “Take it on Faith — and pass the collection plate.”  In chapter 10 of a book put out by The Urban Institute Press a collection of smart scholars (all of who probably royalties, if not professorships and real steady jobs) continue to ask scholarly questions about what to do with poor, undereducated black men.  Here’s Ron Haskins’ take on it, which apparently hasn’t changed much over the years:  I gave the introductory paragraphs from Wendell Primus, characterized (i don’t know him) as the partner “across the aisle” in these themes:

Over the past two decades, Wendell Primus and Ron Haskins have observed and shaped income security policy, as key staff to House and Senate committees of jurisdiction on both sides of the aisle. Their discussions of policy options in chapters 9 and 10 build upon federal and state policymakers’ increasing interest in the role of both parents in reducing child poverty.

In chapter 9, “Improving Public Policies to Increase the Income and Employment of Low-Income Nonresident Fathers,” Primus culls lessons from welfare reform to propose incentives (operating principally through the child support enforcement system) that might help increase the employment of less-educated young men. First, he describes how onerous child support enforcement has become for low-income noncustodial parents, most of whom are fathers. Child support orders can push low-earning noncustodial parents far below the poverty level, especially if they have unstable employment. Many low-income fathers do not pay child support regularly because they are poor. Many accumulate large arrearages, which deter them from seeking stable employment, encourage them to move into underground economies, or limit their employment to jobs that pay cash. They may also be subject to license suspension and incarceration, which sever ties with their families.

Primus proposes a new vision for child support enforcement that corresponds with the transition of child support from a mechanism for cost recovery to a potential source of income for poor families.

Actually, I’d be more interested in REAL sources of income for poor families. Are these men aware of how much UDC is hanging around collecting interest, from state to state?  LIke an average of over $2 million per state — but of course, no one knows for sure….  Perhaps they should go find some of that and get it distributed, then set up procedures to eliminate that accumulation of large pools of untracked monies in the control of agencies that have the authority to go get some more, across a multitude of invasive ways….

He argues for supplementing standard enforcement activities with services for low-income noncustodial parents who cannot pay child support regularly. All child support payments would be passed through to children in custodial families, and the government would supplement the child support payments of low-income noncustodial parents.

Government (i.e., the public) will supplement child support payments, the purpose of which is indeed to reduce reliance on government.  This makes sense HOW? You can’t play it both sides — OCSE is to reimburse welfare, which was Ron Haskins’ original idea — no more welfare Moms, get ’em back to work — and then, in the same breath — increase welfare by supplementing child support payments…

In chapter 10, “Poor Fathers and Public Policy: What Is to Be Done?,” Ron Haskins argues that low marriage rates and higher child poverty rates are among the most important consequences of the poor labor market outcomes of less-educated men. He suggests that the adverse effects of paternal absence on child development and the dismal performance of less-educated black men require “substantial and long-term solutions.

And who better to analyze, propose, and evaluate them than this divorced? aggressive man whose daughter didn’t want her younger siblings to live with him.  Are we working out something personal here, perhaps?   ….?? As with others of the same theme (Ronald Mincy, Ph.D., President Obama….) desiring to reinvent government and fix the world to compensate?

Haskins comments that congressional interest in disadvantaged men is no longer confined to the difficulty with collection of child support payments from them. Instead, consistent with congressional interest in rebuilding the traditional family in America, there is now more legislative support for helping disadvantaged men marry and become responsible fathers.

Haskins lists many policies that could be reformed to ameliorate some of these problems, especially policies intended to increase marriage and fathers’ financial and emotional contributions to children

. . . .
And, ever revealing that at heart he’s a “Bush” type of guy:  This appears to have been published about 2002, i.e., many years after his work as Associate Director of the institute named after Bush in North Carolina:
Perhaps Haskins’ most extensive recommendations arise in relation to welfare and child support. First, he suggests that state and federal income security programs should be reviewed to identify barriers to serving fathers and married couples, …
Any particular reason for continuing to exclude mothers?
especially in welfare-to-work programs. Second, while not mentioning subsidies for child support payments, {{his partner Wendell Primus already did that…}} he echoes Primus’ recommendations about passing all child support through to custodial mothers {{Anyone going to stand around and actually make sure that happens??}} and offering job services to fathers who are unable to meet their child support obligations. Third, he endorses the Bush administration’s proposal for healthy marriage demonstration programs, through marriage education and relationship skills as well as programs that attempt to reduce barriers to marriage.
Why shouldn’t he?  These are definitely money-making activities for those who run them, with low overhead and infinite marketing possibilities through both welfare and the courts.
While I’m on that Urban Institute Press book review site, let me point out that the Hillard Pouncy (Chapter 11, I guess) is also a presenter at the current CSDA conference I have been talking about.  Birds of a feather flock together..

In “Toward a Fruitful Policy Discourse about Less-Educated Young Men,” Hillard Pouncy points out the current obstacles to initiatives that would assist less-educated young black men. Opposition comes from advocates for low-income women, {{smile….}}  who believe that limited discretionary spending should be reserved to move former welfare recipients out of working poverty. Opposition also comes from some conservatives who use the results {{a.k.a. failures…}} of previous employment programs to argue that less-educated young black men face so many barriers that further investments in their education and training would be unwise.

Incidentally, the book is by Ronald Mincy:  “Black Males Left Behind, edited by Ronald B. Mincy, is available from the Urban Institute Press (paper, 6″ x 9″, 344 pages, ISBN 978-0-87766-727-8, $29.50).

 

While I’m on the theme of Religion mixed with Government, and Ron’s CRC connection, here’s the new head of CRC, an Episcopal priest.  Somehow that’s less than assuring to me.  The bio/blurb also explains CRC’s role in providing exchange centers for children, and the behavioral health interest:

 

Rev. E. F. Michael Morgan, Ph. D.

President of the Board of Trustees E. F. Michael Morgan
The Rev. E. F. Michael Morgan, Ph. D. was elected President of the Board of Trustees of the Children’s Rights Council on November 1, 2010.
~ ~
He has been affiliated with the work of CRC for nearly a decade; and was presented the CRC Community Service Award in 2006.
~ ~
Dr. Morgan was instrumental in establishing the first “Safe Haven” Child Transfer Center/ Access Visitation program in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania at St. John’s Episcopal Church, Lower Merion, PA working alongside the Children’s School jointly sponsored by Saint John’s Church and Saint Joseph’s University, Philadelphia, PA.
Dr. Morgan also served as a Behavioral Therapist at the Child Guidance Resource Center, Havertown, PA in 2007 providing mental health services to autistic children using “clinical wrap-around” treatment modalities. He functioned as a mobile therapist visiting homes, schools, and community agencies.
~ ~ ~
As a Court Appointed Special Advocate – Guardian ad Litem in Athens, OH from 2000-2003 Dr. Morgan held a judicial appointment responsible for conducting court assigned investigations of child neglect, abuse, and parental abandonment. He recommended custodial placements, educational programs, and treatment plans. He also provided sworn testimony as a witness in Probate and Domestic Relations court hearings.

~ ~ ~

In other words, he was VERY activist in the family law arena:

Dr. Morgan is currently serving as Priest-in-Charge of Grace Episcopal Church, Hulmeville, Pennsylvania.  He previously served churches near Philadelphia and Boston, and was rector for 23 years at the Church of the Good Shepherd, Athens, Ohio, a university-parish on the campus of Ohio University. He was a 2001 Merrill Fellow at Harvard University, and his Ph.D. is in Communication Studies.

Doesn’t he kinda look like Ron Haskins (at least as to age, complexion and hair….)?

 

MORE Plenary Session from the 2011 NCSEA conference shows an interest in promoting Title IV-D to, well, reduce Title IV-A (allegedly).  Similar cast of characters.

 

3:30 PM – 5:00 PM – PLENARY IV

Child Support Enforcement: It’s the Government Program That Works, and We Can Prove It!**

No you can’t!  See my next to last post, and I’m quoting an HHS-based audit, and a USGAO report in affirming this.  Sounds a little defensive.  Unless the definition of “works” is a little bit of an alternate version…

The child support enforcement program is not immune to the impact of budget pressures, but it is widely recognized as a highly cost-effective program with national bi-partisan support.

Catch the logic on this one, and the order of priorities:  State Coffers FIRST, families SECOND:

It returns money to state coffers, it keeps families off of costly subsidy programs,** it enjoys support from employers,

Do employers actually have a choice in reporting their “new hires” for wage garnishment potential?

it gets reliable income and health insurance coverage to families, and it demonstrably brings in more money than it costs.

You mean it brings in more than the $4 billion a year it costs – but where does that $4 billion GO, and what about hidden impacts, such as actually putting more people ON the welfare roles, if nothing else by increasing custody litigation?  And highly stressing them because, in essence, it externalizes the family court process to an administrative agency with visions of expansions, redefinitions of its purpose (i.e., emotional support) and a clear gender bias, despite the fact that it’s more and more Moms paying child support….including sometimes to their former batterers or their kids’ molesters….

National experts will discuss the unique program features that drive the demonstrated successful outcomes of the program, and IV-D will present their strategies for educating state elected officials and media about how the program works, how it is financed, and how it helps state budgets by keeping families self-supporting. As new governors and state cabinet officials take office and new Congressional leadership comes to Washington, it’s a good time to review the many documented successes of our program.

i.e., salesmanship.  REMEMBER, the stated classification of the California CSDA at least, is “PROMOTION OF BUSINESS.”  (the CHILD SUPPORT business, that is….)

Presenters: Kim Newsom Bridges, Ron Haskins, Deborah Weinstein, Jan Sturla, Alicia Key

 

Kim Newsom Bridges is NCSEA, Ron Haskins (see above), Deborah Weinstein (Maybe another time), Alicia Key I recognize the name and here is Jan Sturla from “Total Capital” site.

Dec. 17, 2009: Sturla was confirmed by the state Senate as director of Department of Child Support Services.http://www.childsup.ca.gov/

Nov. 21, 2008: Sturla was appointed by by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as director of Department of Child Support Services.
Statement from Gov. Schwarzenegger’s office: Sturla, 62, of San Clemente, earned a Juris Doctorate degree and graduated cum laude from Pepperdine University School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree in economics from California State University, Fullerton. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $142,965. Sturla is a Republican and will take office on January 1, 2009.

1999-2008: Sturla served as director for the Orange County Department of Child Support Services.
1992-1999: Sturla worked for the Orange County District Attorney’s Office.

Source: http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/11125/   Here’s another News Release (2008) on the appointment of Mr. Sturla and another woman to head up DCSS.

A blog called “Child support musings” (came up on searching Sturla) notes that she (presumably) was given the run-around, couldn’t reach Sturla’s office and couldn’t get a hold of her own file.  Sounds familiar.  On the same blog, here is a 2007 record (though from NY) of a deadbeat Judge, father of 3.   While earning $136,000/year as a judge, he ran up $250K of arrears, and finally got booted off the bench from it, spending four months in jail.  His wife, tired of this, settled for $30K.  But — when he was on the bench, was he paying?  What’s up with that?   Also, re: Orange County, CA:

I was told today by the ombudsman unit at Orange County Child Support Service that they regularly review non custodial parents who are in arrears for bank accounts. I seriously doubt this, but that’s what was said. They also said they submit each month to the DMV and the DMV sends out a letter that gives the “deadbeat” a 6 month deadline to get it situated with child support before licenses are suspended.

6 months leeway – interesting.  {Reminds me of the 180-day allowance for holding onto income tax refund intercepts}
Here’s another very sensible musing (date 2007) from the same person — showing that we KNOW the state pockets a lot of this money, and also likes to delay addressing late payments for 30 days (accruing interest) — she has a few very sensible recommendations which are totally contrary to the “promotion of Business” purpose of the nonprofit above, comprised of child support directors throughout California.  Check it out!
Because so little of the support money actually goes to children, the system discourages fathers from paying child support. And because it turns out to be better financially for their kids, many of these fathers work in the underground economy and slip money under the table to the mothers of their children. Because they get so little of the support payments, the mothers — and the majority of custodial parents are mothers — have little incentive to help the government find absent fathers or establish paternity.
 
And here’s her record of an attempt to get through to Jan Sturla, and a copy of her file, which she’s told she can’t have:

Jan Sturla

 

 

 

 

 

(etc.).

 

Apparently the Child Support Directors NONPROFIT organizations are very  much aware the effectiveness of their programs (gut instinct or no gut instinct) is being challenged, so they are conferencing to come up with some actual evidence, something that must feel a little odd for any very large governmental institution.  Perhaps (in 2001) that’s why a need to form a NONPROFIT was felt…

10:30 AM – 12:00 PM

PLENARY VI

A Different Set of Evidentiary Rules: A Research Driven Approach to Child Support Program Innovation Child support programs consistently face the dilemma of whether they can afford to implement new strategies because it “seems” like they should work, or whether they should continue to use the same strategies because “if it’s not broke, why fix it?” This dilemma can only be solved with more evidence and evaluation of both current and innovative practices. ACF will set the stage on the Administration’s focus on evidence based practice. State IV-D directors with their university partners will highlight how they use— and how they collaborate with researchers to obtain evidence to improve child support operations. The discussion will consider how evaluation of current and innovative strategies, as well as evidence-based practices, can affect change throughout the child support agency and community and ultimately better serve families and children. Presenters: Martha Coven, Carolyn Heinrich, Elaine Sorensen, Susan Pfeiffer, Lee Sapienza

 

That’s cute:  Current and Innovative ” strategies, “as well as evidence-based”

And outreach to NCP’s (makes sense, as program funds to get them into training has federal support):

From the 2011 (upcoming, Sacramento) conference:

Fatherhood Programs (p. 15 of brochure)

Local child support agencies (LCSAs) continue to reach out to noncustodial fathers through various fatherhood programs. This workshop will focus on the process of working  with fatherhood groups, share successes, and emphasize the importance of educating noncustodial fathers who have child support obligations. We will also hear from counties currently in partnership with fathers’ groups.

and as part and parcel of that, is COAP:

How to Process COAP Adjustments in CSE

Qualifying for COAP is difficult enough, but once a COAP agreement is executed, how do you adjust the accounts in CSE? This interactive workshop will take you step-by-step through this process, including the COAP Tracker. LCSA and State developers of this collaborative project will be available to answer both general and technical questions about COAP.

COAP = COMPROMISE OF ARREARS PROGRAMS; and it comes in more than one flavor.  Should be a separate post, but has been ongoing for many years obviously — you’d think that the child support levels might be made more reasonable so COAPs weren’t necessary, throwing off a custodial parents’ budgeting plan.  Besides which, CUSTODIAL PARENTS AREN”T TOLD ABOUT THIS, or NOTICED WHEN THEY HAPPEN!  (I sure wasn’t!)

 

Well let me show some of the conference contents here, and how the plan to put more people on Title IV-D is a real plan:

 

Page 18:  Outreach to Non-IV-D Customers:

How can we attract customers with private child support orders to expand our customer base? Will these new customers help or hinder the goal of increasing our federal performance measures? Are you ready for the customer service demands of these customers? Do you understand the restrictions on expenditures for Outreach? Discover what you have to do to attract and retain new customers.

 

My post “let’s boycott child support” was inspired by one of the very public outreach efforts in my area.   Child Support orders that were actually between the parents and a judge — and not a result of someone being on welfare– cuts too many players out of the loop, it eliminates some serious middle men.  There is no 66/34% split, to my knowledge when Title IV is not involved.  After all, the purpose of the entire OCSE department hinges on eliminating “welfare as we know it.”  (Silly us, we thought that meant eliminating a NEED for welfare, when actually the emphasis on “as we know it” was the more relevant part of the phrase.  Here’s a nonprofit Child Support Director’s Agency seeking to expand its customer base!

 

And a little more fatherhood promotion — too bad they don’t see fit to help the MOTHERS who are actually caring for the kids with this type of service!

 

Asset Building for Noncustodial Fathers in the Child Support System

The federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) recently launched an initiative together with the Office of Community Services (OCS) to promote financial education and asset accumulation among fathers in the child support system. Building Assets for Fathers and Families will help fatherhood programs and child support agencies connect to Assets for Independence (AFI) projects in their areas. AFI projects help low-income people save earned income in special savings accounts that match every dollar deposited by a participant with an average of $2 – $3 in government contributions. Savings can be used to buy a first home, finance a small business, or pay for post-secondary education. All AFI Projects offer education on issues such as credit repair, debt management, personal budgeting, tax preparation, and other financial issues.

Come to this session to hear from AFI, fatherhood, and child support program managers about how AFI can help fathers—both custodial and noncustodial—strengthen their economic standing, and about how fatherhood programs across the country can become involved in this initiative.

 

I rest my case that the OCSE is actually a Fatherhood Agency, any more.

But in case you are still not convinced; here are the Keynote Speakers in order:

1.  Ms. Turetsky

2.  Dr. Earl Johnson

Earl Johnson

Dr. Earl Johnson is the Director of the Federal Office of Family Assistance, the agency with administrative oversight for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Prior to his current position, Dr. Johnson was senior Policy Advisor to Oakland, California Mayor Ron Dellums, where he was responsible for helping set policy and program goals for the city in the areas of workforce, health and urban affairs. He also worked with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships on fatherhood initiatives.

Before serving in Oakland he had significant state and non-profit sector experience, having served as Associate Secretary for Planning and Evaluation in the California Health and Human Services Agency, (HHS….)

3.      James Rodriguez

Mr. James Rodriguez currently serves as CEO/ President of Fathers & Families Coalition of America, Inc., (FFCA) a premiere professional development and membership non-profit, providing services throughout Arizona since 1994 and nationally since 1999. Mr. Rodriguez spearheads the day-to- day operations in the support of national capacity building services for health & human services providers for fragile families.

The phrase “fragile families” refers to a study, and generally indications foundation support, in addition to government.

Under his direction, FFCA has collaborated to serve at-risk young fathers, welfare-to-work participants, at-risk youth, incarcerated parents, re-entry programs, best practices program development and other special programs statewide and nationally.

If all this firepower were truly helping fathers so much, how come one in Ohio filed a class action suit to get back finance he overpaid, yet the computer didn’t reflect the credit, but a zero balance?

After a few more keynote speakers, here’s

6.       Dr. Hillard Pouncy

(the “Center for Research on Fathers, Children, and Family Well-being” Connection out of Columbia.  CRFCFW (say that three times fast and notice the initial “M” is absent) is run by Dr. Ronald Mincy — whose book Dr. Pouncy had a chapter on, and it says here he also consults for them.  Blurb as follows:

Hillard Pouncy

Hillard Pouncy has been a lecturer at Princeton University’s School of Public and International Affairs for the past 10 years, teaching on race, poverty and public policy. He has written dozens of articles ranging from studies of the African colonial past, present-day American politics and the future of the American family.

Currently he consults with the Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being at Columbia University’s School of Social Work on an evaluation of a Baltimore, MD fatherhood program and how well it helps ‘underground’ fathers navigate governmental systems.

Previously Dr. Pouncy directed two Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) projects looking at (1) how well three federal family policy efforts meshed with each other and (2) how federal policies might even out child support enforcement outcomes for minority and non-minority families.

He is co-author of a book in progress, “Strengthening Fragile Families: Reforming Income Security Policy for Modern American Childhood Poverty” with Ronald Mincy, Columbia University. The book advocates a strategy for addressing the needs of poor and disadvantaged children based on new data from the Survey of Fragile Families at Princeton University.

He has also been Principal Investigator on projects with the following organizations: the Ford Foundation; the Mott Foundation; the Academy for Educational Development; Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies; National Center on Fathers and Families and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

He has taught at Swarthmore College, PA and Brandeis University, Waltham, MA.

Dr. Pouncy holds a Ph.D. in Political Science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, (MIT!) Cambridge, MA and an MA in Journalism from Columbia University’s School of Journalism.

 

NCOFF - National Center on Fathers and Families

The National Center on Fathers and Families (NCOFF) is an interdisciplinary policy research center dedicated to research and practice that expands the knowledge base on father involvement and family development, and informs policy designed to improve the well-being of children.

And if we probe JUST a little bit further, we find out it’s (yet another) “institute” housed at a University, paid for by one wealthy (conservative) foundation, Annie E. Casey. . ..

About

The National Center on Fathers and Families (NCOFF) was established in 1994 at the Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania with core support from the Annie E. Casey Foundation. An interdisciplinary policy research center, NCOFF is dedicated to research and practice that expands the knowledge base on father involvement and family development, and that informs policy designed to improve the well-being of children.

Developed in the spirit of the Philadelphia Children’s Network’s (PCN) motto, Help the children. Fix the system., NCOFF seeks to increase and enrich the possibilities for children, ensuring that they are helped and that the system allows for and encourages the positive participation of fathers in their children’s lives.

NCOFF’s primary goals are to:

  • Expand the knowledge base on father involvement, family efficacy, and child well-being within multiple disciplines through research and development, integrated discussion, and information building. ..
Poke around some more on the website, and they are of course promoting the Arizona-based, HHS-connected, Fathers and Families as well, who are presenting at this CHILD SUPPORT DIRECTORS ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA 9/2011 conference.

Guess who is funding the NCOFF that Dr. Pouncy has been Principal Investigator for, when not consulting for the Columbia group or speaking to audiences of child support professionals:

Funding for NCOFF has been provided by:

 

The reality of the matter is that foundations such as these are restructuring the workforce (and government), intentionally, and unapologetically.  Does Annie E. Casey Foundation have a “motherhood” component — when mothers are single parents?  Ford, Mott, Casey and Hewlett seem to have endless funds for propagating the term “fatherhood” — but what at one level I think it really is, is workforce development — making sure most people go for EMPLOYEE futures, and steer clear of the ways of making a living that some of these foundation’s originators, for example, managed to — and hence positioned themselves to help run the world — or at least the United States.  “Who pays the piper calls the tune.”

 

A bit more on Title IV-D from this conference brochure, funny wording:

Attorneys and their Impact on Performance

Created, regulated and measured by statute and regulation, the IV-D program experiences a constant challenge to balance its legal requirements with sound business practices.

On one hand, legal requirements — on the other hand, “sound business practices.”  There you have it!

 

This is entirely too much post (and soaked up most of my day, today) — I hope you learned some things; I certainly did.  For one, when the word “PARENT” comes out of the mouth of a child support professional, they really mean Fathers.  This also goes for the words “families” or “children.”  Outside of a man in the home, mothers are invisible except when a scapegoat is needed, apparently, or more kids to justify another “OUR CHILDREN, OUR INVESTMENT” policy.

 

There’s a lot more — relating to the nonprofit financials, but not for this post.

 

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 3, 2011 at 5:04 pm

March 8, 2009 Full Disclosure.net Interview with Richard Fine, explains the Dilemma of County Payments affecting Court Cases

with one comment

I keep wondering what ever happened to the Silva v. Garcetti lawsuit — was the money distributed? Did this case help precipitate somehow the stipulation that only statewide agencies could distribute child support (versus the local D.A.’s office)?

Hopefully Full Disclosure people will appreciate why Im posting this, and its relevance to what happens when an ADMINISTRATIVE agency (let alone one at the Federal Level) starts affecting Trial Court Cases.

  • District Attorneys are paid by the county.
  • Court Reporters (if court-provided) are paid by the county.
  • Child Support Enforcement Agencies are, of course, paid by the county.
  • Court-appointed GALs and Child Support ATTORNEYS (who may appear in custody-related hearings) are paid by the county.
  • Court-appointed mediators, to my understanding, are paid by the county.
  • County Supervisors/Commissioners are paid by the county.

(Anyone who wants to know who or what else a County pays for — can go look at its payroll records, and accounts which are public records, often on-line, or could be requested as a FOIA, a simple form letter to the given agency requesting  the information.  Often newspapers or investigators may do this — but anyone is allowed to, I believe).

The county has an incentive to increase its holdings and delay distributions by this fact: it’s an institution! Certain scenarios (when it comes to child support) INCREASE account holdings, and result in Federal Matching funds or rewards. Certain practices would indicate perpetuating certain grants streams (for example, increasing noncustodial parenting time after court-referred services coming under the A/V grants system).

And I didn’t even raise the issue of when County-employees actually form separate nonprofits in order to outsource — to their own nonprofits — the basic business of government.

The “Family Justice Center” model is such a sample, although I believe the Full Disclosure crowd is not involved with this at all. It seems to be my pet peeve, and a few other people’s….

But this Transcript of a Sunday Night I believe is helpful explanation of what’s at stake.

Above the section I quoted, also see comments (and some videos) by a Supervisor and others, “to the contrary” point of view.  I was searching “Silva v. Garcetti,” which brought up this section.  Highlights are mine, and I might add a paragraph within a person’s comment, for easier reading.

The source is an “AV Hi Desert Forum” under “Judges Lose LA County Payments.”

{BEGINQUOTE:}

Sunday, March 08, 2009

Attorney at Law

EXCERPTS FROM FULL DISCLOSURE NETWORK�
Interview With Leslie Dutton On March 3, 2009

LESLIE: You’ve been up against some formidable challenges. But none quite like the one that’s facing you today. Would you say that tomorrow’s (contempt fearing* before Judge David Yaffe) is — how would you compare that to all of the challenges you’ve had before this?

{{*”fearing” sounds like a Freudian slip?  Should be obviously, “hearing”}}

RICHARD FINE: Well, tomorrow’s hearing is interesting because the challenges that I’ve had before are basically challenges that we can say work with in a functioning system. And when I was getting all of this money back and so forth, I was dealing with a system that was functional. I mean, you have a case, you go into a court; it either gets settled, you win it or you lose it, and you’re dealing with a system that has integrity.

Tomorrow’s case, or the case that we have now, is dealing with a dysfunctional system because of the fact that this is now pure politics and retaliation.

We are dealing now with a judge who took money from the County of Los Angeles, who then made an order that I should pay money to the County of Los Angeles, holds me in contempt for refusing to answer questions about my personal assets to force me to pay that money, and now wants to send me to jail because I’m in contempt for not obeying his illegal order, which was illegal because he took illegal money from the County. We’re dealing with a dysfunctional system and a judge that is dealing with political retaliation. So we’re not dealing in a justice system anymore. We’re dealing with what some people would call a third-world country; we’re dealing with all the things that America condemns about other countries. That is what we have in this courtroom tomorrow. So I wouldn’t say that it’s really a comparison. We aren’t dealing in a system that this country was set up to operate.

LESLIE Tomorrow when you go into court, Judge Yaffe is going to make a — he’s going to give you a sentence; is that it? He’s already found you in contempt?

RICHARD FINE: Yes. He’s — he’s found me in contempt for refusing to answer questions from a commissioner about an illegal order that he has made. And he wants to sentence me to jail until I answer those questions. Now, I have gone to the Court of Appeal with what is known as a writ of habeas corpus, which means “bring in the body,” and I have asked the Court of Appeal to enter a stay stopping Judge Yaffee from doing anything. I haven’t heard yet, as of [to]day, whether they’ve entered that stay or not. If they enter the stay, Judge Yaffee is dead in his tracks. If they don’t enter the stay, then I’ll go into the California Supreme Court, and if the California Supreme Court doesn’t enter the stay, then I’ll go into the United States District Court. Sooner or later, I will win. Whether I win before he sends me to jail, I don’t know. But that — that is what we are dealing with.

{{LGH COMMENTARY:

Richard Fine shows here he’s determined to have a return to the Functional Justice system — and the matter at hand is conflict of interest.  Notice, his willingness to go to jail for it.   He did indeed get sent to jail, but IDEALLY for the rest of us that may or may not have that amount of guts and commitment, nor can we ask others to go to jail for standing up to governmental “dysfunction” (in the form of bribes) – – I’m hoping there is another way, which would include educating enough people on what is and what is NOT a literal bribe, and how to smoke them out FIRST — and THEN go about one’s court litigation.    It’s not enough to be bothered or upset; one has to have the data on what happened, what should&#