Let's Get Honest! Blog

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

Archive for the ‘After She Speaks Up – Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats’ Category

Technical Assistance and Training = Silencing Mothers’ Voices, Taking their Money…

leave a comment »

[post is about 11,000 words long.
I am showing many TA&T [Technical Assistance and Training] programs and their relationships, although my interest in Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) stems from their recent collaborations with (instead of confrontation of) “AFCC” and drawing upon public funding (HHS grants) to do their analyses.  It’s pretty obvious that the organizations writing up the projects/situation/subject matter are not going to BE the subject matter — and if so, it will be self-description.
My takeaway is, the better way to describe “the situation” is corporate economic viewpoint.   I use corporate lookups, tax return lookups, sometimes grants lookups to describe (and compare to) any organization’s self-description on its colorful, hyperlinked, “Donate Here” websites.  
I also  try to remember which nonprofits have spun off earlier ones that made a name and got the grants.
In that regard, Technical Assistance =  Propaganda Promotion, even if the topic they are writing about is or was indeed legitimate; to dominate the field by the internet, conferences, training, federal funding, and nonprofit status — is to exclude the clientele’s voices as an equally relevant viewpoint.
It should be remembered that several of these organizations got their start in the 1980s, before (really) the Internet Revolution got underway.  However now that it is, business just got easier, and for individual victims of (for example) battering or abusive control — who are often fighting for sheer access to an internet (i.e., isolation is a factor in controlling others) — to expect to keep up with the rapid expansion of certain viewpoints (which are good for sales, if not necessarily good for actually stopping violence against women, or promoting responsible fatherhood EITHER) — is, well unreal.
The only way to even the playing field (being outnumbered and out financed, and less well organized) is to, I hope others also will, EXPOSE the circumstances, and then demand that certain programs be DEFUNDED (they are not reducing “roadkill” they are simply spawning more proselytes and building professional conferencer-careers) –and the organizations pay their own way through life.
When it comes to ECONOMIC control, the United States (obviously) has collective wealth beyond individuals — but I suggest addressing this issue sooner rather than later, anyhow.  TAKE A LOOK!  No matter where one digs in, similar behaviors will prevail; this is as good an entry point as any….]



This website has changed, and no longer openly lists certain projects that are underneath it (an older version may be on my blog)…  Which I seem to recall included groups like PRAXIS International:  “integrating theory & practice,” which like DAIP, had close ties to Ellen Pence (who actually was Praxis “founding director.”  Their home page still holds a eulogy, as Ellen Pence died recently:

Praxis believes in social change through advocacy & training “since 1996”.

  •  “Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

Like others, they endorsed the “SUPERVISED VISITATION & EXCHANGE” (USDOJ Safe-Havens grant series support):

 Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

Interesting year — startup year coincided with welfare reform…  Like OH SO MANY helpful nonprofit groups getting significant HHS and/or DOJ grants (although I DNR what Praxis got) — they are really “into” technical assistance and training” and quite willing to help grantees — from a safe distance from ongoing, shall we say, volatile, situations at the street level.  Maybe the founders had this experience initially but after all, people age out, and it’s safer to teach than to confront in a group setting — or dispense studies on-line.

Read the rest of this entry »

For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV Groups Basically Can’t (Won’t?) Stop [Terroristic Threats, Murder, Assault, Battery, Stalking, False Imprisonment, Harrassment– Child Molestation–or other Crimes]

with one comment


Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue.  Ditto with CPS.  But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest.  If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.


Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion:  these feminist law professors and women, in many respects,  have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth.   And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her.  And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow.   That’s My take on it.  So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal.  And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area).  However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us.  However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secureThe freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.”  It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop.  To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is.  As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT?  Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system  — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place.   Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now.  Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with.  But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

Thank you for your concern.

Marie De Santis, Director Women’s Justice Center Centro de Justicia para Mujeres

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise.  (See this blog.  See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re:  Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers”   Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise!  Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know.   The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county.  That alone should have caught our attention.  Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in.  It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants.  In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow.  And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.”  As the site says:

 We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#


to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS?  Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what?   Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

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

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see  from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.   

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above.  It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it.  However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do.  In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too.   Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status.  Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.”  And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too.  If our Navy was run this waywe’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration.  A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

APA American Psychological AssociationWDCA Board of Behavioral SciencesBRN Board of Registered Nursing     CATC Certified Addictions Treatment CounselorJudicial Council of California Administrative Office of the CourtsNAADAC Association for Addiction ProfessionalsNBCC National Board for Certified CounselorsNevada Attorney General

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

David B. Wexler , Ph.D., Diplomate IABMCP
Director, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy  (group registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719.  Usually it’s 9 or 12):

Name Taxpayer ID# Zip

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..”  It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

2010  751726710 International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother CO 1980 06 31,455 1,402 990

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly…  But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill.  The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves?  Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4)They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an exampleO’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today?   Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…  

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent  asks them to!

You might want to look at this article:

VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA.  WHY? I thought.  I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts.  Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming.   )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence

The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women.

If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.

Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF).  I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:
Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,


VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994.  By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention  areas of goverment.  While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse.  And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative:  even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous.  That’s not what they’re there for, apparently.  Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent.  Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser.  The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father.  There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept).  Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently.  It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too.  After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right?  How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court.  Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report.  I’d like to see that report.  Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged!  When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case.  The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.”  The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad.  The ransom process is simply this:  the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit.  That’s the plan.  That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing.  (“Computerized or Con-puterized?”  Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting.  One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held).   We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child supportin the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine).    Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party.  It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down.  (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too.  Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang.  Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept.  One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it.  The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life.  Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out.  The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session.  Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day.  While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours.  Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too.   This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial”  which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit.  However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert.  Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts.  It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the  bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know.  The ones I don’t, I’ll look up.  Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB:  I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference.  That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general.  You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?



  • We who?  (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

  • Working for whom?*

  • Define “working” — what’s the goal here?  (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer.  Act on those answers and you become a fool.  A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.  

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones.  Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant.  They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients.  Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes.  And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running.  We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material?  Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely?  How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser?  Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress.  It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case.  That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children.   (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women:  Here — serve some cookies,  greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister).  . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places.   Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field.  This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub.  It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years.  No one has done this much to date  because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

RE:  “IS What We’re Doing Working”

Here’s a short answer:   “ExcUUse me?   You  * #$!- ing (kidding) me, right?”

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster?  relatives?)  this week in California.  The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing



kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales:  However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage:  2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years.  Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.


Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference:  Him vs. Her — was 17 years.  We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable.  Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?).  Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking.  So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave?  Who knows?  Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what?  Where are the children going to live now?  Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case.  She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father.  The county wants its programs funded.  If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support.  This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation.    This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of.  Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day?  Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase:  “Clear and Present Danger.”  It has 3 usages.

1.  In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.”  If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2.  In Usage by AFCC,  “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3.  I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry.  It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.”  They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either.  I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court.  That’s crazy thinking.  It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more.  When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4.    Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.?   That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released.  The woman did everything right — almost.  She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.
I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze.  THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?
There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later.  For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.
Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards?  How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated.  It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached.  Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier.  If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?
But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.
Meanwhile:  We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.
I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of.   It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.
Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.
2012 PRESENTERS   Bios to be added shortly

Jennifer Collins

Carly Singer

Michael Bassett, J.D.

Carol Pennington

Liora Farkovitz

Lundy Bancroft- author

Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney

Joan Zorza  – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters

Kathleen Russell*

— *of Center for Judicial Excellence.  Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles.  Not a mother.

Connie Valentine  (CPPA)

Karen Anderson  (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.)

Phyllis Chesler  

(if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her)

Gabby Davis

Loretta Fredericks

Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present.  She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her.  Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding.   She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit?   Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa.  This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers.  They lend legitimacy where there is non.

Michele Jeker

Maralee Mclean

Angela Shelton

Wendy Murphy

Jennifer Hoult

Sandy Bromley

Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch)

Joshua Pampreen

Nancy Erickson

Karin Huffer

Jason Huffer

Crystal Huffer*

*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).

Holly Collins

Jennifer Collins

Zachary Collins

Garland Waller

**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.


Dara Carlin*

*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her.  Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?).  This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually.  She didn’t “Get” it.  Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.

Toby Kleinman

Linda Marie Sacks

(mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright.  Seriously!)

Rita Smith*  

(NCADV Leadership.  NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding.  It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)

Eileen King  (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear).

Mo Therese Hannah

(self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller.  I don’t recoqnize the other names).

Liliane Miller

Raquel Singh

Tammy Gagnon

Louise Monroe

Chrys Ballerano

Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake.  This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces.  We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).
Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up.  NOTE:  That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.
I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are.  Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

For Scrantonians — To Assert is Fine, but To Prove is Best. Study How Kentucky Got Its 70 Judicial Center Projects, 9 Court Programs (including 11 Divorce Ed. courses so far). You’re Next!

with 8 comments

This post sounds more state-specific than it is.  When pilot programs and model courts are being coordinated with help from outside the state to within any state, there’s little state-specific about the courts taking place these days.  Remember also the influence of federal funding, and the speed of change facilitated by our lovely internet technology (think, approximately 1980s becoming more popularly accessible — but governments (especially military, who of course need great communications and data processing), academia, and lawyers will generally be further ahead than most of the public).

Original Post Published 12/21/2011.  I had occasion to refer to it, and began updating 9/8/2015, in part because the Kentucky State Court had re-arranged its website, creating broken-link-syndrome.   On noticing they, too, unified the court system, and by “Judicial Article” in 1976 created an “AOC” with a Chief Justice (i.e., centralized operations), I immediately remembered the NYS Unified Court System and its “Public/private partnership” with the under-reported “Fund for the City of New York,” (first funded 1968) which was labeled at some point, possibly post-1993, the Center for Court Innovation.

The Center for Court Innovation being often mischaracterized in print, I decided it was time to talk about how the system is set for privatization, and of course, global alignment internationally.  This would be hard to achieve directly and get past most voters — but it’s already been arranged to do it INdirectly, under the lable just improving systems, and helping families, communities, and in the public interest.

Tax-exempt, tax (and privately) funded, and WHERE did your famous legal rights go??  Perhaps a better question to ask is where did the money go, which might help answer the former questions.

I added a substantial section (light-green background) to my 2011 commentary and word-battles (at a few points) with a now-defunct forum in Scranton, PA.  It will become a separate post soon, I hope.  If so, this one will be shortened, with a referral link.  Maybe.  (Catch it while you can…)



Righteous Indignation, Determination to do something, and a Healthy Sarcasm  — admirable, I love it.

Also one has to love anyone who can file enough Right To Knows, get information sufficient to file a CIVIL suit against a FAMILY court racket(eering set of individuals), have (I believe as a result of that and related) suit, the FBI come charging in to haul off evidence (for what purpose, remains to be seen)  and post it for all to see.  And keep posting.  Again, I came here from Kentucky — after I found some dude from this area (Dunmore, PA) getting his product marketed through the Kentucky Family Court System, which has a ridiculous number dof “Divorce Education” programs and one that clearly uses extortion to get Dads in arrears into fatherhood program probably aimed at about 6th grade (maybe tops, 8th) level of intellect.  And that is called a “Court of Justice”!

 Judicial Center Projects **

Since 1998 the Kentucky Court of Justice has completed, authorized or begun construction on 70 new judicial centers.

These new facilities have given Kentucky citizens safe, efficient, cost-effective buildings in which to exercise their legal and constitutional rights

[**Original Post was 12/21/2011; Updates, Link Correction (different background color)  @ 9/8/2015]:

The Courts.ky.gov web pages have changed since this post, and no longer so clearly display the 11 divorce education programs below. More info at.  Notice the AOC was put in place in 1976 by “the Judicial Article.”  Their summary provides no link to that article, or description of who issued it, was there a referendum, did the judges come together in decide, or what.

 Kentucky Administrative Office of the Courts

The Administrative Office of the Courts is the operational arm of the Judicial Branch. The AOC supports court facilities and programs in all 120 counties, with its main campus in Frankfort.

The AOC was established in 1976 as a result of the Judicial Article. The Judicial Article created Kentucky’s unified court system and made the chief justice head of the state court system, also known as the Kentucky Court of Justice.

Read the rest of this entry »

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..

leave a comment »


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

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

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

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

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

Why I’m addressing it — again:   


AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS.  NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS DID.  The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too:

Parenting Coordination:  A Bad Idea

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

  • Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
  • Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
  • Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
  • Parenting coordination violates privacy
  • The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
  • Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
  • Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
  • No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
  • No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.
  • Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
  • Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
  • Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
  • Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract
  • There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
  • Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
  • It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
  • Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
  • Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
  • Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds
  • Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
  • Parenting coordination is not confidential
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
  • Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders
  • Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights
  • Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
  • They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
  • They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
  • Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
  • Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
  • Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power
  • Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
  • They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”
  • They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
  • They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
  • Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
  • Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
  • Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
  • They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

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

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post).  I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida.  They have since succeeded, I believe, too.
Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow.  This is primarily what AFCC does.  From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.”  The problem is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints.  Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits!

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

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

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

June 18, 2004   

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

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

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

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

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


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


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

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

CASE NO. C064475

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359




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



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

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

  • The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)
  • AFCC itself (at least twice)
  • A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others.  These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.
  • Herself, like 3 times, in:
  • Shear (2008) In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass-roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute 5 Journal of Child Custody 88…………………………………………..5, 18, 25  (cited on page 5, 18 & 25).

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

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

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

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

(Tried and True?  Try Tried and found seriously wanting.  Don’t believe me?  Look here.  I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida.  Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one, even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that) miss their Daddy.  They shouldn’t be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc.  Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children:

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

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

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

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

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

Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife.  Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper.  I do not call this ‘tried and true.”  This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action  appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps.   Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter.   This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:

by KHOU.com staff

Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

KATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.
According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.
Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children.   Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

    [supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers.  They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]
  2. Reduce parental conflict through anger management, communication and conflict resolutions skills. 
    [increasing the expense of divorce, treating parents like kids, undermining judicial authority, & due process, and invading one’s privacy sure will “reduce parental conflict”!! . .. And I haven’t even got (this post anyhow) to the training manual which has an openly hostile attitude towards mothers, it’s unbelievable).
  3. Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.
    [goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior.   Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]
  4. Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.
     [Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well.  Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans.  I mean — the concept is ridiculous!  What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]
  5. Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to  adjust more effectively with the new family structure.
    [You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/  Again, go have your own and show it to us.  Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]
  6. Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.
    [that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]
  7. Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the  recommendations of the Court.
    [Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up.  One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena.   It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .
    Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails.  It entails respecting its laws.  I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]
  • The NH “Parent Coordinators” Association of 2009 “FAQs” suggest a benefit is:
  • Q. What are the benefits of Parenting Coordination?

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Entity Name Type Entity Type City / State

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

Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum

3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute

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

 *Note:  the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened.  Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005.     So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.
I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.
Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart  (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF):  notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation.   In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage:  Legislating Family Values”  Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here  Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.
But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.
Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties.  She is a partner.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About Jennifer Jackson

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

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

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

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

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

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community.   A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.
To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.
Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs.  Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.
(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans:  166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime).  As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people.  As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000.   The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

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

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

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

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

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

Standing Committee on Custody, North: Chair 1988-1990

San Francisco Bar Association

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

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

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

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

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

Where we are going…

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

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

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation.  What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are.  As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).
 ** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

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

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)
This report is on-line at “SAIF” where it probably was presented:

Seminars For Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals

They have a form for the (many) professionals listed to say which district they want to be parent coordinator in — PC has its own tab.  (Strategic planning)
This For-Profit group incorporated as below in Indiana, with the address “9000 KEYSTONE CROSSING, STE 600, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 (which is “HuirasLaw,”  Wm. E. Huiras, although the Registered Agent is another attorney, Robin Brown Neihaus (LinkedIn)

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

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

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

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

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


From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

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

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

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

. . . .

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

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

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

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



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

The New Frontier

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

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

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

Abbas Hadjian, JD, CFLS

Graduate of Tehran University School of Law and Harvard…

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

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

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

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

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

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

  • Children display increased self-confidence.
  • Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.
  • Higher grade point averages.
  • More likely to mature into compassionate adults.
  • Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

  • Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.
  • May reduce health-risk behaviors.
  • Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.
  • Happiness and increased physical activity.
  • Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.
  • Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.
  • Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

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

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.
These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute.  It must be important:

9:00am – 5:15pm

All Day Institute (2)

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

  • Lyn Greenberg, Ph D
  • Alexandra Leichtner, JD
  • Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS
Apparently even indigent people need parent coordination — there’s a workshop on how to get it to them:
  • W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordination Program Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent FamiliesHonorable Lorna Alksne// Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA // Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD  // Lori Love, Ph D


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

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

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

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

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

+ + + + = = = + + +  = = =

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

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

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

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

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

General Comments:

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

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

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

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

National Juvenile Defender Center:  

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


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

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

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

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

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

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

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

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

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


Written by Let's Get Honest

December 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm

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

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ABOUT THIS BLOG (@11/2011) There’s (still) No Excuse For Abuse, Including Economic Abuse of Taxpayers to Allegedly ‘EndAbuse.’

leave a comment »

A Few FAQs, but first

let me invite readers to something normally beyond my social media skillset: a Tuesday Night Blogtalk Radio show

My email alert said

“It’s going to be a hell of a show.”
(it was).
This is not your typical Battered Women’s Protective Mothers–Reform CPS–Involve More Fathers  show.
(Nor is my blog typical)
Like me (nowadays) I don’t want to hear it.  For one, we already tried (to cite a Bible reference) the
“widow and the unjust judge” theme, the “two women before King Solomon” theme,
and many also tried actually reporting to what we considered the proper authorities such things as:
Violations of Court Orders, Domestic Violence (or threats, stalkings, etc.) against us, violations of due process,
and in some cases, M.I.A. children the context of an ex who had threatened to run off with them.
ALSO this 64/34 effect show is NOT about
~ ~holding Congressional Hearings and Rallying in front of the White House in hopes that
the residential Change Agent (President Obama) will please help our cause ~ ~ ~  do something ~~  do anything! ~~ just make us feel heard!!
(As some have felt might be more effective the the representative form of government called one’s state & federal legislators)

NOPE.  It is different.  So I hope you will call or tune in next Tuesday at 9pm EST (til further notice):

THIS TUESDAY NIGHT @ 9pm, Abuse Freedom Presents: The 66/34 Effect Radio Show,
Funding in the Courts
With Host Athena Phoenix
November 15, 2011 at 9:00 p.m. EST
This week ABUSE FREEDOM UNITED welcomes our newest team member, Athena Phoenix to help us improve the justice system by bringing reformation to the apathetic and corrupt divisions of our state and federal governments.
Dear Abuse,
(From the Show Description, continued):
Have you ever wondered why the justice system and the media ignores some predatory CPS or child support enforcement programs which target and exploit families? Are courts and the Department of Children and Families receiving financial incentives from the Federal government to increase conflict in family court cases by awarding custody to unfit and unwilling parents, and even taking kids out of good homes and into the system?
Abuse Freedom Radio invites you to tune in this Tuesday night at 9:00 EST to welcome Host Athena Phoenix to the AFU family and support our newest program, The 66/34 Effect: Funding in the Family Courts with host Athena Phoenix.  Guests this week will be:
  • LIZ RICHARDS, Founder of National Alliance for Family Court Justice (www.nafcj.net) For over 20 years, Liz has been a pioneer in the mother’s rights movement a national expert on HHS funding research, fraud, and political reform.
  • FRED SOTTILE, President of the LA Chapter of Fathers 4 Justice, author, radio host, and a prominent TANF Title IV-D abolition activist.
  • JACK KELLY, Democratic party political activist, Boston based blogger and columnist who wrote about the Penn State scandal.

See Jack Kelly’s article here:

A Message To PennState Prez

Rodney Erickson: Clean House!

November 12, 2011


Find out from special guest Fred Sottile why father’s rights groups are joining the fight to cut $5 billion in wasteful spending on IV-D TANF programs, including fatherhood programs funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services [HHS].  Also learn about Fred’s work on judicial reform and transparency with activists like Richard Fine, Full Disclosure Networks, and Judicial Watch.

Liz Richards will educate listeners on the politics of HHS Fatherhood and Healthy Families program funding, and how these funds are used to effect the outcome of court cases. Are grant programs administered through child support enforcement agencies, such as Responsible Fatherhood programs and Access and Visitation programs meeting their funding and accountability requirements? Is there a connection to the Penn State scandal and Occupy Wall Street?
Please join us, and feel free to call in and join the discussion as we find ways to improve the system.

Jane Boyer & Josie Perez

Abuse Freedom United

Why is child support enforcement creating TANF programs which waive due process, collecting billions in child support, then fail to disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit? How much does your judge know about HHS funding and family services? How much of your tax dollars is being used to support programs like CPS, foster care, The Second Mile nonprofit, and Penn State who failed to protect the children raped by Coach Sandusky? Tune in and find out.

Join Athena Phoenix
Tuesday Nights at 9:00 p.m. EST  

(646) 595-2134
9:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time
4:00 p.m. Hawaii Standard Time
5:00 p.m. Alaska Standard Time
6:00 p.m. pacific Standard Time
7:00 p.m. Mountain Standard Time              8:00 p.m. Central Standard Time


I believe this 11/15/2011 show is now available to hear, and it will be weekly (though with which guests, I don’t know).  However, the “64/34 Effect” — which has nothing to do with what most “expose the impact of domestic violence” or Train The Judges to recognize it — movements talk about.  That 64/34 effect, however, has had greater influence in preventing families from getting out of it.

You’ll also note that there are both men and women on the show, and (for the record) that’s not men and women who are all pro-feminist, or pro-father.  Rather, at least some people have started figuring out it’s time to stop playing the Good Cop Bad Cop (Men v. Women) themes that have been fed us by media campaigns — and instead look at some of what I have begun to (for some years now) report on this blog.  I report on organizations, nonprofits, foundations, and funding behind the policies that messed with my family (yes, even my ex, who was also a batterer) and compromised our futures –badly.

(I hope the show is helpful//for the record, I’m not a regular listener and don’t know about previous episodes), or the hosts Boyer & Perez)


ABOUT ME (& the Let’s Get Honest BLOG)

I am What I am, which is changing with time. . ..  (so is the blog, only it’s an it).

  • I don’t tag consistently, so if you’re hunting for something, use the search field.
  • I don’t proofread, copyedit, and once the thing is off my chest and published, usually that’s it’s format (love it or leave it).
  • I know — and deduce, from who’s watching it — that this blog has information on it you will NOT typically find elsewhere.  I know that, because I’m a diligent person and voracious reader, and I explored the usual alternatives –consistently and hard — during a seven-year period (and thereafter) between filing a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, and watching my children have a custody-switch overnight (not getting to say goodbye to them, or vice versa) after which they basically disappeared out of my life.  This was a planned event, and an enabled event — and in this blog, I am going to talk about the CONTEXT in which planned and enabled events of this sort take place.
  • I quit dealing with nonprofits, or asking them for help, after I realized who they are actually answerable to — and that’s their funders, NOT their clients, who represent warm bodies that come and go through their doors, justifying the funding.  This includes all kinds of nonprofits.
  • The most important things needed for a mother (specifically, but it can also help nonabusive fathers) to know in the court system — to possibly stop getting screwed with (pardon the French) will NOT be found on domestic violence prevention sides, family court self-help sites (naturally), or even protective mothers sites.
  • I can document a family law case (Sacks v. Sacks) that had all of the above type groups backing it from Florida to the Supreme Court of the USA (where it was declined for a hearing) and back, which chose to ignore what I blog, and think that the case was “about” their individual judges, custody evaluators, attorneys, or situation.  It’s not.  Get over it.  Deal with it.   Grow up.  What happens in the courtroom — in the bottom line — is NOT about you, and in many cases, the outcome is often settled before you get there (if you have the privilege, which some don’t).

(Sample of the language — notice the drama — and people are supposed to write the judges about all this:)  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _


We thank you Linda Marie for your courage, faith, and strength to speak for those who have been silenced by their abusers and the courts.




READ MORE  www.CenterforJudicialExcellence.org

Write the judges in SACKS V SACKS   

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ All the groups involved should thank her for free (negative) publicity at her children’s expense.  However, ignorance — and this WAS ignorance, and pigheaded refusal to smell the coffee – – – – is no excuse, either.  (I wouldn’t say this, but tried to present information to this mother as well.) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

This  Petition for Writ of Certiori, i.e., to be heard by the US Supreme Court under “Other Authorities” cites Dr. Phil and the O (Oprah’s) magazine, a SF online weekly, a radio interview of Linda Sacks, and basically a laundry list of the nonprofits and individuals that did NOT inform this parent about what just happened to her.  Or  why a Supervised Visitation Center — or having a person on her case (Dr. Deborah O. Day) who just happened to be a founding board member of the Florida AFCC, and a Certified Family Mediator and is big on Munchhausen’s by Proxy — might relate to the problems she, like others, has been having. Instead, she focused on being “squeaky clean” and how unfair the system was to her — rather than studying the system.  The groups cited (see the writ) don’t talk about AFCC, either, nor does a recent tome called Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody (see the groups listed).


Meanwhile — in Lancaster, Pennsylvania very recently– a forum exists “Expose Corruption” exists, which reports on its local courts and potential corruption, and the moderator (I think it’s the moderator) simply sent off a “Right to Know” information request on one of the court personnel, and got payment vouchers,* (*it doesn’t look like Ms. Sacks ever did this) discovered no contract exists for the person in question, found out  what a nice living she is making at public expense, as either Guardian Ad Litem or Parenting Coordinator.  She sued him for inadvertently posting SS#s that the responding officials “forgot” to redact on the vouchers, and the game’s on.  But it began with someone noticing that judges were steering cases to certain profiteers, and inquiring about the profit.

FBI searches court administrator’s office

Published: November 15, 2011
FBI agents executed a search warrant on Lackawanna County Court Administrator Ron Mackay’s office Monday afternoon as part of an investigation into a program that provides lawyers for children in family court cases.

Mr. Mackay declined to answer questions about the visit and answered “no” when asked if he would provide The Times-Tribune a copy of the search warrant.

The visit lasted less than an hour.  For a while, as agents worked in his office, Mr. Mackay was required to stand in a waiting room outside the suite that houses his office. An FBI agent stood near Mr. Mackay guarding the entrance to the suite.   Eventually, four men dressed in plain clothes, only one of whom acknowledged being an FBI agent, walked out, with one carrying a box with white papers sticking out of the top.

. . .The FBI has been investigating the county’s guardian ad litem system, which is in the hands of one lawyer, attorney Danielle Ross. The county court sometimes appoints a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of children in family court disputes between parents, often in cases of divorce or when custody is at stake.

Late last month, agents served subpoenas at the county courthouse and administration building as part of their investigation. In September, a federal grand jury subpoena ordered County Controller Ken McDowell to produce all bills, invoices, receipts and statements for every case assigned to Ms. Ross.

Now THAT’s how you investigate!

Read more: http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/fbi-searches-court-administrator-s-office-1.1232356#ixzz1e62IvTLL


Funny how Sacks’ coaches and/or centers of reference:   Battered Women’s Custody Conference, Barry Goldstein, The Leadership Council, California Protective Parents Association, Center for Judicial Excellence, etc. But ordinary citizens (well, perhaps some “extraordinary” is involved here) on a forum can pick up:

(etc.)(who you know I’ve been looking at too — as I can’t see where Termini & Boyan are currently incorporated — and I don’t think they are.  Termini’s making a good living in Lancaster County at the courthouse, since (it seems) about 2008.  Coincidentally?  The “National Association for Parent Coordination” in Georgia got dissolved in about 2008 (same dynamic duo in charge).  now they run advanced parent coordination training (for a stiff price) and well they should — because in Lancaster at least, it seems to net $60/hour, plenty of referrals (and without a contract even??). . . We, too, can do “right to know” or “FOIA” inquiries, and should do more.

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

On the other hand, knowledge — and knowledge you can act on locally — is empowering, even if the scenario is daunting.  I have learned so much by having all systems fail in the family law, family, (religious institutions), criminal justice system (i.e., law enforcement), and a few more along the way.  I know I am a better woman for it, though sorry it took so many years (i.e., I got older in the meantime) Forgot to add

  • I’m longwinded.  The posting has really gotten out of hand, and while it may be a warm blanket to me, I’m getting ready to let go of it and go Facebook, Twitter, or something else.  I don’t seriously believe anyone reads the entire posts.   It’s where I keep (SOME, FYI, not all), of my research, for the record.  The research has borne out, and there IS a clearer picture (in my understanding) of what to ignore and what to pay attention to in these systems.  And of the country I live in (shudder!) as a woman, particularly a woman beyond kicking out some more babies, or with an appetite for raising someone else’s.  That frees up a lot of thought time ..  … ….
  • Oh yes — there are about 9 different pages on here.  But only the main page, generally, is added to.  It’s structured like this.  I write until I’m done (and only a small portion of the screen is visible at a time; no hardcopy printouts or second drafts).  When I’m done –or sometimes several paragraphs beyond that, then I stop, and usually hit “Publish.”
Whatever I am saying, visits are steadily coming from state & county & city governments, various court systems, law firms, the California Judicial Council, 

_ _ _ _ _ _ _

Alaska Court System ( [Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
United States FlagAnchorage, Alaska, United States
(No referring link)
16 Nov 13:00:29

– – – – – or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:City & County Of San Francisco ( CA CityCnty of SF – KT artklReferring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page:

 – – – – -or, say:

Total Visits:1

Location:San Francisco, California, United States

IP Address:American Lawyer Media ( [Label IP Address]Referring URL:

(No referring link)

Visit Page: familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/02/27/lets-get-honest-about-kids-turn-and-judges-profit/

– – – – – or …

State Of New Jersey ( NJ State of (undistrib CS)    0 returning visits
(No referring link)

16 Nov05:35:30


Total Visits:

United States FlagSouth Amboy, New Jersey, United States     Show Full URLs

1Location:Baltimore, Maryland, United States

IP Address:Psinet ( [Label IP Address]

Referring URL:(No referring link)

Visit Page:    familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/tag/parents-day-comes-from-true-parentsunification-church/

   [[that post has a lot of corporation / charitable regisration lookups on some well-known California Marriage Promotion groups — more on that later]]
or, ..
County Of Los Angeles([Label IP Address]    0 returning visits
(No referring link)

15 Nov14:02:52


United States FlagLong Beach, California, United States

or … (i’m not sure if this is good news, or not good news….).

Executive Office Of The President Usa ( WDC EXEC OFC PRESIDNT! 9/2/11    0 returning visits
United States FlagWashington, District Of Columbia, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
2 Sep 08:55:24familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/page/18/?pages-list
(No referring link)
15 Nov 05:53:57familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/07/26/ocse-child-support-enforcementfederal-grants-to-states-lets-look-at-the-taggs-hhs-charts-cfdas-93-563-93-564/
Executive Office Of The President Usa( Exec Ofc Pres!198137241197    0 returning visits
United States FlagWashington, District Of Columbia, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
2 Sep 08:55:17   familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/category/wheres-mom/page/2
(No referring link)
15 Nov 05:53:55


– – – – – Or (just one last one!):

Calnet2 St Of Ca Judicial Council (aoc San Francis( SF CalJudiCouncil SFAOC    0 returning visits
United States FlagSan Francisco, California, United States     Show Full URLs
(No referring link)
26 Jul 12:23:39familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/05/28/whats-money-got-to-do-with-it-calif-legislators-judges-at-play/
(No referring link)
4 Aug 11:34:38familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/18/afcc-coordinates-parenting-coord-and-the-courts-democrats-spearhead-next-fatherhood-legislation-hr-2193/
(No referring link)
18 Aug 14:28:21familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/how-nonprofit-status-all-nonprofit-status-large-small-leads-to-abuse-of-individuals-money-flows-towards-the-visionary-dictatorial/
(No referring link)
14 Nov 09:22:46familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/say-no-to-sb-557-contd-local-connections-faith-focused-ovw-grants-all-in-the-family-but-whose/
(I’m not going to keep posting visitors here, but the posts they chose to look at are an indicator of possibly something YOU might want to look at.  Also, I believe we should keep certain public entities on their toes (if possible), particularly ones that have been on our HEELS, dogging us, driving us — and for what?  For profit?  For someone’s career track?  To bring world peace or solve world poverty?
(besides which it was seriously difficult to get those stats into the WordPress margins… ) 
By law, the ANSWER is here, and the answer is NOT his or hers….
The UCCJEA talks about which STATE has jurisdiction, when it’s a multi-state custody matter.  But what about within a single state?
So what is jurisdiction?  It is the right, the power, and the control that the court will have over a certain legal issue or subject.  Thus there is geographical jurisdiction (where can the case be heard?), subject matter jurisdiction (which court has authority to hear and decide this particular legal issue?), personal jurisdiction (does the court have the power to make a person obey its orders?) and there are other jurisdictional questions. 

What we normally call FAMILY COURTS ( as I am understanding this) are actually by statue “CONCILIATION COURTS….Now the type of people going to the family law system are not typically the happily married couples, but couples with often “irreconcilable differences” this may come of a bit of a shock — while you are figuring out how to separate, the court is actually (by legal purpose) trying to get you back together, apparently (I’ll use that word a lot so no one thinks about accusing me of practicing law ….).

No, seriously …..

WHAT IS A “CONCILIATION COURT” (ever heard the term?)

Conciliation Courts

California was one of the first states to establish conciliation courts. The purpose of a conciliation court is to encourage families to attempt reconciliation and reduce litigation in family law cases. In California counties with conciliation courts, parties may petition the court for help in resolving disputed family law matters prior to, or even after, filing an action for dissolution. While the matter is under advisement by the conciliation court, neither party may file an action for dissolution without permission of the court.

(taken from Robert L. Lewis site; San Jose Family Lawyer)

How many mothers or fathers are even aware that in having ANY custody dispute and going before a judge to settle it, they have entered “Conciliation Court Land” (I think.  NOTE:  I’m not an attorney, and reader is advised to consult, law, a licensed attorney or a better source before acting on any FYI information I post, from other sites, hereon!)

Basically when there is a custody DISPUTE (parents cannot work it out separately) in — I believe most counties in the US, but don’t know for sure — that opens the doorway for all THIS:

(CALIFORNIA LAW — which may explain where all the behavioral scientists get off in studying your children and collecting data from courthouses about this or that):

 FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS (California Code 1800ff (part, below:)

1814.  (a) In each county in which a family conciliation court is
established, the superior court may appoint one supervising counselor of conciliation and one secretary to assist the family 
conciliation court in disposing of its (ITS, not YOUR) business and carrying out its functions. In
counties which have by contract established joint family
conciliation court services, the superior courts in contracting
counties jointly may make the appointments under this subdivision.
   (b) The supervising counselor of conciliation has the power to do all of the following:

   (1) Hold conciliation conferences with parties to, and hearings
in, proceedings under this part, and make recommendations concerning
the proceedings to the judge of the family conciliation court.
   (2) Provide supervision in connection with the exercise of the
counselor's jurisdiction as the judge of the family conciliation
court may direct.
   (3) Cause reports to be made, statistics to be compiled, and records to be kept 
as the judge of the family conciliation court may direct.
   (4) Hold hearings in all family conciliation court cases as may be
required by the judge of the family conciliation court, and make
investigations as may be required by the court to carry out the
intent of this part.
   (5) Make recommendations relating to marriages where one or both
parties are underage.
   (6) Make investigations, reports, and recommendations as provided
in Section 281 of the Welfare and Institutions Code under the
authority provided the probation officer in that code.

(7) Act as domestic relations cases investigator. 
 (8) Conduct mediation of child custody and visitation disputes.
   (c) The superior court, or contracting superior courts, may also appointwith the consent of the board of supervisors, associate counselors of conciliation 
and other office assistants as may be necessary to assist 
the family conciliation court in disposing of its business.
Which, for the record, may or may not relate to YOUR business or intents in being there.
In fact, the two purposes are often at odds.  But did you know what its business was to start with?
This is not told you in the basic self-help legal center, but it appears to be so....
The associate counselors shall carry out their duties
under the supervision of the supervising counselor of conciliation
and have the powers of the supervising counselor of conciliation.
Office assistants shall work under the supervision and direction of
the supervising counselor of conciliation.
   (d) The classification and salaries of persons appointed under this section shall be determined by: 
(1) The board of supervisors of the county in which a noncontracting family conciliation court operates.

(2) The board of supervisors of the county which by contract has the responsibility to administer funds of the joint family
conciliation court service.

OK, Let’s review this:  COUNTY (financial) vs. STATE (pays judges) responsibilities and associations:

And State to Federal ….

The county commissioners (or, “Board of Supervisors of the County”) in which a conciliation court operates appoint the classification and salaries of people helping there work. Got that? (Judges, in California, are to be paid by the state — not the counties).

SO — when here comes the United States (federal) Child Support & Welfare System and says — “we will fund you, only it’s a $2/$1 relationship (or the 66/34% effect), …

provided you follow our rules — some of which includes, we want to do social studies on your families, (Just whatever the Head (Secretary) of HHS says to ….)

and we also believe that you should be running some marriage, fatherhood promotion, abstinence education, supervised visitation, mediation, counseling and parent education classes too, or other “access/visitation” programs — to reduce the overall divorce rate, which WE assert relates to the overall POVERTY RATE  for which we are (see?? ) giving your state $XX b/million per year — if you want it that is…”



.Which may explain why American Lawyer Media — (or quite a few others visiting the same site) are somewhat interested in my post on “Kids Turn” . . . or why the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts (perhaps) may be interested in my reporting on the A/V grants, or OCSE — or “AFCC” which includes personnel with a penchant for ordering a whole lot of these types of income-producing programs:

(CODE, continued — but in more normal print so it will wrap to the margins right):

  1815. (a) A person employed as a supervising counselor of conciliation or as an associate counselor of conciliation shall have all of the following minimum qualifications: {{NOTICE THE FIELDS}}

(1) A master’s degree in psychology, social work, marriage, family and child counseling, or other behavioral science substantially related to marriage and family interpersonal relationships.

(2) At least two years of experience in counseling or psychotherapy, or both, preferably in a setting related to the areas of responsibility of the family conciliation court and with the ethnic population to be served.

(3) Knowledge of the court system of California and the procedures used in family law cases. {{notice this is qualification #3, not #1}}

(4) Knowledge of other resources in the community that clients can be referred to for assistance.

(5) Knowledge of adult psychopathology and the psychology of families.

(6) Knowledge of child development, child abuse, clinical issues relating to children, the effects of divorce on children, the effects of domestic violence on children, and child custody research sufficient to enable a counselor to assess the mental health needs of children.

(7) Training in domestic violence issues as described in Section 1816. {{notice this is #7, not #2, although DV issues do result in disputed custody situations that come before this court!}}

(b) The family conciliation court may substitute additional experience for a portion of the education, or additional education for a portion of the experience, required under subdivision (a).

(c) This section does not apply to any supervising counselor of conciliation who was in office on March 27, 1980.


Does that explain why your life as a disputed custody parent (if that’s you) are now filled with these social science, behavioral modification, psychopathology & psychology of families & psychotherapist personnel?

NOW — a voice from 1977.  I notice that it was published in the National Council on Family Relations.  
Who are they?  Well not in this post, but this is the grant they got recently from our government (HHS) to keep marriages together or help persuade more people to marry
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
$ 1,286,457
(click on name to see what the grant 90FM0001 was about, from 2004-2008)(then click on the grant# and see that its 2011 continuation for only $785,612 was continued at Utah State U.  Utah appears to be a very marrying state, one might think, given the prevailing religion..


The Family Coordinator © 1977 National Council on Family Relations


Counseling processes utilized by the Santa Clara County Conciliation Court in in resolving litigated visitation and custody disputes are described. The responsiveness of parents and their children is discussed as are the roles of both counselor and judge in these matters. A sample case reflecting a broad range of family dynamics is presented and the procedure by which cases are received and evaluated is reported. The practical and salutary features of this court-oriented program are set forth.
(Excerpt):  “It has been acknowledge for some time by judges and lawyers, as well as those inviduals affected (note order — judges & lawyers 1st, affected people, 2nd) that the process by which custody and visitation issues are decided is in need of change.  With that in mind, THE CONCILIATION SERVICE OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY (California) SUPERIOR COURT  IN 1972 LAUNCHED A PILOT PROGRAM WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN FULLY INTEGRATED INTO ITS FAMILY COURT PROCEDURES (caps & emphases= mine).  PROFESSIONAL MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COUNSELORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROGRAM’S IMPLEMENTATION….
At the calling of the Family Court Calendar each morning and each afternoon, all those awaiting hearing on visitation matters are promptly and directly referred to the court’s Conciliation Service.  (etc.)
That’s how the counselors get in there. . . .  Note the date –1972.  The AFCC (which is an association of judges, lawyers, and exactly these types of counselors — must be coincidence!) didn’t actually finish getting caught and forced to incorporate (in IL) til around 1975.  No-fault divorce was here or near, and FEMINISM was on the Ascent in America….  This caused some marital issues, obviously. ….




THIS IS A 2009 blog from an attorney who works in Ventura and Los Angeles Counties.  It’s not hard to understand, it’s fairly clear — but were you told?

L.A. Divorce Blog (Nov. 24, 2009)

When a controversy exists between spouses, or when a controversy relating to child custody or visitation exists between parents (regardless of their marital status), and the controversy might otherwise result in divorce, annulment, legal separation, or the disruption of the household, and there is a minor child of the spouses or parents whose welfare might be affected thereby, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, the parties to the controversy, and all persons having any relation to the controversy. Where the controversy involves domestic violence, the Family Conciliation Court has jurisdiction over the controversy, whether or not the parties have a minor child.

The purpose of filing a Petition for Conciliation is to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction to preserve the marriage, to effect a reconciliation of the parties, or to amicably settle the controversy to avoid further litigation over the issue.

While this is talking specifically about someone wishing to stop the divorce via a “petition of conciliation,” the existence of this code – has affected all “custody disputes” and also how domestic violence is adjudicated.  Cindy Ross (also of California, and who writes better) described:

(notice — this is an older post, 2/19/2003) and talks more about the impact.

AFCC was originally established in California as the means to enact Conciliation Court Law (CA Family Codes 1800-1852), an obscure set of codes used to prevent divorce in counties where the court itself deems it necessary to “promote the public welfare by preserving, promoting, and protecting family life and the institution of matrimony“. [15]  While the Conciliation Court identifies children’s rights to “both parents”, it is used only to assist fathers take custody away from mothers and/or to otherwise gain inappropriate or illegal “access” to children.

Enacting Conciliation Court Law gives the family court jurisdiction over domestic violence cases, in violation of appropriate family codes and “child’s best interests” laws. For example, in California, while Family Code §3044 establishes a presumption that sole or joint custody for a parent convicted of domestic violence is not in the best interests of children,  Conciliation Court codes are used not only to assist abusive men get custody, but to help them avoid criminal prosecution. [16] Because blame is shifted to mothers by concealing evidence of paternal crimes against women and children, in the Conciliation Court, victims of abuse (not perpetrators) get convicted in accordance with PAS “threat therapy”. [17]

PAS court-ordered threats include jail terms for mothers and institutionalization of children to convince them that the abuse never occurred, but their mothers are crazy. [18] PAS threats have been linked to the death of at least one child. When forced to “choose” between visiting his violent father in a positive frame of mind, or having his mother jailed for his refusal, Nathan Grieco chose suicide instead. [19]

The Conciliation Court uses PAS methodology to give abusive men the legal upper hand. However, “shared parenting” has become the rallying cry of the fathers’ rights movement, primarily because joint custody also means no child support obligations. When AFCC affiliates assist fathers get custody and get out of paying child support, they instigate frivolous litigation for their own financial gain. They take kickbacks and other improper payments to rig the outcomes of the cases.

She hasn’t reported on a few others factors, but at least this explains why, when coming in for a divorce, the court seems more interested in assigning you a few (dozen) experts.  As also explained (again, long ago) on

Dedicated to Exposing Illegal and Immoral

practices in the court

… Particularly the Family Law System which includes the Courts, Attorneys, Family Services, Psychologists and Therapists,Visitation Monitors, Ad-Litems, Social Workers, Child Protection Agencies and all of the agencies that support these so-called professionals.

Collusion among individuals within the family law system takes place to extract assets from troubled parents. The system is designed to increase the wealth of the family law professionals at the expense and heartbreak of families. Corrupt practices abound. This website is dedicated to exposing the corruption in detail. Areas where corruption exists are identified below.

To which I’d add — and related federal programs, as they may be available.

To people who file civil restraining orders — this information is not shown them (last I heard), but if children are involved, they are then escorted (at least in my area) to a quick run by the local family mediator –who just happens to be in this conciliation court.  The place looks, acts, and sounds like a courthouse, but in fact it is a support service, under conciliation law, to a conciliation court.  Funny that, when divorce actions sometimes read “irreconciliable differences” — and yet someone is going to give it a try, for public benefit.  Or at least pretend to.  Heck, it’s a job, right?

I know many women who filed for safety and ended up in this court before they knew what hit.  Sometimes the actions are consolidated Ex Parte to get them into this venue.  Then we wonder why, when we talk about matters of law, due process, (particularly DV law), or even crimiinal matters, the judges, GALs, and evaluators jsut cannot hear — and talk a different language (as above, see the code).

The entity which lobbied for conciliation code to start with, in California, is known as the AFCC (association of family and CONCILIATION courts — get it?).  Their job is to extract as much wealth as possible for as long as possible (this may include from extended family, foster care situations, adoptive families, you name it) and try to convince — or force — you to believe that this is in the best interests of what you think are YOUR children, but they know (by knowing about this section of code) are actually NOT your children — not until you and the Dad can agree.
Your judge or lawyer is bad?  Your ex done you wrong?  Start a blog and unload there — but I am more interest in system change and reporting how systems have changed over time.  When I feel I’ve said this well enough (or as well as I can on this blog), then I’ll stop saying it.  Don’t hold your breath.


Scroll down to “READ THIS FIRST” page for a history of family law starting from the consequences of it, back down to the shady beginnings, one generation after women got the vote and between the world wars. Yep, that’s when the first law was passed, which eventually morphed, evolved, or as one summary puts it, “metastasized” into what we have now. And, like Hollywood, and other exports, this one seems to have originated in Sunny California, Southern part…

  • This post doesn’t contain any porn, graphic violence, or disgusting images (as I recall), but it is going to include plain talk on what comes from papering over these things.
  • [2011 update]. I investigate and report on corporations and nonprofits taking business from the court system, and taking diversionary monies from needy families through the 1996 TANF welfare reform and OCSE loopholes.
  • Originally the blog was intended to develop and report on matters covered (since ab. 1993) at http://www.NAFCJ.net and others, which at least gave a sensible explanation for weird behaviors by family court officials. I continued researching, observing, and learning.
  • A good deal also covers the “Faith-Based Behaviors” which have been enabled to expand beyond even the “Fatherhood Factor Funding” of 1994 & 1995. In 2001, GWB began office with two executive orders, 13998 and 13999, which opened the door for these (crooks).
  • Recently, articles are hitting the press about the scandalous “take the money and run” grantees, the “steer the money to our friends” process exhibited by program managers at the state level, and more. Not to mention, the black hole of undistributed child support collections, which (as reported in part by Richard Fine in 1999) shows a system of bribery and kickbacks are steering custody results, and kicking too many kids into bad situations — or state care.

I also note that tools available to the public to study these things are indequate and limited; that there exists — both on database and (some indications) literally, a dual-docketing system, such that decisions made with a parent’s or child’s name on them — which bring federal program funding opportunities — can continue without that parent or child’s knowledge. Some of these do not seem to require a judge’s signature. Others may have such signature, but litigants somehow can’t get a copy of their own files.  The database TAGGS is not set up to produce truly flexible reports which would help track down who is doing what and for whom.  It is there for an appearance of transparency, as far as I am concerned.  Before I re-read NAFCJ.net (Liz Richards’ site) and began my own research, I didn’t run into a single protective mother or DV advocate who even used this database, or told women — or men — about it.

Above all, it’s time to let the idols, the myths about justice hit the dust (which is where idols belong anyhow) and go roll up the sleeves and start looking things up.

My blog is dense to read, and shows affects of PTSD (many times) — BUT I’ll bet you will not find many others reporting what I do.

Fathers in custody battles need to know — it’s NOT about you, or your story, or a particular judge; it’s about the system. Fathers also need to know that SOME of us mothers, while we do not back up one inch on abuse is wrong, or buy your stories about how much false allegations of it exist, we do know that you, too, have been extorted by at least the OCSE system, and we will work along the non-rabid community of fathers to do something about the kickbacks and lack of accountability.

And I personally wish to tell leaders of domestic violence coalitions and certain other agencies receiving major HHS and/or DOJ funding that — we mothers exiting abuse do NOT appreciate our legitimate needs having been SOLD OUT by your groups, to take funding for speculative theories and PR/educational campaigns on what “prevents family violence” let alone “poverty.”

NOW –that’s the N.O.W. — has no excuse for basically dropping the ball, not when in 2002 an excellent Family Court Report laid out the roadmap, and 2005 your California Leader called for an investigation of HHS use of Fatherhood Funds.  (What she didn’t realize then is WE have to do this investigation, then bring it to legislators).  NOW is still active in matters of domestic violence, and has a Family Law Task Force — but other priorities. NOW has done a lot (and I think them), but here — for all to see — is a clear indication that (as with other DV groups) the “Family Law” issue is not seen as a Violence Against Women issue:

Key Issues

NOW’s Top Priority Issues: (the top 6, and the “other important issues”)

Other Important Issues:

Suffice it to say, I think a more singular focus is needed, and as NOW didn’t continue to report some of the material about Bush, Fatherhood, Welfare Reform, and other issues. I don’t even share 100% of those issues, or agree with all of them.  I want to stay alive and exercise my rights, and my kids to NEVER have to repeat what happened and what they witnessed, while growing up, half in violence, and half in a custody war with a basis in extortion from more than one sector, with them, their distress, their simply being minors, as the bait.  But we all need some NOW — because without a dose of them, it’d be The USA of Shari’a (Christian, Jewish, Muslim & Mormon versions, plus the same general themes among the agnostics and atheists).  It’d be off the deep end and in over our heads.  But they lost the focus on the HHS matters, which are also national matters because they involve the economy and systems change to push marriage and fatherhood programs (notice, I didn’t say to push marriage, or fatherhood — but to push the programs).


The NCADV and Domestic Violence Statewide Coalitions have no excuse.  Stop SELLING stuff (including conference attendances, memberships) and start reporting — for free– on welfare reform and what it did to battered women who are also mothers’ chances of EVER getting completely free from such dangerous relationships.    You do NOT speak for mothers who have their lives or kids’ lives on their line.

Family Violence Prevention Fund is now “Futures Without Violence” (facelift, namechange, physical move to the SF Praesidio).  I went up down and around the SF Bay Area looking for help, only to find out (once I got regular internet access and knew to look) that you, too, believe that the real way to prevent violence by men against women is to take funding from wealthy foundations who believe that the way to stop violence against women is to make sure that there is a man in all their homes, and a father in every abused child’s life.  Then I learned you were a resource center for women like me, and I know lots of us in the area.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Family Violence Prevention Fund  SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5178 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 31,000
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2005 90XA0109  CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT 1 0 ACF 08-03-2005 618375687 $ 496,000 

That’s from Health and Human Services.  Overall (not that this site is usually complete) USASPENDING.GOV shows the OVW funding as well:

  • Total Dollars:$41,512,886
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 92

$34 million of this was straight grants, some was contracts…..

Somehow (when I check “Grants/HHS” at USASPENDING.gov — only $13 million shows up)

so often, “Discretionary”:

Program Office Recovery Act Indicator Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
CB  90XA0109 CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT 1 08/03/2005 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities DISCRETIONARY ESTA SOLER $ 496,000
Used to write up a report on yourself?
Title: International Center to End Violence: Addressing Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Neglect. Final Report to: DHHS/Administration on Children, Youth and Families under CAPTA. Grant Number 90-XA-0109. October 31, 2007.
Published: 2007
Available from: Children’s Bureau
Administration on Children, Youth and Families
1250 Maryland Avenue, SW, Eighth Floor
Washington, DC 20024
Abstract: This final report discusses the activities and outcomes of the federally funded Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), an organization committed to building safer and stronger families by ending domestic violence, sexual assault, and other forms of abuse against women and children. Major activities and accomplishments of the FVPF are described, including: the development of an Interactive Learning and Exhibit Center, the development of the International Center to End Violence,** and the implementation of training programs and experiential learning for engaging everyday gatekeepers and young students. Activities of the FVPF’s Teacher Training Academy are also highlighted, as well as public educational and engagement activities and school-based programming.
Results 1 to 1 of 1 matches.


by Philip V. Scribano, Pediatrician

and here:

New International Center for Family Violence Prevention Fund

Quote from Ban Ki Moon

(in case graphic doesn’t show…)

“Violence against women is an issue that cannot wait . .. and we know that when we work to eradicate violence against women,
we empower our greatest resource fro development; mothers raising children; lawmakers in parliament;
chief executives; negotiators; teachers; doctors; policewomen; peacekeepers and more.”
..Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General, United Nations
And we were the first to engage men – as coaches, mentors, and positive role models to boys.

New Home, new name – in the SF Praesidio  (while – in this area — I know women who went homeless after custody-switch in the family courts; I almost did.  That’s partly a child support matter, and a child support motivation.  Where’s your blog — your website — your publication of how child support and the state of the OCSE/welfare reform affects custody decisions??  Which, in the case of women leaving violence — affects their and their kids’ safety and well-being?)

Montgomery Street Barracks

Built in the 1890s, the six red-brick Montgomery Street Barracks that frame the Main Parade have become Presidio icons. All will be rehabilitated and will feature activities and services for visitors, such as restaurants, galleries, and cultural institutions. Activities will spill out on to the Barracks’ expansive front porches and the Main Parade Ground. The Walt Disney Family Museum opened in one of the barracks in fall 2009 and the International Center to End Violence will open in another in spring 2011.

(OVW grant for this center includes a 2009 one of $2,000,000)

Yes you did engage boys and men — jumped on the bandwagon:  Fatherhood as a tool to stop domestic violence.

I saw the funding surge behind the change of tune, too:

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children.

 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

Did you train whoever trained Scott McAlpin?  Scott DeKraii? Cody Beemer?

(yet — no mention, for the sake of the single, female-headed households in the State of Ohio, that it has a Fatherhood Commission, Fatherhood Practitioners, Fatherhood Summits, and that a Legislator is still running around strengthening fatherhood to stop child abuse (like that’s the solution); that it had an Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, that is ripping off the public – in a large way — in an effort to turn back the clocks to the 1950s, pre-feminism and pre-VAWA?

in 2011, it’s up to $3,000,000

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90EV0401  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 2 0 ACF 08-04-2011 618375687 $ 250,000 
2011 90EV0414  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES 1 0 ACF 09-17-2011 618375687 $ 1,100,000 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 3,000,000

Never-Ending Education . . .


And taking money and direction from Annie E. Casey Foundation, which virtually ensures that NONE of your media campaigns are going to tell women such as myself the relevant facts about 1996 Welfare Form, of the existence of the National Fatherhood Initiative (from the start, 1994, same year as VAWA) or how these funds have been used in family court situations.  It sure has changed the tune — if, indeed, the tune ever was anything other than media campaign, technical assistance, and training since about 1997ff…   While I am very thankful to be informed that strangulation, for example, is a high indicator of lethality, as a mother experiencing it in the home, I had that figured out (particularly in contexts of the talk that went along with it). Or that my dentist should’ve reported or further questioned (he didn’t) a certain suspicious & bloody incident involving my teeth.

Sample Annie E. Casey Fatherhood program (this is a small one)

“On Thursday, October 20th, eighteen men graduated from the Newark Y Fatherhood Program. Funded through the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 167 men have participated in our workshops during the past year. …A major highlight of theFatherhood Graduation was the presentation of  awards from President Barack Obama to the Y’s CEO, Michael Bright and the Director of the Fatherhood Program, Daryl Brown. ThePresidential Award was given in recognition of their  “devotion to service and for doing all you can to shape a better tomorrow for our great Nation.”

FVPF Program purpose (from the tax return, the 2009 Form 990, below):



4.  Describe the exempt purpose achievements for each of the 3 largest program services by expenses:


**astounding.  And this was figured out when? …..









Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2009 $26,157,567 990 16 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2008 $22,018,363 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2007 $17,917,034 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2006 $13,612,574 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2005 $9,114,506 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2004 $7,045,197 990 24 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2002 $6,261,569 990 22 94-3110973
EIN# 94-3110973

Also described by them at

Grants — $11.5 million

Program income — $181K

Salaries this year — $4 million

One resource is ERI (Economic Research Institute or “http://www.eri-nonprofit-salaries.com&#8221;) which runs comparisons on non-profit organizations salaries;

 the search I just did shows their assets about $22million — and their contributions and expenditures similar, at around $13 million.  It shows a nice chart (I searched by EIN#)and has nice summaries, bar chats, etc.

Salaries in 2009 — not that running a large non-profit shouldn’t be well-rewarded.  They have offices (it says) in Boston, Washington, D.C. & San Francisco.

Except that this group — in an area where women are still being stalked, robbed of (their children, among other things), having child support reduced to nothing or being forced to pay their former batterers (innumerable), finding next to no response with law enforcement when this occurs, women have been burnt and found hogtied around a road sign (2006, unidentified, Oakland-Temescal), kidnapped from their homes, stabbed repeatedly, then dropped off on the side of the road to bleed to death in front of motorists  (Oakland/Orinda Elnora Caldwell), shot at work while IN tollbooths (2009, Ross), shot in church parking lots on a weekday morning (2007, McCall, Oakland), doused with gas and burnt alive, murdered and put in car trunks, shot (along with 6  others in beauty salons (2011, Seal Beach, CA Fournier 8 killed, 2008 Torres, Martinez 3 killed including responding officer),. . .

killed at court-ordered weekend exchanges and buried in a shallow grave only to be found when the murderer father plea-bargained it down by agreeing to locate the body (Wife missing 2006, conviction 2008, Oakland Reiser).    Children have been also kidnapped galore, sometimes being murdered afterwards by overentitled fathers, while D.A.’s are soliciting campagns to standardize their Family Justice Center model in D.C. and in the California Legislature.    I haven’t even linked to children and bystanders in this list; nor is it complete — but  a LOT of it happened around divorce, separation and child custody — and yet where is even a mention of the AFCC, CRC, or the welfare reform that funds “increased noncustodial parenting time” and forces women to try to co-parent with their batterers under fatherhood theory — such as you also have??

Here is the California Charitable Registration results for their 2010 filing (as “Futures WIthout Violence”):

Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10
Total Assets: $36,603,585.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $17,118,149.00
RRF Received: 14-JUN-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Rejected

(For the record, it was incorporated as a nonprofit in California, in a simple filing with Esta Soler and a few others, in August 1989.  To get the VAWA passed in 5 years is indeed an accomplishment, or may reflect connections the women had initially, I do not know.)

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
  • September 10, 2010 notice from California Attorney General — they forgot their fee:


The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

  • LETTER from California Attorney General, who handles charitable registrations:


The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $225 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

Must’ve just forgot — I’m sure they can afford $225.

  • Another notice says they forgot to attach a list of contributors; also 8/26/2011.


RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/10. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.

I think that along with this many people earning over $100K per years, someone should’ve taken – I did — maybe an hour of their precious PR time to read some of the material put out by UNpaid mothers who have watched and documented what the family court systems is doing to their current safety levels.  It’s not as though we aren’t on the web and aren’t talking !!!

2009 SALARIES OF FVPF, or, currently the ICEV:  (Salary to left, “estimated other compensation from other organizations”) to the right of each name

$234,229 ESTA SOLER PRESIDENT + $71,069

$168,216 THOMAS FERGUSON CFO,CAO + $14,717

$ 166,265 DEBBIE LEE SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $34,928

(also a program director for a joint project with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, “Start Strong, Building Healthy Teen Relationships”)

Start Strong: Building Healthy Teen Relationships is a national program of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) in collaboration with Futures Without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund. Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and Blue Shield of California Foundation* are investing $18 million in 11 Start Strong communities across the country to identify and evaluate best practices in prevention to stop dating violence and abuse before it starts.

Or — take a look at the assemblage of personnel on the campaign to end teen pregnancy, underneath this study of “What Research Tells Us about Latino Parenting Practices and their Relationship to Teen Pregnancy” starting with Thomas Kean, Chair of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (and former Governor of NJ). These are, basically, the rich studying and categorizing the poor — by ethnicity and about every other category — in order to better manage the population.  They are particularly interested in breeding habits, which I think is borne out of fear of being outbred (take a look at the U.S. Congress by ethnicity and gender, and make an educated guess why….)

$ 163,251 LENI MARIN SR.VICE PRESIDENT + $50,806.  (That would probably, with creativity, feed & house 3 families in the Bay Area on those benefits alone….)






$ 112,139 COLLIN CASEY DIR OF ADMINISTRATION  + $29,491  (any relationship to the Annie E. Casey people?)

In addition, contractors over $100K included:


@ $144,737. $143,855. $139,731. == for respectively:  Project Building, Project Building, and Campaign Building.

Other projects on the 990 — grandiose in scope — described on Schedule O:



EXPENSES $ 110773.

and for   “CHILDREN / YOUTH / YOUNG FAMILIES:  EXPENSES $709,895 (no description) and “PUBLIC POLICY / NEW PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” exp. $80,900.

and the plan to end all plans:


EXPENSES $ 220,101

and of course:  another expense was “LEGAL  $501,366

Well, I’ll find some of the descendants, if any, of the women mentioned above and tell them they didn’t die in vain, the 

International Center to End Violence has a plan...

I believe a better use of time would for be for these directors to go hang out in homeless camps and at soup kitchens and ask the people how they came to be homeless, and in need of eating at soup kitchens.  In the years that FVPF funds were doubling and increasing, I have noticed more and more women in those lines.  Preach for hire  in an open marketplace– not at their expense!  While this group is not actually (that I can see) taking money direct from money dedicated to welfare, they ARE taking a helluva a lot from the HHS pot to forward the fund’s personal (shared by others, but it is personal to the fund) belief (or assertions) that more training will stop violence.  Really?   You just want my children and future grandchildren, currently this is in the USA, to fund your vision about fixing the WORLD?  While in the entire time of their childhoods here, I can’t identify ONE thing that this group did to stop the battering in my home, or the family court gauntlet that followed.  (And under what name is it doing business in San Francisco, anyhow?)

Incidentally (see TAGGS grants) — many of the grants which would otherwise go to shelters are going to this type of “training and technical support” activity – it’s lumped under the same labelThen.

To be fair, here is a 2010 statement with a California Assemblyperson naming FVPF (Futures without Violence) founder Esta Soler his 2010 Woman of the Year.  It also says the organization was started — with a federal fund — in 1980 30 years ago.  Perhaps in DC or Washington – the charitable and sec of state records in California both say about 21 years ago (as of 2010), i.e. 1989 – 1999 – 2009 -that’s 20 years.

Contact: Quintin Mecke @ (415) 557-3013

Sacramento, CA – Assemblymember Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco) chose Esta Soler, the head of the Family Violence Prevention Fund, as his 2010 Woman of the Year.

“I am proud to announce Esta Soler, one of the world’s foremost experts on violence against women and children, to be Woman of the Year for Assembly District 13”, said Ammiano. “Esta is a pioneer who founded the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) nearly 30 years ago and made it one of the world’s leading violence prevention agencies.”

Under her direction, the FVPF was a driving force behind passage of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 – the nation’s first comprehensive federal response to the violence that plagues our families and communities. Congress reauthorized and expanded the law in 2000 and again in 2005.

“It’s a tremendous honor to receive this award from Assemblymember Ammiano, a wonderful friend to all of us working to end domestic, dating and sexual violence and help victims,” said Family Violence Prevention Fund President and Founder Esta Soler. “At a time when state funding for domestic violence programs is in peril, we especially appreciate champions like Tom Ammiano.”

Esta Soler first established the organization with a federal grant in 1980.

This 1980 is commonly cited — BUT unless it’s in Washington, D.C. (a corporations search page I can’t seem to sign into yet), the SF one was definitely 1989 — and thus the 1980 statement is an exaggeration.  If the grant was received in 1980, I’d like to know how much, from which department and under what name.  Most on-line databases don’t go back that far.  I hope to research this a little further perhaps to better understand this organization.

It has become the nation’s leading expert on violence against women and children, the source of numerous trailblazing prevention and intervention campaigns, and a major force in shaping public policies that prevent violence and help victims in the U.S. and worldwide.

Soler, along with the honorees, was recognized today in the 2010 Woman of the Year ceremony. Each year, members of the California State Assembly and California State Senate honor a woman from their district who has distinguished herself in service to her community.


The Minnesoh-tans (DAIP, MPDI, BWJP, Praxis, et al.) have done heroic things — but that’s no excuse for ‘taxation without representation” and the early-on insistence that your model CCR and its institutional ethnography become a nationwide model, without proof it works.  And, it doesn’t.  I hit on this particular set of nonprofits pretty hard throughout this blog, s am giving them a break today, except to mention that it took me a long time to realize that what “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT INC.” was actually about — (and which its name says) — developing (and selling) programs, 

Not stopping domestic violence

and some pretty good grants behind that business, too….

STATEWIDE COALITIONS AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:  Standardized & co-opted, used as heat shields for marriage entitites, didn’t include enough mothers leaving violence in their plans.  DIDN’t PUBLICIZE FATHERHOOD COMMISSIONS, FAITH-BASED OPERATIONS, IN THEIR RESPECTIVE STATES.  Didn’t teach women the 1996 welfare reform information in its context.

This sounds harsh, so here’s an example:

Tim Carpenter reportedrecently some juicy details about a secret April meeting to design Brownback’s marriage agenda. The Topeka Capital-Journal uncovered some information on Brownback’s plans  through a Kansas Open Records request.

The Kansas government spent $13,000 to bring together 20 mostly far-right marriage “experts” for the closed door meeting.

Organizations represented included the Heritage Foundation, Institute for American Values, Georgia Family Council, National Center for Fathering, Stronger Families, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy, Marriage Savers, Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, and National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting.

Thanks to information from Carpenter and sources, we know something of what Brownback has in mind, even though the details of the meeting remain confidential.

And (from a link in this article to another one) — ALL of these characters should be knowledgeable, household names, to anyone sitting under CADV state teachings or in their meetings. They deserve to know how things got started, and where they are going now, above the din of same-sex marriage and abortion rights issues.  This affects mothers AND fathers:

Brownback program promotes marriage

July 2, 2011, Tim Carpenter, the Topeka-Journal

(listing attendees)

Wade Horn, who redefined President George W. Bush’s faith-based initiatives in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, preached a gospel that encouraged poor women to marry their way out of poverty.

Marriage Savers creator Mike McManus said clergy members typically did a lousy job preparing couples for marriage and secular therapists were more likely to increase divorce among spouses in crisis.

This threesome was among 20 people who met behind closed doors in Topeka to share marriage program ideas with Brownback and executives at the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services.

…In his follow-up letter to Brownback obtained by The Topeka Capital-Journal, [[Mike]] McManus said Kansas should prohibit no-fault divorce unless there was proof of physical abuse or adultery. A Kansas law ought to be passed, he said, allowing judges to select a “responsible spouse,” which would always be the person opposed to divorce. The statute would allow the responsible adult to receive up to 66 percent of child visitation and 100 percent of family assets in the divorce.

Any idea what this exposes women to?   (read on).  They are already being used as disposable wombs in too many marriages; if the beatings or abuse or virtual slavery (it happens!) can be severe enough that SHE wants out, then in Kansas he doesn’t even have to go through the motions of fighting for most of the kids and ALL of the assets!  This does not protect women or children!

Horn, who resigned from HHS to take a job with Deloitte Consulting, departed the Bush administration amid reports of cronyism in awarding federal grants to the National Fatherhood Initiative he founded.

Helen Alvare, a member of the law faculty at George Mason who also was invited to Topeka, said she admired Sarah Palin’s devotion to family and professional achievement. In 2008, Alvare said Palin was “what a lot of women aspire to be on their best day.”

California writer Christelyn Karazin, who had a child out of wedlock before marrying, believed so strongly in the power of a man and woman to raise children she organized an event called “No Wedding, No Womb.”

This is portrayed as spontaneous blogging “NWNW” — so what was she doing in a secret meeting in Kansas?  Flown in at Kansans’ expense, and in the company of people such as David Blankenhorn and Wade Horn? !!   She saw the light (is now married) and so everyone else must see it the same way?  Listen to some ex-married women, girl!

It was primarily a call to the black community to take action against the birth of children without the “physical, financial and emotional protection” of a father and mother, she said.

Joyce Webb, who works with Catholic Charities’ Kansas Healthy Marriage Institute, recommended SRS divert $1 million from federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to pay for a new marriage program. TANF money is earmarked for families living in poverty.

Syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher, who was included in one published list of participants but didn’t attend, said during a speech about the pro-marriage movement that Catholics and Christians had to be the “visible light” for people failing to grasp intricacies of the institution of marriage.

SRS Secretary Robert Siedlecki, responsible for implementing the governor’s marriage initiative, said thousands of Kansans who divorce each year lacked the skills and knowledge to form sustainable relationships.* Brownback wants SRS to help fill that information gap, he said.

*that “lack the skills” phrase is a buzz word to bring on the marriage educators, which is also a growing HHS trend and probably public law by now.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, a Topeka Democrat who voted against confirmation of Brownback’s choice of SRS secretary, said he was intrigued by the governor’s simultaneous talk about removing government from the lives of the average Kansan and creating a state marriage program drenched in faith-based advocacy.

Siedlecki hired Richard Marks, the Jacksonville, Fla., director of the Marriage for Life, to join SRS and be involved in the initiative

(A little QUICK research on my part here   See the URL above:  He’s Baptist, Regent University, a Minister, adapted the PAIRS (which I think got HHS funding) curriculum for Christians, and just changed the FLorida nonprofit’s name to “CONNECTUS4LIFE, INC.” in 2002 (per Florida corporations search page called “sunbiz.org.”     EIN#562283483.  This is specifically incorporated as a “faith-based organization” and talks about the preachers involved.  This one (I just looked) seems a tidy little income — $60K raised, he gets $16K as head of the nonprofit, and gets to write off $42 of expenses running marriage enrichment seminars.

“Believing that marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God,

we as pastors and ministers in the Greater Jacksonville area are committed

to ensure that these marriages (WHICH ones?) will endure til death.”

That’s a creed — not an incorporation!

“we are dedicated to strengthening marriages as we seek to”

I attended domestic violence support groups, being a Christian, towards the end of my “cohabitation” (with my spouse).  Getting there was not easy; they were night-times.  Want to know what % of the women there were pastor’s and deacon’s wives?  I can’t name names, but the answer is — PLENTY.  At least one had tried to kill his wife; the deacons knew, and it was a LONG time before he lost that position….

He also had a role in Florida Government:  Served “four years on FLorida’s Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.”  That commission name was a new one on me, so I just looked up, to find out, from “www.Floridafathers.org” that:

Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives

The 2003 Florida Legislature passed Senate Bill 480, replacing the Florida Commission on Responsible Fatherhood with the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives as of July 1, 2003.

FamilyThe new commission will take a broader approach to strengthening families by detailing comprehensive statewide strategies for Florida to promote safe, violence-free, substance-abuse-free, respectful, nurturing and responsible parenting; including connection or reconnection of responsible parents, both mothers and fathers, with their children.

From the Kansas article, above, we now know what is meant by “responsible” parent.  It means the one that, if he resists divorce, will get 100% of the assets and (at least) 66% of the children.  Mom can struggle to enforce 34% of her visitation after she’s kicked out of the house with 0% of the assets, which has already been the case when women FLED the home for safety (with or without kids).  So, is this progress?  But the CADVs should’ve been monitoring and reporting on these things — although I know that FL CADV had their hands full with FL-AFCC on “parenting coordination” matters, around this time as I recall.

The Governor, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives will each appoint six members to the commission by August 1, 2003, with at least half of the commissioners representing the private sector

The wording starts like this – and yes indeed, Florida did vote this Commission into existence in 2003:

383.0115 The Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives.

(1) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND INTENT. The Legislature finds that:

(a) Families in this state deserve respect and support. Children need support and guidance from both mothers and fathers, and families need support and guidance from community systems to help them thrive.

(b) There are many problems facing families.

(and it gets even more brilliantly deductive from there.  I provided the link).

. . .

(e) Assisting states to end dependence of low-income parents by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage and assisting states in encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families are the two of four stated purposes of federal welfare reform enacted in 1996 which have been largely neglected by states and for which states are now urging Congress to designate 10 percent of all welfare funds, specifically for relationship education and skills development, responsible fatherhood programs, and community support as it seeks to reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Act in 2002.

. . .


(a) There is created within the Department of Children and Family Services, for administrative purposes, a commission, as defined in s. 20.03(10), called the Commission on Marriage and Family Support Initiatives. The commission is independent of the head of the department. The commission is authorized to hire an executive director, a researcher, and an administrative assistant. The executive director shall report to, and serve at the pleasure of, the commission.

This “independence within a department” is key to steering grants to cronies.  I’ve seen it in Ohio and we’re (above) witnessing it in Kansas, 2011, as we speak.

To understand some of this subculture — and after I’d been looking at the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative website for a good long while I finally noticed who was pushing the statewide Marriage Initiative, starting with at GRAB of TANF funds, and this was held up to other states as an example . . . .

I noticed “Jerry Regier” — and, for an example, here is the Wikipedia Timeline of his Job Descriptions.  He came from OK in 2002, and by 2003, Florida is voting for a Commission on Marriage and Families within the Children and Family Services.  (Mr. Regier eventually had to quit this post in FL under some scandal about steering grants to his, as I say, cronies — but ended up, for our purposes, in yet a worse place — back at HHS as Assistant Secretary of the ASPE (evaluates things) where he presided over glowing reports about his former work in Oklahoma.  That’s how the Bush-based Babies Cookie-cutter commissions (etc.) generally crumbles.  Scandal, scoot to another state, repeat…  So look at this chart with some care, OK?

Jerry Regier
Florida Secretary of Children and Families
In office
Preceded by Kathleen A. Kearney
Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services
In office
April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002
Governor Frank Keating
Preceded by Ken Lackey
Succeeded by Howard Hendrick
Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs
In office
April 6, 1997 – January 16, 2002
Governor Frank Keating
Preceded by Ken Lackey
Succeeded by Robert E. Christian
President of the Family Research Council
In office
Preceded by Post created
Succeeded by Gary Bauer

So, Jim Marks’ “Marriage for Life” organization was formed (I just learned) in 2002 as a “faith-based” organization — i.e., in the wake of GWBush’s open door executive orders for faith-based organizations of 2001.  Many of these groups form to get the grants, spend the money, and then RUN, disbanding, or being dissolved for failure to file with the IRS (or their state).

In Kansas (this is yet another article on the same issue):

SRS says Faith-based initiatives are still around, just not getting as much attention**

Oct. 23, 2011 by Scott Rothschild in “LJworld.com”

**I have 1 or 2 comments on there on these matters.  You’ll recognize which ones (just submitted another).

In a pre-Memorial Day (2011) announcement, Siedlecki reorganized SRS, which included putting Anna Pilato in a new position called Deputy Secretary for Strategic Development and Faith-Based Community Initiatives.

Are you getting a feel for this yet?

Pilato had served for five years in the Bush administration, including as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

But Pilato, who is making $97,500 per year, says that in her job she wears two hats — strategic development and faith-based initiatives — and that the strategic development part of her job, which includes overseeing the design and development of staff for SRS, is by far the larger of the two.

. . .

Recently, SRS applied for a $6.6 million grant to pay for either faith-based or secular counseling that encouraged unwed parents to marry. Under the proposal, if the couple completed counseling, the state would pay the $86.50 marriage license fee.

But the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rejected the grant.

Kansas Health Initiative published the list of who attended.  Recommend Memorizing.  Coming to your state (or what’s left of it) soon.  What’s kind of funny — Occupy Wichita made an appearance in the middle of a speech by Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation.   (Protestors Disrupt Governor’s Poverty Forum (apparently, today 11/16/2011, KHI News service.  I’m starting to like KHI…)):

A Wichita police officer tries to restrain a member of Occupy Wichita who protested at a town hall meeting on poverty Wednesday in Wichita.

Protesters interrupted the second of Gov. Sam Brownback’s town hall meetings on childhood poverty Wednesday, standing up during the keynote speech and reciting some of their objections to Brownback’s policies.

One of the 14 protesters was arrested and another was detained for a short period.

The protest began as Robert Rector, a Heritage Foundation fellow invited to give the keynote speech, delivered his remarks advocating marriage as a key way to end poverty. Protesters, most of them members of Occupy Wichita, stood silently with their backs to Rector for about 10 minutes, then began chanting their grievances once he completed his speech.

Organizers stopped the meeting for about 15 minutes, resuming after the protesters had left the downtown hotel where it was held.

That Rector should’ve had the podium at this second town hall, or the first, is a dire sign for Kansas:  (article links to this):

By Jim McLean
KHI News Service
Nov. 14, 2011

KANSAS CITY, Kan. — Reducing the number of children born to single mothers is the most effective way to combat childhood poverty.

That’s according to Robert Rector, the Heritage Foundation fellow picked by Gov. Sam Brownback to keynote the first of his administration’s three planned meetings on childhood poverty this week.

. . .

Strong reaction

Shortly after Rector finished his remarks, Kari Ann Rinker, Kansas coordinator for the National Organization for Women, left the meeting room in anger.

“I was offended in there,” Rinker said. “The things he said, the inferences he made about women and women’s worth were offensive. As I looked around the room, I saw many other people looking to each other in shock and amazement.”

Rinker said the steady increase in births to young, single women was a cause for concern. But she said making available low-cost birth control and improving the women’s self-esteem and education would more effectively address the problem.

“The silver bullet is not wedded bliss,” she said.

Ms Rinker (appears very young, no?) should — with Kansas NOW — have been on top of this situation, should be teaching women about welfare reform and how the fatherhood movement got its two bits in on the situation diverting programs to promote fatherhood and marriage.   (The information has been available on the web since 1993).  For example, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation (the article says) was instrumental in Welfare Reform.  The Congressional Record debates ON this welfare reform are framed in concern about too many women of color having babies !  (in other words, it has severely racist overtones).   To let him get up there and spout off, the same rhetoric — which is PAID FOR INFORMATION!

The number one factor behind poverty here in the state of Kansas is the death of marriage,” he said, noting that 38 percent of children in Kansas today were born to unmarried women, compared to about 5 percent in the 1960s. “This is the most dramatic social transformation in the 20th century.”

OH?  How about a few world wars (creating untold orphans) and women getting the vote, the creation of the personal income tax, taking currency off the gold standard, and the assassinations of JFK and Martin Luther King, Jr.?   How about the advent of the internet, the decline of public education,  — and how about the 2001 enablements of people like Robert Rector to get up and speak at government functions and expect faith-based organizations to drive the primary institutions around?

Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW,

on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System

 Kari Ann Rinker, President of the Kansas Chapter of NOW, on how the Budget Cuts have Affected the Justice System

Kari Ann Rinker is the President of the Kansas chapter of NOW and she joins us to talk about the budget problems in Topeka that led to end of prosecuting domestic violence cases.

Listen or Download Audio MP3

The protests illustrated how serious the issue of poverty is, said Sen. Oletha Faust-Goudeau, D-Wichita.***

“These people are using this as an avenue to voice their opinion and exercise their freedom of speech,” she said.

(***search her name on my blog.  She supported the last round of fatherhood initiatives in Kansas….  I commented on this).

The Heritage Foundation in Kansas is neither surprising, nor to be ignored.  It explains a whole lotta backwards movement when it comes to safety for women and freedom for Americans — both genders, all ages.

I remember this site from a long time ago on the Heritage Foundation.


A. K. Chesterton once said: “The proper study of political mankind is the study of power elites, without which nothing that happens could be understood.”

He added: “These elites, preferring to work in private, are rarely found posed for photographers, and their influence upon events has therefore to be deduced from what is known of the agencies they employ.”

Chesterton described those agencies: “Their goal was to work through such agencies, and financial support received from one or other or all three big American foundations–Rockefeller, Carnegie, and Ford — provides an infallible means of recognizing them.”

The Rockefellers made $200,000,000.00 from World War I. Henry Kissinger’s brother Walter heads the Allen Group. The super-wealthy (with the exception of some Du Ponts and the Fords) have long supported the Republican Party — the party of plutocratic oligarchy. “If not kings themselves, they are king-makers.” They have quick access to the White House no matter who is President. Other super-rich, such as the Rockefellers, affiliate with the Democratic Party. Politics in the U.S., no matter what party, is under the control of the super-rich, large corporations and the international bankers.

A 1995 Wall Street Journal observed the formidable influence of the Heritage Foundation on government policies since the Reagan era:

“WASHINGTON — With the Republicans’ rise to control Congress, think-tank power in the nation’s capital has shifted to the right. And no policy shop has more clout than the conservative Heritage Foundation.

“When GOP congressional staffers met in June with conservative leaders to help map current legislative efforts to cut federal funding for left-leaning advocacy groups, the closed-door meeting took place at Heritage headquarters. The group’s involvement wasn’t unusual. ‘Heritage is without question the most far-reaching conservative organization in the country in the war of ideas.’ House Speaker Newt Gingrich said early this year.

“Think tanks have long churned out studies that have wound up in official policy proposals. During Democratic times of power, the more liberal Brookings Institution has been a leading player here. Now, the 21-year-old Heritage Foundation, which rose to prominence in the Reagan years, is taking academic involvement to a new level.

“Over the first 100 days of the current GOP Congress, Heritage scholars testified before lawmakers 40 times–more than any other organization, Hill staffers say. Its scholars are credited by congressional members and staff as key architects of the House-passed welfare-overhaul plan and with inspiring some provisions in the GOP balanced-budget plan. ‘They talk to me sometimes 12 times a week,’ said Heritage budget analyst Scott Hodge earlier this year, explaining his ties to the staff of the House Budget Committee. ‘We–I mean House members–are putting together a final list of cuts.'”(5)

Paul Weyrich – considered the architect and mainstay of the conservative revolution – calls for “reclaiming the culture” and a “second American Revolution.” A look at the inflammatory, extremist rhetoric with racial and Inquisitorial overtones on the Free Congress Foundation web site should alarm Christians as to Weyrich’s real intent:


I encourage people to read this write-up on The Heritage Foundation from “SourceWatch.org” and understand (as I am beginning to)its relationship both financially and in purpose (ending TANF completely and eliminating the public education system in the United States) follows up on some serious international influence in the 1980s and 1990s.  It took me a while to keep running across the information and understand it — but the Heritage Foundation, The Unification Church and its leaders’ intent to establish  ONE world religion with him at the top (yep!) and the means by which the “faith-based operatives” (as I call them) move in and out of state-level, national-level posts and agencies, restructuring them IMMEDIATELY upon being hired (as happened with the Kansas SRS, above) – these are related.  The fight is on.  Read a segment — but don’t forget to go to the site and consider the international influence in covert wars by the US as well:


The Foundation also leaped to the defense of Ronald Reagan’s description of the former Soviet Union as an “evil empire,” a description that generated wide global rebuke as potentially inviting nuclear conflict and, at the very least, further poisoning East-West relations. But with strong support by Heritage and other influential conservatives, Reagan stood by the statement, refusing to retract it until the Soviet Union began to crumble.

In an attempt to build on its foreign policy influence, the Foundation also engages in domestic and social policy issues, but its effort in these two areas has never quite matched the influence it wielded (in the late 1980s and early 1990s) in altering the debate over American foreign policy. Yet, the Foundation continues to weigh in on these topics with varying levels of success. One of its undeniable successes has been serving as a breeding ground for many of the nation’s leading neo-conservative activists and intellectuals.

The following comments by former Republican Majority Leader Dick Armey, published in the summer 1994 issue of the Heritage Foundation’s Policy Review, exemplify the Heritage philosophy:

 (Dick Armey being a Texas Republican during the “Contract with America” years.   Below this quote…**)

Liberation is at hand…. A paradigm-shattering revolution has just taken place. In the signal events of the 1980s – from the collapse of communism to the Reagan economic boom to the rise of the computer – the idea of economic freedom has been overwhelmingly vindicated. The intellectual foundation of statism has turned to dust. This revolution has been so sudden and sweeping that few in Washington have yet grasped its full meaning…. But when the true significance of the 1980s freedom revolution sinks in, politics, culture – indeed, the entire human outlook – will change…. Once this shift takes place – by 1996, I predict – we will be able to advance a true Hayekian agenda, including…. radical spending cuts, the end of the public school monopoly, a free market health-care system, and the elimination of the family-destroying welfare dole. Unlike 1944, history is now on the side of freedom.”

(**Contract with America

In 1994, Armey, then House Republican Conference Chairman, joined Minority Whip Newt Gingrich in drafting the Contract with America. Republican members credited this election platform with the Republican takeover of Congress, rewarding Gingrich with the position of Speaker and Armey with the number two position of House Majority Leader. Gingrich delegated to Armey an unprecedented level of authority over scheduling legislation on the House floor, a power traditionally reserved to the Speaker. Armey has been accused of being involved in a 1997 attempt to oust Gingrich as Speaker,[7] something Armey has strongly denied. In 1995 Armey referred to openly homosexual Congressman Barney Frank, as “Barney Fag“. Armey said it was a slip of the tongue.[8] Armey and his staff, especially spokesman Jim Wilkinson, took the lead in spreading the idea that Al Gore claimed to have “invented the internet.”[9][10][11]

then-President CLINTON had to do something to respond to the Republican “Contract with America”  — and 1996 TANF (Welfare Reform) was what he did — or at least signed.  This 1996 TANF is a major topic of the post and has affected custody situations for years in “Conciliation Court.”  It is also affecting the economy, diverting welfare money to support needy families into more and more brutal and upfront declarations that women should marry their way out of poverty — when many women are poor and single because they fled domestic violence in the home, which might have resulted in their deaths (and sometimes still does, after separation) had they stayed, valuing “marriage” good enough to satisfy these people.    So, important to understand some of the context.  More on Armey from Wikipedia (as the above segment was):

Focus on the Family

According to Armey, he also sparred with Focus on the Family leader James Dobson while in office. Armey wrote, “As Majority Leader, I remember vividly a meeting with the House leadership where Dobson scolded us for having failed to ‘deliver’ for Christian conservatives, that we owed our majority to him, and that he had the power to take our jobs back. This offended me, and I told him so.” Armey states that Focus on the Family targeted him politically after the incident, writing, “Focus on the Family deliberately perpetuates the lie that I am a consultant to the ACLU.”[20]Armey has also said that “Dobson and his gang of thieves are real nasty bullies.[21]

Yes they are!  Of course, here’s how they describe themselves:

Focus on the Familyhelping families thrive

They are just — and this whole divert welfare into marriage promotion and abstinence education and “responsible fatherhood” etc. — are just “helping families thrive.”

(The individual, especially not the individual female or mother,  does not exist.…)

Whereas the truth is a lot closer to this:


God’s Batterers: When Religion Subordinates Women, Violence Follows

 The Washington Post | On Faith blog
by Rev. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite

Evangelical Christian ministries such as those run by Rev. Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church or James Dobson of Focus on the Family all stress “submission” as the Christian family role for wives. At the same time, these Christian Evangelical ministries staunchly deny that submission is a cause of violence against wives.

Some Evangelicals strongly disagree and have explicitly charged that it is submission that is responsible for wife battering in the “Christian” home. James and Phyllis Alsdurf, in Battered Into Submission: The Tragedy of Wife Abuse in the Christian Home, have noted that conservative Christian women can’t even get help because of this religious ideology of submission. “When she [the battered wife] musters up the courage to go public with ‘her’ problem (very likely to her pastor or a church member), what little human dignity she has retained can soon be ‘trampled underfoot’ with comments like: ‘What have you done to provoke him?’ ‘Well, you’ve got to understand that your husband is under a lot of pressure right now,’ or ‘How would Jesus want you to act: just submit and it won’t happen again.'”

In fact, Jesus gets invoked a lot to justify wife battering, especially as a model for suffering.

2006 Budget

In calendar year 2006 the Heritage Foundation spent over $40.5 million on its operations. That year the foundation raised over $25 million from individual contributors and $13.1 million from foundations.

While corporations provided only $1.5 million – 4% of Heritage’s contributions in 2006 – they none the less have significant interest in the foundations policy output. There’s defence contractors Boeing and Lockheed Martin, finance and insurance companies such as Allstate Insurance, Mortgage Insurance Companies of America, and American International Group (AIG), auto company Honda, tobacco company Altria Group (Philip Morris), drug and medical companies Johnson & Johnson,GlaxoSmithKlineNovartis, and Bristol-Myers Squibb Foundation, oil companies ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil, software giantMicrosoft, and chipping in over $100,000 each, Alticor (Amway), PfizerPhRMA, and United Parcel Service (UPS). [2]

Historical funding

Between 1985 and 2003, Media Transparency reports that the following funders provided $57,497,537 (unadjusted for inflation) to the Heritage Foundation [4]:

It goes on — but these are foundations that are to be found behind (funding) so many fatherhood and responsible marriage studies, “Fragile-families” “Strengthening Families” etc. type projects.Whether or not these projects produce as they are supposed to, they continue getting funding and supporting Ph.D.s (Sarah McLanahan of Princeton? comes to mind) to justify more of the same.

When Dobson told Dick Armey that Focus on the Family (& friends, no doubt) “Delivered” the Christian conservatives, now they want something in return — he was probably telling the truth:  Look at the amounts:








Focus On The Family CO 2006 $94,999,184 990 45 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2005 $97,414,767 990 59 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2004 $107,423,724 990 38 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2003 $102,442,464 990 35 95-3188150
Focus On The Family CO 2002 $98,175,843 990 37 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2010 $79,825,383 990 53 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2009 $90,996,703 990 61 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2008 $93,072,558 990 45 95-3188150
Focus on the Family CO 2007 $92,427,223 990 43 95-3188150
Focus On The Family Action CO 2008 $3,565,169 990O 23 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action CO 2007 $2,452,377 990O 20 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action CO 2006 $3,035,923 990O 21 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc. CO 2009 $3,953,111 990O 39 20-0960855
Focus On The Family Action Inc. CO 2005 $4,286,071 990O 19 20-0960855 

RIGHTWING WATCH partial bio of James Dobson gives an idea of the scope of influence and pull:

  • Dr. Dobson has been heavily involved with Republican administrations as an expert on the “family.” Dobson was appointed by President Ronald Reagan to the National Advisory Commission to the office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, 1982-84. From 1984-87 he was regularly invited to the White House to consult with President Reagan and his staff on family matters. He served as co-chairman of the Citizens Advisory Panel for Tax Reform, in consultation with President Reagan, and served as a member and later chairman of the United States Army’s Family Initiative, 1986-88. Dobson served on Attorney General Edwin Meese’s Commission on Pornography, 1985-86.
  • Dobson also consulted with former President George H.W. Bush on family related matters.
  • In December 1994, Dr. Dobson was appointed by Senator Robert Dole to the Commission on Child and Family Welfare, and in October, 1996, by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott to the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
  • James Dobson also founded and helped establish another successful conservative group, Washington, DC’s Family Research Council. Established in 1981 by Dobson, the group was designed to be a conservative lobbying force on Capital Hill. In the late 1980’s the group officially became a division of FOF, but in 1992, IRS concerns about the group’s lobbying led to an administrative separation.

  • James Dobson has a PhD in child development from the University of Southern California.
  • Read PFAW’s in-depth report on James Dobson.

The Family Research Council (nndb listing of who’s on the board.)

Erik Prince Business 6-Jun-1969   Founder of Blackwater Worldwide

Erik Prince

Military service: US Navy (SEAL Team Officer, 1993-96; Bosnia, Haiti)

Erik Prince is a multi-millionaire fundamentalist Christian, who co-founded the security and mercenary firm Blackwater Worldwide in 1997 with Gary Jackson, a former Navy SEAL. He is a major Republican campaign contributor, who interned in the White House of President George H.W. Bush and for conservative congressman Dana Rohrabacher, campaigned for Pat Buchanan in 1992.

His wealth came from his father, Edgar Prince, who headed Prince Automotive, an auto parts and machinery manufacturer. Prince’s sister Betsy DeVos is a powerful conservative in her own right — married to the son of Richard DeVos(Republican bankroller and co-founder of Amway), she served as chair of Michigan Republican Party in the 1990s.

Father: Edgar Prince (d. 1995, billionaire)

Dobson’s family background (He’s on the board too, obviously) included:

Dobson’s own family was a bit out of the ordinary. His father was a preacher who often told the story that he had tried to pray before he could even talk. His mother routinely beat their son with her shoes, her belt, and once, a 16-pound girdle. His parents somehow instilled so much guilt in young Dobson that he answered his father’s fervent altar-call, weeping at the front of a crowded church service and crying out for God’s forgiveness for all his sins, when he was three years old. “It makes no sense, but I know it happened,” Dobson still says of being born again as a toddler.

Families will fall apart, Dobson argues, if homosexuals have the right to marry, adopt, or raise children. For this reason, Dobson and FOTF support a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one women. Dobson and FOTF are also against abortion, against feminism, against pornography, against the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, against Oregon’s law allowing euthanasia, against Take Our Daughters to Work Day, etc.

(yes, women should stay home, that’s their business, really….)

He has proposed an innovative end run around “liberal” judges. The Republican-controlled Congress should, Dobson suggests, simply stop funding courts where judges make too many “liberal” rulings — stop paying salaries, stop sending security guards, stop paying the electric bills. “Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court,” Dobson says. “They don’t have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn’t exist anymore, and it’s gone.”

Well, he was raised with abuse at home, and bullying, and has grown up  basically the same, as Dick Armey said.

or ….

Kenneth Blackwell Government 28-Feb-1948   Ohio Secretary of State, 1999-2007
Elsa Prince Broekhuizen Relative c. 1932   Conservative financier, mother of Erik Prince
Kenneth Blackwell
Under Blackwell:

  State Treasurer Ohio (1994-98)

  Council on Foreign Relations
Family Research Council Senior Fellow for Family Empowerment
Federalist Society
Freemasonry  (!!!)
The Heritage Foundation Senior Fellow

Well, in case you want to know why I’m becoming more and more activitist — these are the stakes.  The principles of

  • LIFE

Bear a slightly different tone when one is dealing with the corporate giants and conservatives complaining that the republican congress and presidency they’d helped deliver weren’t delivering their constituency enough of the “goods” they wanted.  While these people (most of the time) themselves have become unbelievably wealthy through corporations, foundations, or simply being born into it (Erik Prince, for example) — the society they are structuring is how to create “responsible fathers” who are willing (like them) to tweak the judicial AND legislative process, go get jobs — most likely low-paying ones — in (whose???) corporations and make sure they don’t let their females get too uppity.   When legislative restrictions get in the way, they figure out an end-run around them.  I have been seeing this in state after state (thanks to the internet, and networking with others).

I also witnessed this philosophy completely destroy 3 generations of my family line when I fought for the right not to be battered in the home AND the right to work independently to support what was left of this household in a profession of my choosing and for which both my own parents sacrificed to get the college training in.  Throughout the court craziness — that would put any normal business underground within a year, without being propped up artificially — I had situations where a 20 minute hearing, or a short rubberstamping by an official who didn’t know our family, obviously hadn’t read the court record, and didn’t respect the existing laws (or court orders), even ones in his own hand — would completely restructure my, and my children’s lives.

We should be aware that the act of going before a “Conciliation Court” is going to expose people — your family & friends — to this treatment.

We should be aware that the act of taking ANY form of welfare (whether for food, cash aid — or, Moms, child support) is also exposing you to the same thing.  I tried to get out – -and was pulled back in, as are others.  We need forms of living which enable us to fight back against the complete undermining NOT of “Family Values” but of the US Constitution (which is probably in suspension by now, but it should not be so easily forgotten).

The public pays — and I have blogged this, after becoming aware — for public employees to pay membership in private nonprofits designed to help them run the child support business.  At these meetings — in my state it calls itself a “COALITION OF EXPERTS COLLECTING BILLIONS FOR CALIFORNIA’S CHILDREN” — the collaborate and plan how to EXPAND the welfare state, not reduce it.  They look for ways to have more families become “Title IV-D” families, which brings on the programs, brings program funding to the counties, and etc.

It’s a ridiculous state of affairs — and as far as I can tell the groups in this chart below have not been reporting on it or doing anything about it:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Des Moines IA 50312-5259 POLK 942559469 $ 3,204,336
MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Jefferson City MO 65101-7801 COLE 184477318 $ 2,438,927
MISSOURI COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  Jefferson City MO 65101-7801 COLE 868492646 $ 718,239
Nassau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc.  HEMPSTEAD NY 11550 NASSAU 947923397 $ 381,000

(this has been rather an exhausting page to put up… but… it may prevent some detours in understanding the FAMILY courts specifically — which, after all, are really conciliation courts.)

Just a few words on the NCADV which is a Denver, Colorado-based nonprofit, and what they are marketing:



It is a membership organization (you don’t see it on the above states list, right?).  It has sliding scale membership fees — but the public IS paying its dues, because the state organizations pay by % of their budget or   — well, as it goes:

State Coalitions and National Organizations—0.1% of your annual budget, ($500 minimum) . . .

I think you can deduce at least some things they are selling, along with memberships — and it’s information and conference attendance, plus some other perks:

Programs and Agencies:

Non-Profit DV, SA or Dual Program—0.1% of your annual budget, ($250 minimum)

  • 15% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
  • Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings
  • NCADV electronic newsletters
  • Access to NCADV special publications such as The Voice: The Journal of the Battered Women’s Movement
  • One National Directory of Domestic Violence Programs for $84.95 (reg: $99.95)
  • Savings on Mutual of America’s Hotline Plus Retirement Plans
  • Discounts on ReadyTalk audio and web conferencing rates
  • Discounts and savings on AmCheck payroll processing services
  • Unlimited job and event postings on NCADV’s website

Other Non-Profit* or Government Agency** (includes law enforcement and military)—$250*/$300**

  • 10% discount on NCADV products and merchandise
  • Special discounted registration rates to NCADV’s national conferences and trainings

(etc. etc.)  Great deals — if you’re in the business.  As you can see, they are marketing to DV PRACTITIONERS. .  They also do the conferences, where more speakers can also cross-market to attendees.  Here’s 2012:

NCADV’s 15th National Conference Domestic Violence
NOMAS’ 37th National Conference on Men and Masculinity

Preserving Our Roots While Looking to the Future

July 22-25, 2012
Denver, CO

Special Keynote Speaker: Ellen Pence 

The fact that Ellen Pence is speaking (who is a Duluth person) shows the similarity of approaches.

Denver Registration:  NCADV has been around since 1992 in Colorado (as a “foreign” corporation):

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID Number Document Number Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Event Status Form Formation Date
1 19921036251  19921036251 NATIONAL COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Application for Authority/
Entity Name
Good Standing FNC 04/07/1992

and in 2008 picked up another trade name (good to check out where one can):

# ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 20081544805  20081544805 Domestic Violence Protection & Prevention Coalition Effective FNC 10/13/2008 03:53 PM

I found a group called “CFC” which lists (that new name) as “Best of the CFC” and links to an automated payroll deduction for contribution to it.


Our kids were not your kids to bargain their rights away for supervised visitation, batterers intervention, parent education classes, or for that matter the more recent “Family Justice Centers.” I personally am recommending a boycott of Verizon (which helps fund these) for that very reason, after a season of being unable to even obtain a single cell phone to help replace the last lost job through the “HelpLine” or anywhere locally that promised this.

I am not very hopeful for the USA, but I live here, so this is part of my contribution as a citizen to report, and part of the legacy I could NOT leave my daughters because they were taken overnight, illegally, and with no remedy: primarily to satisfy someone’s too-large ego, and enabled by what law enforcement, in our case, was not. What was the price? They don’t even have all the facts in their own case, yet, or why society wouldn’t let me simply live and let live after throwing out, or why pro bono legal services for women basically won’t touch this with a 10-foot pole; they are focused on the low-income noncustodial males, and their career tracks, while enabling the rich ones to torture insubordinate exes through the courts. (Note: not my situation, but I see the cases).

California ‘Open Carry’ Ban passed Senate…and passing the Assembly Public Safety Committee: Some Domestic Violence Questions

leave a comment »

I just happened to catch this in a news subtitle — it was not discussed at all.  However, a group is definitely tracking Open Carry laws nationwide:



HOT: Click here to defend open carry rights in California!


Get Involved in Your State By Signing The Appropriate Petition!





South Carolina


New Here? Join The Forum!



A pro-gun Internet community focused on the right to openly carry properly holstered handguns in daily American life.


“A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost”

“[G]ang members aren’t known to open carry.”



“We don’t suggest that people panic,
because there hasn’t been a problem with open-carry demonstrations in other cities.”



They are talking about California SB 661 and AB 144, part of which I’ve quoted below.

They write, in opposition:

Subject: Oppose AB 1144 & SB 661

Dear Assembly member [or Senator] _______:

I urge you to oppose AB 144 & SB 661.

These bills are aimed at making it difficult or impossible to open carry properly holstered handguns in California. Because California’s concealed handgun permit program allows Sheriffs and police chiefs absolute discretion in issuance of concealed carry permits, open carry is the only way for most California citizens to carry handguns in public.

If these bills pass, California gun owners will be forced to open carry rifles and shotguns in public places – something which remains legal under the bills. California residents deserve to retain their Second Amendment right to carry handguns, and proponents of these bills want to stomp our rights into the ground.

A number of people in our state are allowed to carry concealed weapons, because they have a concealed carry permit.  But not Exposed Unloaded Weapons, because it freaks too many law-abiding citizens out.    Lest we have too many freaked-out citizens (not good for business) around, California is passing another law to stop this

I respond as a domestic violence survivor who had dealt with multiple guns (not the only weapon) in the home,   It was actually the knives that frightened me more, along with the previous injuries involving neither gun nor knife.  Overall, living in fear is now way to live, period.    After years of attempting other law-abiding ways to deal with law-breaking behaviors, I sometimes look back and wonder how it might have played out had I learned to be more aggressive, and had come into life (including marriage) with the ability to handle a firearm and self-defense training.

By the end of this (ever-extending) post, you’ll read about an Open Carry advocate soccer mom, who was shot to death by her parole officer husband anyhow (they had young children and were not even separated); about how groups that are typically anti-DV laws (if not feminism) that are quite alert as to violation of civil liberties, and how the domestic violence response typically is, well, er — despite how hated it is by certain groups — still ineffective.

This topic hits close to home, which means it may NOT be my best post, but I’m putting this information out FYI, food for thought.  Nibble on some of it, and I hope digest some — if Open Carry is a misdemeanor, then how are women to stay alive and keep their kids alive when there is real — not false allegations, not trumped-up reasons (as it ALLEGEDLY happens so often in courts) — real danger to life, limb, and bystanders because of earlier poor choice of partners followed by the No Exit systems which the family custody arena truly is?

I wonder whether the father who just allegedly shot his two-year old to death, and himself, was  illegally carrying a concealed weapon.  If the open carry ban finishes its course through California Legislature (both houses) and is signed into law, then this situation might have been an illegal open-carry violation.  Either way, it BEGAN at least in violation of a family court custody/visitation order.    And Mr. Samaan comes from a family with an attorney and a father in the family court business, and his mother (Mrs. Marak Samaan) a marriage counselor emphasizing, or at least selling, to the Christian community.

[No news article to date has mentioned any role the child support system played in this case, either, just a note…]

DV Laws protested by Men’s Father’s and certain OpenCarry, etc. Groups:

When it comes to claiming VAWA and Domestic Violence laws violate civil rights, as to carrying guns, some groups are right on it.  Good for them, I guess — but where would a woman in these groups go if being assaulted by a husband, stalked by an ex, and left open and unprotected by the courts, including certifiably insane restraining order/suggestions?   The domestic violence entities, while being assailed by father’s rights as too feminist, and violating civil rights (although abuse in the home violates that individual’s a good deal more than rights) have in fact (as I look at the funding in particular, and the rhetoric) lost their feminist edge & fire.

Where is the conversation to the contrary? — on women who have already been threatened, stalked, assaulted, etc. by specific individuals, what about their right to protect themselves, and the impact of no open carry on that?  Particularly when the person has gone to jail and been sprung again, as in the case of the infamous Toms’ River murder in NJ?

 Anti-VAWA and Anti-DV policies groups are “all over” how domestic violence laws and policies violate their civil rights, including to carry guns, but why are DV Advocates so silent, that a woman might have a cause to?

Instead, they propose (along with these groups), counselings, interventions, publications, and ‘fatherhood’ (programs) as a tool to mitigate abuse!  Even absent proof that these schemes even lessen custody- and domestic violence-related male on female homicides & infanticides!

An earlier post on this blog compared approximately 10 years of domestic violence incidents — and I do not remember whether in PA or MN (but probably one of those two states).  The topic was likely around mother’s day or fathers’ day, “Can we call it a day?”  What I discovered was that the one case where the mother was NOT shot to death in front of her kids, and or a variation of that — was a woman who had a restraining order on, AND a gun in the home, and had informed her neighbors of this.  The man violated the restraining order, and was shot — to death.  She was not incarcerated for this.   However horrible this is, if it were closer to the norm — rather than leaving women cowering in fear, or stranded/beached in false hope for enforcement, or legal protections which don’t, really exist — how many fewer deaths would there be?

Right now, mothers and children are being sent a CLEAR message that if they do not conform, not to the court orders, but to the father’s demands, someone is going to die.  And instead of handling this, the press reports “bitter custody dispute” and “resource centers” like “Endabuse.org” (renamed the idealistic “Futures Without Violence”) or “Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs” (Minnesota Program Development), or the NCJFCJ (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, a Reno, Nevada based corporation which supports an amazing database of information on custody, violence, etc. — but is basically connected strongly to the AFCC elements, i.e., family preservation except where there’s been “parental alienation” in which case, punish that bitch for breaking up the family) and other “resource centers” as I have been blogging — these groups run more and more studies, on the government dole, and put up more websites.

Rarely mentioned is how, for example, a family court judge in New Hampshire moved to President of the NCJFCJ, and then on to the Executive Branch USA of Office of Violence Against Women.  (I’m speaking of Susan Carbon), and the impact this may have on who gets which grants.

Here’s a  brief sample of the “Resource Center Concept,” if you can catch the language — none of which enables a single person to protect him or herself from a determined abuser with an illegal or unregistered gun (or other lethal weapon, which might include a car, fire, or other household items turned lethal).  This is from an HHS/ACF.gov  site, i.e., Federal policies & funding:

Domestic Violence Resource Network

The Domestic Violence Resource Network (DVRN) is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to inform and strengthen domestic violence intervention and prevention efforts at the individual, community, and societal levels. View this document in printer-friendly Adobe Acrobat format (PDF, 282KB).

exit disclaimerThe DVRN works collaboratively to promote practices and strategies to improve our nation’s response to domestic violence and make safety and justice not just a priority, but also a reality. DVRN member agencies ensure that victims of domestic violence, advocates, community-based programs, educators, legal assistance providers, law enforcement and court personnel, health care providers, policy makers, and government leaders at the local, state, tribal and federal levels have access to up-to date information on best practices, policies, research and victim resources.

The DVRN includes two national resource centers, three special issue resource centers, four culturally-specific Institutes, the National Center on Domestic Violence, Trauma & Mental Health, the National Network to End Domestic Violence, and the National Domestic Violence Hotline.

National Resource Centers

National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
www.vawnet.org exit disclaimer

The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV), a project of the
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, provides a wide range of free,
comprehensive and individualized technical assistance, training and resource
materials. The scope of NRCDV’s technical assistance is broad and includes domestic
violence intervention and prevention, community education and organizing, public
policy and systems advocacy, and funding. T

Another of these resource centers includes the BWJP — Battered Women’s Justice Project, which has by now collaborated and is collaborating with the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) ,to the point of making presentations at AFCC conferences.  Why not?  It’s where the money is!

Battered Women’s Justice Project
Criminal and Civil Center

www.bwjp.orgexit disclaimer

The Battered Women’s Justice Project consists of two partnering agencies that operate
in separate locations.

The Battered Women’s Justice Project (BWJP) promotes change within the civil and
criminal justice systems that enhances their effectiveness in providing safety, security
and justice for battered women and their families.

Does it say, in the Family Law systems?  No!  This is common among DV advocates.  They “forget” the dynamic between family & criminal laws, or at least

they forget to tell women served in their nonprofits helping women, about this dynamic.

BWJP provides technical assistance   {{information posted on websites, consultations, publications, conferences, etc.}}
to advocates, civil attorneys, judges and court personnel, law enforcement officers,
prosecutors, probation officers, batterers intervention program staff, defense attorneys
and policymakers; and to victims of domestic violence and their families and friends.

Notice how “victims of domestic violence” is (a) last and (b) not even a separate category, lumped in with “their families and friends.”

Through trainings and consultations, we disseminate up-to-date information on recent
research findings and promote the implementation of best practices and policies that
emerge from the work of pioneering communities around the country.

They disseminate information on research findings (including some that they participated in producing) and promote practices and policies emerging from

“Pioneering communities” (such as these nonprofits are the model for) around the country.



This is why, when it comes to an Open Carry Ban, our ears should perk up.


Domestic Violence Fairytales Threaten Constitutional Protections

The Violence Against Women Act includes a definition of domestic violence that is so wide you could drive a Mack truck through it.
September 2, 2010 – 12:00 am – by Carey Roberts
(very long comments thread on this one, cites a single incident from NH, with glee, where a woman was convicted of perjury around DV):
This article (undated, from Ohio), instructs gun owners how to maintain their rights despite a domestic violence accusation:

Domestic Violence and Your Right to Bear Arms

By: Derek A. DeBrosse, Esq. Coordinator, Ohioans for Concealed Carry Owner, The Law Office of Derek A. DeBrosse  {{emphases mine except title}}

Domestic violence is a fact of life in today’s society. Numerous laws and regulations exist not only to try to protect the victim, but also to punish the guilty. Unfortunately, the unscrupulous family member or significant other to deprive an innocent party of his or her right to keep and bear arms can also use these laws. Any time a claim of domestic violence is raised, firearms rights are jeopardized.

Firearms disqualifiers exist under both the state and federal laws that may prohibit a person from possessing firearms. Under the Ohio Revised Code § 2923.13 there are five circumstances in which a person may be disqualified from owning firearms, none of which, by themselves, involve domestic violence. One of the federal disqualifiers, however, (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)) states that no person shall possess any firearm if they have been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence in any court. This provision, also known as the Lautenberg Amendment, has created a great deal of litigation

Relevant part of section (g) of the Federal Disqualifiers, here (see also the link):

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person –

(1) who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

. . . (2….7),

(8) who is subject to a court order that – 

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;(B) restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child; and (C)(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or (ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or (9) who has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

The question comes to my mind is — does any ruling in a family court venue consist of a ‘Conviction’?  As it’s not a court dealing with torts, it’s a court of equity, right?


Pertaining to civil suits in “equity” rather than in “law.” In English legal history, the courts of “law” could order the payment of damages and could afford no other remedy (see damages). A separate court of “equity” could order someone to do something or to cease to do something (e.g., injunction). In American jurisprudence, the federal courts have both legal and equitable power, but the distinction is still an important one. For example, a trial by jury is normally available in “law” cases but not in “equity” cases.”  (USCOURTS.gov, Glossary, “Equity)

Tort (same source)

“A civil, not criminal, wrong. A negligent or intentional injury against a person or property, with the exception of breach of contract.”


A judgment of guilt against a criminal defendant.

BACK to the OHIO attorney’s article:

A Difficult Situation

A gun enthusiast who is facing a wrongful accusation of domestic violence may have many options at his or her disposal. Most importantly, however, the individual must consult with a competent attorney immediately and before making any statements or signing any paperwork. During the initial consultation, the accused must let the attorney know that he or she is a gun owner, and that keeping his or her Second Amendment rights is one of the client’s goals.

Many times, domestic violence charges can be thrown out for lack of evidence. More often, though, prosecutors will not dismiss even questionable claims out of a desire not to appear unsympathetic to the victims.


A Teacher in Oregon sues for right to carry a gun to school for protection from DV.   Right….

The Oregonian Staff

An Oregon teacher fighting to carry a handgun to class took her case to court Tuesday, asking a judge to validate her right to carry a concealed weapon in school.

“Jane Doe,” who has asked to keep her name secret, says she is a victim of domestic violence. She teaches high school in Medford, a city of 75,000 in southern Oregon.

In her filing in Jackson County Circuit Court, she asked the judge to tell the Medford School District to stop interfering with her right to carry a Glock 9mm semiautomatic pistol to work. She says her mission is twofold: to protect herself from an abusive ex-husband and to strike a blow in favor of the right to bear arms.

“I want to be able to carry one because it is my Second Amendment right,” she said.

Her attorney said Tuesday that he considered the case a constitutional one; her safety concerns only enhance the argument.



To which some commented:

Perhaps if she is in so much danger from her ex she should not be working with children in the first place. I’m certainly sympathetic to her DV issues, but in my mind if she is so concerned about being attacked at school that she needs a gun, then she is putting everyones eles in harm’s way.

I would be removing my child from her class immediately, but the problem is she is going as a “Jane Doe”. I’m sure there are some fairly nervous parents in Medford, Oregon right now.

I cannot imagine this situation.  Reality check would say, the woman should consider the safety of the children she is in front of first, be willing to make a career change if necessary, economic hit or no economic hit, and insist that the school have measures to keep prohibited persons, such as her ex, off campus, or remove herself from in front of children that might be subject to stray bullets.    In 2008, a woman was stabbed in front of her classroom (plus shots fired):

PORTSMOUTH, Ohio — A man charged into a school where his estranged wife was a teacher Thursday morning, fired a gun before he stabbed her as her fifth-grade class watched, police said. He later was found dead in his home after apparently shooting himself during a standoff with police.

Police originally said William Michael Layne shot his wife at Notre Dame Elementary, but Chief Charles Horner said it was unclear whether a gunshot fired in the school hit her.

Minutes before the teacher was stabbed, police say her husband stabbed and wounded a different woman in an alley about five blocks from the school.

Horner said at a news conference that he did not know whether that victim, Stephanie Loop, 22, knew the teacher. Loop was also in critical condition.

Christi Layne had filed for divorce Jan. 25.

I remember this case.  The man was 56, his girlfriend, that he feared losing, as we see 34 years younger, and the wife closer to his own age, obviously “estranged.”  A student describes witnessing the carnage in the elementary school classroom:

The shooting happened around 9 a.m. at the Catholic school on Portsmouth’s main road. Student Emmaly Baker said she hid in the classroom’s coatroom when the gunman came in.

We heard gunshots, and we heard her yelling. I was scared,” she told WSAZ-TV. “The police officer came and got us and she was still laying there and she was hurt really bad.”

The suspect fled, and for hours after the shooting, a SWAT team surrounded a house about two miles away. Neighbors saw officers shooting at the house at one point, and police said those shots were with low-caliber bullets used to disable a surveillance camera Layne had installed in his yard.

Neighbor Jack Freeland said police eventually broke through the door with a battering ram and sent in a robot.

Suspect shoots himself
Police had been involved in a domestic dispute between the Laynes about two weeks ago, Horner said, but he did not give details.

It was of course just a “dispute,” although police were called in to settle it or separate them, evidently.

The 56-year-old suspect, known as Mike, was a retired assistant director at the city’s water distribution plant. He apparently shot himself in the head with a shotgun, Coroner Terry Johnson said. He was found in the garage behind his house near the school, Horner said   …

The scene was chaotic, with police cars and few ambulances descending on the school, and the fire department blocked off the street.

The school and another Catholic school nearby were locked down, said Deacon Tom Berg, vice chancellor of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Columbus. The diocese was sending a crisis team. Local public schools also were locked down, said Superintendent Jan Broughton, who oversees the community’s public schools.

This is  The Associated Press co. 2011, and my understanding is this here is Fair Use and not a violation of that copyright.

A Colorado Criminal Defense Attorney discusses the 1996 Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968  This site (URL “Domestic Violence Lawyer.com”)  addresses how it affects military convicted of DV whose job requires them to carry arms

Colorado Criminal Law Domestic Violence Right to Bear Arms

Colorado Criminal Law: Why Military (Soliders) and Law Enforcement Need to Understand the Impact of a Domestic Violence Conviction on The Right to Bear Arms

The Lautenberg Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, effective 30 September 1996, makes it a felony for those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.

The Amendment also makes it a felony to transfer a firearm or ammunition to an individual known, or reasonably believed, to have such a conviction. Soldiers are not exempt from the Lautenberg Amendment.

What are Felony Convictions?

Depending on State law, and the type of Felony conviction, there may be a restriction to the right to possess firearms.

The Lautenberg Amendment. The Federal Gun Control Act of 1968, as amended in 1996, makes it a federal felony for anyone who has a qualifying misdemeanor conviction for domestic violence to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition.

For the Lautenberg Amendment, “misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence” are predicate offenses; any crime that “has, as an element, the use . . . of physical force” qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Military regulations have made the act applicable to domestic violence felonies.

What qualifies for a felony conviction must be examined in each case and considered for its elements.

For example under current law in the 9th Circuit, Federal Court of Appeals… violence. has been interpreted to be “physical force” more forceful than de minimis (minimal ) contact, that being something like bare physical contact, whereas other Federal Courts have considered any bare physical contact with another as a use of “physical force” against that person.

There are no exceptions to the Lautenberg prohibition and unless it is avoided entirely, or cured by dismissal, expungment or some legal action to remove it from the individualfs criminal history… the soldier or police officerfs career is at risk since he/she cannot legally carry weapons or ammunition until it is cleared.

It is also a felony for someone to issue or dispose of firearms or ammunition to anyone with a qualifying conviction if you know, or should know, about the conviction.

This dates from 2005 and lists 10 case precedents affirming it.  Source is a Tea Party promoter, “FreeRepublic”, self-advertised as:

Welcome to Free Republic!
Free Republic is the premier online gathering place for independent, grass-roots conservatism on the web. We’re working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America. And we always have fun doing it. Hoo-yah!


Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is “You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980’s when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole.”

“It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection.”

This article at “PSACake.com” (date, 2000) says essentially the same thing:
Just Dial 911? The Myth of Police Protection
Published in The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty – April 2000
by Richard W. StevensRichard Stevens is a lawyer in Washington, D.C., and author of Dial 911 and Die (Mazel Freedom Press, 1999).Underlying all “gun control” ideology is this one belief.” “Private citizens don’t need firearms because the police will protect them from crime.” That belief is both false and dangerous for two reasons.First, the police cannot and do not protect everyone from crime. Second, the government and the police in most localities owe no legal duty to protect individuals from criminal attack. When it comes to deterring crime and defending against criminals, individuals are ultimately responsible for themselves and their loved ones. Depending solely on police emergency response means relying on the telephone as the only defensive tool. Too often, citizens in trouble dial 911 . . . and die.Statistics confirm the obvious truth that the police in America cannot prevent violent crime. In 1997 for example, nationwide there were 18,209 murders, 497,950 robberies, and 96,122 rapes.[1] All those crimes were unprevented and undeterred by the police and the criminal justice system.

Many criminals use firearms to commit their crimes. For example, in 1997 criminals did so in 68 percent of murders and 40 percent of robberies.[2] Thus criminals either have or can obtain firearms. The existing “gun control” laws do not stop serious criminals from getting guns and using them in crimes.Practically speaking, it makes little sense to disarm the innocent victims while the criminals are armed. It is especially silly to disarm the victims when too often the police are simply unable to protect them. As Richard Mack, former sheriff of Graham County, Arizona, has observed: “Police do very little to prevent violent crime. We investigate crime after the fact.”

Americans increasingly believe, however, that all they need for protection is a telephone. Dial 911 and the police, fire, and ambulance will come straight to the rescue. It’s faster than the pizza man. Faith in a telephone number and the local cops is so strong that Americans dial 911 over 250,000 times per day.
Yeah, well, we also elect certain Presidents that make lots of promises, like jobs creation, and marriage promotion, etc.  Much of our society is just based on believing ridiculous promises fed to us.

Yet does dialing 911 actually protect crime victims? Researchers found that less than 5 percent of all calls dispatched to police are made quickly enough for officers to stop a crime or arrest a suspect.[3] The 911 bottom line: “cases in which 911 technology makes a substantial difference in the outcome of criminal events are extraordinarily rare.”[4]

No Duty to ProtectIt’s not just that the police cannot protect you. They don’t even have to come when you call. In most states the government and police owe no legal duty to protect individual citizens from criminal attack. The District of Columbia’s highest court spelled out plainly the “fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.”[5]

PSACAKEsite today [ my 9/11/11 revision of 9/10 post] is displaying Sept. 11, “Never Forget” a flag, and the names of victims, no hyperlinks invite entry to other pages.  Site appears to relate to statistics, i.e.  Psacake.com Website Analysis

AND from “http://www.mcrkba.org/w19.html” = “Maryland Citizens Right to Keep and Bear Arms”  [I DNK if this is a business or nonprofit]
Prof. Leddy, formerly a N.Y. officer, cites personal experience: The ability of the state to protect us from personal violence is limited by resources and personnel shortages [in addition to which] the state is usually unable to know that we need protection until it is too late. By the time that the police can be notified and then arrive at the scene the violent criminal has ample opportunity to do serious harm. I once waited 20 minutes for the New York City Police to respond to an “officer needs assistance” call which has their highest priority. On the other hand, a gun provides immediate protection. Even where the police are prompt and efficient, the gun is speedier.Reference: Silver and Kates, “Handgun Ownership, Self-defense and the Independence of Women in a Violent, Sexist Society” in RESTRICTING HANDGUNS at 144-7.

In fact there is little lack when it comes to men’s groups (in particular) talking about how bad DV laws are and how they restrict their civil rights.  For example, (also from Maryland — as the last excerpt was), two pages from a “Special Report” (co. 2011) by “SAVE”  — “Stop Abusive and Violent Environments”

Note:  3 of their

Ten Principles to Reform Domestic Violence Policies  (#s 7 – 10) include

7. Counseling, Not Incarceration – Counseling and treatment are preferred over criminal justice interventions, especially for minor and one-time incidents.

8. Qualified Personnel – Staff who provide counseling and treatment need to have appropriate qualifications and expertise.

9. Family Preservation – Programs must be designed to preserve families and partner relationships whenever it is possible and safe to do so.”

SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

P.O. Box 1221 Rockville, MD 20849 www.saveservices.org

Historical Development

Over the years, representatives of the domestic violence field have worked tirelessly to expand the legal scope and effect of our nation’s domestic violence laws.

The process began in the 1980s when the first state-level laws were enacted to permit the issuance of restraining orders for partner abuse. In 1984, the federal government passed the Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, which provided funding to abuse shelters. Ten years later, the federal government enacted the Violence Against Women Act, designed to strengthen the response of the criminal justice system to domestic violence cases.

That milestone set the stage for a dramatic expansion of state domestic violence laws. From 1997 to 2003, states enacted an estimated 1,500 domestic violence laws.2 These laws encompass

1all facets of the criminal justice system: response to 911 calls, issuance of civil restraining orders, arrest, prosecution, and judicial education.

Analysis of Effects on Civil Rights

This Special Report enumerates nine fundamental civil liberties that are affected by domestic violence laws. For each of the civil rights, this report identifies the relevant Constitutional Amendment(s), cites illustrative Supreme Court rulings, documents offending domestic violence laws and policies, and estimates the number of persons whose rights are compromised each year.

This information is presented in the Appendix of this report, “Analysis of Civil Rights and Domestic Violence Policies.”3 The findings are summarized here:

Civil Restraining Orders

1. Freedom of speech 2. Protection from governmental intrusion 3. Due process 4. Freedom to marry and the right to privacy in family matters 5. Right to parent one’s own children 6. Right to bear arms

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by restraining orders: 1.5 million

Criminal Justice System

7. Right to be secure in their persons

8. Right to a fair trial

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by biased criminal justice procedures: 462,000

Treatment Services

9. Equal treatment under the law

Estimated number of persons whose rights are harmed each year by discriminatory treatment services: 272,000

These numbers add up to an estimated 2.2 million persons. Since some individuals experience repeated violations of their civil liberties in a given year, a more conservative number is 2 million persons whose constitutionally protected rights are compromised each year by domestic violence laws and policies.

While I’m here:

Stop Abusive and Violent Environments 
P.O. Box 1221
Rockville, MD 20849

SAVE is a 501(c)3 organization incorporated in the State of Maryland.

Maybe it was, but here’s the search page now:

http://www.sos.state.md.us/Charity/SearchCharity.aspx  “

0 records match your request.  
(does show as incorporated, though at Maryland Dept. of Assessments and Taxation
(Dept. ID)Entity NameEntity DetailStatus(D12735569)STOP ABUSIVE AND VIOLENT ENVIRONMENTS INCGeneral Info.AmendmentsPersonal PropertyINCORPORATED

Here’s another:  ‘Equal Justice Foundation” in Colorado, associated with “dvmen.org”


During 2003 the Equal Justice Foundation conducted research and published papers in areas ranging from:

Domestic violence. To quell the hysteria surrounding family violence the EJF has undertaken studies of the causes, prevalence, and legal and social remedies for domestic violence and abuse of men, women, and children without regard to sex. Our objective remains to fix the problem, not the blame.

The research paper by Corry, Fiebert, and Pizzey titled “Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men” (ejfi.org/DV/dv-6.htm) remains heavily accessed with about 20 users a day. Our paper was referenced in several local and national news articles during 2003.

20 users a day is “heavy”?  I get much more than that……

Dr. Corry continues to attend the monthly meetings of the Colorado Domestic Violence Offender Management Board (DVOMB) in Lakewood, and serves on the research committee of the DVOMB. A major goal of the DVOMB research committee is to determine the efficacy of current treatment practices for offenders convicted of domestic violence.

Marriage and families. We advocate for the preservation of families and strengthening the institution of marriage as a contract between two individuals. Working in close affiliation with Prof. Stephen Baskerville of Howard University, a great deal of information was published on our web sites concerning the very negative impact of current laws and government practices on children, families, and marriage.

It is our fundamental tenet that children need both parents in order to develop into healthy, educated, and productive citizens, and we work toward keeping children with their parents whenever possible.

EJI’s outlook — typified in an anecdote, Timothy Joe Emerson, a medical doctor and guns collector:

At the time Dr. Emerson was the lawful owner of approximately 30 firearms of varying types that he had owned both before and all during the marriage. His collection included a 9mm model 92F Beretta pistol purchased on October 10, 1997, that he kept in his office. It is fairly common, and prudent for medical doctors who have many drugs in their offices to also keep a firearm there.
Note that about half of the hundreds of married men who have contacted the Equal Justice Foundation have been charged with domestic violence or abuse after finding their wives were having an affair. Allegations of domestic violence or abuse are a standard tactic in a divorce today with virtually no recourse for the husband. Under current laws such false allegations are standard as they give the adulterous wife the house, the car, the kids, the bank account, and anything else she wants with no questions asked, i.e., due process is a thing of the past. She will also almost certainly receive child support even if the child(ren) prove not to be her husband’s. And there is no penalty for her perjury.

Temporary orders hearing for divorce

I think you get the picture:  DV allegations are just adulterous women trying to rip off honest, hard-working men.  This goes on to detail how he lost his medical practice because of this.  Meanwhile, women in family court fighting fatherhood-grants-funded practices also sometimes lose their professions (I did mine!), and sometimes their lives.  Or their children lose their lives, too.

WHAT EJI propounds:

• Citizens shall not be torn from their homes and children in the middle of the night based on nothing more than hearsay.

• Men and women shall not be presumed guilty until they can prove their innocence.

• A secret tribunal shall not have the power to force a man from his home without notice or hearing.

• Police shall not have the right to enter and search a citizen’s home without a warrant.

• Citizens shall not be imprisoned based only on hearsay.

• Citizens are not more afraid of the police than they are of criminals.

• A legal system exists that does not tolerate perjury or the subornation of perjury.

Then logically speaking, the family law system would have to be dismantled, as it’s run primarily by people more interested in subjective, than objective facts, which your local court professional will then interpret.

• Citizens shall not be censured by public officials for crimes they have not committed.

• Men and women are not made to work as indentured servants or held in thrall to others for acts they have not committed.

• A marriage license does not make men and women servants of the State or give courts possession of their children.

(that was enabled decades ago in Conciliation law — see AFCC; most people don’t notice til it hits them).

This is a vocal, but not large, nonprofit:

Equal Justice Foundation, per its site: (bottom of page):

A non-profit 501(c)(3) public charity incorporated under the laws of the State of Colorado.

Incorporated in 2001 in Colorado:

1 20011030545  20011030545 EQUAL JUSTICE FOUNDATION, INC. Articles of Incorporation Good Standing DNC 02/12/2001

Purpose stated is to promote equal treatment of both sexes and anything else a corporation can do:

They got off to a good start in the ‘equality’ with the phrase “Know all men by these presents” ( (:  were women allowed to know also?)

The members pay dues as determined by the three directors, and an odd phrase, that directors shall not be personally liable to the corporation or members for “monetary damages for breach of fiduciary duty, except under (law — CRS 7-128-402) for which such immunity can’t be given.   It does not show under a State of Colorado Charitable Registry search, nor any other charity under “Charles Corry,”  but otherwise seems to be filing timely 990s.  A search of charities in El Paso County also shows nothing by this name.

While many other “Equal Justice Foundations” in other states seem focused on providing legal services (access) to indigent or low-income people, this one is focusing on equalizing the supposed disparity (represented especially by DV laws, in practice) in justice systems against men.


Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  371188469 Illinois Equal Justice Foundation IL 1986 03 1,792,183 1,784,926 990
2009  341811268 Equal Justice Foundation OH 1996 03 617,123 271,734 990
2009  860819036 Arizona Equal Justice Foundation AZ 1996 03 330,300 419,386 990
2010  262466688 North Carolina Equal Access To Justice Foundation Inc NC 2008 03 124,432 94,486 990
2010  232490426 Equal Justice Foundation PA 1989 03 76,561 52,167 990
2010  841578107 Equal Justice Foundation Inc CO 2002 03 5,057 609 990
2010  201319656 Mississippi Equal Justice Foundation MS 2005 03 0 0
2010  582243252 Equal Justice Foundation Inc GA 1996 03 0 0



Just a little more indication of how a little nonprofit can produce a LOT of words, and this one in particular is very upset with the restraining orders in general;
He cites Jeffrey Leving and  Glenn Sacks, rails on the NCADV  (he shouldn’t — they’re collaborating with fatherhood groups anyhow), and says some things which I doubt are true about the procedures.  This quote is from “AmericansForEqualRightsforFathers” (is that an oxymoron — equal rights . . .  at least for fathers….?).  And it’s recent — June 2011:
In effect, the intent of the Colorado Uniform Dissolution of Marriage Act is negated once domestic violence or abuse is alleged. The apparent advantages to a woman of alleging abuse are so great, however, that the temptation may well be irresistible. But given the “no drop” provisions of current law, the woman is likely to be trapped in a morass of feminist-inspired laws that are locally fomented by feminists such as Dr. Walker and groups such the NCADV. Likely the individual filing the charges was totally unaware of the implications of her actions, or the repercussions from which there is no escape for her or the man she has accused.
re:  women unable to resist the temptation of filing restraining orders, reminds me of the comments elsewhere (same source) that restraining orders are great
excuses for adulterous women to get rid of their spouses.  give me a break!  Women are portrayed thus as both weak, and stupid.  Thanks, Dr. Corry…..
California scheming

Colorado is not the only state, by far, where restraining orders are grossly abused. In a 2006 article attorney Jeffrey Leving and activist Glenn Sacks noted that nearly 250,000 domestic violence restraining orders are currently active in California.

where’s the link?
They referred to a recent article in the Family Law News, the official publication of the State Bar of California Family Law Section, explains that the bar is concerned that “protective orders are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody.” The authors note that protective orders are
“…almost routinely issued by the court in family law proceedings even when there is relatively meager evidence and usually without notice to the restrained person…it is troubling that they appear to be sought more and more frequently for retaliation and litigation purposes.”
Here’s a link to the publication: http://familylaw.calbar.ca.gov/Publications/FamilyLawNews.aspx  As we see, only State Bar members can access the articles on-line; I would be very interested to see which authors — presumably practicing attorneys — have said in print they believe that statement:

“Usually without notice to the restrained persons” is a pretty broad statement.  If so, that’s a violation of procedure.  Restrained persons get notice.  Moreover, restraining orders are not issued solely within family law proceedings; but issuing one where children exist will precipitate immediately some visitation orders; the forms go together.

Such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused’s knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself. When an order is issued, the man is booted out of his own home and can even be jailed if he tries to contact his own children. His first chance to defend himself against the charges is usually two weeks later, at the hearing to make the order permanent. Yet these hearings generally last no more than 15 minutes. The due process they afford the men can be gauged by the State of California’s advice for men contesting restraining orders:

Not mentioned: hearings to also switch custody are conducted in similar manner and can take no more than 20 minutes, if that.  Probably because the case was decided by dynamics outside that hearing, which was a mere formality, in advance — generally speaking, in a mediator’s office, or the child support office.


841578107 EIN.    For whatever reasons (i looked fairly hard), I see no charitable registration for this group at the state level, or county.  The income is very low, obviously —   If it is soliciting contributions in Colorado (website notes contributions are tax-deductible), unless Colorado doesn’t require registration, it appears this one never did in the now 10 years of operation.     On a side note, one of the incorporators (Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.) served as a Marine, as did his two sons, and he was born in Salt Lake City (Mormon?).   this, from website by his name.  He spends a lot of time detailing “abuse of protection orders.”   His background is geologist, which would include detailed examination of physical facts.  So, what’s with the non-registration as a charity in Colorado?  Do membership-based charities (not soliciting actively from others) not need to register in that state?

Abuse Of Protection Orders by Charles E. Corry, Ph.D.This site is copyrighted, supported, and maintained by the Equal Justice Foundation.

In short, the entity very concerned about civil rights violations has focused diligently on the abuse of these rights when it comes to men subjected to restraining orders and treated unfairly in re: domestic violence.      The alarm will be sounded as to feminism, in particular.

So where does this leave  a woman / individual wanting to protect herself after assault/threat/stalking — and when the law has not — assuming that occasionally

this individual might actually leave the home?  The groups that say, right to bear arms, DV is wrong to take them away under XYZ situations, and DV laws are unfair to men — but in the same manner, I’d like to say that personal assaults on women in the home, particularly pregnant or mothers of small children (who may be nearby) related to their gender, or personal beliefs about how to get submission from women (which MANY religions endorse) — they are also violations of our civil rights.  Not to mention, we got the right to vote not til the 1900s, and after quite a bit of fighting for it!

Now here comes:


This law reads and sounds a little different to domestic violence survivors who have been dealing with partners with suicidal expressions, during, before, and after restraining order filings.   Well, I will speak my mind on this one:

  • We can’t protect ourselves and our kids  in the home with a violent partner.
  • We can’t protect ourselves or our kids OUT of the home, really, either, afterwards; we have to wade through psychological profiling because, and mostly because, we attempt to set firm boundaries, wish to detach from violent exes who’ve previously injured us, and because the next round of “parent coordinators” values their retirement plans more than our lives, or our kids.
  • How few (like zero) authorities actually recommend women learn to use a gun for self-defense, or get a permit to carry (openly); instead they are encouraged to file for protective orders which don’t, for the most part.

Sometimes I wonder how much BS that might have done, and whether it might’ve empowered some dv victims, who learned their legal restrictions and responsibilities of using weapons as a deterrent, to stay alive, in the case of home invasion by an irate ex.

Anyhow, here’s my brilliant legislature at work again, well-timed to right around 9-11 when fear of sudden attacks is at an all-time high:

Open Carry Ban wins approval in California Senate 

The state Senate has approved legislation today that would make it a crime to openly carry an unloaded handgun in public.

Assembly Bill 144, by Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, targets the “open carry” movement, marked by gatherings of people displaying their firearms in public places to protest gun-control laws.

The bill language contains a number of exceptions, including exemptions for peace officers, military gatherings, gun shows and hunting.

Democratic Sen. Kevin de León said the measure would stop a practice that alarms the public and creates a “potentially dangerous” situation when law enforcement officials or members of the public are unsure whether an exposed gun is loaded or not.

“This is not the wild west,” the Los Angeles Democrat said, adding, “How discomforting can it be if you walk into a restaurant, to Starbucks, to Mickey D’s, wherever it is that you may go to, and all of a sudden you see someone walking around with a handgun, and you don’t know, can’t discern if they’re a law enforcement agent.”

No Republicans voted for the bill. Sen. Doug LaMalfa, R-Richvale, criticized the proposal for “further narrowing peoples’ Second Amendment rights.”

“The Second Amendment is not a loophole,” LaMalfa said, adding that open carry is “isn’t a problem for anybody except for the gun grabbers that continually chip away and narrow our basic rights.”

The bill was approved 21-18, with three Democrats joining Republicans in opposing the measure. The bill now returns to the Assembly for consideration of amendments added in the upper house.


Assembly committee approves ‘open carry’ ban, rife records bill

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2011/09/california-senate-open-carry-handguns-assembly-bill-144.html#ixzz1XZyjQmwX

Here (obviously I”m trawling internet for related posts) is an “forum.officer.forum” discussing a DV murder of an open-carry woman, by her husband, distinguishing DV from protection from home invasion, etc.  I think it’s 2009.

The tragic murder of Meleanie Hain by her husband shatters two of Open Carry’s biggest myths:#1 – That carrying a gun makes you safe from those that will do you harm.

#2 – No one who carries legally ever commits a crime.

Mrs. Hain was an huge advocate for carrying a gun and was a member of the OpenCarry.org forums. She, like everyone there, went out of her way to try to stir up attention by open carrying in places sure to cause controversy.

Her husband was a Parole Officer and also an advocate of carrying guns.

Yet neither mattered when it came to her murder.

I wonder how the gun crazies will spin this into a reason why everyone should carry?

There is no reason for anyone to “spin” anything about how being armed prevents crime. This fact has already been proven time and again that it most definately does deter and prevent armed robberies and save lives during home invasions.
You point out this one tragic incident that was all about domestic violence and has nothing to do with prevention. It’s not like anyone would be prepared for their spouse to walk up to them while they are in the normal course of their daily lives and shoot them in their very home. Even if she would have carried walking around in her underwear at home nobody could account for someone you trust suddenly shooting you in your head and that goes for not only soccer mom’s but cops also. I’m sure had it been some stranger who broke in her home the story would be different. It’s also pretty low class to provoke some type of “counter” argument thread against open carry and 2nd ammendment issue’s based on this tragedy. You might as well just stand over her corpse and shout “how did that open carry work out for ya hon?”
It again just proves how irrational those who think only Police should be allowed to carry are in their thinking and logic.

Here’s that huffington Post article describing this — October 2009, Lebanon, PA:

Meleanie Hain: Gun-Carrying Soccer Mom Killed By Husband In Murder Suicide, Police Say (VIDEO)

First Posted: 10- 9-09 11:08 AM

LEBANON, Pa. – A soccer mom who was thrust into the national gun-rights debate after taking a loaded pistol to youth sports events was killed by her husband in a shooting witnessed online by her video chat partner, authorities said Friday.

Scott Hain used his own gun to fire several shots into his 30-year-old wife, Meleanie, while her video chat was active and perhaps as she washed dishes in their kitchen, police said. Scott Hain, 33, later killed himself in an upstairs bedroom.

Meleanie Hain’s loaded pistol — with a bullet ready in the chamber — was in a backpack hanging from the front door.

The couple’s three young children were home just before the murder-suicide, but authorities stopped short of saying they were home at the time. The online friend heard a shot and screams and turned to see Scott Hain firing, they said.

He “observed Scott Hain standing over where Meleanie was and discharging a handgun several times,” Lebanon Police Chief Daniel Wright said at a news conference. The man, who was described as a friend of both Scott and Meleanie Hain, called 911.

“He kept open his Web cam episode; however, he heard nothing or saw nothing after that,” Wright said. The chat was apparently not recorded.

Meleanie Hain became a voice of the gun-rights movement last year when she fought for the right to carry a holstered pistol at her young daughter’s soccer games. Other parents complained, prompting a sheriff to revoke her concealed-weapons permit, a decision a judge later overturned.

. . . .

Scott Hain, a parole officer, owned the 9 mm handgun used to kill his wife. He then killed himself with a shotgun, authorities said after Friday’s autopsies. Police found several handguns, a shotgun, two rifles and several hundred rounds of ammunition in their Lebanon home, as well as six spent shell casings in the kitchen.

Friends and neighbors told police the couple had been having marital problems, but police knew of no immediate cause of the violence. Scott Hain was living at the family home at the time, Wright said.

Their three children are ages 2, 6 and 10.

Neighbor Aileen Fortna has said the children told another neighbor that “daddy shot mommy.”

Conservative Wendy McElroy writes, after Gonzales ruling in 2005:


Monday, July 18, 2005
By Wendy McElroy

On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.

By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.

The post-mortem discussion on Gonzales has been fiery but it has missed an obvious point. If the government won’t protect you, then you have to take responsibility for your own self-defense and that of your family. The court’s ruling is a sad decision, but one that every victim and/or potential victim of violence must note: calling the police is not enough. You must also be ready to defend yourself.

Yet this is what the ENTIRE superstructure of the restraining order apparatus coaches women to do, failing to tell the the whole truth, in perspective.  I have finally deduced that the restraining orders represent head-counts that, most likely, simply enable grants money to go to police departments which may (or may not) respond, or even be able to respond, to a subsequent call for help — though I know many times police do, and sometimes they lose their lives in so doing.

This is not mainstream viewpoint for DV advocates, at all, but at least one person, Bonnie Russell (familylawcourts.com) seems to have comprehended this.

McElroy continues (actually “continued” about 6 years ago):

Nevertheless, most anti-domestic violence advocates strenuously avoid gun ownership as a possible solution to domestic violence. Instead, they appeal for more police intervention even though the police have no obligation to provide protection.

When groups like the National Organization for Women (NOW) do focus on gun ownership, it is to make such statements as, “Guns and domestic violence make a lethal combination, injuring and killing women every day.”

In short, NOW addresses the issue of gun ownership and domestic violence only in order to demand a prohibition on the ability of abusers — always defined as men — to own weapons.

There is no love lost between this woman and NOW, for sure ….  and for the record, she’s fairly pro-fatherhood rights in general . .. but does this or does it not make sense?

That position may be defensible. But it ignores half of the equation. It ignores the need of potential victims to defend themselves and their families. Anti-domestic violence and women’s groups create the impression that guns are always part of the problem and never part of the solution.

The current mainstream of feminism — from which most anti-domestic violence advocates proceed — is an expression of left liberalism. It rejects private solutions based on individual rights in favor of laws aimed at achieving social goals. A responsible individual holding a gun in self-defense does not fit their vision of society.

In the final analysis, such advocates do not trust the judgment of the women they claim to be defending. They do not believe that Jessica Gonzales’ three children would have been safer with a mother who was armed and educated in gun use.

The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power.

This can’t be done if one is adamantly anti-divorce, and pro-shared-parenting even with convicted batterers/ molesters.   Clearly (see Sherri Hain) marriage isn’t good for everyone… and is no panacea.  If I’d been left for help from the marriage-promotion-mongers, my kids and I would have been dead years ago.  Thank God for feminism enough to invent the restraining order to get this process started (since few others have the guts to stand up to a man beating on his wife in front of his kids, OR vice versa — and few religious groups are self-less enough to risk losing the income from that man’s family by properly confronting and helping him get arrested, mandated reporters or not.  These groups, like Pacific Justice Institute (and not-legally-incorporated friends, to wit, Capital Resource Institute) are far more concerned about homosexuals, or cities (such as San Leandro, California) expecting churches, also, to abide by zoning laws and not expand infinitely, rewriting them in the process.

Wendy McElroy is the editor of ifeminists.com and a research fellow for The Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif. She is the author and editor of many books and articles, including the new book, “Liberty for Women: Freedom and Feminism in the 21st Century” (Ivan R. Dee/Independent Institute, 2002). She lives with her husband in Canada.

In 1999, Gonzales obtained a restraining order against her estranged husband Simon, which limited his access to their children. On June 22, 1999, Simon abducted their three daughters. Though the Castle Rock police department disputes some of the details of what happened next, the two sides are in basic agreement: After her daughters’ abduction, Gonzales repeatedly phoned the police for assistance. Officers visited the home. Believing Simon to be non-violent and, arguably, in compliance with the limited access granted by the restraining order, the police did nothing.

The next morning, Simon committed “suicide by cop.” He shot a gun repeatedly through a police station window and was killed by returned fire. The murdered bodies of Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10 were found in Simon’s pickup truck.

In her lawsuit, Gonzales claimed the police violated her 14th Amendment right to due process and sued them for $30 million. She won at the Appeals level.

What were the arguments that won and lost in the Supreme Court?

Winners: local officials fell back upon a rich history of court decisions that found the police to have no constitutional obligation to protect individuals from private individuals. In 1856, the U.S. Supreme Court (South v. Maryland) found that law enforcement officers had no affirmative duty to provide such protection. In 1982 (Bowers v. DeVito), the Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit held, “…there is no Constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162325,00.html#ixzz1XaQWNtlN

I was focused on not bargaining away the judicial process to special interests under SB-557, Family One-Stop Justice-Shops (so to speak) and was caught unawares when a TV news bulletin flashed the headline, somewhere inbetween a San Mateo psychiatrist accused of molesting youngsters being sent to a state hospital, and promises that there are more jobs on the horizon, just have a little faith…..

The first thing I notice is how very many different entitities would NOT be subject to the open carry ban, including what looks at first reading to be employees of nonprofit organizations set up for the public good (does this include supervised visitation centers, parent education peddlars, and family counselors who formed — and managed to maintain — nonprofits for the purpose?  Are THEY allowed to do open carry?  I mean, exactly what does this language mean?

INTRODUCED BY   Assembly Member Portantino

                        JANUARY 13, 2011

   An act to amend Sections 7574.14 and 7582.2 of the Business and Professions Code, and to amend Sections 626.9, 16520, 17510, 25595, 25605, and 29805 of, to add Sections 17040, 17295, and 25590 to, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 26350) to Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of, the Penal Code, relating to firearms.


   AB 144, as introduced, Portantino. Firearms.
   Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense
to carry a concealed handgun on the person or in a vehicle, as
specified. Existing law provides that firearms carried openly in belt
holsters are not concealed within the meaning of those provisions.
   This bill would establish an exemption to the offense for
transportation of a firearm between certain areas where the firearm
may be carried concealed, or loaded, or openly carried unloaded, as
   Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, makes it an offense
to carry a loaded firearm on the person or in a vehicle while in any
public place or on any public street in an incorporated city or in
any public place or on any public street in a prohibited area of
unincorporated territory.
   The bill would, subject to exceptions, make it a misdemeanor 
to openly carry an unloaded handgun on the person in specified public areas.
By creating a new offense, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
   The bill would make conforming and nonsubstantive technical
   The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the
state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that
   This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this
act for a specified reason.
   Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.


  SECTION 1.  Section 7574.14 of the Business and Professions Code is
amended to read:
   7574.14. This chapter shall not apply to the following:
Note:  I gather that it's considered that any of the following list are apt to get shot at by irate
people in the course of doing their normal business.  Notice exemption (b), below ....

   (a) An officer or employee of the United States of America, or of
this state or a political subdivision thereof, while the officer or
employee is engaged in the performance of his or her official duties,
including uniformed peace officers employed part time by a public
agency pursuant to a written agreement between a chief of police or
sheriff and the public agency, provided the part-time employment does
not exceed 50 hours in any calendar month.

   (b) A person engaged exclusively in the business of obtaining and
furnishing information as to the financial rating of persons.
(c) A charitable philanthropic society or association incorporated under the laws 
of this state that is organized and duly maintained for the public good and not for private profit.
ANY 501(c)3? ???
   (d) Patrol special police officers appointed by the police commission of any city, 
county, or city and county under the express terms of its charter who also 
under the express terms of the charter
(1) are subject to suspension or dismissal after a hearing on charges
duly filed with the commission after a fair and impartial trial, (2)
must be not less than 18 years of age nor more than 40 years of age,
(3) must possess physical qualifications prescribed by the
commission, and (4) are designated by the police commission as the owners of a certain beat or territory 
as may be fixed from time to time by the police commission.
   (e) An attorney at law in performing his or her duties as an attorney at law.
   (f) A collection agency or an employee thereof while acting within
the scope of his or her employment, while making an investigation
incidental to the business of the agency, including an investigation
of the location of a debtor or his or her property where the contract
with an assignor creditor is for the collection of claims owed or
due or asserted to be owed or due or the equivalent thereof.
 (g) Admitted insurers and agents and insurance brokers licensed by the state,
performing duties in connection with insurance transacted by them.
   (h) Any bank subject to the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of
Financial Institutions of the State of California under Division 1
(commencing with Section 99) of the Financial Code or the Comptroller
of Currency of the United States.
 (i) A person engaged solely in the business of securing information about persons or property 
from public records.
   (j) A peace officer of this state or a political subdivision
thereof while the peace officer is employed by a private employer to
engage in off-duty employment in accordance with Section 1126 of the
Government Code. However, nothing herein shall exempt such a peace
officer who either contracts for his or her services or the services
of others as a private patrol operator or contracts for his or her
services as or is employed as an armed private security officer. For
purposes of this subdivision, "armed security officer" means an
individual who carries or uses a firearm in the course and scope of
that contract or employment.
   (k) A retired peace officer of the state or political subdivision
thereof when the retired peace officer is employed by a private
employer in employment approved by the chief law enforcement officer
of the jurisdiction where the employment takes place, provided that
the retired officer is in a uniform of a public law enforcement
agency, has registered with the bureau on a form approved by the
director, and has met any training requirements or their equivalent
as established for security personnel under Section 7583.5. This
officer may not carry  an unloaded and exposed handgun unless he or she is 
exempted under the provisions of Article 2 (commencing with Section 26361) 
of Chapter 6 of Division 5 of Title 4 of Part 6 of the Penal Code, and may not carry 
 a loaded or concealed firearm unless he or she is exempted under the provisions of Sections 25450
to 25475, inclusive, of the Penal Code or Sections 25900 to 25910,
inclusive, of the Penal Code or has met the requirements set forth in
subdivision (d) of Section 26030 of the Penal Code. However, nothing
herein shall exempt the retired peace officer who contracts for his
or her services or the services of others as a private patrol
   (l) A licensed insurance adjuster in performing his or her duties
within the scope of his or her license as an insurance adjuster.
   (m) Any savings association subject to the jurisdiction of the
Commissioner of Financial Institutions or the Office of Thrift
   (n) Any secured creditor engaged in the repossession of the creditor's collateral and 
any lessor engaged in the repossession of leased property in which it claims an interest. 
(o) A peace officer in his or her official police uniform acting
in accordance with subdivisions (c) and (d) of Section 70 of the
Penal Code.
   (p) An unarmed, uniformed security person employed exclusively and regularly by a motion picture 
studio facility employer who does not provide contract security services for other entities or persons in
connection with the affairs of that employer only and where there
exists an employer-employee relationship if that person at no time
carries or uses any deadly weapon, as defined in subdivision (a), in
the performance of his or her duties, which may include, but are not
limited to, the following business purposes:

And so on ….  This is not a bill to let slip under, or even over, the radar.   For example, exemption for schools:

             j)   The open carrying of an unloaded handgun within a school
               zone, as defined, with the written permission of the school
               district superintendent, his or her designee, or equivalent
               school authority;

Or          gg)  The open carrying of an unloaded handgun by a person
               when that person is summoned by a peace officer to assist
               in making arrests or preserving the peace while he or she
               is actually engaged in assisting that officer;

Votes — Assembly

More detail on this California Penal Code 12050PC from article by SHOUSE law firm, “How to Obtain a California Carry Concealed Weapon (“CCW”) Permit”

Penal Code 12050 PC

  • Normally, it’s a crime to possess a concealed firearm in public. But in certain circumstances, a person can obtain a permit to “Carry a Concealed Weapon” (CCW) legally.

In this article, our California criminal defense attorneys1 will explain the process to acquire a CCW permit by addressing the following:

1. What is a California “Carry a
Concealed Weapon”
CCW Permit?

2. What is the Application

3. What are the Requirements?

4. What are the Restrictions?

You may also find helpful information in our related articles on California Firearm Offenses; Penal Code 12025 PC Carrying a Concealed Weapon; Penal Code 12031 PC Carrying a Loaded Firearm; California’s Open Carry Laws; Penal Code 12021 PC Felon with a Firearm; Domestic Violence Convictions and Gun Rights; Penal Code 12280 PC Possession of Assault Weapons; Penal Code 12020 PC California’s Law Against Carrying Dangerous Weapons; Penal Code 12020 PC Dirks and Daggers; Penal Code 12303 PC Destructive Devices; Penal Code 417 PC Brandishing a Weapon; and California’s Self-Defense Laws.

1. What is a California “Carry a
Concealed Weapon”
CCW Permit?

A California concealed weapons permit allows you legally to carry a loaded “a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed on the person”.2

When valid, a CCW license prevents you from being convicted of

If you live in a county with less than 200,000 people, you may apply for a “modified” concealed weapons permit. Still considered a CCW permit, this license allows you to carry a loaded and exposed pistol, revolver, or other firearm on your person (this law only pertains to persons in counties with less than 200,000 people).4

This permit is essentially a hybrid between a license to carry a concealed weapon and California’s open carry laws which generally allow you to carry an unloaded exposed weapon.

Etc. Etc. .. . ..

My, we have come a VERY long way from the 1960s 70s, and 80s:

HUEY P. NEWTON, Narrative Essay:

Huey P. Newton (1942-1989) founded the Afro-American Society and was a co-founder of the Black Panther Party, serving as its minister of defense during much of the 1960s. Later he turned to community service for the poor.

image 1




Huey P. Newton was born February 17, 1942, in Monroe, Louisiana. The youngest of seven children, Huey was named for former Louisiana governor Huey Pierce Long. The Newton family moved to Oakland, California, in 1945 to take advantage of the job opportunities created by World War II wartime industries. In Oakland the family moved often, and in one house Huey was compelled to sleep in the kitchen. Even though the Newton’s were poor and victims of discrimination and segregation, Huey contends that he never felt deprived as a child and that he never went hungry.

Huey attended the Oakland public schools where, he claimed, he was made to feel “uncomfortable and ashamed of being black.” He responded by constantly and consistently defying authority, which resulted in frequent suspensions. At the age of 14, he was arrested for gun possession and vandalism. In his autobiography, Revolutionary Suicide, Newton wrote, “during those long years in the Oakland public schools, I did not have one teacher who taught me anything relevant to my own life or experience. Not one instructor ever awoke in me a desire to learn more or to question or explore the worlds of literature, science, and history. All they did was try to rob me of the sense of my own uniqueness and worth, and in the process they nearly killed my urge to inquire.”

According to Newton, he did not learn to read well until he had finished high school. “I actually learned to read–really read more than just ‘dog’ and ‘cat,’ which was about all I could do when I left high school–by listening to records of Vincent Price reading great poetry, and then looking up the poems to see how the words looked.” In order to prove that high school counselors were wrong in saying he was not college material, Newton attended Merritt College intermittently, eventually earning an Associate of Arts degree. He also studied law at Oakland City College and at San Francisco Law School.

Newton claimed he studied law to become a better burglar. He was arrested several times for minor offenses while still a teenager and he supported himself in college by burglarizing homes in the Oakland and Berkeley Hills area and running the “short change” game. In 1964, at age 22, he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon and sentenced to six months in the Alameda County jail. Newton spent most of this sentence in solitary confinement, including the “soul breaker”–extreme solitary confinement.

While at Oakland City College, Newton had become politically oriented and socially conscious. He joined the Afro-American Association and played a role in getting the first black history course adopted as part of the college’s curriculum. He read the works of Frantz Fanon, Malcolm X, Chairman Mao Tse-tung, and Che Guevara. A child of the ghetto and a victim of discrimination and the “system,” Newton was very much aware of the plight of Oakland’s African-American community. Realizing that there were few organizations to speak for or represent lower class African-Americans, Newton along with Bobby Seale organized the Black Panther Party for Self Defense in October 1966, with Seale as chairman and Newton as minister of defense. Like a wary panther that would not attack unless attacked, so too was the organization regarded.

Cop-haters since childhood, Newton and Seale decided the police must be stopped from harassing Oakland’s African-Americans; in other words, to “defend the community against the aggression of the power structure, including the military and the armed might of the police.” Newton was familiar with the California penal code and the state’s law regarding weapons and was thus able to convince a number of African-Americans of their right to bear arms. Members of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense began patrolling the Oakland police. Guns were the essential ingredient on these patrols. Newton and other Black Panther members observed police procedure, ensured that African-American citizens were not abused, advised African-Americans of their rights, and posted bail for those arrested. In addition to patrolling the police, Newton and Seale were responsible for writing the Black Panther Party Platform and Program, which called for freedom, full employment, decent housing, education, and military exemption for African-Americans. . . .

More on the Black Panthers from Spartacus Educational (a UK site):

The Black Panthers

  The Lowndes County Freedom Organization (LCDO) was established by Stokely Carmichael in Alabama in 1964.


Stokely Carmichael was born in the Port of Spain, Trinidad, on 29th June, 1941. Carmichael moved to the United States in 1952 and attended high school in New York City. He entered Howard University in 1960 and soon afterwards joined the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC). 

In 1961 Carmichael became a member of the Freedom Riders. After training in non-violent techniques, black and white volunteers sat next to each other as they travelled through the Deep South. Local police were unwilling to protect these passengers and in several places they were beaten up by white mobs. In Jackson, Mississippi, Carmichael was arrested and jailed for 49 days in Parchman Penitentiary. Carmichael also worked on the Freedom Summer project and in 1966 became chairman of SNCC. 

On 5th June, 1966, James Meredith started a solitary March Against Fear from Memphis to Jackson, to protest against racism. Soon after starting his march he was shot by sniper. When they heard the news, other civil rights campaigners, including Carmichael, Martin Luther King and Floyd McKissick, decided to continue the march in Meredith’s name. 

When the marchers got to Greenwood, Mississippi, Carmichael and some of the other marchers were arrested by the police. It was the 27th time that Carmichael had been arrested and on his release on 16th June, he made his famous Black Power speech. Carmichael called for “black people in this country to unite, to recognize their heritage, and to build a sense of community”. He also advocated that African Americans should form and lead their own organizations and urged a complete rejection of the values of American society.  


image 1

        This organization later changed its name to the Black Panther Party. In October 1966 Bobby Seale and Huey Newton formed the Black Panther Party (BPP)
in OaklandCalifornia. They named the new organization after the emblem adopted by the Lowndes County Freedom Organization.
The Black Panthers were initially formed to protect local communities from police brutality and racism. The group also ran medical clinics and provided free food to school children. Within a couple of years the Black Panthers in Oakland were feeding over 10,000 children every day before they went to school.
Prominent members of the Black Panthers included Stokely CarmichaelH. Rap BrownFred HamptonFredrika Newton,Eldridge CleaverKathleen CleaverDavid HilliardAngela DavisBobby Hutton and Elaine Brown.  
The Black Panthers had chapters in several major cities and had a membership of over 2,000. Harassed by the police, members became involved in several shoot-outs. This included an exchange of fire between Panthers and the police at Oakland on 28th October, 1967Huey Newton was wounded and while in hospital was charged with killing a police officer. The following year he was found guilty of voluntary manslaughter.
On 6th April, 1968 eight BPP members, including Eldridge CleaverBobby Hutton and David Hilliard, were travelling in two cars when they were ambushed by the Oakland police. Cleaver and Hutton ran for cover and found themselves in a basement surrounded by police. The building was fired upon for over an hour. When a tear-gas canister was thrown into the basement the two men decided to surrender. Cleaver was wounded in the leg and so Hutton said he would go first. When he left the building with his hands in the air he was shot twelve times by the police and was killed instantly.
In November 1968 Fred Hamptonfounded the Chicago chapter of the Black Panther Party. He immediately established a community service program. This included the provision of free breakfasts for schoolchildren and a medical clinic that did not charge patients for treatment. Hampton also taught political education classes and instigated a community control of police project.
One of Hampton’s greatest achievements was to persuade Chicago’s most powerful street gangs to stop fighting against each other. In May 1969 Hampton held a press conference where he announced a nonaggression pact between the gangs and the formation of what he called a “rainbow coalition” (a multiracial alliance of black, Puerto Rican, and poor youths).
. . . . .
In 1973 Bobby Seale ran for mayor of Oakland and came second out of nine candidates with 43,710 votes (40 per cent of votes cast). The following year Elaine Brown was elected party chief and helped to turn it into a supporter of women’s rights. Under her leadership the party successfully supported Lionel Wilson in his campaign to become the first black mayor of Oakland.
In 1975, Frank Church 

became the chairman of the Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities.

This committee investigated alleged abuses of power by the Central Intelligence Agency andFederal Bureau of IntelligenceThe committee looked at the case of Fred Hampton and discovered that William O’Neal, Hampton’s bodyguard, was a FBI agent-provocateur who, days before the raid, had delivered an apartment floor-plan to the Bureau with an “X” marking Hampton’s bed. Ballistic evidence showed that most bullets during the raid were aimed at Hampton’s bedroom.

State Senate backs Portantino bill to ban open carry of firearms

By Brian Charles, Staff Writer
Posted: 09/09/2011 11:44:48 AM PDT

Legislation backed by Anthony Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, making it illegal to carry an unloaded gun in public was approved by a razor thin majority in the state Senate late Thursday, officials said.  The bill now moves to back to the state Assembly for what’s known as “concurrence,” which allows for approval of changes in language, according to a statement from Portantino’s office.

If passed, those who violate the open carry ban could be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in jail, a fine of up to $1000, or both. There are a number of exemptions for law enforcement personnel and hunters as well as others carrying unloaded weapons under specified licensed circumstances.

California is one of many states that gives gun owners the right to display weapons, though in California those guns must be unloaded. Carrying loaded firearms in public is already against the law in California.

Portantino, who led the fight against open carry, welcomed the news of the passage of the open carry ban by the state Senate.

“I am very pleased that my fellow legislators agree this is a sensible gun ban that closes a loophole in the law and I am hopeful that Governor Brown agrees,” Portantino said.”Open Carry puts law enforcement and families at risk on Main Street, California. It wastes law enforcement time and attention dealing with unnecessary 9-1-1 calls about gun-toting men and women in coffee shops, restaurants and malls.”

The dispute came to a


head last year when gun enthusiasts began showing up in coffee shops and public beaches with unloaded guns strapped to their hips.
A gun advocacy group organized a night out in Old Pasadena earlier this year. The gun-toting group strolled through the commercial district asking restaurant owners whether they were willing to seat armed partons.

Similar legislation was introduced in 2010 but did not make it to the Governor’s desk because of a miscue at the end of the session. Portantino took up the cause this year and worked with law enforcement to re-introduce the open carry ban.

“Average Californians understand police officers displaying loaded weapons, they understand hunters, and they even understand those folks who are legally licensed to a carry a weapon.,” Portatino said. “What they don’t want is a proliferation of public displays of weapons for no purpose.”

From Legal News.com, July 2010 article, most of it quoted here:

A right to a gun

By Jermaine A. Wyrick

The crux of the peace versus violence controversy focuses on gun control versus the right to own a handgun. In the watershed McDonald v. Chicago 2010 decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the right to own a handgun. The court held the Second Amendment right to bear arms must be regarded as a substantive guarantee. The Constitution restrains state and local governments from restricting an individual’s right to bear arms. The ruling overturned Chicago’s law that banned handgun ownership.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion stated, the “Second Amendment right applies equally to the federal government and the states.” The court held the Second Amendment right is “fundamental” to the American scheme of ordered liberty. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968) and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and traditions.” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702, 721 (1997).

Justice Anthony Kennedy stated that “states have substantial latitude and ample authority to impose regulations.” Justice Samuel Alito further stated with respect to current regulations, “We repeat those assurances here.”

Neither this decision nor the 2008 decision posed a threat to long-standing restrictions on the sale of firearms to felons and mentally ill people, or to laws that bar guns from “sensitive” venues such as schools and courthouses. In addition, the decision still allows states to impose reasonable regulations, such as requiring handgun owners to take a safety course.

In a vehement dissent, Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and John Paul Stevens disagreed with the high court’s determination that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to gun ownership. Justice Stevens stated the decision “could prove far more destructive – quite literally- to our nation’s communities and to our constitutional structure.” Hence, one can reasonably infer that violence could increase in urban communities.

Prior to 2008, lawmakers in Washington, D.C., a federal city, required handgun owners to register weapons, submit to a multiple-choice test, fingerprinting, and a ballistics test. Owners were also required to demonstrate they had instruction on handling a gun and spent at least an hour on the firing range. In the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. _____ case, the court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban and a trigger lock requirement for other guns. In Heller the court held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess guns, at least for self-defense in the home. The court reasoned that self-defense is “highly valued.” Furthermore in Heller, the court stated, “Individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right.” Moreover, the need for defense of self, family and property is most acute in the home.”

Washington, D.C. prohibited carrying loaded weapons outside the home.

The McDonald decision will have implications for other states. For instance, Massachusetts has a state law that requires gun owners to lock weapons in their homes. Virginia has a law that limits handgun purchases to once per month. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the decision allows cities “to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists while at the same time respecting the constitutional right of law-abiding citizens.”

Chicago vigorously defended their handgun ban laws in this case before the court. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley emphatically stated, “How many more of our citizens must needlessly die because guns are too easily available in our society?”

Jermaine A. Wyrick is an attorney with the Law Offices of Jermaine Wyrick PLLC in Southfield. He can be reached at (313) 964-8950, or by e-mail at Attyjaw1@Ameritech.net.

From Chicago, recent:

By David G. Savage

Chicago Tribune

Mon, 08/29/2011 – 9:17am

WASHINGTON — The Second Amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms” is proving to be a right to keep a gun at home, but so far not a right to bear a loaded firearm in public.

The Supreme Court breathed new life into the amendment when it struck down strict handgun bans in Washington and Chicago and spoke of the “inherent right of self-defense.”

But to the dismay of gun rights advocates, judges in recent months have read those decisions narrowly and rejected claims from those who said they had a constitutional right to carry a loaded gun on their person or in their car. Instead, these judges from California to Maryland have said the “core right” to a gun is limited to the home.

Now, the National Rifle Association is asking the high court to take up the issue this fall and “correct the widespread misapprehension that the Second Amendment’s scope does not extend beyond the home.”

Stephen Halbrook, an NRA lawyer, said “some judges have buried their heads in the sand and have refused to go one step further” than saying there is a right to have a gun at home.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the trend and called the high court’s rulings a “hollow victory” for gun enthusiasts. “The gun lobby has tried to expand (the Second Amendment) into a broad right to carry any type of gun anywhere. And they have been almost unanimously rejected by the courts,” said Jonathan Lowy, director of legal action. He conceded, however, that “this battle is far from over.”

The uncertainty began with the Supreme Court itself. In 2008, Justice Antonin Scalia said the history of the Second Amendment shows it “guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But other parts of his 5-4 opinion stressed there is no right to “carry any weapon in any manner,” and that bans on “carrying concealed weapons were lawful” in the 19th century.

Since then, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed to challenge gun restrictions. In California, federal judges in San Diego and Yolo counties rejected suits from law-abiding gun owners who were denied “concealed carry” permits.

“The Second Amendment does not create a fundamental right to carry a concealed weapon in public,” U.S. District Judge Morrison England ruled in May.

“That’s the cutting-edge issue: whether the Second Amendment applies outside the home,” said Chuck Michel, an NRA lawyer in Long Beach, Calif., who has appealed the question to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

State judges in Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts and New York have also ruled recently that there is no constitutional right to carry a loaded gun for self-defense. And in Virginia, the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the federal conviction of a man who fell asleep in his car near Washington’s Reagan National Airport with a loaded gun.

Despite setbacks in court, gun owners are winning on the political front. Now, 40 states grant concealed-carry permits to qualified gun owners. California, Maryland and Illinois are among the handful of states with large urban populations that deny most or all permits, except to those who show they face a specific danger.

Far be it from most people to recognize that having a “domestic dispute” or an “estranged ex” and a bitter custody battle is actually a danger to anyone, including bystanders.

Judges have been wary of second-guessing these restrictions. If the right to bear arms is to apply “outside the home environment, we think it is prudent to await direction from the (Supreme) Court itself,” U.S. Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, a prominent conservative on the 4th Circuit bench, wrote in March. “This is serious business. We do not wish to be even minutely responsible for some unspeakably tragic act of mayhem because in the peace of our judicial chambers we miscalculated as to Second Amendment rights.”

The Supreme Court has two appeal petitions before it. In one, Charles Williams, a Maryland resident, is appealing his one-year jail term for carrying a legally registered gun in a backpack. The other involves Sean Masciandaro, the Virginia man who was convicted and fined for “carrying a loaded weapon in a motor vehicle” on national parkland.

Obama administration lawyers are expected to urge the court to steer clear of the issue. However, if the justices vote to hear it, the administration would have to argue that the right to bear arms does not extend to concealed weapons.

“We think if there is a Second Amendment right outside the home, it surely applies to law-abiding citizens carrying handguns for self-defense while traveling on public highways,” said Antigone Peyton, a Virginia lawyer who represents Masciandaro. She said her client travels to put on exhibits of reptiles and sometimes sleeps in his car to save money.

In her petition to the high court, she said her client, “like millions of law-abiding gun owners, should be told the scope of his right to keep and bear arms in case of confrontation.”

Distributed by MCT Information Services

Legal discussion of background of 2nd amendment


Not my best post, but I am beginning to wonder how the Legislature expects the Non-Exempt from Open Carry Ban citizens to protect themselves, when the policy have no duty to, the prisons are full, the schools squelch desire to learn (see Huey Newton) far too often, and restraining orders are stripped off in the course of custody battles, supervised visitation slapped onto mothers for alienating the children, and fathers are at times extorted into ridiculous class participation, for profit to others, under guise of reducing welfare/child support enforcement.  which admittedly would could definitely push one too many buttons.

Domestic Violence Advocates are NOT, as a feminist would (I believe) actually advocating women simply learn how to protect themselves by at least in-home defense and firearms skill (and ownership).  No, they want to push and publish more “interventions” and teaching based on the “Collective Community Response” model — which is even less effective than the police will save you model:


1611 NW Fourth Street

Grand Rapids, MN  55744

(tel/fax etc. deleted)

horizontal rule


Addressing Fatherhood with Men who Batter – 1st edition

From how I read the proposed California law, this nonprofit, if it were in California, being a nonprofit, would have a right to open carry (?)

Addressing Fatherhood with Men who Batter?  Give me a break!

Note:  Difficult post to write, I just want to call attention to the legislative process here.  The text was flipping around each time I pasted a section or quote, very tedious to assemble.

For what it’s worth, Californians need to look at this one carefully, and also find time to scrutinize one’s legislative bills — some how.  One never knows what’s next.

No, I cannot picture myself “open carrying” anything — however, it does bring up the question, what’s the profit in disarming most (but not all) of a population, particularly those most inclined to be law-abiding to start with?     Leave it to the authorities, all will be well.  Sure.

What’s Money got to do with it? This is about love, helping kids, protecting gender expression, right?

with 2 comments

Yesterday, I almost got lost among AB 887 (redefining gender) and the backgrounds of its sponsor, after my recent post about the attempted (in 2002) AB 2263, suggesting that our top Judicial organization in the state (California Judicial Council) get paid — assuming it could also find other funding — to judge the mental health efficacy of Kids’ Turn, excuse me,  (this is the sanitized version)”

projects or programs that provide services to assist children and their 
families while the parents are in the process of obtaining a divorce or legal separation... [[not mentioned -- this process can and does often take years -- like 10, 15, 18...]]

and which measures, among 5  standards, 3 which deal such hard data as “degree of conflict,” “mental health of children,” and “change in (parental) attitude”:

(1) Any decrease in conflict between the parents regarding custody issues, as reported by the parents.

(2) The mental health of the children, as measured by their attitudes before and after participating in the project or program.

(3) Any change in the attitude of the parents who participate in the project or program.

Conflict is obviously bad — this is why, the US never engages in wars abroad or at home, such as on terror, drugs, homelessness, poverty, or fatherlessness.  Conflict is Bad.  Having the Judicial System involved in receiving public monies to evaluate the effectiveness of behavioral modification programs (run by family law professionals and supported by millionaires and billionaires — see my posts, it’s true!) — is, per our Legislators (in 2002) Good.  All they wanted was $50,000 — plus matching funds. In the cleaned up version…

Original version was more direct – but someone thought better of that and reworded it from the original, as reported May, 2002:

AB 2263, by Assemblywoman Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego, which would require the Judicial Council to study the effectiveness of expanding the Kids’ Turn program, which assists children while their parents are in family court obtaining a divorce or legal separation. The bill was approved by the Assembly Appropriations Committee on a 23-0 vote May 15, passed the Assembly on a 72-2 vote May 23 and was sent to the Senate.

I think we should know who those 23 people sitting on the Appropriations Committee that said YES were:

FYI, for a perspective Assemblypersons in 2011 have salaries ranging from $95,291 (most) to $109K (one) and a few $102K.  Judges outrank them by ca. 50% as to salaries.  Kids’ Turn is a judges project (if not slush fund..)  Judge are always being so helpful, because they love kids.

One legislator (Atkins) had previous been chief staff of the other former assemblyperson, now Senator legislator (Kehoe), it turns out and both were “out” lesbians (hardly unusual for California, but sometimes even I forget).  Another Sunburst Youth Housing Project has Atkins & Partner/Wife’s name on it.

 January 2005, after more than 3 1/2 years of hard work, The Center announced the creation of an innovative youth supportive housing project. This cutting-edge program is one of the first projects of its kind in the United States. The Youth Housing project provides 23 units of affordable, supportive housing for youth between 18-24 years of age, with a special focus on LGBTQ+ youth. These high-risk youth were living in the streets or in public spaces after having been ejected from their homes because of their sexual orientation.

This project has been made possible by the leadership and vision of Rev. Tony Freeman, Dr. Heather Berberet, San Diego City Councilmember Toni Atkins, Jennifer LeSar, The Center and its project collaborators — YMCA Youth and Family Services, San Diego Youth and Community Services, Metropolitan Community Church, Walden Family Services and the Chadwick Center at Children’s Hospital.  We opened our doors to youth at the beginning of February 2006.

Oh yes, and the AB 887 sponsor’s wife was caught — well reported — exploiting the homelessness problem in San Diego to turn a nice penny as consultant for herself ($225/hour) by farming out the work to others, while her wife (Assemblyperson Atkins) was photographed with the volunteers counting the homeless.

2011, SanDiegoReader seems to be keeping tabs on these conflicts of interest:

Why Was Toni Atkins Consulting for Developers Vying for Redevelopment Dollars After She Was Elected to State Assembly?

By historymatters | Posted January 27, 2011, 3:51 p.m.

Why was State Assembly Majority WHIP Toni Atkins working for LeSar Development Consulting firm as the Senior Principal of Housing Policy and Planning even after she was elected to State Assembly? Toni was consulting with developers and helping them lobby to get these redevelopment tax dollars for their projects. So how in the world can she vote objectively as a State Assembly member let alone State Majority WHIP to freeze this redevelopment money and return it to schools and other state resources when she has a definite financial stake in seeing that the money remain in the pockets of developers like her wife and their clients.

How is it that Atkins and her wife Jennifer LeSar are continually allowed to financially benefit from the affordable housing gravy train. Affordable housing is a multi million dollar issue with a multi million dollar bounty at stake to the most cunning and shrewd land developers and Atkins is voting on this issue despite her personal financial stake. LeSar served as a CCDC Board Member for years while Atkins simultaneously served on City Council and voted to approve millions in redevelopment funds.

Meanwhile, Hunting for the Homeless (2011 Feb. Press article)

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year's numbers were up.

State Assemblymember, 76th District, Toni Atkins uses a flashlight to look for people sleeping in a canyon as she participates in the Point in Time Count in Hillcrest. This year’s numbers were up

I’m starting to like this blogger, “historymatters” — who seems to be on top of the issues — not that anyone seems to be stopping this flagrant wearing two hats at once while selling projects (contracts to cronies — or partners (nepotism?) — which are to help the public, allegedly).  San Diego is not my area — except for the reputation they have in messing with parents around family law, and the infamous “Family Justice Center Model” (Casey Gwinn retirement program), same general idea.  Our public servants are I guess to busy working on (and dreaming up, or expanding) projects to help the rest of us that it slipped their minds to report who was getting the contracts for those projects.  During an era of increasing unemployment, skyrocketing gas prices, closing libraries, thousands of California prisoners being released due to overcrowding, and such — it’s very important to sell educational programs to parents undergoing divorce (and measure whether they worked) — and of course SOMEBODY has to go hunt up the homeless (while, during the daytimes, they are encouraged to keep moving….)

In “I’ve Got Issues” (I’m starting to like this blogger):

Jennifer LeSar was on the Board of Directors of the Centre City Development Corp. (CCDC) from 2002 to 2009. She started her development consulting business in 2005 consulting many of the same developers she was working with on CCDC. http://lesardevelopment.com/about-us/ CCDC recently asked the City Council to approve the contract extension with redevelopment money, yes that same redevelopment money that Atkins as State Assembly WHIP will vote on in Sacramento….sound like a conflict of interest?

2009 Article stating that Kehoe is going to back her former staffer, ex-City-Councilwoman Atkins for State Assembly( which we can see, she obviously got).

2010, January — The GayandLesbianTimes protests politicking by this duo (Kehoe & Atkins) (control of a nonprofit board? stacked — under threat to the organization if it didn’t comply?)

Former board resigns, San Diego Democratic Club appointed by Kehoe to take over Pride
The reconstituted Board of Directors of San Diego LGBT Pride met Wednesday, Jan. 27. The first order of business was to accept the resignations of board members Philip Princetta, Co-chair and Mike Karim, Treasurer. According to Pride, the new board members are fully committed to transparency and will honor the duties and responsibilities of the organization and continue the mission of San Diego Pride. However, the first meeting was closed into executive session soon after it began.
At a special meeting held last Saturday, attended by City Councilmember Todd Gloria and former San Diego deputy mayor Toni Atkins, State Senator Christine Kehoe demanded that San Diego LGBT Pride board members Chair Philip Princetta, Treasurer Mike Karim, Secretary Carl Worrell either resign or she would place the organization into receivership – a court action that places property under the control of a receiver during litigation – according to an anonymous source at the meeting.
Kehoe, Atkins and Gloria packed the San Diego Pride Board with a crossover of supporters, donors, and endorsers of their political campaigns – appointing the San Diego Democratic Club to take over Pride.
Community members are questioning if they have legal authority to take such actions under the Brown Act….
In a letter, obtained by the Gay & Lesbian Times, Worrell said, “I don’t know that I have ever before found myself in a situation where every alternative solution is wrong. But, in my opinion, that is the situation now. After the unconscionable bullying we took from Christine Kehoe, Todd Gloria and Toni Atkins; it is obvious that my involvement in shaping the future of Pride must end.
In addition to demanding that the three current board members resign, Kehoe also stated that all Pride board meetings would be attended by a representative from both Kehoe’s and Gloria’s offices. She ordered a hiring freeze and said all Pride business must go through her office before any actions were taken, according to the anonymous source.

One reason I steer clear from nonprofits.  Another reason is that I learned the hard way that they are answerable to their funders more than the clients they serve.  I would NEVER deal with a nonprofit (If I were you) anymore without knowing who is on the board of directors, and who is footing the bills.   Moreover, nonprofits can have their boards taken over and start firing staff, totally change the character of any organization which may have started out well.

So, I’m interested why these people would be so interested in controlling the nonprofit here San Diego LGBT Pride and looked it up.  “Year Founded:1974 Ruling Year:1995” (meaning actually showed up as a nonprofit 21 years after it started…  Wow, kinda like AFCC, which took forever to incorporate properly and start reporting income and paying taxes…).   Income they deal with listed at $1.47 million…   Purpose:

Foster pride in and respect for all Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,

and Transgender communities locally and globally.

(See yesterday’s post on the gender expression bill.  Guess some real progress has been made there.)

Guidestar’s IRS form 990 for the year 2009 shows only the 3 ousted officer, plus Exec. Director Ron deHarte earning $113K, and the main activity rallies, festivals, etc.  (and operating in the whole).  The income is mostly “program service revenue.”

Whether or not this type of behavior and leadership qualities is played out in the LGBT community or not, it seems common in these combos, I have noticed:

  • Legislator Connection
  • City level control (Councilmen, Councilwomen), and  County Level Supervisors
  • Redevelopment Connections (real estate developers, or those financing it)
  • Favored nonprofits controlled by one of the above to provide services
  • Cronies getting the contracts, or cronies/spouses getting to be Exec. Director of the favored Nonprofit/agency  (Example:  “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys — Attorney General Bill Lockyer’s (3rd) wife gets coveted $90K job over a $3million-grant-initiated “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (I think was the title) whose actual benefits to the public are questioned (if ever proved).    The process by which this Executive Director was appointed took the cooperation of County Supervisors, helped by the early resignation of a (as I recall) District Attorney (rather than waiting out is term to let the appointment happen normally:  i.e., From Orloff to Nancy O’Malley.
For an example, here’s a quick summary (I also blogged it — but it was someone else who researched it):
SEPT 2009 (article shows an Oakland City Council person deluged with protests about constituents being whammed with parking meter increases, and slammed with violations…which is affecting business for the local retailers…   So the City Councilperson is often between a rock and a hard place, meaning the collaboration between other already tightly bonded parts of local govt:

Case closed: One big reason the Alameda County Board of Supervisors voted to name retiring District Attorney Tom Orloff‘s handpicked successor, Nancy O’Malley, to the plum job was her role in helping launch the Alameda County Family Justice Center – a federally funded program that helps victims of domestic violence.

Not only are Supervisors Gail Steele and Alice Lai-Bitker big supporters of the program, but its executive director is Nadia Maria Davis-Lockyer – the wife of longtime East Bay pol Bill Lockyer.  Nadia is also running for supervisor.

Both Steele & Lai-Bitker have a reputation for being really concerned about domestic violence, and Steele, even for this crisis in the courts.  HOWEVER — has that justice center actually helped as many people as it says it did?  And if they’re so concerned about the bottom segments of society (and kids, of course….) — why not set a better example, and let the heads of major nonprofits receiving a FAT federal grant – be picked legally, instead of voting to minimize public awareness, and public comment ?  A “Steve White” (Indymedia) blogged this in 2006.  I can’t see that the practices have changed much, over time.  I blogged it, too:
There’s a certain truth (though not as intended, I’m sure) in the testimonials from this Justice Center’s site:

This is really changing the way the system is responding to victims.”
-Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County Chief Assistant District Attorney

“We use business principles to address social problems and build lasting solutions.”
-Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq., Executive Director

Well, well — the Sneak Peak of ACFCJ finds out that Ms. Nadia is going to take retiring County Supervisor Gayle Steele’s place — very appropriate, because Supervisor Steele probably could have — but like Lai-Bitker, chose not to — protest the improper propelling of this woman to the head of the ACFCJ to start with (see the articles i’ve linked to).  TWO county supervisors protested swishing the appointment past the public improperly.  THREE County supervisors (including those two) did not.  So here we are —

Congratulations and Thank You, Nadia Lockyer

On November 2, 2010, Nadia Lockyer was elected to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors to fill the seat vacated by retired County Supervisor, Gayle Steele. Nadia’s last day as the Executive Director of the ACFJC was December 31, 2010. We wish to thank Nadia for all she did for the ACFJC and we wish her well in her new position. We know she will continue advocating to ensure the safety and health of all children and families in Alameda County.

Senior Deputy District Attorney, Kim Hunter, will be the Acting Director of the ACFJC. She and Cherri Allison of FVLC will work together to provide leadership until a new director is installed.

And of course a blurb in this ACFCJ newsletter celebrates the inauguration of Nancy O’Malley, who helped get this ACFCJ started:

District Attorney, Nancy O’Malley, Sworn in at ACFJC

The Inauguration Ceremony of Nancy O’Malley, Alameda County District Attor- ney, took place at the ACFJC on January 3, 2011. Approximately 250 people gathered on the 2nd floor to hear an introduction by Chief Assistant District Attorney, Kevin Dunleavy, and the Oath of Office administered by Cali- fornia Supreme Court Associate Justice Carol Corrigan. Nancy ended the ceremony with a touching speech that thanked her mentors and family. A reception immediately followed at Z Café.

Congratulations Nancy!

While most Centers & Units  under this County’s DA’s office have addresses basically at the courthouse (1225 Fallon St most common address listed), “Child Abduction” and “Domestic Violence” have been exported to a different address, or “Center” here — 427   27th Street, Oakland.  (I developed a recent habit — looking up street addresses of nonprofits to see who else is there).
Convenient for the providers, not necessarily the best for the clients.
While I’m here (on that Alameda County Family Justice Center) — FYI
Guidestar, the address shows a nonprofit “Bay Area Women Against Rape”BAY AREA WOMEN AGAINST RAPE

Also Known As:

Physical Address:
470 27TH St
Oakland , CA 94612 
2008 IRS Form 990 (contains warning notice on potential errors in this version)
EIN# 942300454
This group’s budget is small fry among big fry (Grants $650,000) and its Executive Director, Marcia Blackstock has something worth hearing about this group and practices in general:

If you’ve got ears, listen up to this one:


Blackstock is the Executive Director of Bay Area Women Against Rape, which was founded in 1971 and is recognized as one of the first three victim assistance programs in the nation.

Initial Involvement in the Crime Victims’ Movement

Marcia Blackstock became involved in Bay Area Women Against Rape (BAWAR) as a volunteer in 1978. BAWAR had been formed in 1971 by an outraged foster mother whose high school-age daughter had been treated badly both by the police and the emergency room staff after she was raped.

Context of the Era

BAWAR had a “huge adversarial relationship” with law enforcement, hospital personnel, mental health professionals, and the judiciary in the early days. Blackstock remembers that BAWAR’s views were not trusted, nor did BAWAR trust anyone in the system to appropriately assist sexual assault victims. “It was a lot of upheaval, a lot of anxiety, and frustration,” Blackstock recalls. On the other hand, there was substantial community support from the local universities and other collective groups such as the Berkeley Free Clinic and the Women’s Health Collective that were also working and organizing to see that people were treated with dignity and respect and that their needs were met.

Greatest Challenge

Looking back, Blackstock believes that the greatest challenge was establishing credibility among professionals in the various fields that dealt with rape victims. The therapists, law enforcement officers, judiciary, and hospital personnel considered themselves the “experts” and maintained an adversarial relationship with BAWAR mainly because of its grassroots origins. The BAWAR advocates were not considered to be “professionals.”

“We were coming from a peer-support, community-based, grassroots organization that brought in a huge variety of people from a variety of backgrounds and education and ideas, but all coming together and focusing on a common goal. But we were considered ‘peer’ and not ‘professional’, at best paraprofessional and rarely that.”

One of the problems that BAWAR faced was that licensed counselors who felt that they were more knowledgeable had no experience at all working with sexual assault victims.

Or course, professionals and experts know better than grassroots advocates (or victims of crime) what’s best for them, and should be paid accordingly.
In looking up another Board of Directors of BAWAR, (Candace Archuleta)  the “Rakheem Bolton” case (Dallas, Texas) comes up, in which a cheerleader who was held down, locked in, raped — and whose rapist got off with a handslap — took a real stand.
In fact when she was supposed to be jumping up and down and shouting encouragement to him, she just stood.
She refused to cheer for him when he was back on the basketball court.  She didn’t call names, throw things, threaten, or anything.  She just stood, silent.  And for this, was punished
(WHY does this remind me of battered mothers who have some resistance to co-parenting with identified abusers or child molesters?  Family Courts have a hey-day with that obstinance….) 
Oh boy — none of that lack of “spirit” in the school! — and she was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

A high school student who refused to cheer on her “rapist” has been ordered to pay $45,000 for filing a “frivolous” lawsuit. Where’s the justice in this?

By Cord Jefferson
Posted: 05/05/2011 02:54 PM EDT

I didn’t want to have to say his name and I didn’t want to cheer for him,” she told reporters in 2009. “I just didn’t want to encourage anything he was doing.”

To that end, HS refused to cheer for Bolton when he stepped up to take some free throws during a game in January 2009, four months after he had pleaded guilty to the attack. When she folded her arms and stood silently, however, her school’s superintendent, Richard Bain, ordered her outside and told her she had to cheer for Bolton. When she refused again, HS was kicked off the cheerleading squad.

(How much money, fame, press does a good basketball team attract to a school?)

HS later sued the school for kicking her off the team, but the results of that lawsuit have time and again gone terrifyingly against her.

(What’s Gender got to do with THAT situation?  Or, money? –or Justice?  The rapist paid $2,500, and she has to pay the school district $45,000 for protesting —  not with violence, but with silence?)


Now — think about it.  BAWAR is at this area, and getting small amt. of funding compared to the larger scope, yet rape and assault is a major part of domestic violence.    Yet Guidestar shows this “Alameda County Family Justice Center” at the same address — which we know is a major project — it has a physical, building presence — and yet it’s listed on Guidestar AS IF a nonprofit, incorporation 2010 (we know, formed much earlier) same address:


Also Known As:

Physical Address:
470 270TH StOakland , CA 94612
At A Glance
Category (NTEE):
Human Services / (Victims’ Services) 
Year Founded:
2010  Ruling Year: 2010 

I’m looking at a 990 signed this past February by Harold Boscovich.  (You can too — it’s free).  There are no officers, no income, and no officer, it says, was paid.    Now THAT’s an unusual tax return!   “The purpose of this corporation (not nonprofit?) it “to provide comprehensive collaborative professional services to victims of domestic violence and their children, to victims of sexual abuse, sexual assault, and sexual exploitation; to victims of elder abuse, and to victims of child abuse, at no cost.

WAIT A MINUTE!  Aren’t these the legitimate functions already of governmental (not nonprofit) agencies?  Such as the District Attorney’s office?
The books of this corporation are in the possession, it says, of D.A. “Nancy O’Malley, 470 270th Street, Oakland 94612″ (deliberate typo?  Oakland has no 270th street; see address) and the corporation’s contact# is the same.”
 We already know that Ms. Nadia’s salary was paid by the DA’s office (per indymedia blogger & local commentator, Steve White — see links)  It is classified as a “community trust” (line 8, Part I, of “Schedule A”) I guess IRS Section 170 (b)(1)(a)(vi).
I’m a novice and maybe you are.  A SF Law firm summarizes / explains (Thank you, Adler & Colvin, a Law Corporation, 235 Montgomery, Ste. 1220, for this link and information):

QUALIFYING FOR PUBLIC CHARITY STATUS: The Section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1) Test and the Section 509(a)(2) Test

Tax-exempt status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code permits a charitable organization to pay no tax on any operating surplus it may have at the end of a year, and it permits donors to claim a charitable deduction for their contributions.

There is a further division in the world of Section 501(c)(3) organizations, classifying them into private foundations and public charities.

The private foundation laws impose a 2 percent tax on investment income, limit self-dealing and business holdings, require annual distributions, prohibit lobbying entirely, and restrict the organization’s operations in other ways. Also, large donors to a private foundation have a lower ceiling on the amount of deductible gifts they can claim each year. In most circumstances, public charity status is preferable to private foundation status.

And it appears that this Alameda County Family Justice Center (“ACFJC” as I might refer to it again), started by District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, hand-picked by the retiring one TOm Orloff as a shoo-in (or to be the incumbent shortly before he retired) whose connections I’m sure helped get the $3 million grant to start this particular ACFCJ — and who then helped get another connected individual, Nadia Davis-Lockyer, Esq. become Executive Director and at once get a 50% increase in salary, to just below what a California Legislator (Assembly) typically gets ($90,000 / $95,921)….

Well, back to our IRS stipulations / qualifications link:

To determine the charity’s support base, (we might as well look at this….)

Gifts, grants,(Footnote 3) contributions, and membership fees received.

Gross investment income (e.g., interest, dividends, rents, royalties, but not gains from sale of capital assets).

Taxable income from unrelated business activities,4 less the amount of any tax imposed on such income.

Benefits from tax revenues received by the charity, and any services or facilities furnished by the government to the charity without charge, other than those generally provided to the public without charge.

{{Hmmm….Does this rule have anything to do with why a new location was needed for the Center?}}

Footnote 3 In some limited circumstances, an unexpectedly large grant may be excluded from both public support tests as an “unusual grant” described in Regulation § 1.170A-9(e)(6). These technical rules are beyond the scope of this memorandum.


Not becoming a Private Foundation — Well, if there’s a whole lot of wealth involved, this could be annoying.  Also, if you want very large private donors to support you, they deductible for those donors is also lower, which may make them wish to contribute instead to  501( c)3s as “Public charities” — like the Kids’ Turns of the family law world?

A Section 501(c)(3) organization can avoid private foundation status, and thus be classified as a public charity, in any of three ways: (1) by being a certain kind of institution, such as a church, school, or hospital; (2) by meeting one of two mathematical public support tests; or (3) by qualifying as a supporting organization to another public charity. In this memo, we discuss the two mathematical public support tests.

The Public/Governmental Support Test of Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1)

This public support test was designed for charities which derive a significant proportion of their revenues from donations from the public, including foundation grants, and from governmental grants. The test has two variations. If an organization can satisfy either of the two variations of this support test, it will qualify as a public charity under Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) and 509(a)(1).

The first variation is known as the one-third test. A charity can satisfy this test if public support is one-third or more of the total support figure. Nothing more is needed if this mathematical fraction is attained.

The second variation, known as the 10 percent facts and circumstances test, has two requirements. First, the charity’s public support must be at least 10 percent of its total support. Second, the charity must demonstrate, with reference to facts and circumstances specified by the IRS, that it is operated more like a public charity than like a private foundation.

For “Program Accomplishments” it says “See Schedule O.”  One year, the return simply had the organization’s title in there; the next year, it again restated the organization’s purpose.  These are hardly “program accomplishments.”
As it’s a certain kind of public charity, I’d like to see the IRS letter of Determination
Now — When I googled this Inc’s name (ACFJC) 3 and 3 groups only came up.  This (also Oakland-based) is the second one.     (The third is the Bill Wilson Center in LA? area).  This is where the money seems to be recorded — the Family Violence Law Center  (EIN# 942527939)
Income: $3,250,900
Also known as: FVLC
Oakland, CA 94623
Category: I71 (Spouse Abuse, Prevention of); P43 (Family Violence Shelters and Services); P62 (Victims’ Services)Physical Address:PO Box 22009 Oakland , CA 94623Web Address:www.fvlc.org  Telephone:(510) 2080220 Facsimile:(510) 2083557 Contact:Ms. Cherri N. Allison, , Esq.cherri@fvlc.orgExecutive Director(510) 2080220 x32
This amount seems closer to the grant mentioned for the spanking new ACFJC a while back.  NOtice different address (like a PO Box….) and although ACFCJ actually has a web address, Guidestar doesn’t list it for some reason.
2008 Tax Return says that
GRANTS — Prior Year, $318,322,
THIS year $1,386,008
Program Service Revenue  — last year:   1,680,748,
THIS year $1,867,703
Given that part of domestic violence is economic abuse — the victims are not usually flush with funds — I’m going to hazard a guess that they are selling trainings and products to other nonprofits, or to agency professionals whose trainings are paid for by public funds.  That’s just a guess.  Unless you know a slew of domestic violence survivors that can pay this kind of money to help support the group.
I’d say collaboration works, eh?
Here’s a current job advertisement for “youth program director” — will earn perhaps a bit less than half what the former ACFCJ Exec. Director did, at $42K – $48K per year.  Children are being born daily (hence no shortage of Youth in the area) and the former clients that ran through ACFCJ are probably dealing with high-conflict custody cases, wondering where their child support went, and figuring out how to co-parent with whoever this group helped them get a protective order on earlier.   Meanwhile, their lives having first justified grants to this organization, will now be justifying grants for “access and visitation,” a cause which essentially undoes what the first round did — protection.
Their mission statement, history, accomplishments, and who they collaborate with is listed clearly here:

Mission Statement

Family Violence Law Center (FVLC) has been working to end domestic violence in Alameda County since 1978, when a small group of abuse survivors founded the agency. To advance our mission of ending domestic violence, FVLC employs a holistic approach that integrates a comprehensive service model with dedicated efforts to address and change institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors within the legal, health, education, and criminal justice systems.

Yeah, “holistic” and “comprehensive service” are definitely the keywords these days.  Please notice carefully (underlined) which systems it tries to address and change “institutional barriers for domestic violence survivors” within — it specifically does NOT mention within the Judicial system, and it most definitely does not mention anything — at all – about the “FAMILY LAW SYSTEM” although it’s title says ‘Family Law Violence Center.”

Go figure, huh?  And how telling.  The most critical information people coming through “stage one” of leaving domestic violence, assuming kids are involved, is what is coming up next — which IS the “family law system.”.

After looking at the 990 (as usual, I often go straight to the officers’ page), and notice the Executive Director is being paid a modest (for this size of operation) salary of $90K year, and her name is:


Cherri N. Allison, Esq. is the Executive Director at FVLC. A lifetime resident of Oakland, Ms. Allison has more than 7 years of legal non-profit management experience. Ms. Allison also has over 12 years of experience as a family law attorney.

Prior to coming to FVLC, Ms. Allison was the Director of Programs at the Alameda County Bar Association. In addition to Ms. Allison’s expertise in non-profit management, she has experience in board development, program development, grant writing and investments. She currently serves as the President of the Board for the Women Lawyers of Alameda County, is a former member of the FVLC Board, and is a member of the California Alliance Against Domestic Violence and the Charles Houston Bar Association.

In 2008, she is (not inappropriately, I’m sure) awarded by the Bar Association for the work with this Community Organization, along with other judges, attorneys, etc., as it says (tickets, $125),

2008 Installation and Distinguished Service Awards Dinner

Join us on Thursday, January 17, 2008, as we swear in our Officers and Directors and honor the recipients of our Distinguished Service Awards while we enjoy a delectable dinner buffet and cool jazz. The festivities will take place at the Claremont Hills Resort & Spa, majestically resting on 22 acres of beautifully landscaped gardens in Berkeley.*

(*starting to sound like some of the wonderful AFCC, or for that matter, Kids’ Turn promoting retreats and seminars.)

(the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” is a grants recipient, from my understanding, through HHS and is where CPEDV went….).   WELL, I guess that FAMILY LAW EXPERIENCE may tell us why this group doesn’t seem to educate its clients about the family law process, and what’s happened to it since, say, 2001 (Bush, faith-based), or even 1998, 1999 (US Congress passes resolutions on fatherhood).  However, it’s clear Ms. Allison must be informed about the intersection of DV & Family Law; she has written about it:

Domestic violence remedies in California family law cases, 2008. Cherri N. Allison, et al. (CEB, 2008)  KFC 115 D664  not accessible to general public, unless you are in L.A.?

Get this (2009)

Women Lawyers of Alameda County (WLAC) honors Exec Director  of ACFCJ, District Attorney (who helped fund and start ACFCJ) who also honor a retired woman judge (Hon. Peggy Hora., Ret’d.) who pushed “therapeutic jurisprudence”  – a VERY problemmatic practice in the judicial field, and also endorsed by AFCC.

How sweet — aren’t these professionals all close friends with each other then?  (Except the women driven homeless through family law system and twice-thrice-and ongoing-abused (Legal abuse syndrome) through its practices, or while (out of state — MD — another state pushing Therapeutic Jurisprudence through Univ. of Baltimore School of Law “CFCC”) a pediatrician mother (is that professional enough?) lost 3 children, drowned in a bathtub on a scheduled visitation, although she warned, pleaded, and asked for visitation to be curtailed based on the prior mental health history and state of the father.  (“Cabrillo”).

WLAC “Honor Roll”

This Issue’s Honor Roll:

Cherri N. Allison, Executive Director of the Family Violence Law Center of Alameda County, was recently named “Woman of the Year” for the Justice Category of the Alameda County Commission on Status of Women and will be inducted into the Alameda County Women’s Hall of Fame on April 25, 2009.

I think that instead of professionals honoring and decorating themselves in nice ceremonies (Sun Myung Moon and the U.S. Senate mock coronation ceremony comes to mind) instead some of the women who DIED because of stupid family law rulings, sometimes along with their children or in front of them, in scheduled exchanges with the father for co-parenting purposes — THEIR names should be honored.

I do not live in this county and so am not familiar with which is most dramatic, but how about honoring the mothers who, having left an abusive relationship (or possibly separated because of the abuse) thereafter, by complying with family court orders to fork over their children to an ex-batterer or abuser, ended up dead.  

If this is too many low-income people to consider at once, then why not go for someone closer to the legal profession’s social class — Hans Reiser.  Why not honor his wife, Nina.   I’m not sure which county this case was in, but sounds like her body was unearthed Alameda County.

And whoever is recommending Batterers Intervention Programs gets my “dunce award of the year; here’s why from “Sagaria Law” — they don’t complete the programs anyhow!  Or, (in one high-profile case) they complete the programs and then walk back and kill the woman anyhow (Scott McAlpin).

The programs draw funding  — is there something too hard to spell about that?

I started this blog to warn others!   after years of the rollercoaster (downhill slide, overall) of the family law system that no one who was involved warned me about when I separated from the abuser.  In retrospect, it might have been better to ask for self-defense lessons, mace training, and just utilize it, so I could communicate directly to this person that was is and is not acceptable is, in marriage, a two-way street, and wives are people, too.

FVLC’s services include both protection initiatives for people currently experiencing abuse and prevention initiatives to eliminate future abuse. Today, FVLC is recognized as a leader in the community in both delivering exceptional services to abuse survivors and in advocating for long-term social change for victims.

Maybe I should go find these people  — a list of clients with children who then went into “high-conflict custody battles”– and start interviewing them to see if the perspective holds — and if they then lost their kids to the abusers, because doing something about that issue is not, er, under FVLC’s 501(c)3 goals….  Abuse survivors with custody cases need not apply — go see your local family law attorney….
Well, I recognize that someone else has to tell about the Access Visitation Factor, the Child Support Incentives, and that that whatever groups like these WILL instruct people about, the functioning of the family law system is not on the curricula.    We had to learn the hard way that if our problems were not going to attract major funding, we could just go deal with them ourselves.  THESE types of programs, however do get the moulah:
How much easier to teach, coach and (allegedly) prevent — than to scrutinize, analyze, and dis-assemble destructive institutions which result in family wipeouts — but which are already entrenched…

During FY 07-08, FVLC achieved the following accomplishments [(accomplished the following)]:

  1. Provided legal services (representation, paperwork preparation, and advice and counsel) to 525 clients, for a total of 2,250 contact hours and 692 court orders.
  2. Provided crisis counseling and safety planning to 2,823 clients, for a total of 3,250 contact hours.
  3. FVLC’s HEAL (Healing Emotions and Loss After Domestic Violence) Program provided intensive parent/child psychotherapy to 31 children and their primary caregiver, for a total of 900 contact hours.
  4. FVLC’s RAP (Relationship Abuse Prevention) Program provided intensive leadership training to 56 youth and violence prevention education and outreach to 1,008 youth.

FVLC has set the following goals for the current year (FY 08-09):

  1. Continue to strengthen collaborative relationships with other agencies co-located at the Alameda County Family Justice Center with FVLC.  This includes the Oakland Police Department, Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, and numerous other community-based agencies.
  2. Engage in policy work around domestic violence by playing a leadership role on several state and countywide task forces, including the American Bar Association’s Commission on Domestic Violence, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Alameda County Family Violence Council, Domestic Violence Advisory Council for the Social Services Administration of Alameda County, and Alameda County Teen Dating Violence Task Force (formed and led by FVLC).
(As you can see, it’s now fashionable to say the words “domestic violence” and form task forces to do something about it, allegedly.  Look at the variety of groups that do:  The ABA, CPEDV, and something from Alameda County itself I can’t even find (yet), as well as a SSA “Domestic Violence Advisory Council.”   How many of these talk to victims they helped 5 years down the road or so?
  1. With our collaborative partners Youth ALIVE! and Youth Radio, expand leadership training and policy work around teen dating violence at Oakland middle schools through various classroom, after-school, and summer activities, effectively reaching approximately 1,600 adolescents.  This is made possible through a generous four-year, $1 million grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

(Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is very big into funding fatherhood materials. )

These are recommended reading to pick up on the patterns, and alliances.  It almost gives one a headache (for non-politically-minded individuals who just do their jobs, obey the law, pay taxes, volunteer locally, probably contribute locally, etc.) to conceive of the extent of deceit and collaboration that is simply government.  And then all the public press about how poor we all are, and how it’s time to tighten our belts — and cut back on the social service infrastructure.  And (in California) release from 30,000 to 40,000 prisoners.

This is simply taxation without representation, and totally unacceptable in my book.

And I’m not a Tea Partier.

It sheds a whole different light on the “social contract” that most of (what remains of) the middle class has bought into.  If they stick to their jobs, neighborhoods, kids, and planning for leisure & retirement (and don’t ask too many questions about the top layer) — then the top layer will structure society so as to kind of leave them alone, and of course (this goes without saying) make sure the rabble doesn’t get out of control.


FAMILY  JUSTICE CENTERS, per IRS search (on the name):

Name City StateSorted Ascending Country

to Be Continued…