Let's Get Honest! Blog

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

Archive for the ‘“Til Death Do Us Part” (literally)’ Category

A Few FAQs on Major Family Court Programs (NYEve 2012 Reflex on the Gender Gap)

leave a comment »

(Written the last day of 2012) This post is about 10,000 words and was edited supplemented several times after publishing [INCLUDING IN 2014, when I was formatting a Table of Contents] .
FYI, that’s typical of my blogging… Also thanks for patience with formatting, as I deal with a different input device and fewer “buttons.” It’s cumbersome, only lets me compose in HTML mode..) [extra horizontal lines may appear as forced “paragraph breaks” which otherwise, get erased.

I am, to tell the truth, having an awful day, struggling with computer issues, web access, and, apart from the electronic struggles, with grief.

Also the long-term effects of chronic, for lack of a better term, Family Violence — in its ugly, needless, heartless, dishonest, deceitful and extortionist self. People reach a limit, and because I am NOT of the inclination to behave like those who have a conflict with me — i.e., my faith doesn’t endorse the criminal behavior part — I am finding it just this much family violence, all this just too much.

Normally this article wouldn’t be much of my concern — it’s talking about “Wage Gaps in MBA Programs” — I mean, a woman that has got through an MBA program is not likely facing the same issues I have been.

But from my perspective (year after year, there has been a return to literally begging status around the court fiascos, which is hardly unintentional from a systems, or my ex’s part; I’d been promised before separation that he knew how to get out of paying child support (wonder where learned it from….), but well, I just didn’t know at the outset of the program how many other parties profit from this. In fact I didn’t know til I revisited Liz Richards’ NAFCJ.net site and worked through the basics — almost no one else at the time was talking about the grants incentives…..

So what happens when WAGE GAP is multiplied by REPEATED WAGE DISRUPTIONS AND DECREASES (when an employee has to miss too much work, move for safety, return to court to try to contact one’s kids — often — deals with stalking and has to re-arrange work life for protection from it, has to take into account client/employer safety in future business dealings, and word gets around that the individual has “family problems” which interfere with work problems, and that’s chronic? The main concept behind having a sustainable work life is that it’s sustained. Or moves are strategic, or for exploring different options?

So, look at this from SFGATE.com (San Francisco on-line, it was also in the print edition, page A1):

MBA Wage Gap between Men, Women Grows” Dec. 29, 2012

[Alison Damast is a Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. E-mail: adamast@bloomberg.net] Ten years ago, the wage gap between men and women graduating from top MBA programs appeared to have been nearly erased. {{that’s astounding, considering the rest of society..}} That suggested that women would launch their careers on an equal footing with men and then experience a gender-blind sprint up the corporate ranks. A decade later [i.e., NOW], a far more sober picture is emerging: The pay gap among graduates of elite business schools is widening, according to new research from Businessweek’s biennial survey of MBA graduates. On average, female grads from top MBA programs now earn 93 cents for every dollar paid their male classmates.

{{that still didn’t grab my attention. At least they are working!!}}

At about a third of the top 30 U.S. business schools, women earn less than men – sometimes considerably less. Female MBA graduates from the class of 2012 at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, for instance, earned 86 percent of male wages, while those at Stanford Graduate School of Business earned 79 percent.

{{Now, that has my attention. (I’m also remembering that Catherine Austin Fitts attended Wharton. Of course she had a lot of other things going for her personally as well, I saw some MIT in the background, time in China — she’s no slouch…)…Two more short sections of this article here:}}

“The gap numbers at the beginning are not very large and can be mostly accounted for by differences in grades, course selection and the fields people are starting in,” says Marianne Bertrand, an economics professor at University of Chicago Booth School of Business, citing results of studies on compensation among female MBA graduates from her school.

What is much more striking is how much that gap grows over time.The pay gap is especially wide for women heading to finance jobs.

A study of 2010 census data by Bloomberg found that among the six categories with the largest gender gap in pay were insurance agents, personal advisers and securities sales agents.

Women in those jobs earned 55 to 62 cents for every $1 men pulled in, the census data showed.

In 2010, research from Catalyst, a nonprofit group that focuses on expanding opportunities for women in business, found that female MBAs were being paid, on average, $4,600 less in their first job than men, a disparity that grows to $30,000 by mid-career, says Anna Beninger, a senior associate in Catalyst’s research department.

{{Add to this the fact that the dollar is hardly stable, you can imagine it makes an increasing difference!}}

Even women placed in high-potential leadership development programs often miss out on what are considered hot jobs, or projects most critical to career advancement, Catalyst found. Says Beninger: “Women’s careers lag behind men from day one.” . . . .

[Alison Damast is a Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. E-mail: adamast@bloomberg.net]

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.

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.

Let’s Get Honest about “Kids’ Turn” and Judges’ Profit..

with 10 comments

Per an Annual Report, 2010, on this organization which sheds light on how the courts work:

The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:

• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered

HALF THE CLIENTELE OF KIDS’ TURN ARE ORDERED TO GO THERE BY THE COURTS.  Notably, this Nonprofit also was started by a family law judge, and by the end of this (LONG) blog, you should know much more about the interrelationship between the Profit in Non-Profits and how judges order litigants to attend services provided (fee-based) for organizations that MANY of them have sat on the board of.

Not just for US.  Nope, the UK is going to help out this “charity” (started by family law judge…)

Kids’ Turn will soon complete a partnership with two charities in the United Kingdom (Relate and National Family Mediation) leading to implementation of Kids’ Turn throughout Great Britain.

Amazing….they write:

The UK govt has pledged a new pot of funding to help families. Here is a link to an online article about it which we posted on the KT Facebook Fan Page:

• Our partner agencies will submit funding requests in three categories, one of which is to implement Kids’ Turn throughout the UK

• They will received the funding award notices by March, 2011 and when awarded, the funds will be in place for four years

• The two agencies have settled their partnership challenges and worked out their respective roles re. the implementation of Kids’ Turn

UNbelievable…  Some families stuck in the courts (beCAUSE they are stuck in the courts) can’t afford internet, and “Kids’ Turn” has its facebook page…

I am simply throwing out some greens here, about a gleam in a judge’s eye (1987-1990) that is going global.  Not exactly in the free market — it is subsidized as a sub-grantee THROUGH the California Judicial Council, under “Access Visitation Grants,” and as such, you probably can’t get out of some facet of indoctrination once you file a motion in any family law court, anywhere, for any reason.  You might, but it’s kind of like what I hear of slot machines, gambling, etc.  — the House always wins.

KIDS’ TURN,” INTERNATIONAL” — and is CLOSELY Associated with AFCC:

International Conference Presentations (cached article…)

Kids‘ Turn Executive Director, Claire Barnes, had the privilege to co-present this summer at the International Commission on Couples and Family Relations’ 2002 Conference held in Sydney, Australia.  She collaborated with Claire Missen, Teen Between (Dublin, Ireland) on the topic of Divorce and Teens.  The respective papers, where cultural commonalities and differences specific to gender differences were discussed, are available for review.

Additionally, Susanna Marshland, former Kids‘ Turn Program Director, participated in a panel presentation at this year’s AFCC Conference in Hawaii.  The
topic of Best Practices was a perfect venue for Susanna’s information on the KidsTurn Early Years Program.  Susanna’s remarks are also included
for review.

1. Statistics: a presentation by Claire Missen, Teen Between (Dublin, Ireland)

2. Presentation by Claire Barnes, M.A to the 2002 International Commission on Couple and Family Relations: Distance Diversity Dislocation, June 2002, Sydney, Australia

3. Summary of Presentation for the ‘Best Practices’ workshop
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Annual Conference, presented by Susanna Marshland, LCSW
June 7, 2002, Waikoloa, Hawaii

How nice to belong to more than one organization for which conferences can involve transcontinental and transoceanic travel to exotic locales to talk about “healing family relationships.”  OF note — this organzation is funded in part as a sub-grantee from US Federal funds, including diversions from WELFARE to enhance CHILD SUPPORT collection for needy families.  ….

But what caught my interest — what is KIDS’ TURN doing on a notice of lien to the SFTC, which is the San Francisco Courts?  (Source:  CRIIS.com, recorded documents)

Record Date Document Number GrantoR GranteE Name Cross Reference Name Document Type

Someone should look into this — what’s THAT about? From what I understand, “SFTC” is the San Francisco Superior (or Trial) Courts — pls. submit comment correcting me if I’m wrong.  And it’s GRANTEE, i.e., Kids’ Turn is granting something to the courts, while receiving grants from the Cal. Judicial Council THrough the courts.

I could write on anything — of course — but have noticed this particular group (out of SF and San Diego, originally) going international, Hawaii, Illinois, you name it.  They say they are really successful — read it on the website here, a study done in 2009 (it began around 1988):

Our programs work. A long-term study published in 2009 showed that Kids’ Turn workshops effectively reduced parent conflict, alienation and internalization of negative behaviors by children.

You KNOW, I’m going to have to take a look at this, which describes Kids Turn as a program offered CONTINUOUSLY since 1988 :

The present paper reviews the literature described above and introduces Kids’ Turn, a divorcing family education program that has been offered in the San Francisco Bay Area continuously since 1988. This manuscript reports change over time within a sample of families who have participated in the Kids’ Turn program and observed reductions in conflict intensity and breadth, parent rejection of child behavior, and parent anxiety and depression. These results provide first-ever evidence of change within participants in a community-based divorcing family education program.

This 23-page review, cited on the Kidsturn.org site, reviewed a whopping 61 PARTICIPANTS…79% female, about half college-educated:


Participants were 61 parents for whom complete data were present before they entered the Kids’ Turn program (Wave 1) and after they had completed the program (Wave 2). Participants were eligible if they had children between the age of 4 and 17 and had (1) registered to complete the Kids’ Turn program, (2) agreed to participate in an independent evaluation of the program efficacy, and (3) had participated in the evaluation study both (a) before their first Kids’ Turn session and (b) after they had completed the program. The majority of participants were female (79%) and most had a college degree or more (53%).

Browsing the description of the Kids’ Turn curriculum (as described here), I see many familiar names known to be influential in the development of the family law system, AFCC members or key members, and of course marketing THEIR information also, and some also related to the organization CRC, on which another post should be written.  For example, Wallerstein, Kelly, Isolina Ricci, and Sanford Braver, e.g.:

Parental Alienation. Participants responded to three items from the Dads for Life project (Braver, Griffin, Cookston, Sandler, & Williams, 2005) that assessed the degree to which participants perceived the other parent was competing for the child’s affection.

The plenteous footnotes reference others (including some on the Board of Kids’ Turn San Diego, see below), such as Warshak, et. al ….

And for something with several pages of footnotes, and not a few tables, we get the comment:

The analyses on the parent-child relationship variables yielded no significant change over time results for the Kids’ Turn parents. These results did not support our theory of the program and failed to replicate results previously found in controlled, randomized trials of family education program for divorcing families which have been found to improve parent-child relationship and communication (Wolchik et al., 2005).

I personally suggest we stop running experiments and trying to “replicate” results on relationships.  People are not lab rats — stop treating them like it.  However, data like this is a LITTLE more fascinating, and one reason I decided to blog this (and not, say, the world is falling apart in the middle east, and earthquakes in New Zealand, etc.) ….  And this group is obviously a little hyper-focused on “parental alienation”:

Finally, for the parent relationship variables, the results indicate a significant decrease in reports of parental alienation. The decrease in parent alienation could be linked to the decrease in conflict breadth and parental conflict, but our analyses including the covariates suggest the changes are not better explained by parent gender, time since separation, or parent or child age. The notion of parental alienation is controversial in the psychological literature because it is more typically associated with the diagnosis of a parental alienation syndrome (see Warshak, 2001), however, there is no doubt that these behaviors present challenging pressures for children.

{{Someone up to translating that jargon into something REAL?}}

Overall, the decrease in these three parent relationship constructs– parent alienation, conflict breadth, and parental conflict – are to be expected from a divorce education program like Kids’ Turn, however, they are hard to attain (Goodman et al, 2005).

The problem is the conflict and not any behaviors causing it, obviously, like some of the ones most hotly contested in the courts, and sometimes precipitating the separations….

BUT I found THIS very interesting:

IT’S A MARKETING SYSTEM, WITH AFFILIATES (SOME INTERNATIONAL) SPONSORED BY US GOVERNMENT.  GO FIGURE.  THIS IS NOT A FREE-MARKET SYSTEM, BUT PARENTS ARE REFERRED THROUGH THE COURTS.  OF COURSE — of course — it’s just for the kids.  We all know that only bad parents divorce, and have high conflict, and therefore good judges, etc. (and Mr. Rogers) must help them out.  The parents’ previous behaviors, qualifications, professions (even if in education, pediatrics, child care, or health and human services) does not seem to be relevant — the word “parent” is fairly universal, I’d say.

The court view is that bad parents have high conflict and good authorities must teach parents — including BOTH parents, even if one has a prison record, is a deadbeat intentionally though personally wealthy — or has assaulted the other spouse — and/or child(ren), or even kidnapped them — MUST assume the position of being taught how to separate (while the courts virtually prevent this from every happening before someone is homeless, dead, or all children are now adults, if then).

The POSITIVE spin on Kids’ Turn:

Kids’ Turn


From 1987 to 1990, Judge Ina Levin Gyemant presided over the family law department of the domestic relations court, noting that while lawyers filed motions and parents sought orders regarding custody, visitation and other diputes, children and their needs were almost completely ignored. Mediation services were mandated for parents in California in 1980,** but no educational program was available for children, who are often the people most vulnerable and confused during separation or divorce.

**mandated mediation has been identified as one of three means, in California, to increase noncustodial parenting (i.e., fathers’) time with their children, the other two being parenting education and supervised visitation.  The program stating these three causes receives close to $1 million in federal grants per year, for California, at least — and has been receiving this funding stream since 1996.  Kids’ Turn is clearly listed as a sub-grantee in more than one county on this stream.  This creates an automatic conflict of interest for court-appointed “mediators” in custody cases involving criminal activity.  MORE ON THIS BELOW (and I’ve blogged it plenty on this blog).

Gyemant and other professionals in law, education, social service, and mental health, felt strongly that early intervention would not only reduce litigation, but increase the well-being of children, improve their performance in school, and teach children and parents important skills in the midst of family reorganization.

In 1988, with the help of attorneys Ann Van Blen and Jennifer Jackson, Gyemant started Kids’ Turn as a nonprofit agency in order to offer direct educational services to children and their parents who are undergoing separation or divorce.

Feeling something strongly doesn’t mean it’s legitimate.  …

The current home office for Kids’ Turn is located in San Francisco. Out of that location, services are conducted for four Bay Area Counties. Those counties are: San Francisco, Marin, Alameda and Contra Costa. Due to the significant response to Kids’ Turn in the East Bay, the organization rents a small space in Oakland in order to accommodate East Bay staff.

In the early 90’s, the Kids’ Turn Board developed a framework for selling the curriculum and for licensing affiliates. Presently, seven organizations hold affiliate status; those organizations are located in California (Sonoma, Napa, San Diego, Shasta and Yolo Counties), Dayton, Ohio, Hillsboro, Oregon, and Bloomington, Illinois.

Illinois has also been a center of both the fatherhood movement, Children’s Rights Co-founder Jeffrey Leving, Esq. (active fathers’ rights attorney and blogger, and who I heard quickly received a white house appointment after Obama was elected) and a former location of the organization AFCC, which is the backbone of the family law system, along with CRC.  Maybe, though, that’s just all coincidence….

Although Kids’ Turn was developed as an early intervention and prevention model, it is highly effective for families who have been divorced or separated for some time.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence, AND recovery, too.  Wide target clientele….

The goal of Kids’ Turn is to provide a safe, accessible environment in which children learn to deal with the difficult situations they face as their family reorganizes. The purposes of the workshops are to: demystify and de-stigmatize the separation/divorce process; provide children and their parents with communication and problem-solving skills to help them with the divorce/separation; provide a place for children and their parents to discuss their thoughts and feelings about their experiences.

In the spring of 1995, Kids’ Turn was featured on the ABC-TV news program, “20/20,” and also recently on CNN, generating calls worldwide from people interested in starting the program in their area. A videotape entitled “For Kids’ Sake” features interviews with participating families and goes inside the sessions to show what takes place in a workshop. Both these videos are available locally.

From the KIDSTURN “purchase curriculum” link:

A four year, longitudinal study completed in 2009 by Dr. Jeffrey Cookston, San Francisco State University affirmed that Kids’ Turn services:

• • •

Reduce parent conflict

Reduce parent alienation*

Reduce internalization of negative behaviors by children

Wow– * THAT phrase is sure comforting for any parent dealing with serious safety issues, such as domestic violence or child molestation, the reporting of which just about guarantees a  “parental alienation” is the diagnosis and a form of reunification therapy (or switching custody to the parent who committed the crimes, or allegedly did).

Each curriculum module consists of six comprehensive and scripted lessons which may be modified to fit the unique needs of each participant group.

Cost: Leader Manuals, $150 (six lessons) Participant Workbooks: $15 each

For details on how to purchase The Kids’ Turn Way© contact: Kids’ Turn

55 New Montgomery, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94105 phone: 415.777.9977 fax: 415.777.1577 email: kidsturn@earthlink.net http://www.kidsturn.org

Parental Alienation Canada “LOVES” this Richard-Gardner/Warren Farrell/Warshak-oriented curriculum :

Parental Alienation Canada


New Study Validates Positive Family Impact of Kids’ Turn Services

This is where every community should be heading. Where are our Provincial and Federal Government Agencies who have millions upon millions to dole out for single gender issues but not for families. This program is family focussed, particularly on the children, and can serve as a wake up call to recalcitrant parents. I am so pleased to see this as a positive step in an otherwise negative act called divorce. The Video is a little over 6 minutes long and worth a look. The link to the Kid’s Turn website and Facebook page is below. I was made aware of a Calgary based service offering a comprehensive list of counselling Services that should be in every city and when related to DV and marriage breakdown should be part of the tax supported inititiatives currently offered by all levels of government for a single gender only.MJM Calgary Counselling Centre

But apart from that, I have more problem with simple conflicts of interest.  The Courts can ORDER parenting education in order to use up grants, and some judges (etc.) have sat on the boards of the recipient organizations.

This and other Nonprofit’s Information is Available Free on the Internet:

  • KIDS TURN San Diego (EIN 33-0724932)

EXEMPT FUNCTION:  “To Teach and Counsel Children and PArents Going Through Divorce And to Promote Communication and Cooperation among all Family Members.”

(garnered from two different years Form 990s….)

FOURTEEN (count’em, 14) Officers  are listed — all unpaid volunteers — to run this moderate nonprofit who lists as its 2009 Revenue, $169,969 (gross), or, about what a single high-profile Nonprofit CEO might earn…

  • (rounded  to closest $50))
  • Contributions, gifts, grants and similar amounts received — $117,827
  • Program Service Revenue, including government fees and contracts $39, 258
  • Gross sales of inventory, less returns and allowances — NEGATIVE ($5,773)
  • TOTAL REVENUE  $151, 312
  • TOTAL EXPENSES  (lines 10 thru 16 on the form) $190,236

Wow, between that and being a 501(c)3 to start with, I gather not many taxes were paid.  Starting to sound like that AFCC organization (that also is continuing to promote Kids Turn at some of its conferences….

An Art and Wine Auction was held (revenue around $50K) from which about $36 was donated, leaving the remainder, $12,884 — of which the direct expenses NOT including rent, food & beverages, and entertainment (pushing $12,000) and “Other Direct” expenses $6,876.  I am glad that KidsTurn San Diego is so concerned about Kids, including ones that through programs from which IT benefits (although all 14 directors are of course volunteers), have their child support eradicated or abated, which brings me to the Access/Visitation COnnection:

How can it take that many NonProfit officers when the organization is already on the federal sub-grantee stream to start with?  And this is only ONE Kids Turn office/organization:

OFFICERS — (link to website shows many are family law attorneys or attorneys, a mediator, a psychologist, etc. or retired from that profession…)

Sharon Kalemkiarian (Pres)

James Allen (VP)

Constance Ahrons

Kathryn Ashworth

Sheri Liebert

Tracy Blethen (Treasurer)

Linda Papst De Leon

Alexander Kwoka

Barbara Mercer

Brenda Bell

Andrian Martinez

Frank Nageotte

Heather Milligan

Robert A. Simon

(And all the others, Directors:  Executive Directors being a Jim Davis).

Another year (go check yourself), about $32,500 was raised through “tuition” and someone (none of the directors was paid a salary of $65,000.  Again, this will help everyone get along and reduce “parental alienation”….

  • KIDS’ TURN SF (EIN# 94-3112621)
The 2008 form (evid. Tax year July through June) shows about $350,000 in expenses and $482,500 meaning, about $135K in the hole….
The Executive Director earns $78K for a 40 hour week (very modest in the  nonprofit world, though a chunk of their revenue for sure), and the President, $21,000 for a5-hour week, plus 7 more officers, volunteers I gather.  I”m putting the names out here in case anyone has an open custody case (or has had one recently) with these individuals on it…and I do not know who they are, personally…
Claire Barnes, Steven Kinney, Leslie Dawson, Jeffrey Abadie, Gregory Abel, Raymond Jones, Gerard Corbett, Stacey Welsh, Halsey Minor.

I put the EIN numbers out so we can look up the A/V funding on the TAGGS database:
Well, actually Kids’ Turn is SUB-grantees:
WE can see that these “Access Visitation” grants (database goes back to 1998) have switched from one government recipient in the state to another, over the years — Social Services, Child Support, and Currently The California Judicial Council:
Recipient ZIP Code: 95814 

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
This Action
1998 9701CASAVP 1 ACF 2 05-31-1998 $1,113,750.00
1998 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-01-1998 $1,113,750.00
1999 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-16-1999 $987,501.00
2003 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 7 02-24-2003 ($250,805.00)
2003 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 5 02-25-2003 ($139,812.00)
2009 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($38,917.00)
Award Subtotal: $2,785,467.00

Recipient ZIP Code: 95741

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
This Action
2000 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 3 08-24-2000 $987,501.00
2001 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 4 10-06-2000 ($987,501.00)
Award Subtotal: $0.00

Recipient ZIP Code: 94107

FY Award Number Budget Year
of Support
Agency Award Code Action
Issue Date
This Action
2001 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 5 10-10-2000 $987,501.00
2001 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 08-23-2001 $987,501.00
2002 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-06-2002 $970,431.00
2003 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-11-2003 $970,431.00
2004 0410CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-15-2004 $988,710.00
2005 0510CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-14-2005 $988,710.00
2006 0610CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-19-2006 $987,973.00
2007 0710CASAVP 1 ACF 1 07-20-2007 $950,190.00
2008 0810CASAVP 1 ACF 1 01-30-2008 $957,600.00
2009 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($48,827.00)
2009 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 4 09-14-2009 ($26,938.00)
2009 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 6 09-14-2009 ($46,392.00)
2009 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 2 09-14-2009 ($15,092.00)
2009 0910CASAVP 1 ACF 1 12-23-2008 $942,497.00
2010 1010CASAVP 1 ACF 1 11-25-2009 $946,820.00
2011 1110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 10-08-2010 $928,087.00
Award Subtotal: $11,469,202.00
Total of all awards: $14,254,669.00


$14 million in a state budget may not seem like major impact, but the purpose of these grants is directed to the divorcing or separating populace with children, and has spinoff effects.
This 10- year report to the California Legislature on this program (1997-2007)
has a copyright requiring we acknowledge who wrote it.
A partial quote here shows that these funds, for example, in a Fresno County Court, were contracted to a group, CYS, “Comprehensive Youth Services,” and this CYS identified an “Unmet Need” for more fatherhood programs, acknowledges that this is an “INDUSTRY” that the purpose of the courts (as I mentioned in a recent post) is indeed more “therapeutic” than ‘Jurisprudence.”  Relationship counseling.  Designer Families.  etc.
The mothers, of course, are not told this going in — or the fathers, all the time.  However, when the fathers are then recruited, the mothers are STILL not told ….!!!  Imagine how frustrating it must be to approach a car which you believe is run on Gas (law) and realize it either is totally electric, or runs as some do, on used vegetable oil.  I’m talking about the Family Court Venue, where judges order parents to these marketing affiliates, and (once established) they seek to reach out to people NOT referred by the courts….

Superior Court of California, County of Fresno47

As part of California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, the Superior Court of Fresno County has contracted with Comprehensive Youth Services (CYS) since 2003 to provide supervised visitation and parent education best practice models. The program complies with industry safety and service standards to meet the following programmatic goals: (a) improve or establish family relationships between noncustodial parents and their children while ensuring the health, safety, and welfare of the minors;

(1) California is a no-fault divorce state.  Stop treating it as a crime, or an “illness” requiring therapy!

(2)  Judging by the headlines, this program goal (a) is not consistently met — people are dying around the insistence that sometimes Dads who may not WANT access to their children, get it on a silver platter from the courts…

(b) improve children’s well- being through positive contact with their noncustodial parents {notice the dishonesty in using the word “parents” — read on…} ; and (c) improve custodial and noncustodial parenting skills.

What is a “custodial or noncustodial parenting skill”?  Is this of, by, and for the people???

Through its work in the community and on the Access to Visitation Grant, CYS identified an unmet need to offer intensive services focused on increasing the parenting skills and healthy behaviors of noncustodial fathers. The agency wanted to complement the program by providing adjunct services for noncustodial parents who would benefit from them but had not been ordered by the court to use them. Without financial assistance such as that provided by the Access Grant; however, many families in impoverished Fresno County could not afford parenting education or therapeutic services.

Where is the evidence of all those poor parents knocking down the doors for more therapy?  USUALLY poor parents want things like housing, transportation, health care, food, clothing and ACADEMIC education for their children… It IS possible to go through life (or used to be, at any rate) without hiring a therapist to cope with the hardships.

Therefore, a critical component of the project’s success would be to provide financial assistance to noncustodial parents participating in the program.

As a result, in 2007 CYS leveraged the success of the Access Grant to obtain grant funding from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families to establish the DADS Program. The program is designed to promote responsible fatherhood, improve the relationships of fathers with their children, and assist fathers in overcoming barriers that may {{that MAY!}} keep them from being effective and nurturing parents.

The program targets families with children and youth who have been exposed to child abuse, neglect, or domestic violence or who are at risk for attachment disorders.

Please note the language change from any INDIVIDUAL being held accountable for PERPETRATING domestic violence or child abuse (crimes) to “FAMILIES with children and youth who have been “exposed to…”    …  If this were a flasher, someone would’ve exposed himself.  Also, with domestic violence, it can be both parents, but often is one primary agressor.  This is gender coverup on the issue.  No wonder this is not publicized in the Family Law Self-Help facilities where BOTH men and women, fathers and mothers, come for assistance in filing when they don’t have an attorney representing them.

As in the Access to Visitation Program, one of the unique services offered by the DADS Program is therapeutic supervised visitation. This service offers a structured mental health therapy component run by a licensed clinician who uses instruction, modeling, and counseling to repair and strengthen the parent-child relationship. The DADS Program is an example of how funding and support of the Access to Visitation Grant has led to increased services that support relationships between parents and children.

The paragraphing (and comments) are mine, and the text from the above link, published March 2008 by California Judicial Council / Administrative Office of the Courts / Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC).
This 2001 summary (By CFCC) talks — professionals aimed at professionals — about the purpose of this program:

SAN DIEGO COUNTY: The San Diego Kids’ Turn Program is a single-county program with multisite services seeking the continuation of parent education for families in San Diego County. The pro- gram aims to provide, at low cost on a sliding scale, prevention and interven- tion workshops to improve the commu- nication skills of both parents, reduce parental conflict, prevent harm to chil- dren, and reduce demands on the family court system.

And in San Francisco:

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY: The Family Cohesion Collaborative Program of the Superior Court of San Francisco is part of a multisite comprehensive partnership (San Francisco and Alameda Counties), that will provide supervised visitation and exchange services for families in San Francisco and Alameda Counties through the Rally Visitation Program of the Saint Francis Memorial Hospital. The overall goals of the program are to provide high quality, affordable super- vised visitation and monitored exchange services and to enhance parent education as a means of improving the well-being of children involved in court-ordered parent visitation arrangements.

And so on.  I ASKED for these services and was curtly told that there was “no money in the family” for it.  Therefore, we went on for another year of haraassment, and no restraining order, job losses, and finally on an UNsupervised visitation, and overnight, and despite my warnings and protests to several authorities that this was imminent (based on previous threats! and multiplce accumulating indicators), this finally happened.  The courts coulda cared – more business for more professionals, including a custody evaluator (litigant paid for) and another children’s attorney (public-paid).  The one thing they would NOT help me with was simple enforcement or consequences for violations (ongoing) of existing court orders.  That wasn’t the purpose.  The purpose was directing business to THERAPEUTIC services provided by organizations that sometimes have personnel both as judges and attorneys AND on the nonprofits getting the services.

Return HomePrograms

Again, it goes like this:

The Judicial Council is charged with administering and distributing California’s share of the federal Child Access and Visitation Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement. These grants, established under section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2258)—title III, section 469B of the Social Security Act—enable states to establish and administer programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.

The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.” Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:

  • Supervised visitation and exchange services;
  • Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
  • Group counseling services for parents and children.
THe GRANT APPLICATION PROCESS wants ONE lead court and other sub-contracting courts.  The CONTRACT is only with the lead court:

Under state funding [From the JUDICIAL COUNCIL….], California Access to Visitation Grants are awarded to the family law division of the superior courts through a request-for-proposals (RFP) grant application process. Applicants are strongly encouraged to involve multiple courts and/or multiple agencies in their proposed programs with one court designated as the lead or administering court. While superior courts may contract with local community-based justice partners (i.e., subcontractor agencies) to provide the direct services on behalf of the court, AOC contract agreements are made only with the designated superior court. Grant recipient courts subsequently enter into a contract agreement or Memorandum of Understanding with their designated local subcontractor.

You can imagine how well the evaluation goes, with those many layers of accountability.  The local subcontractor simply has a MOU (Memo of Understanding)….
In 2006, per the HHS/OCSE site, Kids Turn FRESNO was a recipient, along with the CYS mentioned above.  In various years, it also gets grants directly from various foundations:  Here’s a $20K from the San Diego Foundation in 2010:

Kids’ Turn San Diego, Expansion of Kids’ Turn Workshops into Carlsbad      $20,000

Kids’ Turn San Diego plans to bring no less than four, 4-week psycho-educational workshops into Carlsbad, serving 100-120 families who are divorcing or fighting over custody of their children. The workshops will show families how their conflict is negatively impacting their children and teach them to communicate more effectively, manage their anger, focus on their children and create a healthy two household environment for all involved. Furthermore, Kids’ Turn San Diego will help children make a successful adjustment to challenging family changes.

And from the Jewish Community Foundation of San Diego {search for it — simple listing…)

The Foundation is the largest grant maker in San Diego County. In 2009-10, the Foundation awarded and facilitated $67 million in 4,900 grants to 1,200 Jewish and general organizations in San Diego, Israel and around the world.

Partial list of 2010 grant recipients:”

And $5,000 from the California Bar Foundation in 2008-2009 year:

Kids’ Turn San Diego Workshops for Court-Ordered Families Engaged in High-Conflict (sic)  Divorces (San Diego County)

No conflict of interest, “for sure,” there, either…

A Christian group called the Fieldstone Foundation, in 2010 The Kids’ Turn San Diego part of this comes under “Humanitarian,” at least, of these categories:

We are pleased to share our 2010 grant recipients with you. We have enclosed a list of organizations under each of the general granting categories, please scroll down or simply click on the category of your choice:

Kid's Turn logo

It is assumed that parents divorcing don’t know what’s up with their kids….

Each year in San Diego County, more than 25,000 children are involved in their parents’ legal actions. Parents too often become focused on their conflict with the other parent, ignoring or minimizing the needs of their children. Most adults have no idea how children suffer when parents become adversaries. If they are drawn into the process, the children become entangled in loyalty conflicts posing a serious mental health risk. The harmful effects of these childhood experiences persist well into adulthood.

The suffering of these children can be greatly minimized or avoided altogether when  parents learn new coping skills that facilitate a cooperative co-parenting relationship.

How does one co-parent with a spouse who has previously assaulted you, in frint of the children, threatened to kill you and/or himself (in front of the children, often enough), who sabotaged work during marriage and AFTER marriage?  I would have a few words to say to any professionals that want to criticize my “co-parenting” skills before the children were gone, of for attempting to assert that the standard we go by (not knowing of this group or the therapeutic jurisprudence forces in the courts yet) was the Court Orders — and not my ex’s orders.  Or that it would be good for the father to seek work….even though he had lost an external doormat and punching bag to “work out” is personal issues on ….
[Photo of Dad and child…):

This group (San Diego, alone) has VERY high foundational support, according to their page, AND federal funding (or part of the A/V grants) (I do not have current figures).  In addition, they are MARKETING curricula, one year earned $32K in tuition, and charging Group Leaders to be trained to lead groups, for which they then get $100/session.  EACH parent pays $250 for four sessions…

So where is all that money going?  and to whom?

AFCC seems to be often raising money for this particular group, as well….

Another person, an acquaitance, asks what is a Superior Court Judge doing on the Executive Board of this group:


Kids’Turn is a San Francisco RFI funded CRC/AFCC affiliated nonprofit which provides the court’s court ordered parenting classes and counseling services.  Kids’Turn was founded by SF family court officers, and it is directly affiliated with the CRC AND AFCC.

The SF Superior Court has a lien on Kids’Turn, yet Judge Patrick Mahoney is on the executive board.  In fact, all the SF judicial officials in the SF family court have been on the board at one time or another, and they all help with the fundraising efforts. How can this be? Liens compel payment of debts. Where is this money going???

Kids Turn is highly affiliated with the Family Law Profession 
and people pushing mediation, counseling, & "collaboration" to resolve family "conflict." 
For Example:  Jennifer Jackson (I don't know her, particularly).  
Along with other credits, and associations, this family law specialist (certified by the state bar) 
and Fellow of  American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers:

KIDS’ TURN: Program for Children of Separating Families Founder: 1988 President of the Board: 1988-1990 Executive Board: 1998-1996; 1999-2005

Webmaster: through 2003

(1998-1996 being a reverse date, but it was around 1996 I believe

that the Federal A/V grants were starting, of which Kids’ Turn has been a recipient).



Judge Pro Tem 1990-present

Director, Friend in Court: 1990s

If this nonprofit has financial dealings with the court, as an entity, this would seem to be a conflict of interest.
Here’s another SF Law Firm, “Kaye-Moser-Hierbaum” and this is “Moser”s blurb from laywers.com: Among several stellar qualifications, see if you can pick these out.  The partners are all women (one from Harvard) and two also AFCC presenters, “Coaching Clients through Mediation.”
Barbara W. Moser (Partner) born New York, N.Y., 1958; admitted to bar, 1990, California. Education: University of California at Berkeley (B.A., with distinction, 1980); California State University (M.S.W., 1982); University of San Francisco (J.D., magna cum laude, 1990). Phi Beta Kappa, Lifetime Member. Recipient: University of San Francisco School of Law 2006 Alumni Fellow Award. Contributing Editor: “Approaching a Marital Dissolution.” Consultant: Action Guide, “Planning and Conducting Family Law Discovery,” published by the California Continuing Education of the Bar. Former Consultant, Family Law Subcommittee of the CEB Joint Advisory Committee. Lecturer, CEB: “How to Handle a Marital Dissolution” and “Estate Planning in the Context of Divorce.” Presenter: Breckenridge, Colorado, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts: “Coaching Clients Through Mediation.” Lecturer: Contra Costa County Bar Association: “Crossover Issues in Family Law and Estate Planning.” Lecturer, Marin Estate Planning Council: “Crossover Issues in Estate Planning and Family Law.” Lecturer, Queen’s Bench: “How to Launch a Successful Independent Law Practice.” Judge ProTem, Family Law Bench Bar Program, Marin County Superior Court. Settlement Judge Pro Tem, San Francisco Superior Court. Former Secretary, Board of Directors, Kids’ TurnMember: Bar Association of San Francisco (Member, Family Law Section); State Bar of California (Member, Family Law Section); National Association of Women Business Owners; Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; National Association of Female Executives.Languages: American Sign. Practice Areas: Family Law; Domestic Relations; Divorce; Premarital Agreements; Cohabitation Agreements; Postnuptial Agreements; Separation Agreements; Spousal Support; Child Support; Child Custody; Visitation Rights; Stock Option Analysis; Palimony; Paternity.Email: Barbara W. Moser 

It seems almost taken for granted that part of one’s associations as a family attorney will include a turn with Kids’ Turn, including some Northern California Super Lawyers, as Ms. Moser certainly is, and even “Best Lawyer of the Year,” per the firm’s site:  The positions include judgeships and domestic violence committees.  ONe partner served:
on the Committee to Revised the Local Rules for the San Francisco County Superior Court Unified Family Court.”  The words “high-conflict” are frequent in the personnel’s description here…
Here’s yet another attorney with ties to Kids’ Turn:
Andrea Leigh Palash San Francisco Start
AAML Previous Positions: President, Northern California Chapter, 1990-91, Co-Chair Northern California Annual Symposium. Member: State Bar of California; San Francisco Bar Association. Previous Positions: State Bar of California: Member, Family Law Section Executive Comm., 1981-87; Law Practice Management Section Executive Comm., 1988-92, Committee on Sexual Orientation Discrimination, 1994-97; San Francisco Bar Assn: Member, Family Law Section, Co-Chair, Comm. on Law Office Economics, 1989-91, Board of Directors, 1993-95. Certified Specialist, Family Law, SBC. Co-Founder, Rally Family Visitation Project, a supervised visitation and exchange program; Board Member, Kids’ Turn, an educational program for children of divorce, 1982-2000. Member, St. Francis Memorial Hospital, Community Advisory Committee. CLE Participation: Lecturing and writing on numerous and various family law topi
From 1982-2000, then if practicing family law, this might be a conflict of interest???
It is just part of the landscape, then?  Because we see, above, that “parental alienation” is a crime (or close to it), in Kids’ Turn language.
This man, Steve Kinney, is not an attorney or judge, but has worked with a former  Presiding Judge of Juvenile Court (in SF) — Donna Hitchens — and Kids’ Turn to design non-violent program material.  Oh yeah, incidentally, he was also President of Kids’ Turn.  Seems like a decent guy, and activities, but here it is:Steve Kinney 

Steve KinneyDirector, Pacific West Region

Steven Kinney is currently the Director of the National Consortium for Academics and Sports-Pacific West Region, Inc. (NCAS). The NCAS was born out of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society at Northeastern University. The NCAS works to create a better society by focusing on educational attainment and using the power and appeal of sport to positively affect social change…

Mr. Kinney has worked with Kids’ Turn and Judge Donna Hitchens, the former presiding Juvenile Court Judge in the City of San Francisco to design, develop, and implement the Nonviolent Family {{FAMILY, not personal}} Skills Program for at-risk youth in San Francisco.

Steven Kinney earned his B.A. and M.A. degrees in English Literature from Notre Dame de Namur University. In his personal life, Mr. Kinney is active in numerous charities and community organizations including the Northern California chapter of the National Football League Alumni Association, where he serves as Secretary of the Executive Committee, and the 100 Black Men of America-Silicon Valley Chapter. Mr. Kinney serves as the President of the Board of Directors for Kid’s Turn an organization that provides workshops and other transitional tools for children and their divorcing parents.


I mentioned, above, how KIDS’ TURN is international.  Sitting on the board of the group above is Claire Barnes, who we know from (as I recall), San Francisco Kids’ Turn.  This includes many sociologists, and psychologists, etc., as we might expect from any such group.  Here she is:

Claire Barnes (USA) has been the Executive Director of Kids’ Turn, San Francisco, for the past seven years. That organisation helps children made vulnerable by family breakdown.

She is also Chair of the Volunteer Council of the San Francisco Symphony. Claire and husband Alan have participated in ICCFR conferences for some years and she joined the Board in 2005, taking on the position of Treasurer in June 2008.

Claire Barnes (Treasurer)


While I’m at it, let me speculate on another individual invited to speak (above) in Hawaii (see top of my post), Claire Missen:

Claire Missen (Vice- Chair)

photoClaire Missen (Ireland) has worked as a marriage counsellor for more than twenty two years, initially with the Marriage and Relationship Counselling Service, Dublin, and latterly in private practice and as a supervisor. Claire was first involved with ICCFR during its Stockholm conference (2001), subsequently joined the Board and was invited to serve as Vice-Chair in 2006.

I was beginning to wonder what the “Ireland Connection” was in Kids’ Turn, and elsewhere — it’s been popping up.  Now, notice who (besides AFCC) this august group gives thanks to, at least from the US component:

Home > Introduction to ICCFR/CIRCF > History > List of organisations

The ONLY contribution from the USA (as opposed to significant international groups from other countries) reads:  ”

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Schapiro Thorn Inc

Which just might be explained in financial terms, THUS:

Suzie Thorn

photoSuzie S Thorn (USA) is a prominent matrimonial lawyer in San Francisco. She is President  of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers Foundation, of the Suzie S Thorn Family Foundation, and of Schapiro-Thorn Inc.

(IN other words, we can presume she’s probably a wealthy woman — which of course helps with the “Prominence” in many circles.  Wealth and being the heads of foundations, and corporations (AND being a matrimonial lawyer), are  a “great” standpoint from which to understand court programs targeted at low-income noncustodial fathers, which many of the fatherhood, and certainly the ones benefitting Kids’ Turn, are).  Also, the (1994ff) changes relating to VAWA, women’s rights, and protections from violence which were not previously so available….

Her initial contact with ICCFR resulted from liaison between the Commission and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in 1993. She became a Board member in 1995. She was the innovative founder of the ICCFR Trust of which she is now a trustee.

SO, from this position of founder of the ICCFR Trust, the ICCFR thanks — from the United States– AFCC and Thorn-Schapiro, Inc.  That seems appropriate.

SOMETIMES we forget how proper positioning in society allows one to plan, internationally, others’ welfare and what conditions of life should be available during and after divorce. …1993 is even before the National Fatherhood Initiative was founded (though obviously not MUCH before).

The TRUST partners with the Commissions (helps put on conferences?) and is registered as a charity in England:
The ICCFR Trust – sister body to the International Commission on Couple and Family Relations – became a registered charity in England in July 2003. Collaboration between the Commission and the Trust offers access to a full range of working relationships with other organisations and guarantees public accountability for the use of funds given to the Trust for its use.
The Objects of the Trust are: 

  1. To advance the education of the public in the social sciences and in particular in matters concerning family and interpersonal relationships. And
  2. To achieve such other objects which are charitable within the laws of England and Wales as may be determined by the Trustees.(“the Objects”)

The Trustees must use the income and may use the capital of the trust in promoting the Objects.

Registered Charity No. 1098678



I keep trying to alert my friends — “law” is out and “Sociology” has taken its place.  Many of the people/entitites selling this to the public are, naturally, themselves employed by the family law courts, are sociologists, psychologists, family relationship specialists, and/or people who sit atop foundations which can start movements like this, while others wonder where their job history went…

This is a HARD sell for women with children hoping to gain protection under the US laws against (certain crimes), still….  We still wish that the Bill of Rights meant us, too…. and thinking that someone else not female CARES.


{The San Francisco Superior Court has 52 judges and 12 commissioners. The Court currently has one judicial vacancy and one commissioner vacancy.}}


New Assignments Take Effect January 11

SAN FRANCISCO — Presiding Judge James J. McBride today announced the new San Francisco Superior Court judicial assignments for 2010.

Judge McBride has made the following changes to judicial assignments:  I’M PICKING OUT ONES RELATING TO FAMILY OR DEPENDENCY….


. . .Lillian K. Sing — Family Law

Donna Hitchens — Dependency (note, above, working on Kids’ Turn curriculum….)

Judge Hitchens founded the Family Law Self-Help Center, and received “Access to Justice” award for this and other activities.  Please note:

Judge Hitchens has been instrumental in creating three projects that have given a voice to those in the juvenile courts who traditionally may have felt disenfranchised by the system.

The first of these programs is the Dependency Mediation Program, where parents who have been involved in dependency proceedings are trained to act as mediators. Second, Judge Hitchens was instrumental in securing federal grants that helped San Francisco County be selected as a demonstration site for the SafeStart Initiative and the Greenbook Project.

{{Greenbook Project — another topic — is where Domestic Violence and Fatherhood initiatives met, and multiple HHS players as well, to — well, as I said — another topic.  I am less impressed than I should be about the process.  Womens till losing their kids to batterers in the family law venue…}}

Finally, she created the Multi-Agency Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee (MAJJIC), whose goal is to overcome system barriers and coordinate services for youth.

Judge Hitchens was elected to San Francisco Superior Court in 1990.  In 1997, she helped to consolidate the county’s juvenile and family courts and became presiding judge of the Unified Family Court.

KIDS TURN started around 1987 — when was her involvement?

Ellen Chaitin — Family Law/Juvenile/ Dependency

{{Link describes The Judge in 2001 visiting a residential hotel; another one shows she has witnessed gunfire resulting in a slaying,

Patrick J. Mahoney, Supervising Judge/Unified Family Court


Patrick Mahoney — Trials

Julie Tang — Delinquency

(Now, I am getting more curious about the SF Courts.  t):

Is Presiding Judge Katherine Feinstein the daughter of the famous Senator?  etc.

Judge Lillian K, Sing**
400 McAllister – Department 210
Court Clerk (415) 551-3709

**2004 candidacy for County Supervisor, besides showing a VERY active resume, lists Occupation as “Mediator, Advanced Dispute Resolutions” Co-Chair, Mediation Advisory Committee and Superior Court ADR Committee.”and 22 years on the bench. plus undergraduate degree, ”

  • M.S.W., Social Work, Columbia University, New York.
  • B.S., Psychology, Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA.

Judge Monica F. Wiley/Commissioner Marjorie Slabach**
400 McAllister – Department 403
Court Clerk (415) 551-3741

** has been on Kids’ Turn Board, around 2004-2005, per one of their “Gazettes” (publications).

Judge Monica F. Wiley is younger (by about a generation) and the youngest of the appointees, but experienced:

Wiley, 39, of Oakland, has served as a senior associate for Carlson Calladine and Peterson since 2007. Previously, she served as a deputy city attorney for the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office from 1996 to 2007. She also worked as a legal research attorney for the San Francisco County Superior Court in 1996. Wiley earned a Juris Doctorate degree from the Howard University School of Law and a Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of California, Berkeley. She fills the vacancy created by the elevation of Judge Robert Dondero to the District Court of Appeal. Wiley is a Democrat.


Judge Ronald E. Albers/Commissioner Marjorie Slabach
400 McAllister – Department 404
Court Clerk (415) 551-3744

(see link);

In 2009, Ron Albers, 60, was first openly gay judge appointed by a Republican Governor. The article is a good read — very activist Judge. I am wondering how this will intersect with the pro-father, pro-family agenda running through the courts as well…

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s appointment of Ronald E. Albers to a judgeship on the San Francisco County Superior Court last week is believed to be the first time the Republican governor has selected an openly gay person for a judge seat.

Albers, 60, of San Francisco, has served as a commissioner for the Superior Court since 2002. He will earn $178,789 in his new post, to which he was sworn into Monday, June 15. The ceremony coincided with his wedding anniversary; he is married to Colin Alexander, his partner of 34 years.


ANOTHER 8000 word post — I am researching (searching, at least!) and just blogging my notes.


To get another concept of the extent of this organization — browse some of their “gazettes.”  I was shocked when I read a few.  Heres’ a link to a 2008 one, celebrating the 20th year anniversary.  Read EVERY page (scroll down) and California litigants may want to read the fine print listing the various board member s– maybe one of your judges was on there.

(I just looked — and the one that wiped out the child support arrears after custody-switch, to all intents and purposes — was on the board THIS year.  To understsand the (Narcissistic) SCOPE of the intended project — basically ALL divoricing or separating couples with children in the civilized (?) world that — and the “target” clientele appears to be both parents and children to attend (Pay for) these workshops, or get scholarships to attend them.  Again, HALF are court-ordered, and Parental Alienation is a key theme.  So we can expect a lot more courts ordering that parents get “edummicated” on how to NOT have conflict with their ex, child molestation, domestic violence notwithstanding….

2008 Kids’ Turn Gazette pdf


It seems to be training for judges, attorneys and lawyers as well here’s a list of people thanked for their contributions:

Kids’ Turn recognizes the following volunteer Board members who have offered their time, energy and resources to our mission since the founding in 1988. Any errors or omissions are strictly unintentional.

Jeff Abadie Jeanne Ames Comm. Josanna Berkow Nordin Blacker, Esq. Janet Bollier Katie Budge Torrance Bynum Dianne Chan Golton Kathy Clausen Susan Coats, Esq. Joe Crawford, Esq. Tom Cvikota Garrett Daily Leslie Dawson

Ann Diamond Robin Donoghoe, Esq. Geoff Dugan The Hon. Roderic Duncan

(ret.) Ellen Efros Chris Emley Greg Engel, Esq. Pam Engel LionelEngelman Sandra Finney Myrna Frankel Tom Friesch Christina Gabriel,

Joan Gann Frank Glassner Gil Gugielmi The Hon. Ina Gyemant Ana Horta The Hon. Isabella

Horton Grant (ret.) Dorothy Huntington

(dec.) Jennifer Jackson, Esq. The Hon. Maria Elena

James Raymond Jones, Ph.D. Nancy Kahn Maureen Kammer Tricia Kennedy Svetlana Kim Nikki King Comm. Susan King

(ret.) Steven Kinney Lou Kohler The Hon. Newton Lam Margo Leahy Esther Lerner, Esq. Linda Levi Carole Levine Brenda MacLean John Mangini

Bunny Martin Kim Martinez John McWeeny Lynn Mieger, DDS Halsey Minor

Lida Morgenstein Barbara Moser, Esq. Dvora Parker Pam Pierson, Esq. Susan Romer

Andy Ross, Esq. Linda Schwarz J. Gary Shansby John Sikorski, MD Comm. Marge Slabach Dick Starratt

Millicent Susens Charles ‘Kip’ Thieriot Suzie S. Thorn, Esq. Valerie Toler Cia Townsend Nancy Unobskey Ann Van Balen Bobbi Welling Stacey Welsh Donna Wickham Furth,

Esq. Anthony Zanze (dec.) Steve Zemmelman


(Some of these are also board members).  That’s quite an assemblage of attorneys and judges, wouldn’t you say?  )

Representative data reflects that 40% of Kids’ Turn families’ annual income is less than $30,000, and 73% is less than $50,000. Due in part to diminished economic circumstances caused by the separation or divorce, the average family served by Kids’ Turn can only afford to pay a fraction of a Program that costs $400 to offer.


I don’t suppose it might occur to any of the above that the family court system ITSELF contributes to that poverty, and work loss — because the cases last up to 10 and 15 eyars at a time under this wealth-transfer system.  ONE solution might be to SKIP the “Kids’ Turn” requirement and the thousand-dollar custody evaluations and instead run classes on how to form profitable nonprofits, so at least they might (like THESE people) keep more of their earned income….


2008 AFCC Conference — KIds Turn Presenters: in context of Domestic Violence!




Albuquerque, New Mexico ($122/night)

1. ParentEducation as Part of a Thriving Practice

Jurisdictions vary in their requirements for co-parenting education and in how they make classes available. Some districts fund their own services, but others rely on local professionals to develop effective programs. This workshop will illustrate how a creative individual trained first in psy-chotherapy can build a gratifying practice by adding divorce education as one specialty service. Even when a court selects or certifies multiple providers, a diligent professional can achieve a successful practice by offer- ing parent education as well as psychotherapy, evaluation, mediation and other services.

Shirley Thomas, Ph.D., Longmont, CO


2. FromLecturetoLife

Empowerment, self-awareness, resilience, optimism and hope are not words usually associated with Divorce Education. Kids’Turn now teaches life skills that participants can take with them into their reorganized families and lives. Kids’Turn, together with consultants 6 Seconds Emotional Intel- ligence International Trainers, have created a curriculum that focuses on families undergoing reorganization, for a better future. From didactic to interactive teaching, they have added humor based on current educational research on how participants learn and retain information.

Steve Kinney, M.A., President, Kids’ Turn,San Jose, CA

Elyse Jacobs, MFA, Program Director, Kids’ Turn, San Francisco, CA


DO YOU “GET IT” YET?  AFCC-CRC-CFCC-AAML-KIDS’ TURN-FAMILY LAW PRACTICE AND ENDLESS EDUCATION.  These people are never going to stop?  It is assumed that parents separatng, with children, cannot simply LEARN on their own how to do this, but no — the world — and I DO mean “the world” — regardless how broke any country or state is, or how bad the schools or how high the debt load — the WORLD really “needs”  all this — more than food, housing, transportation, vaccinations, cures for cancer, or any of that.


The truth of the matter is, these people need a livelihood, and decades upon decades ago, a VERY few people came up with the idea, in California, of starting the Family Law Codes…and a Judges Slush Fund.  The slush pockets were in the training qualifications for mediators to start with! (read my blog!).


JUST AN IDEA . . . .


Feedback solicited — if some aspect of this post struck you, please comment!

Any sitting judge who is simultaneously on (or previously has been on?) the board of this — or any other organization receiving court-ordered services and that’s quite a few of them — and orders YOU or YOUR KIDS into this program — has a conflict of interest.


When the family law case begins — demand the conflict of interest form.

Meanwhile, let’s find out why Kids’ Turn is has a lien on the SF Courts, or vice versa.  This is ridiculous, even as ridiculous as this long (though ya gotta admit, informative — right?) post!



Luzerne County, PA: “Doctrine of absolute judicial immunity” vs “Racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations,” and more…

with 4 comments

In Lovely Luzerne, PA, two judges were, ah, moonlighting? (maybe their salaries didn’t support their lifestyles?) — well, you can google the background story, of judges indulging themselves in the Kids for Cash business. Several parallels apply to the family law arena

For Kids Caught in PA Scandal, Trials not Over

It is slow going for about 4,500 juvenile defendants who were caught up in the Luzerne County, Pa. “cash-for-kids” scandal and who want to get their records cleared.

It has been more than a year since state courts first ordered that verdicts handed down by Luzerne County Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. be thrown out. But the price of judicial misconduct has been steep, according to a Philadelphia Inquirer article:

“[F]ewer than 10 percent of the records have been expunged. Luzerne County is hiring staff to finish the job. But even then, thanks to the mounds of paperwork and multiple agencies involved, officials say it will take another year to erase all the records.

“That leaves young people who are trying to enlist in the military, obtain student loans, win teacher certification, or apply for certain jobs entangled in red tape.”

A panel that investigated the scandal listed 43 reform recommendations in May. Its report (see Gavel Grab) detailed a scandal that involved two judges who later were charged with receiving more than $2.8 million in payoffs; they were accused of taking kickbacks to send juveniles to private detention centers

{“Gavel Grab” leads to the “Justice at Stake” campaign & its partners}

About this post:

In the Law.com report on a defendant’s attempt to receive damages under the RICO charges, we learn about judicial immunity, standing, causes of action in these cases (emotional trauma doesn’t count / financial loss does).

When I looked up a single point raised therein, “11th Amendment,” a riveting, mind-numbing PA case, from the late 1990s surfaced — the wife of an abusive police officer repeatedly seeks intervention. I narrate and discuss it, too.

  • As the situation escalates (starting with a suicide attempt, threats to kill (mostly her, but once, their son], private & public assaults [not of her only] and beatings, stalkings, and useless 911 calls, the husband/officer, who was never (that I can see) locked up once, finally is served a restraining order. Actually, 3 (all of which he basically ignores, and its witnessed violating by officers), after which he (predictably) finally succeeds in killing himself — after he shoots his wife point-blank in the chest.
  • In the same timeframe, in PA, the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence (or at least Barbara J. Hart) has been publishing lethality assessments, lists of warning signs, and indicators, ALL of which this man met, plus-some. One begins to wonder where the communication gap was, between the DV people and the officers, although certainly it’s a tough situation for them also.
  • Finally, the wife attempts to regroup damages, to sue for negligence by the officers. does so on the wrong basis, and a Court of Appeals overturns this. That section is in mostly green font.

I inserted this account, which illustrates the parallel worlds of DV literature and street reality, the graphic reality of living with an abuser (and regretfully, that no one apparently insisted on utter and complete separation when these things began; she almost was killed, was seriously injured, and for years the children and others associated with her were at risk from this father/husband/police officer who never received whatever help or intervention might have put a stop to his behaviors.) AND I include it for us to understand that being assaulted, injured, or feeling betrayed, and having sought and failed to find help doesn’t always qualify a person for compensation for losses, however much common “logic” may feel it is due, when public servants are negligent.

The Jessica Gonzales case in Colorado, in which this also mother-of-three warned the officers, who didn’t take her seriously, and her children were murdered. This is where a case could go AFTER they separated because of violence — it could get worse. In 2005, Chicago attorney/professor Joan Meier, Washington Post/published in StopFamilyViolence.org, summarizes the critical issue in Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, itslef a response to Ms. (then) Gonzales’ suit against the town. My post is getting long, but I suggest reading a few paragraphs of this one. Her incident was in 1999 (Ms. Burella’s, 1996-1998). Years later, after the deaths, the cases are still in the courts. My take on the issues at this point — issuing restraining orders has become in too many cases, “certifiably insane.” Why not make self-defense training a marriage requirement? Or, incorporate it into high school curricula, as a requirement, along with learning some basics of our legal system? They become simply red flags, whether the initial violence was from psychiatric disorder, or a simply overentitled person, or some of both. If police canNOT be held to enforce them (and after the police, a judge has to sentence; if the judges repeatedly release criminals, and so forth) — we need to find another way.

Published March 19, 2005 by The Washington Post

Battered Justice For Battered Women

by Joan Meier [Prof. of Clinical Law, George Washington Univ, Washington, D.C.,1983 U. Chicago Law School, cum laude, Exec. Dir. of DVLEAP]

It is common for the public and the courts to criticize women who are victims of domestic abuse for staying in an abusive relationship and tolerating it. But what happens when women do try to end the abuse? Jessica Gonzales’s story provides one horrifying answer.

In May 1999 Gonzales received a protection order from her suicidal and frightening husband, Simon Gonzales, whom she was divorcing. The order limited his access to the home and the children. On June 22 the three girls disappeared near their house. But when Jessica Gonzales called the Castle Rock, Colo., police department, she received no assistance. Over a period of eight hours, the police refused to take action, repeatedly telling her that there was nothing they could do and that she should call back later — even after she had located her husband and daughters by cell phone. The three young girls, ages 7, 9 and 10, were not to survive the night. At 3 a.m. on June 23, Simon Gonzales arrived at the police station in his truck, opened fire and was killed by return fire. The bodies of Leslie, Katheryn and Rebecca were found in the back of his truck.

Perhaps his life might have been saved also. “serve and protect” I guess.

Next week the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case of Town of Castle Rock, Colorado v. Jessica Gonzales, which stems from Gonzales’s lawsuit against the police. The question before the court is whether the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process was violated by the police department’s dismissal of the protection order, in clear violation of the state statute, which required them to use “every reasonable means” to enforce it. If procedural due process — required by the 14th Amendment — means anything, then it must be found that it was violated here, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit has so ruled

While no justice for this mother or her three daughters, there’s a diligent pursuit of justice to prevent any consequences for the prior injustice. To the Supreme Court.

The doctrine of procedural due process derives from the principle that when a state chooses to establish a benefit or right for citizens, it may not deny such benefits in an arbitrary or unfair way. In this case, the state established a benefit of mandated police enforcement of protection orders. Aware that police discretion too often fails, the Colorado legislation required the police to make arrests or otherwise to enforce domestic violence restraining orders of the sort issued to Jessica Gonzales. Police discretion was limited to determining whether a violation of an order had occurred. Yet in this case the police did nothing; they simply ignored the complaint, a clear example of “arbitrary” conduct

(Joan S. Meier)

Joan S. Meier

Luzerne County Judges Racketeering and

“Julie Burella (et al.) v. City of Philadelphia” [Court of Appeals]

What these two cases taught me:

Individuals and relatives/friends of women targeted by these kinds of beatings assaults, making life hell situations — as well as the improperly locked up juveniles in Luzerne County — need to understand some legal basic, including <>standing (jurisdiction), <>legitimate causes of action, <> what is or is not a legitmate tort, or breach of contract (etc.) and<> who is and is not going to be immune from damages. These are often forgotten in the emotional drama of survival, and dealing with the emotions around the case. This kind of understanding is not generally handed to one by one’s attorney, and I guarantee you it’s not by most “justice centers.” It needs to be sought and obtained.

Rights cannot be protected if one doesn’t know what they are. Moreover, the credibility gap between mainstream domestic violence law, and applied practice, remain. Women need to protect themselves adn their children, when possible (if intervention fails and the situation continues to escalate) by leaving.

Permanently. George Bush, Bill Clinton, and President Obama’s policies aside, our right to LIFE is unalienable. hence, women must be able to act on that. The parent who has engaged in threatening or trying to eradicate that right in others, based on wife as property, husband as property, or children as property, and has repeatedly demonstrated this in private OR public, should lose subsidiary rights, such as contact with their children. The family law arena appears to exist in order to subvert that principle. Though I am no attorney, I can read, and have. The no-fault divorce situation creates a different kind of court as to divorce, and limits remedies in some sense, just as a “civil” restraining order implies that the violence, or causes of action justifying it, were not criminal in nature, which quite often they are.

(from the FBI Philadelphia Sept. 2009 bulletin:)

For Immediate Release
September 9, 2009
United States Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Contact: (717) 221-4482

Two Former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judges Indicted on Racketeering, Fraud, Money Laundering, Tax, and Related Charges

Dennis C. Pfannenschmidt, United States Attorney for the Middle District of Pennsylvania; Janice Fedaryck, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Don Fort, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division, announced today that a federal grand jury sitting in Harrisburg has returned a 48-count indictment charging former Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas judges Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella, Jr. with racketeering and related charges in connection with alleged improper actions of the former judges to facilitate the construction and operation of juvenile detention facilities owned by PA Child Care, LLC and Western PA Child Care, LLC.

The indictment alleges that the defendants engaged in racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery, and federal tax violations and that they received millions of dollars in illegal payments. Along with the criminal charges, the indictment seeks the forfeiture of at least $2,819,500 which is alleged to be the proceeds of the charged criminal activity. . . .

An indictment or information is not evidence of guilt but simply a description of the charge made by the Grand Jury and/or United States Attorney against a defendant. A charged defendant is presumed innocent until a jury returns a unanimous finding that the United States has proven the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt or until the defendant has pled guilty to the charges.**

(the youth/juveniles that came in front of these judges didn’t have that standard applied…)

That these two got caught doesn’t mean there were no others…
and here’s LAW.Com’s comments that, at least THIS time, sometimes, ya’ get caught… whether or not this indicates compensation for the problems caused

For any future youngsters, or their parents, hoping that a RICO suit might help compensate for years lost, or other damages — emotional trauma ain’t enough. I’ll bold the wording here. As posted in “Law.com” (link included):

Disgraced Former Judges Lose Immunity Battle in ‘Kids for Cash’ Scandal

Ruling also includes some setbacks for the plaintiff, who claims he was one of the victims of the alleged kickback scheme when he was sentenced to the juvenile facility in 2005

The Legal Intelligencer

August 11, 2010

Even the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity proved to be too weak a defense for the two disgraced former Luzerne County judges who are the leading figures in Pennsylvania’s “kids-for-cash” scandal.

A federal judge has ruled that the pair — Michael T. Conahan and Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. — are immune only for actions they took in court or while ruling on cases, but that they can still be sued for their roles in an alleged conspiracy to take kickbacks from the owner and builder of a privately run juvenile prison. Conahan had also asserted a defense of legislative immunity, arguing that some of the allegations lodged against him stemmed from the funding decisions he made in his role as president judge.

But U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo rejected that argument, saying: “It does not appear that Conahan had the type of general policy-making power that would cloak his actions with legislative immunity.

Meaning, if he HAD been a general policy-maker, he would have legislative immunity, I guess….

The ruling means that Conahan and Ciavarella face possible liability for their roles as the alleged architects of the larger alleged conspiracy to cut off all funding for the then-existing county-owned juvenile facility and to take kickbacks in return for ensuring a steady stream of incarcerated youths so that the new, privately run facility would be profitable.

I am not blogging about juvenile justice systems. This blog is about FAMILY court matters, more dealing with parental relationships, which, unfortunately brings us into the realms of violence, kidnapping, child abusee, child molestation, and the fathers-rights-womens-rights-childrens-rights debate. The Pennsylvania case is different in application (violating kids’ due process in order to provide warm bodies for supposed crimes they had committed), as opposed to violating one set of parents’ due process in order to provide referral business for the court professionals and the professions flocking around the courts. It’s somewhat of a technicality, when you grasp “steady stream of .(warm bodies) . . . so that . . . would be profitable.” and the criminal nature of a business racket. And what kind of personalities would choose judgeships to engage in them. What an ethical violation — to go to a judge fo justice, and that judge is himself a criminal, with cohorts.

The two former judges were hit by federal prosecutors in September 2009 with a 48-count indictment containing charges of racketeering, fraud, money laundering, extortion, bribery and federal tax violations in connection with allegedly accepting more that $2.8 million from the builder and former co-owner of a private juvenile detention facility. Conahan agreed in April to plead guilty to one RICO count.

Caputo’s 12-page opinion in Dawn v. Ciavarella, handed down on Monday, also included a few setbacks for the plaintiff, Wayne Dawn, who claims he was one of the victims of the scheme when he was sentenced to the juvenile facility in 2005.

First, Caputo found that Dawn’s RICO claims must be dismissed because he lacks standing to pursue such a claim.

Any Plaintiff’s comPlaint should establish standing up front. The fact that in the family law business, it’s not unusual for judges to issues orders where they have no standing doesn’t change the fact that individual FAMILIES or PARENTS had better make sure they do!

Under RICO, a plaintiff must plead an injury to “business or property,” Caputo noted, and the courts have consistently rejected the notion that personal injury or mental distress can satisfy that requirement.

Injury for RICO purposes requires proof of concrete financial loss, not mere injury to an intangible property interest,” Caputo wrote.

From what I now understand of the court process, I’m of the opinion that parents might as well face that reforming these courts stands a better chance in pointing out the fraud, racketeering type activity within them (and sometimes involving other parts of the system, i.e., the criminal law elements) than running the conferences about how it’s hurting our kids. On what basis do we think the people involved actually care?

Dawn’s claim fell short of that test, Caputo found, because he “has not alleged sufficient injury to business or property to confer standing to bring a claim pursuant to RICO. Plaintiff’s claims for loss of sense of well-being, emotional trauma and stigma are not the type of concrete financial loss that is envisioned by the phrase ‘injury to business or property.'”

If Dawn was the youth (I didn’t read this complaint, am just familiar with the case generally), probably that well-being, emotional trauma and stigma are going to hurt him/her very badly — in fact we know from acestudy.org and common sense that this would. However, RICO is a business-type charge involving cheating, stealing, and financial loss or damages. Many people caught up in the drama and passion of this, offended by the betrayal, forget the context in trying to get heard (I know I did and have).

Caputo also ruled that Dawn cannot pursue any claims against the Luzerne County Juvenile Probation Department or Sandra Brulo, the probation department’s former deputy director of forensic programs.

“Because Juvenile Probation is an arm of the state that is immune to suit pursuant to the 11th Amendment and Pennsylvania has not waived its immunity to suit, its motion to dismiss will be granted,” Caputo wrote.

I searched for 11th amendment, this county and found several cases (in PA, different counties):

Debra Haybarger v. Lawrence County Adult Probation and Parole,e t al.
State governments and their subsidiary units are immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment.


Date: 09-24-2007

Case Style: Jill Burella, individually and as parent and guardian of Beth Ann Burella, Danielle Burella and Nicholas Burella v. City of Philadelphia, et al.

Case Number: 04-1157/2495

Judge: Fuentes

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County).

Here’s a REAL egregious case, a living nightmare where a police officer’s wife tries, repeatedly and HARD, to get the 911 calls, help for her husband through his employers, the police department, and finally /too late, that “certifiably insane restraining order” system to work — against her police officer husband, who is off the chart dangerous, and eventually seriously injured her (shot her in the chest) and killed himself. She tries to sue, among others, the officers who kept releasing the guy or refusing to arrest him, even when they witnessed the violations immediately. Multiple threats to kill, beating her at home, she calls repeatedly, etc. The officers, responded, we have immunity. The District court ruled — no you don’t. THIS is the Appeals court ruling, well, actually, yes they did.

This BURELLA case is late 1990s, (somewhat off the post’s RICO topic but ON the blog’s topic) and 34pages long.

Please READ parts of it if you are among the innocent (or ignorant/apathetic/too busy to process til it hits you, or your family) who doesn’t yet grasp “why don’t she leave?,” or that a restraining order ain’t the end of the process and may increase the risk for many of us! What about the enforcement that backs it up? What about if the attacker KNOWS enforcement is lax?

Well, then logically, she’d better get the heck out of there…. But – – — what about their kids? But — joint shared parenting presumptions and court orders make that nigh impossible! Ask Dawn Axsom, from Arizona, and her mother, Oct. 2009.

Oh, I forgot — you can’t — they’re dead. Fox news blamed it on “the Custody Battle” and calls them ALL (3) victims, not the man who shot his wife, mother in law and then himself, orphaning their baby. My blog was only one of many on this incident. There are so many such incidents, I even forgot I blogged that one…

That, in a nutshell, seems to be how our country STILL views Fathers killing Mothers (and/or others, and/or themselves). Being a mother and a woman, this woman (like Burella, below) knew danger whne she experienced or sensed it, and tried to reconcile being a law-abiding citizen with being a LIVING citizen. She went to her death complying with a court order, apparently. How was the judicial immunity in that case? (As it’s in Maricopa County, I recommend reviewing the top page in this blog, and “National Association of Marriage Enhancement” nonprofit, based in Phoenix and possibly also having its contract steered to it in ia not-quite-above-the-board manner. NAME started (as I recall) in 2006. Axsom’s case relates to this refusal to allow women to leave violent relationships because there is a crisis in fatherlessness in this country, which is detrimental to the health of the children. That policy was in full effect also during the Burella years, per 1995 Executive Order from then-President Bill Clinton, to re-arrange and review HIS branch of government, at least, to accommodate “fatherhood” and address the nation’s crisis in kids not waking up in homes with their biological fathers.

At what point does the law of reverse efforts set in, and the failure of ROI cause a policy change?



In January 1999, George Burella, a ten-year veteran of the Philadelphia Police Department, shot and seriously injured his wife, Jill Burella, and then shot and killed himself.1 George Burella had emotionally and physically abused Jill Burella for years prior to the shooting. Although she reported numerous incidents of abuse to the police over the years, obtained several restraining orders just days before the shooting, and told police that her husband continued threatening her despite the orders, police failed to arrest him. This appeal concerns whether the police officers had a constitutional obligation to protect Jill Burella from her husband’s abuse. {(make that “violence” please!)} Despite our grave concerns about the Philadelphia Police Department’s alleged conduct in this case, we hold that the officers did not have such an obligation. Accordingly, we will reverse the District Court’s denial of qualified immunity and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background

We set forth in some detail the long and protracted history of physical and emotional abuse in this case because it is central to Jill Burella’s claim that Philadelphia police officers knew about the abuse, but nevertheless failed to act, thereby violating her due process and equal protection rights.

. . .

The abuse began around February 1996, when George Burella was convicted of disorderly conduct for stalking his wife at her workplace and assaulting her male co-worker who he suspected was having an affair with her. One month later, in the face of marital troubles and a severe gambling problem, George Burella attempted suicide. He survived and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital where he was diagnosed with depression.

After her husband was released from the hospital, Jill Burella contacted the Philadelphia Police Department’s Employee Assistance Program (“EAP“), which is designed to assist officers in obtaining help with personal problems. The EAP notified the City Medical Department, which placed George Burella on restricted duty and referred him to City doctors for psychological treatment.

There’s an old movie, a comic parody of Robin Hood, called “Men in Tights.” What follows here (in green) describes what surely was HELL, in living with this “Man with Gun.” His wife and mother tries to get them help, sounds like every way possible. Who knows if or what threats she might’ve received about trying to leave, or if she tried to. It’s hard enough to get away from abusers when you are in their social/personal networks sometimes — can you imagine that when the personal/social network includes fellow officers? ONLOOKERS should notice — what she did, the police and EAP responses. This man was a problem waiting to happen, and happening. Suicide attempts, stalking, depression, assaulting others (jealousy), threatening to kill her, beating her, using his official privilege to defuse an incident, and he had 3 children… I’ll color-code the red flag incidents RED, her or others’ attempts to help or stop it bold and the responses, BLUE. Then you can ask, what century , and country, do we live in? Is this a 3rd world country? In certain ways, USA-style, for women, YES.

George Burella’s violence towards his wife continued over the next several years and, in early June 1998, she contacted the Philadelphia Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division to report the abuse. Internal Affairs referred the matter to the EAP, which assigned George Burella a peer counselor.

Later that month, on June 26, 1998, George Burella assaulted his wife and another man at a local bar. Witnesses called 911, but George Burella left the bar before police officers arrived. When he got home, he phoned his wife and threatened to shoot their son Nicholas if she did not immediately return to the house. After calling 911, Jill Burella rushed home, where her husband, who was armed with a gun, threatened to shoot her. Before the matter worsened, police officers arrived. George Burella initially refused the officers’ order to surrender, but did so after the officer in charge agreed to report the incident as a domestic disturbance, rather than a more serious offense. {{bargaining it down is common}} Officer Robert Reamer, who is named as a defendant in this lawsuit, was one of the officers who arrived at the scene.

They could probably throw a person in jail for being drunk and disorderly in public, or resisting arrest after being confronted with jaywalking. Or for too many parking tickets (?).

This man had already — on this night alone, and after some years of assault & battery: assaulted his wife AND another man in public, threatened to kill their SON by phone, threatened her, with a gun, in person, and resisted arrest. And that was a “domestic disturbance” ??? Even the part in public and involving a non-relative being assaulted? Sounds to me like her reporting and seeking help had made the situation worse; jealousy plus maybe his perceived public humiliation (i.e. some witnesses called 911) followed by public retaliation…

After the police officers left, George Burella began beating his wife on their front lawn. Her parents arrived and took her to their house, but George Burella followed them there. Once at her parents’ house, she tried to call 911, but her husband wrestled the phone from her and told the operator that he was a police officer and that everything was under control. As a result, the operator did not instruct police to respond to the situation. Three days later, Jill Burella contacted the EAP to report the incident, but because the EAP failed to notify Internal Affairs, the incident was never investigated.

I’m going to speculate that her life at this point was a combination of walking on eggshells and trying to consider her options, plus work, plus being a Mom. I can only imagine what it might be like after years of assaults by an officer who knew he could bargain down and schmooze off some of his violence under the authority of his uniform. Some men are maybe attracted to that uniform to serve & protect, but some also for the authority. That one night, the first 911 hadn’t helped. At her parents, now they AND her kids were at risk. Again, 911 was called. What were her genuine options and wishes here? (I’m not going to continue with the font changes — but can readers mentally separate, 1, 2, 3: 1. Incident, 2. attempts to call for help or get safe, 3. system responses.)

In July 1998, George Burella called his wife at work in Upper Southampton Township and threatened to kill her. After Upper Southampton police officers arrived at her workplace, she received several more threatening phone calls from her husband. The officers called Captain Charles Bloom, George Burella’s commanding officer, and a defendant in this lawsuit, to inform him about the incident.

I’m starting to wonder about any meds for depression from that 1996 hospital visit….READ THIS, a report about possible links to “atypical anti-psychotics” being pushed, since 1999, in a Tacoma Mental Hospital…

Captain Bloom became directly involved in the situation on August 13, 1998, when Northampton police officers arrested George Burella for assaulting Jill Burella in Bucks County. The officers released George Burella into the custody of Captain Bloom, who escorted him home. {{What, the jails were full near home? Didn’t want to embarass the guy?}}

Three days later, on August 16, George Burella called his wife while she was visiting his parents with the children and again threatened to kill her. When he went to his parents’ house, Northampton police officers responding to an emergency call escorted him to his car, unloaded his firearm, and placed it in the trunk of the car.{{did not lock him up, maybe following Cap. Bloom’s lead?}} Shortly thereafter, officers found him driving in the vicinity of the house with his gun re-loaded and placed on the backseat of his car. Officers took him to a local hospital, but he was released shortly thereafter.3 After being notified of the incident, Captain Bloom ordered George Burella to submit to a psychiatric evaluation.

Later that month, George Burella admitted himself to a psychiatric hospital, but left after four days of treatment. {{one wonders, of what sort? How could he just “leave”?}} Several days later, City psychologists examined him and concluded that he should be monitored for the next two years. After one follow-up appointment with City doctors in September 1998, he did not return for treatment.

Without consequences, apparently, for this. Was it a city order, or a personal recommendation from Capt. Bloom?

On December 24, 1998, George Burella again assaulted his wife, this time while she was visiting a friend. (CHRISTMAS EVE….)

Philadelphia really isn’t that far from Washington, D.C. In 1994, VAWA passed. News travels slowly, it seems. From my perspective (I was being assaulted in those years, and didn’t know about VAWA, or my options, either) it’s now clear that this woman is being punished for engaging in normal activities outside home & work. He is also sending a clear message to anyone in her social support system that they, too, might be at risk, at the least being affected by witnessing the violence to her.

Mothers caught in the court system after abuse also experience the escalation. Even well-meaning people have their own lives to live. It becomes nearly impossible to be a staunch supporter and ally, because the trauma is ongoing and repetitive, and never fully resolved — court orders aren’t enforced, crises can be generated by any accusation, practically IN the courts, plus the incidents outside of them also. That’s why I often liken the family law system to the abuse I knew, in these 1990s (another part of the country…). Same effects, same system deafness to the dangers.

When Philadelphia police officers arrived, they allowed him to leave with the couple’s youngest daughter (a twin, if I recall), and then took Jill Burella and her two other children home, where her husband resumed beating her. {{HOW does one spell “insane”??}}

Jill Burella — she’s been beaten, with kids watching it, for years now, threatened with guns, assaulted/stalked, and/or threatened to kill her (or her son): at her workplace, at a bar, at her parent’s house, at a friend’s house, on her front lawn, at home, at her work place, in Bucks County. IHe has (1996) actually attempted to commit suicide. The man, a cop, and the situation, is a walking /stalking time bomb in need of some serious intervention.

In response, he has NOT been locked up once, but HAS been:

  • (1996) Admitted to a psychiatric hospital and diagnosed with depression
  • place on restricted duty and referred to City doctors (?) for psychological treatment (was it received?)
  • (1998) Assigned a peer counselor
  • After a night of multiple incidents and threats to kill (including his son), the responding officer downgrades this to “domestic disturbance” and does not arrest.
  • The same night, he simply resumes beating her. Her PARENTS try to rescue her (evidently no policeman is going to) by taking her away. He follows them there. She tries to call 911, he interferes with the phone and talks the situation down — and so far that dispatch operator was not brought up to speed on the evenings’ developments. Perhaps nothing further happened that night because all parties were just exhausted…
  • 3 days later, she calls EAP again, who does not notify Internal Affairs, and nothing is investigated. (Way to go!)
  • July, 1998, more threats to kill (at her workplace). The responding officers tell his commanding officer, Captain Bloom. No record of anything being done.
  • August, 1998 more assaults and/or threats. Captain Bloom drives him home…Tells him to go to a psychiatric hospital . . He goes, but quits. City psychologist then say he needs 2 years of monitoring (not exactly a sensible decisions, in light of the past). He goes once, and no mention of follow up by them. I think we get the picture that Mr. B. doesn’t appreciate that he is breaking the law, nor has anyone to date apparently attempted to communicate this to him by locking him up even overnight!

So now, she is going to try a restraining order. I wonder how well THAT is going to work after all this. Is the guy showing restraint? Is any part of this system going to back her up if he violates it? Because if not, then (I now ssay) they shouldn’t issue it. Better to give her and the kids some self-defense training, or another place to live, like witness protection. 1998, people….

Over the course of the next few weeks, Jill Burella obtained the three protection from abuse orders relevant to this lawsuit. On January 2, 1999, {{NB: last recorded assault — and Philadelphia police officers blowing it off — Dec. 24, 1998 in Philadelphia}} she obtained an emergency ex parte protection from abuse order from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that prohibited her husband from “abusing, harassing, stalking and/or threatening” her, and from “living at, entering, attempting to enter or visiting” the couple’s home. {{the KICKOUT}} The order further provided that officers “shall . . . arrest the defendant if he/she fails to comply with this Order.” (App. at 110-11.) The next day, Officer Reamer served the order on George Burella, who, according to Jill Burella, immediately violated it by shouting at and threatening her. Despite witnessing the alleged violation, Officer Reamer permitted George Burella to enter the house.

These officers have forgotten their responsibilities and become a public health hazard. THEY don’t respect protection from abuse (say what? in PA they don’t call it “VIOLENCE”? Did they ever?). Obviously neither does the husband in question. If they refuse to enforce the law (is a court order an order? or a suggestion? If they refused to arrest without an order, now, they had an order and it even specified they SHALL arrest if he fails to comply. So THEY are in contempt of that order, as I see it.) So, what are they doing in office and pulling a salary? Directing traffic? CYA-ing? Whom are they serving and what are they protecting?

There’s a site for law enforcement called “behind the blue line.” There’s also a blog for officer-involved violence, called, “Behind the Blue WALL.”

Not all officers try to “blow off” domestic violence.

In 1999, an officer sued his bosses, the mayor, and others in federal court over retaliation against him for his trying to do his job!, also involving an officer and domestic violence against his wife (also an officer):

Same dynamics, same timeframe (1996-1999), same state – Pittsburgh, PA area

Jim McKinnon, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, June 4, 1999

A Pittsburgh police officer has sued his bosses in federal court, charging that they have retaliated against him for doing his job, which he said has included filing complaints against other officers. In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Edmond N. Gaudelli Jr. names as defendants Mayor Murphy, Deputy Mayor Sal Sirabella, police Chief Robert McNeilly, Deputy Chief Charles Moffatt, several assistant chiefs, commanders and sergeants, a doctor at the training academy and an internal investigator, among others. Gaudelli, 32, a police officer since 1990, says in the suit the defendants had conspired to retaliate against him since 1996, when he filed a grievance against several officers, including a complaint that opposed the appointment of McNeilly as police chief… The marks against Gaudelli began to mount when, as an officer at the West End station, he said he responded to a domestic violence call at the home of McNeilly and his wife, police Cmdr. Catherine McNeilly. Gaudelli said in the complaint that McNeilly had told him to phone his supervisor and have records of the call removed from the running sheetOn assignment at a store in Waterworks Mall, Gaudelli said, he was disciplined again because he tried to arrest Officer Cindy Harper for shoplifting. Gaudelli said Harper’s husband, Assistant Chief Nate Harper, intervened and then was part of a conspiracy to have him fired…

McNeilly was the George Burella (at least in that incident), and Gaudelli was the responding Captain Bloom. But Gaudelli tried to file the repoet. McNeilly pulled a “Burella” and said, basically, to clear his name, pulling rank to do so. Domestic violence victims should be aware this can happen. Officer Gaudelli, assigned to a mall to stop troublemakers (including presumably shoplifting), couldn’t even do that, when the person doing it was an officer. And the US doesn’t have a caste system or grant titles of nobility? ?? Sounds like some public servants aren’t aware of this.

So, back to the Burella situation —

The next day, Jill Burella obtained {where? Criminal or Civil? HOW?} another temporary protection from abuse order, which essentially repeated the terms set forth in the January 2 order. In addition, the court awarded her temporary custody of the couple’s three children, prohibited George Burella from having “any contact” with her, and ordered him to relinquish all guns other than his service weapon, which he was required to turn over to his commanding officer at the end of every shift. The order also stated that “[t]his Order shall be enforced by any law enforcement agency in a county where a violation of this Order occurs.” (App. at 121-22.) {{either that was standard, or it was accommodating all the other places he followed his wife and assaulted or threatened her)}}.

Later that day, Jill Burella called 911 after she received threatening phone calls from her husband. After officers arrived, and while in their presence, she received several more calls from her husband. The officers told her they could not do anything unless her husband was physically present {is that word “threatening” in the RO too vague to comprehened?} .4 When Jill Burella called the police the next day, again they told her that nothing could be done unless her husband was physically present at her house.

On January 8, 1999, Jill Burella obtained a final order of protection.5 Four days later, following an appointment with a psychiatrist at the City Medical Department, George Burella went to the house he formerly shared with his wife and shot her in the chest. He then immediately shot and killed himself. Although she suffered serious injuries, Jill Burella survived the shooting.

I cannot help noticing (2nd or 3rd reading of this case) that troubles escalated after visits to a psychiatric hospital.

The newer, more expensive drugs have been heavily promoted at the hospital by drugmakers. Sales reps have logged about 1,200 visits to Western since late 2003, when administrators began tracking their activity. Concerned about their influence on prescribing patterns, the hospital in March banned all reps from visiting the campus to meet with docs.

The newer atypicals are promoted as safer and more effective than older meds, and are widely used at Western – along with ongoing use of older drugs, there’s been an increase since 1999 of about 30 percent in the amount of anti-psychotic meds given to patients at Western, The News Tribune found.

Many patients now receive two or more anti-psychotic drugs at once, a doubling of medication unheard of just eight years ago, when the older drugs were more prevalent.

OR, another article on schizophrenia, violence, with substance abuse (which Burella had) and atypical antipsychotis — if the guys take ’em:

Management of Violence in Schizophrenia The public perception of people with schizophrenia often is, unfortunately, of uncontrollable–possibly murderous–criminals. While mental health providers know this stereotype is almost always wrong, they do have real concerns about controlling violent tendencies in some patients with schizophrenia–especially people with co-occurring substance abuse disorders. Treatment of schizophrenia has become more effective with the introduction of the atypical antipsychotics, but getting patients to take their medications still proves to be a problem and is related to their potential for violence.

Before I comment on the LEGAL issues of this, let’s look at a document from Pennsylvania dating to 1990, which is why I include its contents here. Lethality Assessment by Barbara J. Hart is well-known in this field of DV. I wonder what happened that — same State — the message didn’t get through, somehow, that this guy was going to shoot somebody, possibly her. Nowadays, they are still selling “risk assessments” to the courts, as similar incidents continue.

The dispatcher and responding officer can utilize the indicators described below in making an assessment of the batterer’s potential to kill. Considering these factors may or may not reveal actual potential for homicidal assault. But, the likelihood of a homicide is greater when these factors are present. The greater the number of indicators that the batterer demonstrates or the greater the intensity of indicators, the greater the likelihood of a life-threatening attack.

Use all of the information you have about the batterer, current as well as past incident information. A thorough investigation at the scene will provide much of the information necessary to make this assessment. However, law enforcement will not obtain reliable information from an interview conducted with the victim and perpetrator together or from the batterer alone.

  1. Threats of homicide or suicide.The batterer who has threatened to kill himself, his partner, the children or her relatives must be considered extremely dangerous.
  2. Fantasies of homicide or suicide.The more the batterer has developed a fantasy about who, how, when, and/or where to kill, the more dangerous he may be. The batterer who has previously acted out part of a homicide or suicide fantasy may be invested in killing as a viable “solution” to his problems. As in suicide assessment, the more detailed the plan and the more available the method, the greater the risk.
  3. Weapons.Where a batterer possesses weapons and has used them or has threatened to use them in the past in his assaults on the battered woman, the children or himself, his access to those weapons increases his potential for lethal assault. The use of guns is a strong predictor of homicide. If a batterer has a history of arson or the threat of arson, fire should be considered a weapon.
  4. “Ownership” of the battered partner. The batterer who says “Death before Divorce!” or “You belong to me and will never belong to another!” may be stating his fundamental belief that the woman has no right to life separate from him. A batterer who believes he is absolutely entitled to his female partner, her services, her obedience and her loyalty, no matter what, is likely to be life-endangering.
  5. Centrality of the partner.A man who idolizes his female partner, or who depends heavily on her to organize and sustain his life, or who has isolated himself from all other community, may retaliate against a partner who decides to end the relationship. He rationalizes that her “betrayal” justifies his lethal retaliation.
  6. Separation Violence. When a batterer believes that he is about to lose his partner, if he can’t envision life without her or if the separation causes him great despair or rage, he may choose to kill.
  7. Depression.Where a batterer has been acutely depressed and sees little hope for moving beyond the depression, he may be a candidate for homicide and suicide. Research shows that many men who are hospitalized for depression have homicidal fantasies directed at family members.
  8. Access to the battered woman and/or to family members.If the batterer cannot find her, he cannot kill her. If he does not have access to the children, he cannot use them as a means of access to the battered woman. Careful safety planning and police assistance are required for those times when contact is required, e.g. court appearances and custody exchanges.
  9. Repeated outreach to law enforcement.Partner or spousal homicide almost always occurs in a context of historical violence. Prior calls to the police indicate elevated risk of life-threatening conduct. The more calls, the greater the potential danger.
  10. Escalation of batterer risk.A less obvious indicator of increasing danger may be the sharp escalation of personal risk undertaken by a batterer; when a batterer begins to act without regard to the legal or social consequences that previously constrained his violence, chances of lethal assault increase significantly.
  11. Hostage-taking. A hostage-taker is at high risk of inflicting homicide. Between 75% and 90% of all hostage takings in the US are related to domestic violence situations.

If an intervention worker concludes that a batterer is likely to kill or commit life-endangering violence, extraordinary measures should be taken to protect the victim and her children. This may include notifying the victim and law enforcement of risk, as well as seeking a mental health commitment, where appropriate. The victim should be advised that the presence of these indicators may mean that the batterer is contemplating homicide and that she should immediately take action to protect herself and should contact the local battered woman’s program to further assess lethality and develop safety plans.

Hart, B.“Assessing Whether Batters Will Kill” PCADV, 1990.

In February 2000, Jill Burella filed a complaint in Pennsylvania state court against Officer Reamer, Captain Bloom, and Captain Bloom’s successor, Francis Gramlich, along with the City of Philadelphia and Dr. Warren Zalut, the City psychiatrist who saw George Burella on the day of the shooting. After the case was removed to federal district court, she filed an eight-count amended complaint asserting various federal constitutional and state law claims. The officers and the City moved for summary judgment on all counts asserted against them.6 This appeal concerns solely the District Court’s summary judgment ruling that the officers are not entitled to qualified immunity with respect to Jill Burella’s due process (Count I) and equal protection (Count IV) claims.

This case cites the Castle Rock case. The opinion is worth understanding. People receiving restraining orders need to understand what they are and what they are not. As residents of a rain forest understand the rain forest, or those who live in monsoon territory have to understand the ramifications of the deluge, residents of the United States, though a Constitution, Bill of Rights, and legal systems exist, they exist in a context — on paper and arguments about them have created a deluge of paperwork over the 2+centuries since we started. They are only as good as interpreted by those who read act on this paperwork.

So, the deluge of paperwork can lead to life, IF one is prepared to understand its contexts, and shifting contexts, too., or death if one places false or misguided hope in them alone. Whether to stake one’s life on the force of that paperwork is personal, like a decision to stake one’s life on a God, or sacred writings describing that God. Whatever one chooses, chances are that sooner or later and like it or not, one is going to come face to face with someone who reads it differently, or thinks it’s a joke, and be forced to deal with him or her. This could include one’s own marriage certificate, obviously.

This is what Judge Fuentes, in the Burella appeal, wrote (any emphases are mine…):

[as above…United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia County)]

As discussed above, however, the Court in Castle Rock
unambiguously stated that absent a “clear indication” of legislative
intent, a statute’s mandatory arrest language should not be read to
strip law enforcement of the discretion they have traditionally had
in deciding whether to make an arrest
. 545 U.S. at 761. Although
the Supreme Court did not specify what language would suffice to
strip the police of such discretion, it is clear after Castle Rock that
the phrase “shall arrest” is insufficient.
As previously noted, the
Supreme Court explicitly stated that “a true mandate of police
action would require some stronger indication from the Colorado
Legislature than . . . �shall arrest
.'” Id.

To the average person, “shall arrest” means “shall arrest.” But, the Supreme Court kept in mind that police discretion (discussed in more detail in the document). The word “shall” means “shall,” or at least we hope so, in something as official as a court order signed by a judge. GOOD, we think, NOW I finally have some protection. But the law doesn’t always think like that (logically), nor courts, and obviously not police. So, the safe understanding would be to understand the bottom line. It doesn’t mean ‘squat,’ really. Maybe to you, but not to others.

Thus, a restraining order is only as good as SOMEONE has respect for it and will act on it as if it were unilaterally true.

In addition, we note that Jill Burella’s argument fails to
address the Supreme Court’s observation in Castle Rock that even
if the Colorado domestic violence statute mandated an arrest, it
would not necessarily mean the victim would have an “entitlement”
to an arrest. That is, although the Pennsylvania statute allows a
victim of domestic violence to “file a private criminal complaint
against a defendant, alleging indirect criminal contempt” for
violation of a protective order, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat. � 6113.1(a), or
“petition for civil contempt” against the violator, 23 Pa. Cons. Stat.
� 6114.1(a), like the Colorado statute, it is silent as to whether a
victim can request, much less demand, an arrest.14 See 23 Pa.
Cons. Stat. Ann. � 6113:1(a). In fact, “[w]hen an individual files
a private criminal complaint [under � 6113.1], the district attorney
has the discretion to refrain from proceeding for policy reasons.”
Starr v. Price, 385 F. Supp. 2d 502, 511 (M.D. Pa. 2005); Pa. R.
Crim. P. 506.

. . .

Finally, we cannot ignore that despite framing the issue as
one of procedural due process, what Jill Burella appears to seek is
a substantive due process remedy: that is, the right to an arrest
itself, and not the pre-deprivation notice and hearing that are the
hallmarks of a procedural due process claim.

In short, whether framed as a substantive due process right
under DeShaney, or a procedural due process right under Roth, Jill
Burella does not have a cognizable claim that the officers’ failure
to enforce the orders of protection violated her due process rights.15
Therefore, we need not determine whether her entitlement to police
protection was “clearly established” at the time of the alleged
violation before concluding that the officers are entitled to
qualified immunity.

* * *

Outcome: The facts Jill Burella alleges, if true, reveal a terrible
deficiency on the part of the Philadelphia Police Department in
responding to her complaints of domestic abuse. Binding precedent
nevertheless compels our conclusion that the officers� failure to
arrest her husband, or to handle her complaints more competently,
did not violate her constitutional right to due process or equal
protection of the law. Accordingly, we hold that the officers are
entitled to qualified immunity on her constitutional claims.

We will reverse and remand to the District Court for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.


Juvenile WAYNE DAWN’s COMPLAINT and CAPUTO’s ruling

As for Brulo, the judge concluded that the allegations in Dawn’s lawsuit were too thin to justify allowing the claims to proceed to the discovery stage. “There are no specific factual allegations made against Brulo. Instead, there are blanket assertions about what all defendants did collectively, many of them consisting of legal conclusions, such as defendants aiding and abetting each other in this conspiracy,” Caputo wrote.

Sounds like a poorly-written high school composition, starting with the conclusion, rather than starting with a thesis and systematically showing the reader the process and facts that led to it. In other words, sloppy writing.

(Again, I didn’t read Dawn, just the comments on it here).

Dawn’s complaint, Caputo said, “is littered with the type of bald assertions and legal conclusions warned against by the Supreme Court” in its recent decisions in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal.

“Plaintiff has not alleged any actions taken by Brulo specifically and, therefore, has failed to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence that Brulo violated plaintiff’s rights,” Caputo wrote.

The main focus of Caputo’s opinion was tackling the arguments lodged by Conahan and Ciavarella, both of whom are acting as their own lawyers and had sought a dismissal of all claims.

Caputo concluded that while the former judges are entitled to assert absolute judicial immunity, it was not enough to end the case because Dawn’s suit accuses the judges of taking steps in the alleged conspiracy that went beyond their roles as judges.

According to the suit, Conahan and Ciavarella struck an agreement with attorney Robert Powell and Robert K. Mericle, the owner of a local construction company, to build a new, privately owned juvenile detention center in Luzerne County as a replacement for the adequate, publicly owned juvenile detention center already in existence.

For the new facility to be financially viable, the suit alleges, it would require a regular stream of juvenile defendants, and Conahan and Ciavarella agreed to divert large numbers of juveniles into the new facility in order to gain more than $2.8 million in kickbacks.

To hide these ill-gotten proceeds, the suit alleges, Conahan and Ciavarella transferred the money via wire transfer to various corporations controlled by them. Their cooperation in the conspiracy allegedly included removing all funding from the publicly run detention center, having juveniles moved to the new privately owned facilities built by Mericle and operated by Powell, agreeing to guarantee placement of juvenile defendants in the new facilities, ordering juveniles to be placed at the private facilities and assisting the new juvenile detention centers in securing agreements with Luzerne County.

Caputo ruled that, under the doctrine of absolute judicial immunity, Dawn cannot pursue any claim that is premised on a theory that Conahan and Ciavarella did not act as impartial judges, failed to advise juveniles of their right to counsel or failed to determine whether guilty pleas were knowing and voluntary. But Caputo also found that “many of the actions taken by Conahan were not of a judicial nature.”

The alleged agreements entered into by Conahan with Mericle and Powell, as well as any budget decisions make by Conahan as president judge, or any advocacy for building a new detention center are “non-judicial acts that are not subject to absolute judicial immunity,” Caputo wrote.

Likewise, Caputo found that “some of Ciavarella’s alleged actions are covered by judicial immunity, while others are not.”

Ciavarella’s courtroom actions in sentencing juveniles, including his sentencing of Dawn, are protected by judicial immunity, Caputo found.

“As for to the other allegations,” Caputo wrote, “such as Ciavarella’s role in the conspiracy to build the juvenile detention centers and receive kickbacks, those allegations are extra-judicial activity that is not protected by absolute judicial immunity.”

Dawn’s lawyer, Timothy R. Hough of Jaffe & Hough in Philadelphia, could not be reached for comment. Brulo’s lawyer, Scott D. McCarroll of Thomas Thomas & Hafer in Harrisburg, also could not be reached.

I have lost some editing in the last few “saves” and am for now “abandoning ship” on this post which began to usurp my free time for the last two days. My equipment has a (vey) slow processor, which challenges my ability to retain the train of thought while it is completing a save (or even dribbling out keystrokes several seconds after input — I’m a fast typist), and I have miles to go before I sleep. Hopefully this post was not a “sleeper” and may have awakened us out of some rhetoric-induced slumber in these matters. If you hang around some circles too long, you begging to believe and accept their theories, without critical analysis and distancing, as a lifestyle, too. It’s laborious, but better.



MARCH 2007


  • Hello, my name is Jessica Lenahan. My former married name was Jessica Gonzales. I am grateful to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights for allowing me this opportunity to tell my story. It is a courtesy I was not granted by the judicial system of my home country, the United States. I brought this petition because I want to prevent the kind of tragedy my little girls and my entire family suffered from happening to other families.

    Let me start from the beginning. I am a Latina and Native American woman from Pueblo, Colorado. I met my previous husband, Simon Gonzales, while still in high school. I married Simon in 1990 and we moved to Castle Rock, Colorado in 1998. We lived together with our three children – Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie – and my son Jessie, from a previous relationship.

  • Throughout our relationship, Simon was erratic and abusive toward me and our children. By 1994, he was distancing himself from us and becoming more and more controlling, unpredictable, and violent. He would break the children’s toys and other belongings, harshly discipline the children, threaten to kidnap them, drive recklessly, exhibit suicidal behavior, and verbally, physically, and sexually abuse me. He was heavily involved with drugs.

    Simon’s frightening and destructive behavior got worse and worse as the years went by. One time I walked into the garage, and he was hanging there with a noose around his neck, with the children watching. I had to hold the rope away from his neck while my daughter Leslie called the police.

    Simon and I separated in 1999 when my daughters were 9, 8, and 6. But he continued scaring us. He would stalk me inside and outside my house, at my job, and on the phone at all hours of the day and night.

    On May 21, 1999, a Colorado court granted me a temporary restraining order that required Simon to stay at least 100 yards away from me, my home, and the children. The judge told me to keep the order with me at all times, and that the order and Colorado law required the police to arrest Simon if he violated the order. Having this court order relieved some of my anxiety.

  • But Simon continued to terrorize me and the children even after I got the restraining order. He broke into my house, stole my jewelry, changed the locks on my doors, and loosened my house’s water valves, flooding the entire street. I called the Castle Rock Police Department to report these and other violations of the restraining order. The police ignored most of my calls. And when they did respond, they were dismissive of me, and even scolded me for calling them. This concerned me and made me wonder how the police might respond if I had an emergency in the future.
  • Simon had at least seven run-ins with the police between March and June of 1999. He was ticketed for “road rage” while the girls were in the truck and for trespassing in a private section of the Castle Rock police station and then trying to flee after officers served him with the restraining order.On June 4, Simon and I appeared in court, and the judge made the restraining order permanent. The new order granted me full custody of Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie, and said that Simon could only be with our daughters on alternate weekends and one prearranged dinner visit during the week.

File under “split personality court orders”  THANK you, George Bush, Bill Clinton, Pres. Barack Obama (not much changed), formerly and til now, Wade Horn, Ron Haskins, Jessica Pearson (Center Policy Research, AFCC founder, I heard, Gardner fan), and anyone and everyone who really can say with a straight face that the nation’s true crisis is when children do NOT wake up with their biodad in the home.  Thank you, multi-million$$ Healthy marriage/REsponsible Fatherhood funding, and any legislator with ties to Rev. Sun Myung Moon, but not open about it.  Thank you, for your overt subversion of the United States of America founding principles and documents, and being AWARE of this enough to be secretive about it, as evidenced by failing to tell protective MOTHERS (like this one) while recruiting Dads behind our backs, to give them advice adn sometimes free legal help to get our kids away from us.

Thank you about 3 major organizations in the Denver area driving this policy, and thank you for being smart enough to know that “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” really wouldn’t hold sway legally, so it had to be practiced through another Branch of Government, voila, (1991) Health and Human Services department, and the things I’ve been blogging about.

Thank you for police officers that back each other up, but not women seeking protection via the restraining order system.  I also know of officers that gave their lives to save others, in domestic violence incidents. I’m not talking about them, but the others.  You know which you are..  Some men wear the uniform, and others live it — just like some men fit the fatherhood shoes, and others need to put theirs on and just keep walking…..

Yeah, I’m moved .  . .  Was Jessica a real Mom?  Was she a person?  Were her daughters?

The father had attempted suicide, and he gets a typical custody situation, alternate weekends. What’s THAT?  an attempt to use the kids to make him a better man?

  • (her children are kidnapped.  She repeatedly asks the police to help… Here are some of the responses):
  • Less than 3 weeks later, Simon violated the restraining order by kidnapping my three daughters from our yard on a day that he wasn’t supposed to see the girls. When I discovered they were missing, I immediately called the police, told them that the girls were missing and that I thought Simon had abducted them in violation of a restraining order, and asked them to find my daughters. The dispatcher told me she would send an officer to my house, but no one came.

    I waited almost two hours for the police, and then called the station again. Finally two officers came to my house. I showed them the restraining order and explained that it was not Simon’s night to see the girls, but that I suspected he had taken them. The officers said, “Well he’s their father, it’s okay for them to be with him.” And I said, “No, it’s not okay. There was no prearranged visit for him to have the children tonight.” The officers said there was nothing they could do, and told me to call back at 10pm if the children were still not home. I was flustered and scared. Unsure of what else I could say or do to make the officers take me seriously, I agreed to do what they suggested.

  • Soon afterwards, Simon’s girlfriend called me and told me that Simon called her and was threatening to drive off a cliff. She asked me if he had a gun and whether or not he would hurt the children. I began to panic.

    I finally reached Simon on his cell phone around 8:30 pm. He told me he was with the girls at an amusement park in Denver, 40 minutes from Castle Rock. I immediately communicated this information to the police. I was shocked when they responded that there was nothing they could do, because Denver was outside of their jurisdiction. I called back and begged them to put out a missing child alert or contact the Denver police, but they refused. The officer told me I needed to take this matter to divorce court, and told me to call back if the children were not home in a few hours. The officer said to me, “At least you know the children are with their father.” I felt totally confused and humiliated.

  • {{My children did not die.  But, despite any court order (and there’s one to this date ordering weekly contact — with me — it’s not safely enforceable.  I haven’t seen either one in a long time.  Prior to that situation, I was in this situation with officers, and got a similar response, in a context of escalating threats to take them, and troubles.  AFTER they were taken, I was given the same line, even though at this time their address was unknown and they weren’t attending school.  The story almost never changes, much….}}
  • I called the police again and again that night. When I called at 10pm, the dispatcher said to me that I was being “a little ridiculous making us freak out and thinking the kids are gone.” Even at that late hour, the police were still scolding me and not acknowledging that three children were missing, not recognizing my repeated descriptions of the girls and the truck.
  • NOW, her children are dead — through their negligence and ignoring her pleas — and here is how she is treated:
  • After hearing about the shooting, I drove to the police station. As I attempted to approach Simon’s truck, I was taken away by the police and then to the local sheriff’s office. Officials refused to give me any information about whether the girls were alive. They ignored my pleas to see my girls. {{I have been in this situation, very similar, requests ignored}}  The experience revictimized me all over again. They detained me in a room for 12 hours and interrogated me throughout the early morning hours, as if I had a role in the children’s deaths. They refused to let me see or call my family. It was absolutely the most traumatic, horrific, and exhausting experience of my life!
  • I have noticed over time, that if a woman is persistent in reporting violations of court orders, stalking, threats, or missing children in particular, the anger will be turned on her; she will not be heard.  We might as well accept and prepare ourselves for this emotionally, though it’s wrong.  Police officers’ roles includes dominating others, and situations.  They’re REAL good at dominating traumatized women….This includes verbal abuse as well, mocking, sarcasm, belittling, questioning, interrupting when one is asking legitimate questions, — in fact, practically everything an abusive partner might do, with this kicker:  they are authorized to use force in certain situations, and they carry sidearms.

  • The media knew my girls were dead before my family or I did. I was finally told by state officials around 8am that Simon had murdered the girls before he arrived at the police station. However, I never learned any other details about how, when, and where the girls died. I continue to seek this information to this day. I need to know the truth.

    Several family members and I asked the authorities to identify the girls’ bodies, but we were not permitted to view their bodies until six days later – when they lay in their caskets. My daughters’ death certificates and the coroners’ reports state no place, date, or time of death. It saddened me not to be able to put this information on their gravestones.

  • Today, nearly eight years after my tragedy, I continue to seek a thorough investigation into my babies’ deaths. I see nothing being done in Castle Rock or nationwide to make police accountable to domestic violence victims. It’s like rubbing salt in my wounds.

    So why did the police ignore my calls for help? Was it because I was a woman? A victim of domestic violence? A Latina? Because the police were just plain lazy? I continue to seek answers to these questions.

    We rely on the courts and the police for protection against violence. But I learned from my tragedy that the police have no accountability. The safety of my children was of such little consequence that the police took no action to protect my babies. If our government won’t protect us, we should know that. We should know that we are on our own when our lives are at risk.

    Had I known that the police would do nothing to locate Rebecca, Katheryn, and Leslie or enforce my restraining order, I would have taken the situation into my own hands by looking for my children with my family and friends. I might have even bought a gun to protect us from Simon’s terror. Perhaps if I had taken these measures, I would have averted this tragedy. But then I might be imprisoned right now. That is the dilemma for abused women in the United States.

    • I am blogging.  I am telling people.  This woman has told people.  You read it in the late 1990s and you’ve now read two statements from the year 2007 (Burella’s appeal, denied, citing Gonzales’s failed Castle Rock case).  Remember what I said about the ‘deluge” of paperwork.   If we are going to go the “paperwork” route, the due diligence is necessary to understand the REAL contexts of it.  The REAL context of it is that one cannot count on enforcement.
    • Moreover, I also assert (and have discussed this more among my friends than on the blog) that the fatherhood and the domestic violence advocates are in bed together, and care more about their conferences and grants than our lives, and probably always have.  I don’t say this with anger (well, not TOO much anger), but so we who don’t have another year to waste won’t waste anther year looking for help, rather than helping ourselves in the most moral, legal, and humane way possible.

There are consequences to the U.S. when women have to go to the international level to ask for protection.  I’ve read about globalism and am aware of NGOs, and so forth, but the gol-dang Tea Party folk, and libertarians, if they will not recognize woman’s humanity as equal to theirs, even when not bound to a husband, they are going to cost us this country.  Show me an honest faith-based organization that’s involved in government, and I’ll work with it.  Til then, no thank you!  Where are woman who have some faith to hang out?  In some mega church that has less respect for women than the Castle Rock police Dept? ???

This IACHR link will be put on the front page.

How many foundations, acronyms (CPR, MDRC, PSI), Federal $$ and Ivy League hotshots does it take to “screw” . . the Poor?

leave a comment »

INTRO (added 07/17)

For international visitors, or others who may not get the pun in the title:

There’s a common joke used to degrade people of certain ethnic — or professional — profiles, usually to insult the intelligence of the target group. It refers to screwing in a a lightbulb, something a child can do, and goes “How many ______s does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” and the answer is a clever twist on why it takes so many. ”

The word “Screw” has another off-color connotation, pun intended here.

In this case, it’s NOT a joke; the more I look, the more I feel the USA is screwed. By whom — read on. I experienced total devastation through this system, so far, and without committing a single crime. My “social” crime was not taking the low road, but the high road, out of a marriage that probably shouldn’t have happened, but did, and then my misplaced value on marriage (exactly what these people are promoting) resulted in my staying in just short of us becoming a statistic. There weren’t real other options, that I saw — welfare, and a battered women’s shelter with one toddler, and pregnant with another child? That wasn’t in my vocabulary or background – we were a WORKING family.

We didn’t fit — at all (nor do many women affected by religious-based violence) the target profile of these programs — AT ALL. I was full-time employed while pregnant, and gave birth to very healthy children, fully covered by insurance provided by my work, not his. By the second child, almost every infrastructure was shut down — for me — and came only through him, and he wasn’t very forthcoming.

Women are NOT going to be safe in their marriages, if the marriage goes sour or violent, or OUTSIDE them unless we can be safely independent without excommunication from our communities.

Society has to handle its love/hate relationship with the PAID wages of employed mothers (meaning, child care, school system, after care, a certain scenario. Because the public school system in this country discriminates against the poor, that also impacts their future) AND the UNPAID benefits nonworking mothers provide to their familis and children.

CORPORATIONS historically have cared about their profits first, and their employees second, until forced to do differently. This splits up families, obviously. SCHOOLS in the US are also a jobs basis and designed on the corporate model, the “employer” being the government (although that government gets its wages from the very parents and non-parents it claims to be serving and educating).

CHURCHES, MOSQUES and SYNAGOGUES also must deal with money matters, and typically exist (from what I understand) in the US as “nonprofit” tax-exempt corporations. They have mortgages and typically pay their leaders (although not always). Therefore when a financial conflict of interest arises because a prominent — or even just attending — father begins assaulting a daughter or a wife, the temptation will be to cover it up for the “greater good,” i.e., continuing the community, but sacrificing the individual’s rights or safety. Some readers will remember, this was attributed to why Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed – – because if he “rocked the boat,” the Romans might come in and make it worse for the Jews. Which, later, obviously happened.


As a woman who has seen the best and worst of a religion I adopted as a young woman because my own family was destitute of one, of a personal family identity outside one father’s professional profile (for the most part), I am quite willing to reject “religion” when it fails to practice what it preaches as I see my government, and its institutions have also utterly failed the people they preach about “serving.”

These foundations have utterly forgotten what the Declaration of Indepencence declares, and are mostly concerned about their own positions in life, and structuring a society to preserve their right to run others’ lives without their informed consent, and at their expense, too.

When a president cannot say the word “mother” along with the word “father” when describing “Families and Children,” and this president is held up as a role model and leader, women, and mothers of children, and the children ARE “screwed.” Linguistically, they are just sperm incubators, a delivery system for kids. We also get to now be scapegoats for society by either declining to marry, or leaving a marriage, yet the actual scapegoats are the society’s engineers, not the people who have become simply the gas in its (think) tanks or the blood in its veins.

It takes time to gestate and raise a child, and I think we are approaching the time when women are going to start saying NO! We will NOT produce babies for you to abuse, waste, or box up and become half-human order-takers and low-wage laborers, or young men and women to go fight your wars over land, oil, and the global economic system. If I participate in this happening, perhaps I will have in part helped compensate for having been unable to stop domestic violence they witnessed growing up, or divert and protect them from the INSANITY that took place the moment some professional, probably on the take either literally ($$) or by business referrals, knew how to “let the games begin” by getting our case into a custody battle.



This dates back 5 years.


(DOLLARS and SENSE logo here)

29 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 USA


Copyright © 2010 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

Dollars and Sense logo

Marriage Promotion, Reproductive Injustice, and the War Against Poor Women of Color



On December 22, at the stroke of midnight, Renita Pitts became a single woman. Renita is 44 years old, a mother of five with 14 grandchildren. She has been on and off of welfare for most of her life. After she had her fifth child, her husband brought crack cocaine into their house, telling her that it would help her lose weight. She became addicted and struggled for 13 years with that addiction. Throughout her marriage, Renita says, she was afraid to leave her house. “I couldn’t trust my husband with our children long enough to go to school. If I left for even an hour, he would have a full-fledged party going on when I came back,” she says. In addition to being a drug addict, Renita’s husband was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. She says they fought frequently, and she had to call the police again and again.

Renita and her husband separated shortly after she stopped using drugs and returned to college. She had also begun attending church. According to Renita, her husband “was insecure because of my security.” He gave her an ultimatum, saying she must leave school and stop going to church. When she refused, he left.

Despite the abuse and the drugs, Renita says, she felt many social pressures to stay married. Regardless, she says, “it was important not to have him in my life, constantly pumping me full of drugs.” She says the relationship had become so abusive that if she had stayed in it any longer, “someone would have ended up dead.”

With the help of California’s welfare program, Renita is currently enrolled in the African American Studies and Social Welfare departments at the University of California at Berkeley and works on social justice issues at the Women of Color Resource Center. She was happy to see her divorce finalized in December.

The life stories of Renita and many other women like her are not on the radar screen in Washington, however. Legislation that would promote marriage among low-income people is currently wending its way through Congress. The so-called “Healthy Marriage Initiative” includes a range of provisions designed to encourage women on welfare to get and stay married: providing extra cash bonuses to recipients who get married, deducting money from welfare checks when mothers are living with men who are not the fathers of their children, increasing monthly welfare checks for married couples, offering marriage and relationship education classes, and putting up billboards in low-income communities promoting the value of marriage. Several provisions specifically target Latino and African-American communities. So-called marriage promotion policies, such as those in the Healthy Marriage Initiative, have been touted by the Bush administration and enjoy wide bipartisan support in Washington. Many advocates, however, are concerned that, if the bill passes, it would become more difficult for Renita and domestic violence survivors like her to get a divorce and to survive without a husband.

Married Good, Single Bad

The administration’s point man for marriage promotion is Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services {HHS}, whose Administration for Children and Families {ACF} would run the initiative. In July 2002 Horn wrote, “On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy and stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor. They’re more successful in school, have lower dropout rates, and fewer teenage pregnancies. Adults, too, benefit from healthy and stable marriages.” Critics say Horn sees the wedded state as a cure-all for society’s ills, while ignoring the difficulties of promoting something as intensely personal as marriage. Horn and others in the ACF refused repeated requests for comment.

Marriage promotion legislation has its roots in the 1996 welfare reform act. This legislation ended welfare as an entitlement–it allowed states to deny assistance to fully qualified applicants, and resulted in the abrogation of some applicants’ constitutional rights. It also created a five-year lifetime limit for welfare recipients, denied aid to many immigrant communities, created cumbersome financial reporting requirements for welfare recipients, and set up work rules that, according to many recipients, emphasize work hours over meaningful employment opportunities and skill development. The legislation explicitly claimed promoting marriage as one of its aims.

When welfare reform was passed, Congress required that it be revisited in five years. The Healthy Marriage Initiative that Congress is considering today was introduced in 2002 as part of the welfare reform reauthorization package. Welfare–now known as Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)–was set to be reauthorized that year, but that reauthorization is now two years overdue.

In September, Senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) introduced a bill to reauthorize welfare for six months without overall changes, but with $800 million for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs over a two-year period. Sen. Santorum has been a strong proponent of marriage promotion. In an October 2003 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he promised to aggressively press for legislation that supported marriage between one man and one woman. “The government must promote marriage as a fundamental societal benefit. … Both for its intrinsic good and for its benefits for society, we need marriage.

{{Did these men, Senators, not take an oath of office similar to the President’s, to uphold and defend the constitution? If these Senators are so concerned about marriage, why don’t they socially shun, and hold conferences about, some of their cheating-on-their-wives colleagues, let alone former Presidents (let’s hope Obama has better sense than Clinton in that category)..?? ONE nation under God, and ONE set of Federal laws, and ONE set of the Bill of Rights for all. Government designing family life is the same as Government deciding religion, and as such is prohibited…}}

And just as important, we need public leaders to communicate to the American public why it is necessary.” The reauthorization bill has died in the Senate, but because of its strong bipartisan support, it is likely to be re-introduced. Sen. Santorum refused repeated requests for comment for this story.

Diverting Dollars

Although the debate about marriage promotion has focused on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, this is just one piece of the Bush administration’s pro-marriage agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services has already diverted over $100 million within existing programs into marriage promotion. These are programs that have no specific legislative authority to promote marriage. Some examples: $6.1 million has been diverted from the Child Support Enforcement Program, $9 million from the Refugee Resettlement Program, $14 million from the Child Welfare Program, and $40 million from the Social and Economic Development Strategies Program focusing on Native Americans, among others. Plus, another nearly $80 million has been awarded to research groups studying marriage.

One beneficiary is in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Healthy Marriages Grand Rapids received $990,000 from the federal government in 2003 to “facilitate the understanding that healthy marriages between parents is [sic] critical to the financial well-being of children, increase effective co-parenting skills of married and non-married parents to improve relationships between low-income adults who parent children, increase active, healthy participation of non-custodial fathers in the lives of their children, increase the number of prepared marriages among low-income adults, and decrease the divorce rate among low-income adults.” The program coordinates local public media campaigns plugging marriage as well as relationship counseling classes, many offered by faith-based providers.

It is precisely this emphasis on marriage as a cure for economic woes that worries many welfare recipients and advocates. According to Liz Accles at the Welfare Made a Difference National Campaign, “Marriage promotion is problematic for many reasons. It is discriminatory. It values certain families over others. It intrudes on privacy rights. The coercive nature of this is lost on a lot of people because they don’t realize how deeply in poverty people are living.” Accles says that adequate educational opportunities, subsidized child care, and real job skills and opportunities are the answer to the financial concerns of women on welfare. She joins many domestic violence counselors in saying that marriage education funded by government coffers and administered via faith-based providers and welfare case workers is at best a waste of taxpayer money, and at worst pushes women deeper into abusive relationships that may end in injury or death

{{including sometimes to the kids. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to us how THAT helps the welfare of children And now that’s it’s known this happening, why hasn’t the policy changed??!}}

In Allentown, Pa., a program called the Family Formation and Development Project offers a 12-week marriage education course for low-income, unmarried couples with children. Employment services are offered as part of the program, but only to fathers. In its application for federal funding, the program set a goal of 90% of the participating fathers finding employment. No such goal was set for the mothers. According to Jennifer Brown, legal director at the women’s legal rights organization Legal Momentum, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, “What we fear is that this kind of sex stereotyped programming–jobs for fathers, not for mothers–will be part of marriage promotion programs funded by the government.”

Experts at Legal Momentum are concerned that the administration is diverting scarce funds from proven and effective anti-poverty programs and funneling the money into untested marriage-promotion programs. They say there is little information about what is happening on the ground, making it difficult to determine what activities have been implemented.

Feminist economists point out that the mid-1990s welfare reform law served larger economic interests by moving women out of the home and into the work force at a time when the economy was booming and there was a need for low-paid service workers. Now that the economy is in a recession, the government has adopted a more aggressive policy of marriage promotion, to pull women out of the work force and back into the home. According to Avis Jones-DeWeever, Poverty and Welfare Study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “We are talking about putting $1.5 billion into telling women to find their knight in shining armor and then everything will be okay.”

Jones-DeWeever says the view that marriage creates more economically stable individuals is not grounded in reality. She notes that individuals are likely to marry within their own socioeconomic group, so low-income women are likely to marry low-income men. According to author Barbara Ehrenreich’s estimates, low-income women would need to have roughly 2.3 husbands apiece in order to lift them out of poverty. Jones-DeWeever points out that in African-American communities, there are simply not enough men to marry: there are approximately two and a half women for every African-American man who is employed and not in jail. In addition, many social policy analysts are quick to point out that in general, poor people are not poor because they’re unmarried. Rather, they may be unmarried because they’re poor: the socioeconomic conditions in low-income communities contribute to a climate in which healthy marriages are difficult to sustain.

Another criticism of marriage promotion comes from survivors of domestic violence and their advocates. Studies consistently show that between 50% and 60%–in some studies up to 80%–of women on welfare have suffered some form of domestic violence, compared to 22% of the general population. In addition, between 3.3 and 10 million children witness domestic violence each year. Domestic violence survivors say their abuse was often a barrier to work, and many have reported being harassed or abused while at work. Most survivors needed welfare to escape the relationship and the violence. Any policy that provides incentives for women to become and stay married is in effect coercing poor women into marriage. Many women on welfare, like Renita Pitts, say that their marriages, rather than helping them out of poverty, set up overwhelming barriers to building their own autonomous and productive lives.

According to Kaaryn Gustafson, associate professor of law at the University of Connecticut, policies that attempt to look out for women’s safety by restricting or coercing their activities are paternalistic and misguided. “The patriarchal model is really troubling. The gist is that if there isn’t a man in the house there isn’t a family. The studies of family well-being are all very problematic because you cannot parse out the issues of education, socioeconomic status, and other emotional and psychological issues that are tied up in who gets married and who doesn’t.”

Domestic violence ITSELF often is a reflection of a paternalistic attitude, and this DOES stem at least from faith communities. Moreover, we have to look at this United States which used to legalize slavery. Slavery is abusive and a paternalistic attitude justified it. I’ve “just” had enough of this! So, in effect, promoting marriage — both undermines individual civil rights, and duplicates the same attitude which justifies such violence towards a woman because she is a woman!

Reproductive Straitjacket

While marriage promotion as a federal policy began in 1996, many say it is only one part of a much larger system of control over, and sanction of, the sexual and reproductive freedoms of poor women and women of color. Another part of this system is child exclusion legislation, which has been adopted by 21 states. Child exclusion laws permit states to pay benefits for only one child born to a woman on welfare. Social policy experts say it is a response to the myth that African-American welfare recipients were having more children in order to get larger benefit checks. Such laws push women either deeper into poverty, or into abortions. In some states, a woman who chooses to have another child instead of an abortion may end up trying to raise two or more children on less than $300 a month.

Christie, who would like to use only her first name, is a single mother of two. She has been working, supporting her children and herself, and going to college. Since her first child was born, she has also been receiving welfare. While on welfare, she fought to get a college degree in general education; now she hopes to get a job as a Spanish language translator. During her time in college, her welfare caseworker told Christie to quit going to school and instead report to a welfare-to-work program. She says, “I felt that it was a punishment. Just because I was on welfare, they could make me quit school and come and sit in a room and listen to people talking about the jobs I should get. Most of the jobs that they wanted you to have were geared towards the lower poverty level where you stay in poverty and you can never climb the socioeconomic ladder. It’s like that’s your position and that’s where you have to stay.”

When Christie became pregnant with her second child, her caseworker told her she could not receive an increase in her benefit. This forced Christie into some tough choices. “My religion kept me from having an abortion. I worked after I had my daughter, because I felt like it was a mistake that I made, and so I tried to do what I could for my daughter.” Christie says this legislation penalizes women for having children, and creates an overwhelming sense of guilt that permeates low-income families. Rather than celebrating the birth of her daughter, Christie felt that she needed to work twice as hard to make up for her “mistake.”

When states began adopting child exclusion policies in the early 1990s, they were implemented under federal scrutiny. States were required to keep data about the financial status of affected families. These data showed that child exclusion policies resulted in women and children being thrust further into poverty. One of the more sinister effects of the 1996 welfare reform law is that it did away with the requirement that states monitor the outcome of child exclusion policies. Since 1996, states have been able to impose sanctions on families without paying any attention to the results.

According to a July 2002 report by the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-SNAP), a research and advocacy collaborative, child exclusion policies are directly correlated to a number of risks to the health and well-being of children. Infants and toddlers in families that have been sanctioned under the child exclusion provisions are 30% more likely to have been hospitalized than children from families who have not been sanctioned, and these children are 90% more likely to require hospitalization at the time of an emergency room visit. In addition, child exclusion sanctions lead to food insecurity rates that are at least 50% higher than those of families who have not faced sanction. The negative health and welfare impacts reported in the C-SNAP study increase dramatically with each year that a family experiences sanctions.

Proponents of child exclusion legislation, including many members of the Bush administration and a bipartisan array of senators and representatives, claim that women on welfare have no business bringing a new child into the world whom they cannot support financially.

The United Sates has a long history of regulation of poor women’s reproductive activities. From the forced sterilizations performed in low-income communities of color in the 1940s, 1950s, and even later, to state child services departments appropriating poor Native American children and giving them to upper-class white foster parents, many U.S. historians say that sexuality among lower-income communities of color has traditionally been viewed as something that should be controlled. The University of Connecticut’s Gustafson responds, “There is this idea that if you pay taxes you have the right to control those who don’t, and it smacks of slavery. There should be some scope of liberty that should be unconditional, and that especially includes sexuality and family formation.”

There’s no such respect for freedom and privacy under TANF. The program requires women to submit to a barrage of invasive questions and policies; TANF applicants must provide private details about every aspect of their lives. In California, for example, the application asks for the names of up to 12 men with whom a woman has had sexual relations on or around the time of her pregnancy. In San Diego county, before a woman can receive a welfare check, she must submit to a “surprise” visit by welfare case workers to verify that there isn’t an unreported man in the household, among other things.

One of the problems with all of these sexual and reproductive-based policy initiatives is that, according to Gustafson, they distract people from the actual issues of poverty. While TANF accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget, the hysteria surrounding whether and how to assist poor families with children has created an uproar about whether low-income women should even be allowed to have children.

Because the 1996 welfare reform law eliminated the concept of welfare as an entitlement, welfare recipients lack certain protections other U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. In effect, when you apply for welfare you are signing away many of your constitutional rights

Similarly, when a woman receives cash aid and food stamps after leaving a violent relationship, she signs over her right to collect child support to the local county. She is NOT, however, openly told that the U.S. Government is promoting marriage and some of the monies used to collect her child support are diverted into programs that may eventually help the man she just left get back into her life, or even get her children. In other words, we aren’t given full information to make a good decision at the time. This is VERy manipulative and in essence treat as her like less than adult.

For this reason, many advocates today are critiquing welfare through the lens of human rights rather than constitutional rights. International human-rights agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, afford women many universal human rights. “Those include access to education, access to reproductive choice, rights when it comes to marrying or not marrying,” says Gustafson. “When you look at the international statements of human rights, it provides this context, this lens that magnifies how unjust the welfare laws are in the United States. The welfare system is undermining women’s political, economic, and social participation in society at large.”

On September 30, Congress passed another extension of the 1996 welfare legislation. This extension contained no policy changes–for now. When Congress does finally reauthorize welfare, child exclusion policies and marriage promotion are likely to be hot-button issues that galvanize the debate. According to Liz Accles at the National Welfare Made a Difference Campaign, there are three steps to a successful welfare strategy. “Access. Adequacy. Opportunity. All three of these hold equal weight. You cannot have benefits so low that people live deeply in poverty. You can’t have good benefits that only a few people get access to. You also need to have opportunity for economic mobility built in.”

Although the marriage promotion bill was defeated this time, it continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support–including support from the White House now that George W. Bush has a second term. Welfare recipients and social policy experts are worried that whenever welfare reform is debated, politicians will deem regulating the reproductive activities of poor women to be more important than funding proven anti-poverty measures like education and meaningful job opportunities.

Sarah Olson is a contributing reporter for Free Speech Radio News and the National Radio Project’s “Making Contact.” She is also a mentor and journalist at the Welfare Radio Collaborative.

RESOURCES Joan Meisel, Daniel Chandler, and Beth Menees Rienzi, “Domestic Violence Prevalence and Effects on Employment in Two California TANF Populations,” (California Institute of Mental Health, 2003); Richard Tolman and Jody Raphael, “A Review of the Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence,” Journal of Social Issues, 2000; Sharmila Lawrence, “Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being: Issue Brief,” (Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2002); E. Lyon, “Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New Research and Its Implications,” Policy and Practice Paper #10, Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, (National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, 2000)

I looked up “Children Families and the New Federalism,” and on its database googled “domestic violence mediation” and found this:

Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt in Maryland (unreviewed)
Strategies for Addressing the Needs of Domestic Violence Victims within the TANF Program: The Experience of Seven Counties (unreviewed)
Assessing Effective Welfare-to-Work Strategies for Domestic Violence Victims and Survivors in the Options/Opciones Project (unreviewed)
Psychiatric Disorders Among Low Income Single Mothers: Mothers’ Well-Being Study (unreviewed)
CalWORKs Project (unreviewed)
Study of Screening and Assessment in TANF/WtW (unreviewed)
Women’s Employment Study (reviewed)
San Bernardino County (CA) TANF Recipients Study (unreviewed)
Multiple Impacts of Welfare Reform in Utah: Experiences of Former Long-term Welfare Recipients (unreviewed)
Tracking Closed Cases Under The TANF Program in Massachusetts (unreviewed)
Supporting Healthy Marriage (unreviewed)
Welfare-to-Work, the Private Sector and Americorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) (unreviewed)
Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration (reviewed)
Welfare-to-Work Grants Program Evaluation (reviewed)
Connecticut’s Jobs First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project (reviewed)

Let’s look at who’s behind Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration, which project took place over a 10-ear period, it says:

Investigator(s) Fred Doolittle (MDRC)
Virginia Knox (MDRC)
Earl Johnson (MDRC)
Cynthia Miller (MDRC)
Sponsor(s) US Department of Health and Human Services
Funder(s) PEW Charitable Trusts
Ford Foundation
AT&T Foundation
US Department of Health and Human Services
US Department of Labor
McKnight Foundation
Northwest Area Foundation
US Department of Agriculture
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Subcontractor(s) Abt Associates, Inc.
Domain Income Security/TANF
Status Completed (final report released)
Duration Jun 1991 – Jun 2001
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To implement and evaluate the Parent’s Fair Share Demonstration (PFS).
Program/Policy Description PFS centers on four core activities: employment and training services, peer support through group discussions focused on the rights and responsibilities of non-custodial parents, stronger and more flexible child support enforcement, and voluntary mediation services to help resolve conflict between the custodial and non-custodial parents. PFS is required for non-custodial parents (usually fathers) who are unable to meet child support obligations and have been referred to PFS by the courts.
Notes No notes reported.

And the findings, in brief:

Recent Findings in Brief

12/01/01: Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration: The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons From Parents’ Fair Share

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings

As a group, the fathers were very disadvantaged, although some were able to find low-wage work fairly easily. PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities. PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children. Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

Because I happen to be familiar with the contractor “MDRC” through prior research (i.e., looking around on the web….), I went to CPR (Centerforpolicyresearch.org) and simply typed in “Parent’s Fair Share.”

This is how many links came up:

Search Results

1 Projects – Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ProjectRelevance: 3006
Assist MDRC in design and implementation of a mediation component in the Parents’ Fair Share Demon…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/284/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:09:47 PM
2 PovertyRelevance: 2008
Many of CPR’s projects involve identification and assessment of programs to reduce poverty and…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/Poverty/tabid/262/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:33:25 PM
3 Incarceration and ReentryRelevance: 1004
CPR has done seminal work on child support and incarceration. As a result of CPR’s studies of …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/IncarcerationandReentry/tabid/263/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:20:48 PM
4 Projects – Child Support Strategies for Incarcerated and Released ParentsRelevance: 1003
Publicize information on the child support situation that incarcerated and paroled parents face an…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/378/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:51:44 AM
5 Court ServicesRelevance: 1003
CPR’s Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes have pioneered the development, implementation and ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/CourtServices/tabid/256/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:15:59 PM
6 Projects – Evaluation of Parents to Work!Relevance: 1002
Evaluation of a program to utilize TANF funds to deliver services to noncustodial parents involved…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/375/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:46:52 AM
7 Child SupportRelevance: 1002
CPR personnel have been leading researchers and technical assistance contractors for nearly ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/ChildSupport/tabid/255/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:09:46 PM
8 Projects – Task Order 38: An Assessment of Research Concerning Effective Methods of Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents with Child Support ObligationsRelevance: 1002
An analysis of child support issues concerning offender and ex-offender noncustodial parents. The …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/382/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:54:07 AM
9 Projects – Texas Access and Visitation Hotline IIRelevance: 1001
Evaluation to assess the effectiveness of a telephone hotline offering parents in the child suppor…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/294/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:21:13 PM
10 Publications – When Parents Complain About Visitation.Relevance: 1001

http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Publications/tabid/233/id/427/Default.aspx12/18/2008 3:46:12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

They do things like this:

Multi-Site Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Subcontract with Policy Studies Inc.

Contract with Office of Child Support Enforcement

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

1999 – 2001

Close Abstract

Multi-site evaluation of eight responsible fatherhood projects to assess various methods of outreach, client intake and service delivery to noncustodial parents in an effort to promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their children, and to assess the effectiveness of a management information system developed to for use at the sites.

or “MEDIATION INTERVENTIONS” (based at the Child Support Location) to get them more ACCESS to their children. . .. A whole other set of funding (HHS) is the “access visitation grants system.”

(CFDA 930597, I believe on TAGGS.hhs.gov) another thing I wasn’t told about in my custody issues.

MDRC, like PSI, like CPR, and others, are many of the organizations contracting out these programs. LESS highly publicized (but it’s out) is the court-based organization, AFCC giving awards to Ms. Pierson (of CPR), this organization also pushes mediation.

We are all in all moving quite towards a “planned economy,” whether or not we personally approve of it, or comprehend in just how many ways. LOOKING UP ONLY “Parent’s Fair Share” on the web, these came up:

Promising Practices Home

Operated by the RAND Corporation


For this amazing summary, with so many government agencies, quite an assemblage of persona (and backed by several foundations), done in 8 different areas, the bottom line is, it didn’t affect anyone’s bottom line! No significantly increased child support payments, and not much more involved fathers. Says so right here!:

  • Overall, from the perspective of the custodial parents, the net result of PFS did not produce a detectable change in their total income as a result of child support payments.
  • With respect to child contact, PFS did not lead to increases in the frequency or length of contact that noncustodial parents had with their children.

In fact, kind of the contrary:

  • For more-employable men, the program had little effect on average earnings and somewhat reduced employment among those who would have worked in part-time, lower-wage jobs.

Back to topTop

Hrere’s the MDRC site report on the Parent’s Fair Share:

The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration, run from 1994 to 1996, was aimed at increasing the ability of these fathers to attain well-paying jobs, increase their child support payments — to increase their involvement in parenting in other ways. These reports — one examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ financial and nonfinancial involvement with their children and the other examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ employment and earnings — provide important insights into policies aimed at this key group.

What it doesn’t say — we failed at both goals…

By the way, MDRC stands for Manpower Development Research Corporation. These Corps are sprouting up to work with the government (and foundations behind the government policies) to manage society.

From April 2010, Still coming up with “astounding” revelations (for how much$$?) about how life works:

Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships

What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

{{that depends on who “WE” is. One thing seems evident — that the four authors to this paper, below, are employed, or at least have some nice sub- sub-contracting work… Another thing “We” (women in my position) would have LIKED to know is that organizations like MRDC and CPR and PSI and others are (through HHS) making our lives harder, “for our own good” because we dared to collect child support at one point in time. In retaliation for this, our “exes” will be helped by the United States Government to stay on our tails for the rest of time, possibly.}}

No, SERIOUSLY now, as of April 2010, after a decade plus of family/fatherhood programs, what bright conclusions can be drawn?

As described in earlier articles, children whose parents have higher income and education levels are more likely to grow up in stable two-parent households than their economically disadvantaged counterparts.

WHO IS THIS MDRC? Now that some poor folk actually have internet access, we can find out who’s studying (us):

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

The Board of Directors are the Cream of America, as follows:

Board of Directors
Robert Solow, Chairman
Institute Professor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mary Jo Bane, Vice Chair
Professor of Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Rudolph G. Penner, Treasurer
Senior Fellow
Urban Institute
Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Brookings Institution


Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty—he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

(SEE MY TOP ARTICLE, THIS POST – some people are not too happy about it!)

Encouraging Marriage Helps Everyone

Children & Families, Marriage and Family Formation, Social Issues, Social Norms

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Business Week

Higher marriage rates among the poor would benefit poor adults themselves, their children, and the nation. Although I do not support coercive policies to achieve higher marriage rates, I do favor marriage promotion programs conducted by community-based organizations such as churches and other nonprofit civic groups. The activities these groups should sponsor include counseling, marriage education, job assistance, parenting, anger control, avoiding domestic violence, and money management.
I also notice that creative solutions to making ends meet are not necessarily on the agenda here. For example, instead of funneling the “poor” in to poor jobs, low-wage jobs, how’s about helping THEM to start businesses and run them?
Or to get grants and pursue some of their dreams, possibly filling in a gap that someone from Harvard, MIT, or a sociologist might not see?
Does anyone besides me see the irony in having someone IN government coach someone else about money management ?? ?????