Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Referees, Umpires, or any other paid professionals


 Referees, Umpires, or any other paid professionals, should go to the Association that is promoting the terms “high-conflict” to describe assault and battery, and “mental health” to characterize unruly (not submissive enough) mothers, as has happened probably since time began.  All such truly committed court professionals should (and many will) go to an “AFCC” conference.  That would be in Florida, June, 2011.  At this  conference, now that fatherhood-based grants are entrenched in the CFCCs around the country, the topic will be — in a cruel twist of a Title by Tina Turner, who got OUT of that, and became the true star she always was with no more IKE– “what’s Gender Got to DO with it?”

Look up AFCC What’s Gender Got to Do with it?


The rest of you should all, please, go to work, because I assure you, your income-withholdings are helping support some of these,

through any number of federal funding streams, monitored by the gatekeepers, to make sure none particularly gets all the way through (except maybe a slow trickle, in a few places, that leaked through) to the actual people named on the face of the grant program.  Even the Arizona massacre that happened duing the first conference, of a U.S. Rep, Federal Judge, 9 year old girl, others — is not likely to even slow down this processes, or change these procedures.  Oh yeah– Arizona is a nice place for the AFCC, I believe there’s a chatper there, to help spread some love around and train court professionals.  Not to brag, but I found an OHIO based task force (fatherhood commission stuff) flying out to Phoenix to attend classes by some AFCC participants and presenters to learn how to fix families, right (submit comment if you want me to look up the link.  It dates back to early 2000s).

Families are getting massacred regularly, and as shocked as I am about a judge and a U.S. Rep, and outraged, I am also outraged that it provokes more outrage, on nationwide press, than the regular,relentless deaths that come from families run through this gauntlet and farmed out in the family law gulag.

Such as diverting TANF funds to collect child support (a program in place since 1996).  If that’s what you think the OCSE is doing with some of these grants to the states, I have some land under the Brooklyn Bridge to sell you.

A sample of how a man in the TEXAS ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, CHILD SUPPORT DIV, views some of these grants, paraphrased well (and I added a comment) by Randijames;com:


You got to respect a person who — when women affected aren’t supposedly listening in– comes right out and shoots straight from the hip — this is not abut collecting child support, but about a good deal more, per the blog:

Michael Hayes Wants to Build “Family-Centered” Child Support

I must continue to emphasize that the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OSCE) is no longer about collecting child support. It is about meddling in your family business and exercising government control over families (which begins with the “birth certificate” and “marriage licenses”), with emphasis on removing control from women as childbearers and autonomous beings. This money is NOT going to raise the children–it is going into million-dollar research at the hand of psychologypseudoscience and court litigation.

Well, who is Michael Hayes?

I’m glad you asked.

(emphasis mine)

Michael Hayes is the Deputy for Family Initiatives in the Child Support Division of the Texas Office of the Attorney General. His extensive experience includes the development of policy, partnerships, and projects that support family stability, paternity establishment, father involvement, and child support program improvement. Before his current post, he helped create and was director of the Texas Fragile Families Initiative, a statewide project involving community-based, faith-based, and public agencies to support fragile families.

Fragile Families is one of the many phrases starting in “F” that seem to just roll off the tongue and bring out true eloquence (immediately before, during, and after some FR grants become available) that seem to end up with the word “mother” and especially if single, becoming an archaic usage, and women getting “F . . . . ‘ed” by the courts if they don’t get oFFed by their exes, or poverty, first.  This, CitySlickers, is how Families get redesigned and Moms become “long-distance” and “noncustodial,” often enough.  Essentially, this means, with the gradual elimination of the word “mother” and with it the FUNCTIONS of mother, including protection where necessary, they are being used as brood mares.  (Forgive, please, my poor attempts at cowboy analogies in honor of Mr. Hayes fromTexas,… but it helps my blood pressure to release some sarcasm when reading this rhetoric.  ) — but doesn’t it strike you odd that someone would go from a Fragile Families Initiative (look it up yourself, it’s a fatherhood grant) into Child Support Services, at a “Deputy”  level?  where’s the gold medalllion for this posse?

If people get this pattern, they can get a LOT.  The blog post puts the charts in, you’ve seen similar ones here, on my blog.  Just read what they wrote, then watch who they hang with, and what happens. Randijames.Com, quoting Mr. Michael Hayes

I also want to acknowledge the value that OCSE Section 1115 and SIP grants have had forthe evolution of child support, both in Texas and around the country. Through Section 1115 grants, our Family Initiatives Section in Texas has been able to pursue the projects I’ve talked about, since these grants may be used to fund certain activities not normally allowed under FFP rules. The creativity and innovation that those grant programs have fostered play a big part in child support’s continued growth and vision. We take pride in how we’ve been able to keep the work going after the grant funding expires by using careful collaboration and coordination. For example, we found we could provide additional services to parents by linking Access and Visitation partners to our child support offices. Once the parents meet with us about the support order, they are escorted to the AV staff so they can develop a parenting plan. We could not have moved as thoughtfully or as quickly without that support.

Thank you, Michael Hayes, for making this so easy for us! I don’t even have to explain it anymore.

And THAT — and not so much PAS theory, my fine-feathered, female friends — is likely how you lost custody, or have now to pay to see your kids.  Audio-Visual/ Access-Visitation, A/V, Access-Visitation.  Not TOO hard to remember, is it

GRANTS TO STATES FOR ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS(this is the official, government, site describing these)

SEC. 469B. [42 US.C. 669b]

a. IN GENERAL—The Administration for Children and Families shall make grants under this section toenable States to establish and administer programs** to “support and facilitate “**noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of 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 dropoff and pickup), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements (etc.)

{{**support and facilitate– it HAS to read like that, “order” is not within the federal government’s jurisdiction to.  This is just short of — and the mediators, supervisors, etc. understand this clearly, I”m sure.., what their role is.  This role is not, of course, broadcast to custodial mothers coming before them at any stage of the game.}}

{{AND if many, or some , of those programs, judges and attorneys involved in this system, nay, even in open cases that get cases referred to these programs for “services”, just happen to have been on the Board of Directors — or, heck, have been a judge, or an attorney’s brainchild to start with (can you say Kids’ Turn? in SF Bay Area, now internationally minded, at least a few countries, and several states), and promoted heavily in (see #3, above) certain types of conferences as the model curriculum, etc.)-who are we to protest these many coincidences?}}

{{“Both voluntary and mandatory” and “support and facilitate” carry a little different tone, don’t you think? It’s MANDATORY, but these programs are only three in a “supporting and facilitating” capacity.  At public expense.  To help reduce welfare Moms and child support arrears.}}  Child support arrears ARE getting reduced, at least in many cases I’ve seen, including my own — by the means of an electronic eraser.  Their stats look better, my kids lose out on child support, which I was trying to help collect, as the same agency (national level) that was charged to help collect child support, failed to do so locally.}}

Annual Funding

· $10 million in federal funds is divided among the states annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.

That’s since 1996, folks. Have I got your attention yet, and is it THAT much harder to remember “A/V” in connection with “DV” for “domestic violence,”which is what these grants help cover up in the custody venue?

Maybe $10M/year (for 14 years, so far) is peanuts, in the larger picture — but what is it doing to the court process? Or reduce the familywipeouts after domestic disputes, etc.?  Besides which, recruiting Dads and failing to tell moms one is doing this just ain’t honest.  Besides which, grant usages isn’t tracked fully, and there has been evidence of custody-switching scams (i.e., steering cases to certain court personneL) in many cases.  This is a PUBLIC issue, along with the huge superstructure of DV cancelling out FR grants  because it appears they are maybe splitting the proceeds, and keeping parents in the dark, except some of us who got mad enough to pursue answers (and we don’t show up in public and shoot bullets).

Who administers this?

Federal Administration

The Office of Child Support Enforcement — part of the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services — has responsibility for administering the Access and Visitation Grant Program.

OK, so there you are.  The FEDERALIZING of what otherwise would be state-level, county-level, and district-level legal procedures played out in front of judges who have sworn to uphold the state, at least, constitution, or so one might hope.

Liz Richards of VA (D.C. area) has been collecting evidence on this since around 1993, and it’s critical to how the system works.  Needless to say, she is not invited to present at any of the above conferences.   Just because a site doesn’t have a link to YouTube of Blog Talk Radio, or Facebook, twitter, etc. — think it doesn’t have relevant information?  This is mostly WORDS (remember those?)

And some women who attempted to present some of this material at the end of BMCC were filibustered out of it, which at least left a witness, I hope, to the audience of the gamesmanship.  A mother who’d flown in from Australia was talking about on-line safety, and was not allowed to finish even her short, well-organized powerpoint, including about on-line safety for women.  She got about 7 minutes.  The previous presenter, a man, whose name was on some of the books were on the table outside, was an hour over schedule, and no one interrupted.

Meanwhile, and possibly at public expense? Mr Hayes, of Texas, is going to fly North to Minnesota to promote the same stuff, I’m sure…He’s all about fathers, and someone who is favorable to fathers is of course needed to really “tow the line” in collecting past-due child support, to help custodial mothers who need it to help raise their children in safety, and with food, and not begging for it, or working a third shift.

Here’s more from the RandiJames.com commentary on this, from the TEXAS perspective  (don’t forget to check out some charts she posts up there, too, with $$ figures on them).

Another great part about our work in the Family Initiatives Section is the way we use research to develop theoretical models for project development, and then take that theoretical model and design the intervention, track and evaluate implementation of the intervention, and then use what we learn to inform the next generation of programs and policy.

And so we conclude with how the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Administration of Children and Families (ACF) fuels their own research and sets propaganda in action through the creation of public policy.

That’s exactly what they are bragging about.  Too bad more MOms aren’t trained to look up this stuff.

SO, TO SUMMARIZE REGARDING THE 1, 2, 3 conferences:

Someone has to wave a red flag around to make sure the bull keeps charging the flag, and is not distracted and actually reaches a matador or an on-looker in the crowd.  That red flag in this case has any number of paychological terminologies, or pet phrases on it, to distract, as we say, the bulls, and appease the crowds, who come in for the spectacle.  If you’re living in the US and paying taxes, you are part of the spectators.

Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference badgers Mothers to Buy Books and Join! Organizations promoting these books.

Maybe not badgered, just relentlessly marketed to.  …  The name of the conference should be adjusted to reflect “Good Cop/Bad Cop Press Releases.”  The Good cops had control of the microphone, pointed to the bad judges, custody decisions, evaluators, etc.  (from whom they derive their livelihood) as the Bad Cops, cough up your stories (women were, literally, asked to send theirs in to help Mr. Bancroft with the next literary masterpiece based on something that had inspired him), and dollars (what’s left of them) and (if I may switch from gangster movies to The Wizard of Oz) “pay no attention to that man — and the word applies, overall — behind the curtain.”

Another mother who attended the first conference, commenting obliquely upon it, I”m sure, and a book being sold for $100 to mothers, which it is declared will fix our broken dreams, and change the scope of family law practice, because it “explains” why judges “don’t understand” domestic violence.  And $ 100 was a discount.

VENI, VIDI, Vomiti.   (It was shameless; I was there…)

I would write a more stringent post, but am overburdened, like many of us, and sickened at the whole scene, particularly the marketing of other Moms’ stories.  Reminds me of The Amazing Cells of Henrietta Lack.  I think Moms are starting to catch out that their ongoing troubles (caused by court professionals in many cases) are a new target market — because Fatherhood and Domestic Violence niches are taken.

How gullible do these people with Esq.,Ph.D., and M.S.W behind their names think we are? ???

I recommend, NEXT year, attend the conference that’s NOT in your designated area of concern, and find out what’s being said.

The Minnestoa Fatherhood site has a new phraseology you should learn: “Women in the Fatherhood Movement.”  This is abbreviated WIFI, which I think is catchy and current — don’t you?

They, too, got a grant from HHS to blog about how great everyone is, and the real way to stop DV is to get families re-united (with Dads in there).  The word ‘mother” rarely appears in the handout, even though some of these specially-selected women of color and highly-placed (in the fatherhood movement) are indeed Mothers (at least one, I read), their lives and lifestyles have LITTLE in common with the hellish things happening, across the board to women in the court systems. and in high-profile cases many times involving very wealthy, white males — such as I blogged on in Nassau County, NY, recently.  These women are Executive Directors, leaders, professionals, and one is even married to a pioneer in the fatherhood movement.

And YOUR tax dollars (or, at least a single HHS contract identified so far), like Bush paying Maggie Gallagher $20K to push his marriage movement long ago– are helping pay for the glitz.  I hope I caught THIS one out the gate — the organization (nonprofit) is so new, dating to 2008, it hasn’t even got its data up on Guidestar.org yet.




In December 2005, the Annie E. Casey Foundation convened a meeting of men and women working in responsible fatherhood to assess the influence women were having in the field. After extensive consultations with experts in the field, the group found a high level of need for a collective effort of women*** to provide a unique and necessary voice for:

· Effective advocacy and support of Responsible Fatherhood in program and policy;

· Fatherhood awareness, education, legislation, & policy initiatives, which benefit from the input of mothers and other women;

· Effective programs designed to involve fathers–the perspective of mothers and their advocates is essential to their success.

This led to the formation of Women In Fatherhood—A diverse* group of women dedicated to advancing the responsible fatherhood field through public awareness and education, policy advocacy, research, and collaboration.

* there is a token white woman, or three? but look at the bios and I don’t see one family court scapegoat noncustodial mother.  I don’t see one person who has identified experiencinug domestic violence, or dealing with child molestation in the family, or a broke person, or a mother whose wages are being garnished to pay her ex-abuers (for example, see “rightsformothers.com” blog, which represents that voice).  There is one who identified as having experienced divorce (at what level, not shown).  Are there atheists on the group?  Jews? Are there feminists?

Well, then how diverse is it?  The photo is refreshingly different, but photos are photos, and show faces, and smiles.  Look at the backgrounds.

“collective” — they chose and assembled certain kinds of experts, and excluded others.  Hence “collective.”  Kind of like national Fatherhood Initiative started with “a few prominent thinkers,” and the website actually did say that, last I checked.  A FEW prominent “thinkers.”

Well, what about some obscure, underground” thinkers? for a change?

** No doubt because the heavy-handed male dominance of the father’s rights groups, plus some blogger dads like Glenn Sacks who took their free (Stay-at home?) time to go after, say young adult survivors of domestic violence and fleeing to escape it, such as Jennifer Collins.  Or others.  They needed some articulate, poised, and not about to cause a ruckus in the movement FEMALES to front the MALE agenda, which the fatherhood movement is.  In other words, they correctly realized, the image was tarnished and needed a facelift.

Annie E. Casey foundation convened.  Well, two (that I noticed) of hte Boards of Directors — and that’s a well-rounded one, plenty on the Board — had connections already with Annie E. Casey, who funds lots  of fatherhood stuff.  I’m really puzzled why the need more.  Look yourself, although I don’t have the timing of it yet

No comments: