Fatherhood.gov

Deconstructing Fatherhood Propaganda

The article “Deconstructing the Essential Father” by Louise B. Silverstein and Carl F. Auerbach of Yeshiva University, was originally published in the journal American Psychologist in June 1999.

“Deconstructing the Essential Father” was written as a criticism of David Blankenhorn and David Popenoe’s work, which claimed, “fathers are essential to positive child development and that responsible fathering is most likely to occur within the context of heterosexual marriage.”

In their opening statements, Silverstein and Auerbach noted how “this perspective is generating a range of governmental initiatives designed to provide social support preferences to fathers over mothers and to heterosexual married couples over alternative family forms,” and propose that the “neoconservative position is an incorrect or oversimplified interpretation of empirical research.”

The term “essential” in “essential father” refers to the concept of essentialism, that is, the idea that there are biological sex differences between women and men that create a difference in parenting methods and emphases between the genders. Feminists believe that this concept of “separate spheres” has been discredited since the turn of the last century.”

In opposition to the neoconservative position, Silverstein and Auerbach argue that neither mothers nor fathers are essential to child development, that parenting roles are interchangeable, that the significant variables in predicting father involvement are economic rather than marital, and that responsible fathering can occur within a variety of family structures. Over the past six years, they have studied the fathering identities of men who are actively involved with their children. They used a wide range of cross-species, cross-cultural, and social science research, including their own study of 200 men, to reach these conclusions. Those 200 men were divided into 10 different subcultures with U. S. society, including Haitian Christian fathers; Promise Keeper fathers; gay fathers; Latino fathers; White, nongay divorced fathers; Modern Orthodox Jewish fathers; and Greek grandfathers. They have concluded that children need “at least one responsible, caretaking adult who has a positive emotional connection to them and with whom they have a consistent relationship.” They have also found that “the stability of the emotional connection and the predictability of the caretaking relationship are the significant variables that predict positive child adjustment.” In the end, they examine why the neoconservative perspective has become so widely accepted within popular culture. They then offer social policy recommendations that support men in their fathering role without discriminating against women and same-sex couples.

Continue Reading: http://www.xyonline.net/content/deconstructing-fatherhood-propaganda

Advertisements

Fathers Day to the Nth Degree

Ad Council

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse and Ad Council Show Fathers the Critical Role They Play in Their Child’s Life
This 2010 Initiative is an example of how we are being polarized by the gender wars the family court system promotes. It’s also another example of government seeking to pursue an agenda of divide and conquer: If parents and other groups are kept in constant conflict, the attention is taken off the government entities that are robbing us blind through taxation.  Millions of dollars in funds are handed over to the States by the Department of Health and Human Services to family court connected nonprofits and GRANT DOLLARS = TAXPAYER DOLLARS! Continue reading about the HHS, National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse and Ad Council campaign below:

New Public Service Advertisements Inspire Fatherhood Involvement

Washington DC, October 18, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — Nine out of ten parents believe there is a “father absence crisis” in America, according to two national surveys by the National Fatherhood Initiative. To inspire fathers to become more involved in the lives of their children, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) and The Advertising Council are launching a new series of public service advertisements (PSAs).  (Do we really need government telling fathers to become more involved in their children’s lives and more importantly, do taxpayers need to pay for it?)

“These new PSAs continue the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse’s tradition of delivering messages that inspire dads to give their children what they need to succeed: their time,” said Roland C. Warren, Media Campaign Director of the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse.

Created pro bono by C-E (Campbell-Ewald), the new TV, outdoor and Web PSAs emphasize to fathers that “the smallest moments can have the biggest impact on a child’s life.” The PSAs conclude with the campaign tagline, “Take time to be a dad today” and direct fathers to visit www.fatherhood.gov or call 1-877-4DAD411 for parenting tips, fatherhood programs and additional resources for fathers.

“We are proud to continue our work with the Department of Health and Human Services on this campaign that is helping fathers recognize the critical role they play in their children’s lives,” said Peggy Conlon, president & CEO of the Ad Council. “These lighthearted and touching PSAs will demonstrate to all fathers that the time they spend with their children can make a significant impact on their lives.”

“It has been our privilege to be a part of this worthwhile endeavor,” Bill Ludwig, chairman and CEO of Campbell-Ewald said. “We want to inspire a new commitment of active fatherhood with an engaging message to fathers that even the smallest moments can have the biggest impact on a child’s life, while capturing the hearts of viewers everywhere.”     (Give me a break!!!)

Health and Human Services

Through HHS, the federal government supports responsible fatherhood in diverse ways. Because engaged fathers strengthen families and contribute to healthy outcomes for children, many HHS programs integrate support for fathers. These include Head Start, child support programs, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. HHS also supports programs that focus on responsible fatherhood, such as the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood grant program administered by the Office of Family Assistance.

National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse

The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is funded by the Administration for Children and Families’ Office of Family Assistance’s (OFA) efforts to assist States and communities in promoting and supporting Responsible Fatherhood. Primarily a tool for professionals operating Responsible Fatherhood programs, the NRFC provides access to print and electronic publications, timely information on fatherhood issues, and targeted resources that support OFA-funded Responsible Fatherhood grantees. The NRFC Website also provides essential information for other audiences interested in fatherhood issues. The address for the NRFC website is www.fatherhood.gov.

The Advertising Council

The Ad Council is a non-profit organization with a rich history of marshalling volunteer talent from the advertising and media industries to deliver critical messages to the American public. Having produced literally thousands of PSA campaigns addressing the most pressing social issues of the day, the Ad Council has effected, and continues to effect, tremendous positive change by raising awareness, inspiring action, and saving lives. To learn more about the Ad Council and its campaigns, visit www.adcouncil.org.

_____________________________________________________________________________


Don’t get me wrong, I’m all about the critical role fathers play in their children’s lives. What I don’t support is the role abusive fathers play in their children’s lives. I also have a problem with federally funded HHS grants that incentivize conflict for profit and the promotion of one gender over another.

The narrative that’s been pushed is that fatherlessness is THEE cause of poverty and the root of all social ills in society. Remember though. . .The issue is never the issue. An issue is only used if it furthers the cause of tyranny.

Marriage: America’s Greatest Weapon Against Child Poverty

The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), was founded in 1994, to “lead a society-wide movement to confront the problem of father absence”.  In 1995, former President Clinton issued executive orders that directed federal agencies to review and “modify” all family programs and initiatives serving primarily mothers and children, to include fathers and “strengthen their involvement” with children.

Welfare Reform 1996, drastically changed the way the federal government provided aid to needy families. This legislation stipulated that three out of the four purposes of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program created by the reform either directly or indirectly promote “responsible fatherhood” and “healthy marriages”.

In essence, the courts have been weaponized to destroy families and If we want to stop child abuse, we need to stop the systems that allow for money-laundering and gender-based funding incentives.  America is being destroyed while we engage in secondary issues which serve to divide us. Mothers and fathers are both being duped by the courts and we need to join forces to oppose the corruption in the systems and not each other. Government by private nonprofit is not part of the US Constitution.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Below are further examples of federal initiatives related to fatherhood

Fathers Supporting Breastfeeding: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) provides educational messages to highlight the advantages of breastfeeding and how fathers can play a critical role in promoting the healthy development of their children and in strengthening family bonds. The WIC program also allows fathers to receive nutrition education, counseling, and referral services on behalf of their children.

Non-profit photographs men in breastfeeding  poses to raise awareness

Fatherhood Buzz: This Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance initiative, through the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, reaches out to dads with positive information through their barbers and barbershops.

Reconnecting Homeless Veterans with Their Children: This initiative of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Health and Human Services, along with the American Bar Association, helps homeless veterans gain permanent housing, assist them with child support obligations, and connect them with programs that offer employment and supportive services

.Transitional Jobs for Non-Custodial Parents: This Department of Labor grant program supports local efforts to prepare unemployed non-custodial parents for work through transitional employment, while assisting them to gain unsubsidized employment intended to promote family engagement and long-term self-sufficiency.

Building Assets for Fathers and Families: As part of a wider Department of Health and Human Services initiative to extend the benefits of financial education to individuals and families with young children, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has provided seven three-year demonstration grants to encourage non-custodial parents to establish savings accounts and access other services to increase financial stability.

National Child Support Non-Custodial Parent Demonstration Projects: OCSE has provided five-year grants to eight states to link non-custodial parents with employment services.

The Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation in the Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, has a number of ongoing research projects focused on the implementation and impact of fatherhood programs. Two recent projects are the Ex-Prisoner Reentry Strategies Study, being conducted by the Urban Institute to document program implementation funded under the FY 2011 Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grant announcement, and the Parents and Children Together (PACT) Evaluation, which is a formative evaluation being conducted by Mathematica Policy Research to document and provide initial assessment of selected Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage grantees.

 

GAL Coordinator Laura Miles – Going the Extra Mile for Fatherhood Organization

The need for justice grows out of the conflict of human interests...” ~ Thomas Nixon Carver

Can a family court Guardian ad Litem (GAL)  advocate for the best interest of a child, while also advocating, and promoting, their own special interests? One Guardian ad Litem Coordinator’s work with a fatherhood organization provides yet another example of the need for increased accountability, and oversight, in Minnesota’s troubled GAL program. 

Laura Miles, Guardian ad Litem Coordinator for Dakota and Goodhue counties, served as a board member in a well-known fatherhood organization in 2014 and 2015 (board terms for this organization last a period of 3 years). The stated mission of this fatherhood org is to “change the way government agencies interact with fathers and children”. That the GAL program is a government agency raises serious questions about Miles involvement, especially since her work involves supervising and training other Guardians, who may become indoctrinated if Miles has any bias.

Laura Miles. GAL Program Coordinator

Laura Miles. GAL Program Coordinator

The way Miles’ job title and name is listed in the fatherhood org’s Board of Directors gives the appearance of impropriety. The listing includes Miles’ name, her job title as GAL Coordinator (she is a state employee) her address in a state office building, and her work phone, also provided by the state.

I could not find a publicly posted policy relating to the GAL use of state property but there is a statute for the code of ethics for employees in the executive branch that is widely utilized by State employees. Stat. 43A.38, Subd. 4.Use of state property: (a) “An employee shall not use or allow the use of state time, supplies or state-owned or leased property and equipment for the employee’s private interests or any other use not in the interest of the state, except as provided by law.”

See GAL Coordinator Laura Mile’s name, and contact information included on the list for a Board of Directors for a fatherhood organization here: 

2014 MFFN Board List

 2015 MFFN Board List

Public Domain: clker.com

In another listing, advertising a conference, Laura Miles names is listed under the title “Statewide Representation and Support for Fathers”, again the listing includes Miles title as GAL Coordinator and includes her contact information from her state office. Miles name is also listed on the Form 990 as being part of the Board of Directors.

According to the organization, Board members must be “passionate about advancing the fatherhood field” Those who are interested in serving on the Board must “self nominate” and send a letter of interest, How can Miles remain neutral, and objective, in her position as GAL Coordinator while also be actively seeking a role to be involved, and promote the fatherhood agenda – or any agenda, for that matter? 

This is clearly a conflict of interest.

I could not find a publicly posted conflict of interest statement for the GAL program but the code of ethics for employees in the executive branch offers some direction. Subd. 5.Conflicts of interest, “The following actions by an employee in the executive branch shall be deemed a conflict of interest and subject to procedures regarding resolution of the conflicts, section 434A.39 or disciplinary action as appropriate…2) acceptance of other employment or contractual relationship that will affect the employee’s independence of judgment in the exercise of official duties…

Subd. 6.Determination of conflicts of interest, “When an employee believes the potential for a conflict of interest exists, it is the employee’s duty to avoid the situation. A conflict of interest shall be deemed to exist when a review of the situation by the employee, the appointing authority or the commissioner determines any one of the following conditions to be present: (1) the use for private gain or advantage of state time, facilities, equipment or supplies or badge, uniform, prestige or influence of state office or employment…”

A conflict of interest occurs when professional judgment is influenced by a secondary interest. For a GAL, their job, and priority, is to protect the interests and well-being of the child. A GAL is supposed to be neutral, and unbiased; Miles involvement with the fatherhood org suggests favoritism, and bias.  Her role may also lead to forming alliances that could deter the outcome of justice if cronyism were to occur. Miles, herself, once said, in a presentation, that a Guardian ad Litem should represent the “pure” best interests of a child, and should not have any competing interests. As a GAL Coordinator, Miles should be held to an even higher standard because her job involves the supervision of other GALs. 

Interesting enough, the fatherhood org DOES have its own conflict of interest policy that its Board Members have to sign.

Laura Miles has been employed with the GAL program since 1997. Miles is well known for her role as GAL in the Grazzini-Rucki case, she was appointed in May 2013 after Julie Friedrich withdrew from the case. Friedrich withdrew after allegations of misconduct involving her role in the Grazzini-Rucki case became public.

The lack of accountability in the Minnesota GAL program leads to abuses of power, and conflicts of interest, that detract from the purpose of the program to protect children and, places the lives of children at risk. 

Julie Friedrich, Guardian ad Litem (GAL)

Julie Friedrich, Guardian ad Litem (GAL)

Re-packaging the Same Old Schlock

SCHLOCK /SHläk/   noun  North American informal

Cheap or inferior goods or material; trash.   Synonyms:  bad, bargain-basement, bum, cheapjack, cheesy, coarse, common, crappy [slang],  Merriam-Webster

Image courtesy of khunaspix at FreeDigitalPhotos.net

Let’s Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and “Conciliation” — Courts’ Operations, Practices, and HistoryCourtesy PRWORA, HHS, and Public Apathy, the Good Ol’ Boys Network with help from (speaking of which) Yale University is Re-packaging the Same Old Schlock, in this example, as “Male Involvement Network”

(After publishing any post, I review it, and may revise or clarify with added material, something posted. Anyone who receives the post through a tweet or as a follower is best served by going back to original link for must current version.This time I added a table of annual report filings (underneath the first logos shown below) and some links which didn’t make the “saved” version that was first published 6/8/2016 evening. Post currently runs under 10,000 words….Make that almost 12,000 words, after I added more details on the involved The Community Foundation for Greater New Haven” and its financials and the next paragraph explaining why I added that — and a dark-green background section about the CNCS and Social Innovation Funding…:):)

I may subtract that, later, but remember to keep an eye on “COMMUNITY FOUNDATION OF [name your Metro/Regional Area, or major, particularly port city:  San Francisco, Baltimore, etc.]” (nationwide, and especially in metro regions, which also tend to have some high-profile universities (like, Yale…. in this case); they are fast-tracking “What Works” from federal/private power block to “community level” and are an identifiable part of the MACRO business model privatizing government, in preparation of course for “outflanking sovereignty through functionalism.”  These organizations have local credibility, significant assets obtained over the years, and significant connections to local power.  In addition through such things as the Federal “CNCS” (Corporation for National and Community Service) (URL: NationalService.gov)  helping the big guys pick their favorite programming and make sure the commoners (peasants and/or, low-income population, male and female, and whatever the ethnicity) are run through the “What Works” programs that Big Brother and Relatives have determined are best for all.  Notice that the Social Innovation Fund only dates to Year 2009:

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) is a powerful approach to transforming lives and communities that positions the federal government to be a catalyst for impact—mobilizing private resources to find and grow community solutions with evidence of results.

With the simple but vital goal of finding what works, and making it work for more people, the Social Innovation Fund and its grantees create a learning network of organizations working to implement innovative and effective evidence-based solutions to local and national challenges in three priority areas: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development.

Goodwill of Silicon ValleyIn just five years, the Social Innovation Fund and its private-sector partners have invested more than a $800 million in compelling community solutions. The Social Innovation Fund’s portfolio represents over $295 million in federal grants and more than $582 million in non-federal match commitments. To date, the SIF’s Classic program has made 35 awards to grantmaking organizations and 290 nonprofits working in 39 states and the District of Columbia. In total over 360 nonprofit organizations are being funded by the SIF to conduct diverse interventions and evaluate results through highly rigorous models. Through the SIF’s Pay for Success program, over 25 states across the United States are engaged in testing and implementation of Pay for Success projects. Across both programs, the Social Innovation Fund is committed to expanding the impact of effective community solutions to make a difference in the lives of more Americans.

Authorized by the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act in April of 2009, the Social Innovation Fund is a program of the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS), a federal agency focused on improving lives, strengthening communities, and fostering civic engagement through service and volunteering. Together, service and innovation provide a vehicle to harness the power of ordinary people and unleash the potential of innovative ideas to help address our communities’ toughest social problems and transform lives.

Consider Yourself Forewarned to Pay Attention to the CNCS and what the Social Innovation Fund (Big Brother and Big Tax-exempt Foundation) have planned for our local communities.//LGH.)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4015970/

WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS.  I’LL SHOW HOW I CAME ACROSS THE ABOVE LINK and “MALE INFORMATION NETWORK,” AND RE-ITERATE THE POINTS I WAS MAKING THREE YEARS AGO DURING AN UPDATE ON THE “NON-FILING” HABITS OF THE “ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS” (AFCC) AND ITS CHAPTERS (now not shown — the Connecticut Chapter).  AND AT THAT TIME EXHORTING MORE PEOPLE TO GET INVOLVED DOING WHAT I DO, ONCE THERE IS SOME MEDIA ATTENTION TO A SITUATION IN THE FAMILY COURTS — AND AT THAT TIME, PARTICULARLY REGARDING AFCC AS AN ORGANIZATION.

For example as to those filings of AFCC and its Chapters, on its website and IRS filings this (?) organization claims to be legal domicile Wisconsin (see Heading row ending in “M” Legal Domicile”) and having existed since 1963, but the State of Wisconsin only admits to the existence of a Chapter of AFCC, and that only since Year 2012:

ID Entity Name /Type Registered
Effective Date
Status /
Status Date
W060179 WISCONSIN CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS, INC. 
06 – Non-Stock Corporation
10/15/2012 Incorporated/Qualified/ Registered
10/15/2012

Meanwhile, Illinois Secretary of State records the existence (still active) of a business entity since 1975, under two prior names, the current one matching the one on the AFCC logo below.

(Click for search results image: CyberdriveIllinois.com AFCC Search Results.  Use CyberdriveIllinois.com link to repeat a name search showing one prior name, and clickable to read details (including that it’s a “Domestic” Illinois organization originally filed 1975, with two prior names, dated 2001 and 2002 as I recall. Illinois has it File No. “50708497”).

 

 

 

 

I PUT AN EXTENSIVE UPDATE ON THIS PARTICULAR FIND ON ONE OF THOSE OLDER POSTS, WHICH EXPLAINS MORE FULLY WHY I GET TO USE THE WORD “SCHLOCK.”  ON THAT UPDATE I ALSO NOTICED THAT ONE OF THE KEY PARTICIPANTS IN THIS REPORT, ONE YEAR AFTER HAVING ITS NAME ON THE SAME, APPARENTLY QUIT FILING ITS TAX RETURNS.  While I’d like to further verify that those returns aren’t on some other database, even if they have filed, I noticed that this organization’s primary source of revenues three years ago was government grants, and primary use of those was on its own employees.  The grants are not being redistributed to anyone (individual or organizations).  Yet the website is still up and, looking quite nice and colorful, having its logo — it still features requests for funds:

A Partnership For Family & Community Empowerment.”

Here’s The Community Foundation Greater New Haven (from “GiveGreater.org“) soliciting for the above organization on a page “last updated 8/7/2015“

Feel free to explore that link, “Leadership and Staff” for from 1996-[8/7/2015]  CEO “Barbara Tinney, MSW” (only former CEO listed Mr. Mustafa Abdul Salamm**, 1991) and the comments at the bottom of its page about some excess administrative costs:

(Google search results on Mustafa Abdul Salamm, May 7, 1998 has him quitting after being accused of forging a signature to obtain Community Development Block Grants, on a different organization:  Neighborhood Agency Chief Quits After Forgery Accusation) (<==read!!)

May 7, 1998 by Johnny Mason, Jr. of the Hartford Courant:

Mustafa Abdul-Salaam, executive director of the Upper Albany Neighborhood Collaborative in Hartford, resigned April 17 after being accused of forging a signature on an application for city funds.

The resignation was triggered when Mustafa apparently forged the name of Gerald Thorpe, chairman of the Upper Albany Neighborhood Revitalization Zone, on a February letter recommending that the collaborative be given city Community Development Block Grant funds

Abdul-Salaam is the former executive director of the New Haven Family Alliance, a social service agency. A former captain of the 1975 University of Connecticut men’s basketball team, his name was Earl Wilson before he converted to Islam…

Abdul-Salaam, who became the executive director of the North End collaborative after a nationwide search, at a salary of $63,000 per year, was the agency’s fifth executive director in seven years. Florence Ehiboir-Cole, assistant executive director, is serving as interim director. The agency, at 1339 Albany Ave., has an annual budget of $325,000. Most of its funding comes from the Ford Foundation, but it also has received city funds.

Interesting as the Ford Foundation in general is heavily involved in promoting fatherhood studies and professionals in the field.

1) NHFA’s fiscal, administrative and programmatic infrastructure has not kept pace with its development and implementation of innovative programs and interventions. This is in part a result of limited non-restrictive, flexible funds. In response to this challenge, the agency is implementing the recommendations proposed in the FMA assessment report

2) NHFA needs to reduce administrative cost in order to stabilize its financial situation in 2015 and beyond. As part of this effort by the end of December, NHFA is moving its office to a less expensive, community based location in the Dixwell neighborhood.

Continue Reading: https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2016/06/08/courtesy-prwora-hhs-and-public-apathy-the-good-ol-boys-network-with-help-from-speaking-of-which-yale-university-is-re-packaging-the-same-old-schlock-in-this-example-as-male-involvement-netw/

Healthy Marriage~Responsible Fatherhood & Faith~Based Grants . . . We Know What the Game Is!

HMRF A

Let’s Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and “Conciliation” — Courts’ Operations, Practices, and History

Note To Readers: See New Page “Just HHS, Just Georgia, Just HMRF” grants

Publicizing my new pageHHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!  You will see it in the right sidebar, atop a list labeled “Vital Info/Links.” Scroll or “page-down” below a green-background rectangle of text (“Contributions Appreciated” section) to find “Vital Links.”

Also see this related (or, “what inspired it”) 5/12/2016 post:  Despite Truly Funky Tax Returns, HHS Remains Loyal (2010-2015) to One Faith-Based (under Two Diff’t EIN#s, ONE of which the IRS acknowledges#) in Stone Mountain–or is it Conyers?– Georgia

But first and FYI in the cream-colored, fine-print, maroon-bordered box right below, I also put a link to a “Congressional Research Service” (CRS) 12/11/2012 Report showing the Origins of HHS, certain Presidential Powers, and some Recent Developing Trends, and possibly already passed, House and Senate bills re-instituting those Presidential Powers (odd capitalization there deliberate).

Recommended Reading:  This CRS link, “Presidential Reorganization Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress” (Henry B. Hogue, Dec. 11, 2012), has a Summary which explains a request to renew this authority was made January 2012 by President Obama, and explains how we got the “Federal Security Agency –>>  Health Education and Welfare ==> Health and Human Services  + (separately) Department of Education.

[An extended version of this box recurs below, while I talk some about the situation]…

I might start posting this link at the top of ALL posts until the message sinks in that existing federal agencies are in a state of constant transition, and sometimes re-organization, and we ought to get a basic read on where they came from — and in which direction they are now going.  For, example, does this direction EVER include reducing budgets based on having actually solved any problems they were set up to solve, or curtailing grants streams the grants streams were set up to resolve? And if not, does that not reflect (badly) on either the operation of, or perhaps even the original intentions of, those who pushed for the funding streams in the first place? (“Who” entails both individuals and corporate, often nonprofit “persons” run by certain individuals).

Or, are we going continue, as we do now, sponsoring an UNENDING stream of funding for the behavioral/mental health/social control categories** relating to the family court systems:

Batterer Intervention Programming seeking to further classify Batterer typologies, and simultaneously and opposing the concept that battering is actually “bad,” while attempting to behaviorally modify the batterers, AND, co-parenting coaching in an UNENDING stream attempting to change the behavior of the spouse or parent that protests battering, AND an Unending stream of grants encouraging teenagers to abstain from sex as a way out of poverty (using money diverted from funds that might otherwise more directly help their parents out of poverty, i.e., “TANF”) (“Abstinence Education”) AND so forth.[*as opposed to “medical research and development” or “curtailing the outbreak of contagious diseases” category under which the public health system originated..]

Thus, through these self-contradictory funding streams, the public is forced to separately fund under the banner of men’s rights (to their families, i.e., families as property rights), and women’s rights to not be assaulted or subjected to violence in the name of family (i.e., women, including mothers and the children they have given birth to NOT as an adjunct form of property owned by the men, including fathers), and the institutions (family courts) in which the staged custody battles take place, propped up in part (and — I do show this — the larger part) by Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood funding, and at that point NOT significantly protected by the Domestic Violence Prevention funding.

Meanwhile, as this built-in funding and “federal policy position” conflict facilitates generation after generation of children growing up witnessing abuse and experienced adults somewhat confused on whether or not it’s a crime, or a social disease, or the fault of their mothers’ or fathers’ lack of “communications skills,” obviously, there is from the USDOJ a Defending Children’s Initiative, plus Task force on Children Exposed to Violence.

Some of these children then, periodically, may run away, which then can be blamed on the mother and generate more criminal cases.  She can be hunted down, or they can be hunted down, at which point the Reunification Services can be ordered — a good deal, if you’re in that business.

The runaway children, and I’m talking now about those  running away from the abusive households to which the family courts “re-aligned” them under Promoting Healthy Marriage, Access and Visitation (etc.) at times MAY enter the foster care system (more HHS funding), OR, they may become runaway youth and end up, temporarily, in a transitional housing for youth shelter.  FYI, one of mine, shortly after reaching the age of majority and having apparently, outlived her fiscal and psychological utility for my “ex” (i.e., reducing significant child support arrears), the family court system (ordering more personnel — a GAL — into the mix, and engendering through poor decision-making, the “left-behind” parent’s [in my case, that was me, the mother] need to keep coming back to court hoping to regain contact with the separated children), which itself then “supports” the rationale to further streamline procedures, reduce legal protections to due process, based on “the courts are overloaded.”

Meanwhile, and I am still talking primarily HHS funding — the “smart ones” who may not necessarily have a strong overlap with the “honest” ones or those with a high personal sense of ethics regarding their own accountability, or understanding of the downside of diverting private nonprofits with private agenda — these “smart ones” (or, politically connected ones) — instead of choosing “just one of the above” can — and my Georgia-based page SHOWS (Excerpts below also validate in part) — are simply positioning themselves, AS ARE STATE AGENCIES, to say, “come through us, government — come to us, clients” and take Abstinence Education, Responsible Fatherhood/Healthy Marriage, AND Family Violence Prevention.

For a reminder (I did post on this in 2016), the “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention Services Act) dates back to 1984 and involves primarily the agency HHS.   By contrast, the Violence Against WOMEN Act, was in 1994, and is commonly associated in the public mind, and in general, with the USDOJ’s “Office of Violence Against Women” which exists to implement grants from that Act.  BUT, organizations are free to take from both the USDOJ and the USDHHS, as they are free to take from apparently equal and apparently opposing sides from the staged “gender wars.”

At a certain point, it’s time to call those in the game — at the highest levels, not the lowest levels– at this game, and let our Congressmen and women know that we know what is that game.

In order to do that, I recommend those approaching Congress not show up dumber-than-dirt on who is the HHS, what is “Presidential Reorganization Authority” historically, and a few things about 1996 PRWORA welfare reform as it pertains to HMRF funding as administered through HHS.

So, you might want to bookmark this link and get back to it, and you might want to also mark out some time to read my confrontational and, in general, NOT popular among the domestic violence groups OR protective mothers’ groups* BLOG.

*Why not?  After all, I am indeed a survivor of domestic violence, becoming through those court actions, a “protective mother,” and even though several years down the road, after it became clear that the family court would facilitate a state of ongoing disruption, minus enforceable safety boundaries from the same individual, until suddenly, and temperamentally, switching custody.  Right now, I just discovered leading feminist jumping in to promote the term “Mothers of Lost Children” (and her book) and the same professionals which I have documented, refused to seriously discuss the “HHS / HMRF” factor in between their laments about badly behaving judges, GALs, and custody evaluators.

I learned, over time, that to perpetuate any form of abuse — and economic control is essential to trapping people in abusive relationships, marital or other — the art of, pardon me, bullshitting the bystanders– is an essential part. They need to call it something else — like “Marriage” or “Family.”  There also have to be effective means, utilized at the same time,  of silencing future outcries (dissents), just in case, some bystanders might DO something about the abuse, and cut into the privilege — and profits– involved in exploiting other human beings in the name of some social benefit.

Recommended Reading:  This CRS link, “Presidential Reorganization Authority, History, Recent Initiatives, and Options for Congress” (Henry B. Hogue, Dec. 11, 2012), has a Summary which explains a request to renew this authority was made January 2012 by President Obama, and explains how we got the “Federal Security Agency –>>  Health Education and Welfare ==> Health and Human Services  + (separately) Department of Education.  It also explains the relationship of this particular authority to how forms of it were perpetuated under the Wartime Powers Act (for WWI and WWII) and that, among other things, such agencies as FEMA, the EPA and (as above) HEW were originally formed. This is a fairly neutral report, bipartisan, intended for members of Congress (CRS = Congressional Research Service) of the larger context of one of the largest grant making federal agencies, whose activities I continue report, particularly after learning how badly the policies compromised my personal family line, and kept them in danger, needlessly, for years, based on re-classifying “danger” from existing criminal definitions, to membership in a socially targeted as “dangerous” demographic group, i.e., single-mother=-headed households.


I do not know yet, whether Congress in 2012 did, in fact, reauthorize this “Reorganization Authority” but every thing I can see at the observational level is that a consolidation of federal DEPARTMENTS (HUD, HHS, etc.) programming is taking place under HHS programs targeted to HMRF funding — and the HMRF funding itself, along with funding to “Prevent Family Violence” — is also (at least in Georgia, this page shows) being centralized to go to just a very few organizations, with the former “Statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” (CADV groups), themselves a symptom of centralized control of battered women’s shelters and services to help victims, are getting a small percentage of what the state agencies are getting.

Now, about that New Page, HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!

That approximately 10,000 word PAGE (not post) is meant as an example, and a point of reference to how states are handling both the HMRF funding AND (as it turned out) the DV Funding, and just how centralized it is possible to become over time.  It currently is on top of my list of “Vital Links/Info” on the sidebar.

It is informative, and it does some detailed lookups on the very few grantees at this time, receiving straight CFDA 93086 grants.  As it turns out, some of these are also receiving the bulk of the “Family Violence Prevention/DISCRETIONARY” grants also, and as such have delivered coordinated control of that field over to the same agencies (and there are TWO referenced, which you will see, ONE of which also is handling the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grants).

Again, Title of the page:  HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run. Take a look!

BY THE WAY — I could use some help looking up some of these corporations, from people willing to write-up and provide links to their efforts.  

Contact me through a comment if interested, but expect to make a time commitment if you’re serious about asking my time to again, review how to do this.  If this leads to other posts on this blog, that might also be good….

Why bother?

Well, it’s rewarding and enriching personally to SEE what is happening and there IS no better way to learn it than by starting to look at the evidence first-hand, and let that evidence speak to you.  Listening to the narratives of others who have looked it up and are talking about it, qualifies you as a second-hand witness, not an eye-witness.  Listening to others (including reading their accounts) is no real substitute for the real thing to get the “gray matter” working. It will raise some hard questions which, then, by even attempting to answer, will put anyone in a better position to understand more of current events in this country, including probably (especially, if you’re family-court-involved) in your life also.  There are all kinds of corollary benefits to following the money trail where public funds are involved. Understanding increases exponentially.

One of the hard questions that may come up should also include: “Why haven’t others — why haven’t “the experts” we’ve been reading advocating for Family Court Enhancement (or, Fixing), or about making family courts safe for children, or about stopping domestic violence, or about the issues of “parental alienation” either as a reality, or as an “unsound psychological theory” — talking about the same things Let’s Get Honest and just a few others, over many years, are talking about?

Ideally, if pursued, this might awaken one to the reality of how much national public policy is public relations-driven, i.e., the “Freud’s nephew factor” (Edward L. Bernays). This should then lead to a consideration of who controls the technology on which the media is based, which again, ought to lead RIGHT BACK to, “who owns this place, anyhow?” WHO controls it fiscally, WHO controls the operational infrastructure, and who controls most of the assets in the United States of America.

Continue Reading: https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/note-to-readers-see-new-page-just-hhs-just-georgia-just-hmrf-grants/

Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner Chair Nancy Schouweiler

 

Chair, Board of Commissioners http://www.co.dakota.mn.us

Nancy Schouweiler, District 4~Dakota Co.

Current term expires 2016
Served on County Board since 1999
Contact Information
Email: nancy.schouweiler@co.dakota.mn.us
 Telephone:
651-438-4430 (Office)
651-455-6440 (Home)
Mailing Address:
Administration Center
1590 Highway 55
Hastings, MN 55033-2343
Home Address:
4000 90th St E
Inver Grove Heights, MN 55076-3727

District 4 Commissioner Schouweiler is past President of the Association of Minnesota Counties and is a member of the National Association of Counties Justice and Public Safety Steering Committee. She also serves on the Minnesota State Advisory Council on Mental Health’s Subcommittee on Children’s Mental Health by Governor appointment.

_______________________________________________________________________________________

A call was made to Nancy Schouweiler, Dakota Co. Chair, Board of Commissioners on Monday, April 25, 2016 to discuss refusal to provide discovery/public data by Dakota County for Case No. 19HA-CR-15-4227.

Readers may recall that a complaint was filed on 2/21/2016 against Dakota County Attorneys James Backstrom, Philip Prokopowicz, and Kathryn Keena for illegally withholding evidence in my criminal case.(Click on documents to zoom)

BackstromBacdstrom 2Backstrom 3

 

 

 

 

 

Backstrom 4

 

Ms. Schouweiler indicated that she was ordered not to get involved in any individual cases by her “attorney”. What??? . .Why would commissioners have to be lawyered up? She also stated that the only function the county commissioners have over the county attorneys office is the budget

Well now, the way I see it is that the county will only do what commissioners authorize it to pay for. So, I would think that the budget is the main tool for affecting policy and managing county employees, which of course includes the county attorneys.

Excerpt From The ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA COUNTIES

County commissioners are elected officials who oversee county activities and work to ensure that citizen concerns are met, federal and state requirements are fulfilled and county operations run smoothly.

  • Coordinate activities of the county board, central administration and county departments with those of the independently elected officers, including auditor, treasurer, recorder, attorney and sheriff.
  • Oversee the county personnel system: authorize the number of county employees, establish salaries and conditions of employment, approve a county benefit, schedule, negotiate and approve labor agreements, supervise appointed county department heads, participate in and approve the recruitment and employment of key county employees, and oversee the implementation of the county pay equity plan and the county affirmative action/equal opportunity plan.

Image courtesy of Lion News

Image courtesy of Lion News

County commissioners also authorize the application for and/or receipt of funds from federal and state governments and their use within the county budget.

What are some of the federal funds that the county receives that led me to the criminal charges that were made against me? Well, as I’ve learned from my brilliant friend Victoria at familycourtmatters.wordpress.com, the family law system is incentivized to divert billions of dollars to unfit and unwilling fathers through the Health and Human Services Healthy Marriage, Responsible Fatherhood and Access & Visitation initiatives.

There is very little oversight of this money, which means that such programs have gotten away with using fatherhood funds to assist abusive and violent fathers in custody battles against protective mothers.

These fathers are told that they have two choices — risk jail for failure to pay child support, or embark on a custody battle to take the children from the Protective Mother and thus eliminate child support altogether. What would you choose? Thus, fathers who have had little contact with their children for years, who have physically and/or sexually abused the children and their mothers, often fathers just being released from jail, end up fighting and succeeding in getting custody with the collusion of family court services and mental health professionals.

THE SOLE REASONS that children are being stolen from their families and homes are the financial incentives associated with each child and circumstance. There is federal grant money given to states and child placement agencies to CREATE SITUATIONS THAT DO NOT EXIST TO GENERATE THESE FUNDS!

hmrf_logoPrograms

The Office of Family Assistance (OFA)  administers several key federal grant programs, including the Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood  Grants. These programs foster economically secure households and communities for the well-being and long-term success of children and families.

HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVES

Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Program Overview

The Healthy Marriage and Relationship Education Grant Program (HMRE) is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) efforts to promote healthy marriage at the community level.  The Healthy Marriage Program funds organizations that combine marriage and relationship education efforts with a robust effort to address participation barriers and the economic stability needs of their participants. The programs directly, or through the affiliates or partners with which they are collaborating, have a physical presence in a community, city, or county where services are provided.

RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE

New Pathways for Fathers and Families Grant Program Overview

The New Pathways for Fathers and Families Grant Program (New Pathways) is part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) efforts to support responsible fatherhood. The New Pathways program funds projects that integrate robust economic stability services, healthy marriage activities, and activities designed to foster responsible parenting.

This is a picture of a father building a model car with his son.New Pathways programs provide services to promote responsible parenting (e.g., promoting positive father-child engagement, counseling, mentoring, and mediation; teaching parenting skills); to foster economic stability (e.g., job training, employment services, and career-advancing education); and to promote or sustain marriage (e.g., enhancing relationship skills; education regarding how to control aggressive behavior; disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse)

New Pathways grantees must concurrently implement all three Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Authorized Activities (Healthy Marriage, Responsible Parenting, and Economic Stability).  All New Pathways programs are required to offer all three activities:

  1. Healthy Marriage – Activities to promote marriage or sustain marriage through activities, such as:
  • Counseling, mentoring, disseminating information about the benefits of marriage and two-parent involvement for children.
  • Enhancing relationship skills.
  • Education regarding how to control aggressive behavior.
  • Disseminating information on the causes of domestic violence and child abuse. (Here’s a thought. . . QUIT MAKING PARENTS CO-PARENT AND COOPERATE WHEN THERE IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE!)
  • Marriage preparation programs.
  • Premarital counseling.
  • Marital inventories.
  • Skills-based marriage education.
  • Financial planning seminars, including improving a family’s ability to effectively manage family business affairs by means such as education, counseling, or mentoring on matters related to family finances, including household management, budgeting, banking, and handling of financial transactions and home maintenance.
  • Divorce education and reduction programs, including mediation and counseling.
  1. Responsible Parenting – Activities to promote responsible parenting, such as:
  • Counseling, mentoring, and mediation.
  • Disseminating information about good parenting practices.
  • Skills-based parenting education.
  • Encouraging child support payments, and other methods.
  1. Economic Stability – Activities to foster economic stability, such as:
  • Helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities such as Work First services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, job enhancement, and encouraging education, including career-advancing education.
  • Dissemination of employment materials.
  • Coordination with existing employment services such as welfare-to-work programs, referrals to local employment training initiatives, and other methods.

FATHERHOOD REENTRY INITIATIVE   (WHERE’S THE MOTHERHOOD REENTRY INITIATIVE?)

Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility Project Overview

This is a picture of an African American father and his son.The Responsible Fatherhood Opportunities for Reentry and Mobility Project (ReFORM) is a part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) efforts to support responsible fatherhood and ex-prisoner initiatives. The ReFORM program funds projects that offer community-centered pre- and post-release responsible fatherhood and supportive services to soon-to-be and recently released fathers and their families.  The projects focus on fathers who are within three to nine months of release from incarceration or a father who has been released from confinement for six months or less.

Program Components

With a funding level of up to $1,500,000 per year for five years, ReFORM programs are encouraged to develop collaboration opportunities with other federal resources, including the U.S. Department of Justice’s Second Chance Act grantees, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s local Public Housing Authorities, and resources from local offices of child support enforcement. ReFORM projects offer ex-prisoners reentry and support services to fathers returning from incarceration.  Services include responsible fatherhood and healthy relationship activities, employment, housing referral, case management (e.g., counseling, legal aid, and mentoring), transportation, substance abuse and mental health services referrals, and family strengthening activities. Grantees may offer other interventions designed to help stabilize fathers returning from incarceration to assist them and their families and that contribute to a reduction in recidivism and progressions toward self-sufficiency.

Marriage and family strengthening programs address a myriad of issues, which result from a fathers’ absence or involvement with the criminal justice system. The ReFORM programs differ from New Pathways for Fathers and Families programs in that the exclusive target population is incarcerated and re-entering fathers or fathers otherwise involved with the criminal justice system. All Responsible Fatherhood programs, which include New Pathways for Fathers and Families and ReFORM, are required to offer all three activities

Dakota County Board of Commissionersboard2015.jpgFront Row (l to r): Commissioner Kathleen A. Gaylord, Commissioner Thomas A. Egan, Commissioner Nancy Schouweiler (chair).  Second Row (l to r): Commissioner Chris Gerlach, Commissioner Mary Liz Holberg, Commissioner Mike Slavik, Commissioner Liz Workman.   

“Never underestimate the ability of government bureaucrats to play dumb about other peoples’ problems and exploit it to the hilt in the name of helping those people.”  www.nafcj.net

It’s time to make our public servants start acting as such or get them out of office. I’m just sayin!

Michael Volpe Discusses the Grazzini-Rucki Case on The Long Version

Apr. 20, 2016  Weighing In.

Start at 22:47

 

Well Warriors, I just had the first “Weigh In Wednesday” today sponsored by the Doctor’s Diet Clinic.  I have dropped 3.8 pounds the first week and I am taking all-natural supplements and not the controlled substance, appetite suppressant, though the program permits the latter, which is why there is a physician on staff.    My mother, who is doing the program with me, in the same amount of time has lost 3.5 pounds and she too is thrilled.  Proportionately, she has done even better than I, as 3.5 pounds comprises much more of her total body weight than 3.8 pounds comprises of mine, I assure you.  “Weighing In” has a literal component, as I have above detailed, but is has a hypothetical component too.  

On the Version, Michael Volpe, author of the book Bullied to Death: Chris Mackney Kafkaesque Divorce, a regular contributor, and daily listener weighed-in on how the ABC News show, 20/20, treated Michelle McDonald.  Michelle MacDonald represented Sandra Grazzini-Rucki in a custody matter against her ex-husband David Rucki regarding two children, Samantha and Gianna Rucki who ran away from home during the bitter custody dispute and were gone for some two years.  The subtitle of the piece run on 20/20 was Footprints in the Snow.  On the Version detailing the story from the perspective of Michelle MacDonald, Michelle was taken into custody for violating the Court’s rule against taking a photograph during the proceeding.  She was hand-cuffed to a wheel chair and forced to defend a client whom court personnel had sent home, telling Ms. Rucki and her witnesses Court had adjourned for the day.  Michelle lost the custody case, but, after all, she was confined to a chair and forced to proceed with her client and witnesses dispersed to the four corners of the area.  I guess if winning that way is satisfying to David Rucki, then…Congratulations.

On what Michael and I focused, however, was the curious decision of 20/20 and its host Elizabeth Vargas to require that Sandra Rucki provide police recorded, written proof of David Rucki’s abusing her during their marriage.  What Vargas did was ask a very limited question meant to confine the answer to constraints Vargas knew would net the answer on which she was counting.  All Vargas had to do was consult the public record to find out that Ms. Rucki never complained to the police, in a manner which was memorialized in writing at least, of being abused by David Rucki during the parties’ marriage.  While there was ample documentation setting forth a litany of incidents of abuse, none of them fit into the box 20/20 fashioned in that they weren’t reported to the police during the parties’ marriage and memorialized in writing by the police via “report.”  

I suppose what Elizabeth Vargas is saying is that all wives subjected to abuse at the hands of the husbands report the incident to the police and that the incident is further reduced to writing in official report.  I suppose in all instances the police confer charges.  I suppose further that event of abuse never really occurred if, let’s say, a wife be unwilling to report being abused to authorities for some silly reason like the husband is either the primary wage-earner or, at least, a substantial contributor to the household wages and the children and she would like to continue eating.  Do motorists only speed if issued a citation?  Is the fact the motorist has never been cited establish he has never disobeyed any rules of the road?

What Elizabeth Vargas did was a technique I commonly employed when I practiced law and one I would have undertaken had David Rucki employed me to defend him.  The difference is, in those days, it would have been my function to advocate my client’s position.  It is both sad and misguided that Elizabeth Vargas, as a member of the national media, thought this was her function too.  What Ms. Vargas did in asking such a limited question is scope is frighteningly similar to an old sleazy, lawyer trick. “Mr. Johnson, are you still beating your wife?”  There is no way for the witness to answer the question.  If he is no longer beating his wife he concedes he once did and if he answers yes he is confessing.  Members of our esteemed National News Media, of the ilk of Elizabeth Vargas, enjoy a much finer reputation than almost all lawyers.  Wouldn’t it be just resplendent if they comported thusly?    

Vargas knew exactly what she was doing in confining her question to a narrow set of circumstances which would net a response which best furthered her angle.  She arrived at the interview pre-armed with the opinion Sandra Rucki was alienating the Rucki children against their father and the Judge had properly conducted the hearing in which Michelle MacDonald was forced to participate from restraint and confinement.  She worked the problem in advance of her investigation and didn’t set about to expose the truth but to confirm the answer to which she had long arrived.  Mark Twain once said “[t]here are laws to protect the freedom of the press’s speech, but none that are worth anything to protect the people from the press.”  I am afraid Sandra Grazzini-Rucki and her intrepid lawyer, Michelle MacDonald, were in need of protection from Elizabeth Vargas and 20/20 unwittingly.  I am afraid Joseph Pulitzer was correct when he warned, “A cynical, mercenary, demagogic press will produce in time a people as base as itself.”  Take it for what it is worth, because…

THAT’S THE LONG VERSION!

P.S. The Long Version both credits and appreciates Michael Volpe and CDN (Communities Digital News) for contributions to this blog from the story, Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse?

Allow me first to say that if you haven’t heard Today’s Version go, tout suite, and hear the Podcast under the same title as this Blog.  We covered for the second day in a row the 20/20 interview of Attorney Michelle MacDonald.  What ensued was fantastic radio and completely unplanned and unscripted.  That’s what makes it fun and I hope it was as fun to hear as it was in which to participate.  It does cast a light on a topic I daily contemplated in my former profession as a trial lawyer and that is the most persuasive way to argue a point.

Desmond Tutu, a famous Anglican Catholic Archbishop emeritus of Cape Town, South Africa, instructed “[d]on’t raise your voice, improve your argument.”  I found this to be true throughout my career.  More simply put by Ben Goldacre in Bad Science  “[y]ou cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.”  Yelling creates discourse and resentment but not thoughtful discussion. I have personally always found true intelligence is often marked by one’s ability to change a position if one or the other side makes a compelling and reasoned argument.  My mind has been changed about a great number of things in my lifetime and any conviction of mine is subject to be altered if sufficiently persuaded when appropriate.  

Probably one of the first things one should do in an argument is find where there is common ground and take that as the ground from which to base your thesis.  Today it became obvious to me that, regarding the story 20/20 aired about the Rucki dispute, neither Cliff nor Michael Volpe (I tend to agree with Volpe on this), were going to agree about whether the ABC News story had covered the story accurately and fairly.  In the interest of full disclosure both Michael Volpe and I have personal relationships and even business ties to Michelle MacDonald which results in her having credibility with us.  I personally have found no reason to not put faith in what she has ever before represented to me.  Cliff appears suspicious of Michelle MacDonald and what she professes; so, right there, a critical divide exists which appears to impede agreement.  Blaise Pascal in his work, De l’art de persuader, which amounts to the title of this piece but in French, says “People almost invariably arrive at their beliefs not on the basis of proof but on the basis of what they find attractive.”  For both personal and business reasons Michael Volpe and I find it attractive to believe what our friend and Publisher tells us.  Cliff finds being skeptical of Michelle’s representations and crediting the ABC News reporter’s integrity and honesty more attractive.  I am not willing to credit the ABC News Reporter because of her profession and for whom she works anymore than Michelle should be likewise credited.  I know Michelle to be honest and have enormous integrity, that’s enough for Michael Volpe and me.

Here’s what I do know.  Ms. Rucki is in custody for violating an Order of the Court.  This Order emanated from a proceeding in which her attorney was arrested for an offense which didn’t warrant arrest and forced to conduct the trial restrained to a wheel chair, hand-cuffed, with the hand-cuffs attached to a belt around her waist tethered to the wheel chair.  The party represented by the constrained attorney was sent home by Court personnel, together with her witnesses, after being told the Court had adjourned for the day, which was untrue.  With Ms. Rucki absent and unable to either defend or be heard in a meaningful way, the Court awarded custody to David Rucki.  If Ms. Rucki then absconded with the children in defeat of that Order, as alleged by the charging instrument; then that Order’s coming to exist in violation of the Federal Constitution is both relevant and should have been part of the 20/20 story.  ABC News omitted this from the story it took to air on its very popular news show.  Between Michael Volpe, Cliff Ritter and me, though we agreed on almost nothing else, we all agreed on the contents of this paragraph.  This becomes, then, the common ground from where an argument can be won.

So here it is!  ABC News reported on Ms. Rucki’s being jailed for interfering with an Order which came into being in violation of her Federally protected Constitution Rights.  They made Sandra Rucki look like a wanton criminal in the offing.  However, Orders entered in complete defeat of a litigant’s Constitutionally protected rights either are or should be considered void ab initio; which means the custody order would have been treated as invalid from the outset or from the beginning.  With respect to 20/20 and ABC News that isn’t just relevant, it’s the crux of the whole dispute.  It not being included in the coverage for the viewer to at least frame the issue as to whether this was an Order which should have been ignored, owing to how it came into being, is slanted, one-sided, and partial reporting unworthy of a multiple Peabody Award winning broadcast.  In my mind, it discredits the story’s complete integrity.  Take it for what it is worth, because

THAT’S THE LONG VERSION!

____________________________________________________________


This is about money laundering through our tax dollars!

FATHERHOOD.GOV

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) as a “custody switching tactic.”  Kids can definitely be turned against a parent and demonstrate alienating behaviors but PAS to switch custody is a scheme in which mothers are primarily pathologized and blamed for interfering with their children’s attachment to their fathers. The scheme is funded by fathers’ rights extremist groups who in turn are funded by federal grants.

There are many terrific and honest  father`s rights groups across the U.S. that promote fairness and equality between mothers and fathers working towards the best interest of the children.  Unfortunately, there are also wide spread corrupt fathers’ rights groups that pocket federal grant funds while allowing severe trauma to children.

Fathers Rights – is the term used for the federal funding used in the fraud and corruption. Fathers Manifesto Groups discovered a malicious way to take advantage of the billions handed to State Agencies and abuse and control their ex-girlfriend/spouse.

Hatred of Women a Common Theme – A number of leaders of fathers’ custody advocacy groups are clearly misogynistic and use their Internet sites to exhort men to take action against ex-wives, using hate-filled language. They are described as displaying virulent misogyny, spreading false anti-woman propaganda and applauding and even encouraging acts of domestic terrorism and extreme violence against women and children, up to and including murder.

  • 95% of sexual molestation of girls and 90% of sexual molestation of boys are by
  • 70% of abusive fathers are the winners in custody fights.
  • ”The Parental Alienation Syndrome theory” is used almost exclusively against women.
  • Statements by Dr. Richard Gardner “…pedophilia is an accepted practice by billions of people”  “…our society’s response to it is ‘excessively moralistic and punitive.”  “…there is a certain amount of pedophilia in all of us.”  “a mother’s hysterics [to child molestation]…will contribute to the child’s feeling that a heinous crime has been committed.”
  • The “true” victims according to PAS: Fathers are “victims of mothers’ viciousness and vindictiveness.” Judges are “manipulated by mothers.”
  • Sub-conclusion: 94-98.5% of sexual abuse allegations made by either children or their mothers are true
  • In this largest national study to examine intentionally false allegations, CIS-98 found Deliberate false allegations mostly by fathers

Fathers Rights and THEIR Corrupt Judicial Cronies

A short history of how judges set up a secret system to rig cases for men The Liz Library

Fathers’ Rights activists have made themselves well known.  While they have been successful as promoting themselves as underdogs fighting for equal parenting in a society and legal system which is rigged for women, a closer look at their history, their leaders, their literature and web sites shows a very different story.  Not only are they directly affiliated with a secretive group of judges who handle much of their case litigation, but they are also affiliated with published incest promoters – Gardner, Underwager and Farrell.

Many of them, especially their leaders,  are very bad-dads who are out to beat the system and destroy the mother of their children because her legal rights and the child’s natural bond with their own mother, threaten his need to have the advantage, and especially to evade financial obligations and abuse charges.  While their public chatter is about being disenfranchised by a system which places little to no value on the father-child relationship, their private activities and discussion show that they have been very successful in changing state custody laws in their to their advantage, and changing custody and support orders in their own cases to their advantage.  Many of these purported underdogs have sole custody and receive child support.  The sociopathy of this movement has had a very profound affect not only at its victims, but also on government policy and programs which is tilting toward an official policy of rejecting family violence and abuse complaints as vengeful acts by “bitter” ex-spouse, and eliminating post-divorce financial obligations for women.

AFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts   The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their “latest” practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation.  Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father.  Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problem and unfit to be around her children.  Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing – is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies.

Fathers’ Custody Advocacy Groups’ Main Strategies

The Push for Joint Custody: The fathers’ custody activists claim that both legal and physical joint custody is in the best interest of the child. But it is no coincidence that joint custody drastically reduces the father’s child support payments and other financial obligations (health insurance, day care, etc.).

Efforts to make joint custody presumptive by state statute are ongoing around the country for this very reason. In reality, after joint custody is agreed to or ordered by the court, many mothers often have the child or children most of the time, while the reduced child support payment from the father negatively impacts the mother’s ability to support the child or children.

Additionally, in many families where the parents are married, time spent with and provision of daily care of the children are not evenly shared by the two parents while they are together. There is no reason to impose a presumption of joint legal and physical custody on families when they have not previously chosen this arrangement for themselves.The Use of an Accusation of “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) as an Offense or Defense in Court: Fathers are urged by some fathers’ custody activists to say the mother is alienating the child from the father and harming the child’s mental health. The fathers hire mental health professionals or others not well qualified who will testify (frequently for a substantial fee) that the mothers are alienating the children. In many cases, the fathers are abusive to the mothers and/or the children, or are using the children to harass or control the mother – leading the children to not want to visit the father. The accusation is most often used to deflect charges of abuse made by the protective mother.

More on Fathers Rights local groups:   While they try to appear as independent people united at the grass roots to fight individual injustices – they are in reality cogs in a highly organization national scheme to recruit male litigants into the AFCC-CRC organized litigation racket.  The men are used to keep the case litigation as active as possible so each court hearing can be billed to federal HHS-ACF program funds.

We all need to have the basic understanding of the federal funding as it really is the heart of the entire system. It’s important to analyze the situation in the courts and come to some conclusions about cause and effect — not just that the effects are really devastating.

The best interests of the child is one safe, secure home, no shifts like cattle mid-week or bi-weekly or seasonally, unless all wish them to go. The best father, once divorced, paves the way to his family’s door with good behavior, with kindness, and generosity. Not the good behavior, kindness and generosity mandated by a court—for that is meaningless.

List of various resources on family law issues. See http://www.thelizlibrary.org/

____________________________________________________________

20/20 Suppression of Truth

SEMANTIGANS

Did 20/20 manipulate the Rucki story to hide abuse?