MN Office of the Legislative Auditor

Email from a MN parent regarding the release of the OLA Guardian ad Litem Program Evaluation

From: jmac <>
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2018 5:43 PM
To: Rodriguez, Jodi (OLA) <>
Cc: EJ P <>; D Evavold <>; B Roy <>; Y Baudelaire <>; T Glanzer <>; B Dalton <>; Sen.Michelle Benson <>;; m miller <>; Amanda Kay <>; A Call to Action <>;;; JE Jones <>; B Carlson <>;; Peggy Cottrell <>; Christine M. Middleton Esq. ( <>; SCollins <>; Senator Dan Hall <>; E Wacker <>; FamilyInnocence <>;; Justice Family <>; OVW.FOIA <>; N.Moehle <>; Gallagher, Megan (HLB) <>; Help Me <>;; Be Informed <>; Katherine Johnson <>; Nassikas, Lauren (OVW) <>;; Peggy Scott <>; Steve Simon <>; Vasaly, Thomas (BJS) <>; Michael Volpe <>; V Law <>; Whistleblower.Ombudsman <>; 4th Referee Madden Chambers <>; 4th Judge KBurke Chambers <>;; Renee S Meerkins <>
Subject: Guardian Ad Lietem Audit Release March 23, 2018 (last audit 1995)


Dear Parents Harmed by the GAL Program in family court:

I stand with you. And, I grieve with you too, over a broken and corrupt system that has harmed our children and changed us all forever.

Children denied a relationship with their loving parent and handed over to an abusive parent and then all contact cut off.

Childhood trauma caused by family court!

Friday, March 23, 2018 8:30 AM

Legislative Audit Commission

Room: 1150 Minnesota Senate Building
Chair: Sen. Mary Kiffmeyer, Rep. Rick Hansen

  • Approve evaluation topics for review by OLA in 2018
  • Release OLA evaluation, Guardian ad Litem Program

God, please don’t let this be more bullsh&%!

Tell me good people stand up against greed and corruption.

Peace to you all



Results of Guardian ad Litem Program Evaluation Coming Soon

Since its inception, the Minnesota Guardian ad Litem Program has committed itself to giving abused and neglected children a strong voice in our court system.  The Program provides advocates who represent the best interests of abused and neglected children in court and are independent from the court and the child welfare system.  Guardians ad litem (GALs) are professionals who are paid staff or volunteers and are appointed by the Juvenile or Family Court to represent a maltreated child’s best interests in court proceedings. What it should say is the MN GAL Program has committed itself to giving abused and neglected children BACK TO THE ABUSER.

The results of our evaluation of the GAL Program will be released within the next few weeks. 

Jodi Munson Rodríguez | Program Evaluation Manager | Office of the Legislative Auditor | Program Evaluation Division
140 Centennial Building, 658 Cedar Street, St. Paul, MN 55155 | 651-296-1230 | Fax: 651-296-4712
Office of the Legislative Auditor

Legislative Auditor Set to Review Programs that Oversee Vulnerable Minnesotans

Comment on Carver County Corruption Blog 2013

The courts themselves were set up and designed by a nonprofit organization of judges, attorneys, and psychologists — promoting mediation in particular — which started as (I’m going to state as fact because evidence seems to support this) as a slush fund (means of money laundering) IN the Los Angeles County Courthouse. People who accept and understand this will recognize the same behavior in action generations (of related nonprofits contracting with or running the courts) since, and adjust their responses accordingly.

Generally speaking, AFCC is favorable to (abusive) fathers’ rights, and the industries of supervised visitation, parent education, and of course as much custody evaluation as possible. A related organization NACC (based in Colorado) tries to get a GAL appointed wherever. From what I can tell, the GALs are rarely neutral.

In all of these groups, some of the money is made and control established through the trainings,, (CLE, GAL training etc.) which can be written off.

The presence in any jurisdiction of a “Conciliation court” and with it “Conciliation Code” (usually at state level) generally means that any “rebuttable presumption against custody going to a batterer” is a moot point — because that courtroom (and presiding judge) BY LAW grabs jurisdiction and decides to order all kinds of services; a.k.a. “fees for friends.” The goal of the AFCC (ca. 1963 founded) is to transform the language of criminal law into a behavioral health paradigm, which is for control and profit.   

Conciliation is about “reconcililation” (co-parenting, allegedly) and is not interested in criminal matters. We need to recognize this; it happened when no-fault divorce replaced actual criminal matters as a cause of divorce across the country, ca. 1970s.

What this means is that Lundy Bancroft’s “Batterer as Parent” material, while mostly true, is irrelevant in this context. Access/Visitation funding, that the child support system extorts some and rewards others at will for its own (and the states)’ profits IS. That an entire industry of responsible fatherhood money (Hundreds of millions) funded by the public (and private philanthropies adding to it) IS relevant. It’s a racket, which is good to at least be aware of. At least if this is identified and put on the table, those involved might at least RESPECT individual litigators, or fear being “outed” and perhaps in individual cases, someone higher up the ladder might toss out a lesser lackey to the crowds, as they did a GAL in Lackawanna County, PA (Danielle Ross) on tax evasion.

Not only state laws, rules of court, etc. are changed to accommodate some of these goals, but also federal welfare law (access/visitation, etc.) such that people the incentives of all involved to favor (a) churning the case; (b) stripping the family’s assets as treatments are ordered and (c) while preaching about best interests of the children and child support, actually compromising arrears by increasing “noncustodial parenting time) which helps “balance” the state/federal budget. EVERYONE seems to have a vested interest in doing the wrong thing.

I am sorry for your situation, BUT, you are hanging around in the wrong crowd. Lawless America is not going to tell the relevant story — it’s going to encourage you to tell your victimhoood story. Get your head out of that and start examining the people in your case, andd the groups operating in your area. All over the country people have had similar experiences (I have; I’m a DV survivor, there was an abusive “step” figure in mine. I hadn’t done anything wrong or illegal for a parent, and a whole lotta lying took place, easily disprovable, which no one (in the courts) cared about. A GAL diagnosed me (by mail) long-ddistance with zero meeting and when asked what her scope of service was (I had no idea at the time what GALs did) couldn’t or wouldn’t give me any answer. And it’s been more than two years of my not seeing the children).
On that FACTS sight, I took the ABA Commission on DV fact sheet into a courtroom; no one gave a hoot about it. The MOST relevant information you have up there is a broken link — to the California-NOW-Family-Court-Report-2002-2. It can be obtained on-line and includes the writing of Marv Bryer on the development of these courts.
~ ~ ~
What is happening IS evil, in my terms — but even evil has to be organized to function. If people are simply not willing to figure out how it is organized, then they are part of the issue. It may take a while to comprehend, but only by comprehending can you lobby by some other means than telling the public that bad things are happening in the courts (they’re already stressed and don’t understand how; and paying for the courts), or telling the courts that your kids are getting hurt.

I have high respect for NOW (was never a member) and one of the former members was a partial witness when my kids were stolen overnight. NOW should’ve kept that report on-line; perhaps someone could remind them. Most of my information is on the blogs; I participate iin this blog from time to time, or comments elsewhere to keep communicating this basic information. Again, just because a group of people agrees there is a problem doesn’t mean they are telling you everything relevant they know. Many of the advocacy groups simply are not; I guess they just like the publicity.

I have been over ten years post-separation and watched these things developed as well as been a single mother, then a noncustodial mother (networking with others) then identified what some of the networks were encouraging mothers NOT to talk about, and since then am more particular about who I hang out with. This issue affects the entire country and should be, I believe, presented in that light. Most people are at least concerned about what’s happening to their tax money, and if they understood that a $4billion a year industry (OCSE/child support) is being used to expand (not reduce) welfare roles through the family courts, that the religious elements are having a heyday with contracting with the courts, and getting rich off it, and that millions of dollars are getting lost in the cracks (which the HHS/OIG/OAS also admits), THEN perhaps there might be more public support to restructure the courts.

Sorry to lecture, but I think it’s simply inexcusable that too many of us who know better, have not made sure that women coming into the system at least get to “family & conciliation court 101” level before joining groups, telling their stories, and blogging. There really are some BASICS. Not to know — as that missing CANOW 2002 report (about 171pp doublespaced) showed, and a CANOW 2005 letter to HHS said — that the federal funding is affecting the local custody outcomes, and that even well to do families are being affected by programs which were initially aimed at low-income families (single black mothers, to be specific) — is simply, well, it’s a shame.

Look up Anne Stevenson’s Huffington Post Blog on 5 HHS programs dangerous to women and children for a quick rundown. Even father’s rights groups don’t like them. We have to understand the courthouses better, who’s funding them and who’s running them. It’s a great study, something you can explain to your children when you see them again; they will grow up sooner or later..

We already know America is Lawless and don’t need this movement to say so. The question is, what to do about it, and how. That requires following the money and which organnizations and means are directing it where. Sorry if this is a rant, hope it was helpful.

The website on THIS comment isn’t mine; it’s a group you should know about — thoroughly— if you are a mother in a custody challenge. They conference to get the HHS grants and have the US divided up into regions.It’d be good to know who’s active in your region. FYI, many of the affiliates don’t pay their taxes or stay filed right; that may be some leverage we have to protest their getting that “marriage/fatherhood” funding. Judges, lawyers, “Bishops” (COGIC) and others are involved. Jeffrey Leving, Esq. of Chicago is a sponsor of the group which itself got started with Fathers’ Rights funding initially ca. 1994 in Arizona. Notice 1994 was right before 1996 welfare reform, and when the National Fatherhood Initiative (nonprofit ggetting HHS and private funding, Wade Horn, Daniel Blankenhorn, etc.) was formed and from which we now have a major federal program, taken for granted like a coat of new paint in the room. People pushing this KNOW that the public will just adjust and accept, rather than protest and shut down.etc. (My home blog available on other comments on this thread.)

Let’s Get Honest
March 16, 2013


Dana Williams FOX10 Video

Group stages protest at Strickland Youth Center

Posted: Feb 01, 2018 8:38 PM CST
Updated: Feb 01, 2018 8:38 PM CST

 A group of parents staged a protest in front of Strickland Youth Center Thursday afternoon.

They said they were there to voice concerns about a Mobile County Juvenile Court judge. Parents said they have had problems with custody cases involving Judge George Brown.

Dana Williams organized the demonstration after she claims her twin girls were wrongfully taken away from her.


Defendants allege bias against single mothers in child custody cases

“(EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the first of two parts about citizen’s accusations of misconduct and favoritism aimed at Strickland Youth Center Judge George Brown.)” By Arthur L. Mack For the Beacon

Protestors in Mobile, Alabama

“Beacon photo by Arthur L. Mack | Dana Williams, left, leads a group of protesters outside Government Plaza in Mobile last week. The former child welfare worker with the Mobile County Department of Human Resources said she was jailed for 28 days after failing to be notified by District Court Judge George Brown of a custody hearing for her daughters.Williams alleges Brown continually shows bias against single women in his courtroom, and has awarded custody to unfit fathers … many of whom are estranged from their children.”

A Mobile mother is spearheading the fight against parental rights being violated by a local judge and hoping to bring awareness about unfair rulings against single mothers. “We’re hoping to show that this common practice is not right,” said Dana Williams, who had her 11-year-old twin daughters taken away from her because she allegedly failed to attend a custody hearing in September of 2017. “It’s affecting our children, it’s affecting our lives, and somebody has to stand up.”


Judges are awarding custody to unfit fathers because they are incentivized to do so. Family Courts are “government” and as such are supported by public funding. A multibillion dollar enterprise has been created by the family court divorce, domestic abuse and child abuse industries. 

Currently, non-profit and for profit advocacy groups nationwide are obtaining court connected federal funding through the Dept. of Health and Human Services and the DOJ to influence custody cases. Very few people are making the connection between federal policy, private nonprofit providers, and the local courthouse.

Image result for federal fatherhood initiative

The Family Law System was set up to perpetuate conflict for profit. The system has  been subject to influence by federal funding to the states to promote marriage and fatherhood through a grant series supporting the setup of: Mediation, Parent Education, Supervised Visitation, Counseling for Parents, etc. It’s about fraud and kickbacks.  PERIOD.

Many federal departments have initiatives and programs supporting responsible fatherhood and fathers in the community.  Below are just some of the programs developed for fathers.

Numerous reports have identified bias against women and corruption in family courts across the country. In bizarre and illegal rulings, family court judges ignore or deliberately suppress evidence of male perpetrated family violence and child molest. Fathers who are batterers and sex offenders are routinely granted visitation and custody, while mothers and children trying to escape abuse are punished through financial sanctions, loss of custody, supervised visitation, jail and institutionalization.

Very occasionally, men reporting abuse of their children have also been targeted for retaliation through family court.  However, the systematic mishandling of domestic violence and child molest cases as “custody disputes”  is based in a financial corruption scheme that calls for diverting grant program funding through “high conflict” cases, in the guise of promoting “fatherhood” and “shared parenting” post-divorce.

Rather than assisting men become responsible parents, “Responsible Fatherhood”, “Access to Visitation Enforcement” (supervised visitation for noncustodial parents), “Child Support Enforcement” and similar federal programs perpetuate abuse of women and children through the legal system. Abusive men striving to maintain control over their victims are provided an array of benefits, not only to get custody and get out of paying child support, but to terrorize the mothers of their children and society in general.  Government programs are not producing responsible fathers, but motherless children, in order to advance the agenda of the so-called “fathers’ rights” movement.


Knuckle Dragging Thug

Former judge accused of rape, human trafficking indicted on more Kentucky charges

Judicial Discipline

Disciplinary hearing set for Family Court judge

 Rena Hughes, candidate for Family Court judge, Dept. J, speaks with the Review-Journal editorial board on Monday, March 3, 2014. (Mark Damon/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Rena Hughes, candidate for Family Court judge, Dept. J, speaks with the Review-Journal editorial board on Monday, March 3, 2014. (Mark Damon/Las Vegas Review-Journal)

Updated February 2, 2018 – 9:11 pm

A disciplinary hearing has been set for Family Court Judge Rena Hughes to address allegations that she improperly held a mother in contempt of court during a custody battle.

At a hearing in June 2016, Hughes awarded a girl’s father temporary custody, then threatened to send the girl, who cried during the court proceeding, to Child Haven, a shelter for abused and neglected children, if she refused to go with her father, according to a formal statement of charges from the Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline. The judge did not give a reason for the contempt order, according to the commission’s complaint.

Hughes told the girl that Child Haven was akin to jail for kids.

The commission stated that Hughes violated judicial canons, including “failing to be patient, dignified and courteous to litigants,” and “failing to promote confidence in the judiciary.”

In response to the charges, a lawyer for Hughes, Bill Terry, denied the allegations and pointed to various mitigating factors including the judge’s “good character and good reputation, her lack of a prior disciplinary record, the absence of a dishonest and selfish motive,” and cooperation with a judicial ethics panel.

“What this case really involves is parental alienation and an attempt to manipulate the court in an effort to deny a parent the right to see their child,” Terry told the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

“What isn’t part of the complaint is that this case had a huge, long history of the parents fighting for the child to the point where the child was refusing to comply with what was a court order,” he said. “The court has to act in the best interest of a minor child, and the best interest of the minor child was that she had contact with both her natural father and her natural mother.”

Hughes is scheduled to appear before the commission on May 29.

Meanwhile, another Family Court judge, William Potter, has completed his two-month suspension and is abiding by the terms of disciplinary action taken against him in November, according to Paul Deyhle, the commission’s executive director.

Contact David Ferrara at or 702-380-1039. Follow @randompoker on Twitter.

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 men.
  • 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 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 problems 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