Tags

, , , , ,

A fellow blogger, investigational whiz and grants-tracker began forwarding essays that demanded a platform.  They are too good for just email — however this person has more faith left in the US Courts and Justice system than I ever expect to.  I believe it’s probably a matter of age; her time will come.  Possibly.

But in the meantime, these essays demand a platform, and to be delivered intact.  Pending verification I get to acknowledge by name as well, that will be up shortly.   The “Essential Questions Essays” (or EQE), til further notice, goes to this woman’s work. I’ve already answered this to my satisfaction, but I think not enough people are even asking the questions — so here they come!

If I cannot refrain from commenting, it will be in blue font


If you have ever wondered why women lose custody when they report domestic violence, this is $10,000,000 in grant money from the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) dedicated to helping violent fathers get custody of crime victims.

OVW FY 2012 Consolidated Grant and Technical Assistance Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic And Sexual Violence and Engage Men and Boys as Allies (<= <=link; click on it!)

Women need to question their “advocates” and demand accountability from them as to why they have not taken a position to oppose this funding. Why have they failed to produce literature that warns mothers that OVW funded programs are used to assist the high risk violent offenders? Women need to know how to identify offender friendly front agencies, “domestic violence advocates” and agencies that are really trafficking young boys to high risk violent offenders through the family courts.

I want you to write your congressman and senator and ask them to cut this dangerous pork barrel spending:

1. How do they justify the “need” for this funding? Who oversees it? How do they KNOW that funding is not going to non-offending parents? What are the consequences OVW has implemented for programs that violate the terms of the grant by assisting and promoting high risk violent offenders? I refer you to the Lori Handrahan case, Sunny Kelly’s case, and the many others where VAWA/OVW funds were used to traffick children and promote and assist offenders:
http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/05/a-life-sentence-family-courts-sacrificing-mothers-and-children-in-america

The court, CPS, the police, the DA, and the State agencies who participated in this scam were not penalized by OVW financially, and continue to recieve millions in funding from OVW—despite the fact that they misused their federal funding.

2. Why do we need OVW’s redundant funding for more male high risk violent offender rehab programs?

This funding has no legitimate purpose because HHS has already dedicated $5 billion to the exact same purpose via the Fatherhood, Access and Visitation, offender rehabilitation, and child support programs. The DOJ’s grant programs serving the criminal justice system’s parole and probation programs also provide several billion in funding for violent offender rehabilitation. The funding is redundant and cancels out any benefit otherwise provided to the victims, as the grantees will need to sell out victims in order to justify their grants.

3. If OVW’s purpose is to reduce violence against women, how does incentivizing DV agencies to deliberately place victims of violent crimes with high risk male offenders (deliberately creating motherless homes) keep women and children safe? Who do they think the “men and boys” involved in “combatting DV” will be? Men who are healthy and safe around children, or violent criminals in need of rehabilitation who are known to be high risk offenders? Wouldn’t children be safer if the offender was barred from contacting them?** Judges and CPS must ignore the evidence and facts that otherwise would convict male offenders in a court of law, and instead decide the case based on funding mandates.

{{**yes, my friend — but then family court would be short of clientele.  And we can’t have that, now — can we?!!}}

4. Since violence is a voluntary act, shouldn’t these resources go to victim rehabilitation while offenders are cut off from victim access and required to pay for their own rehabilitation?

Criminal assault on a family member is a crime that needs to be prosecuted, not a disease that crime victims inflict on high risk violent offenders. **If OVW were serious about reducing violent crimes against women, wouldn’t they support programs that advocated zero tolerance policies and strict criminal penalties for violent offenders? Why are they funding programs that discourage the criminal justice system from arresting and prosecuting violent criminals, but instead abet violent male perpetrators? Doesn’t this create a deadly burden on the system on the local level if these high risk offenders are continuously provided access to victims, in court, and targeting members of the public?

COMMENTARY:

{{**So say you; I agree, and so says common sense.  However, a “mental health archipelago” at work here, needs victims; it’s ravenous.  It is the clear intention of the Unified Family Court System — driven by the AFCC in good part, and certain corporations — to treat the whole family.   This has been the AFCC agenda from the start; they are a blend of Judges, Attorneys (mediators, etc.) — and Psychologists seeking to normalize normal (and criminal) behavior as a Behavioral Health Problem waiting for Early intervention.  My reference?  UBaltimore School of Law (Barbara Babb and friends) UNIFIED FAMILY COURTSwant subject matter jurisdiction over ALL CASES involving children and families.

{{…From what I can tell, this relates directly to more federal funding available (adoptions, foster care, treatments, etc — in addition to the routine marriage/fatherhood promotion, abstinence education and forced parent participation in slush-fund type outfits like KidsTurn (California) KidsFirst (East Coast, PA, etc.) Kids in the Middle, Parent Coordination and you name it….. or, to be more accurate, AFCC, NACC, CRC, and others will name it, promote it, practice, and then get laws passed to mandate it. Of course it’s impossible to mandate something unless a person is actually in court somehow — which appears to be where these specialized courts come in.  To access the kids. — I mean think about it — WHAT category of individual is not either a child, or at some point in time, in a family?  People could be childless, but divorcing — they will still have to show up in front of such a court’s judge unless they REALLY have the divorce together.  ALL CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES.   GET THEM TO SHOW UP, AND THEN ORDER TREATMENT.  THAT APPEARS TO BE THE STRATEGY. *** (see rest below)}}

5. Does the legislator allow known violent criminals, sex offenders, and traffickers to babysit and mentor their own children? Because this is what they are advocating. They cannot have it both ways-abet male violent offenders in raising the next generation, and at the same time, reduce violent crimes against women. Shifting the funding so that it is only available to BOYS and MEN will merely create more male violent offenders.

Here is the text of the grant:
http://www07.grants.gov/search/search.do?&mode=VIEW&oppId=196233

The Consolidated Grant and Technical Assistance Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic and Sexual Violence and Engage Men and Boys as Allies, hereafter referred to as the Consolidated Grant Program, supports activities that were previously funded under the following four OVW grant programs:

  • Grants to Assist Children and Youth Exposed to Violence Program (CEV); 
  • Services to Advocate for and Respond to Youth Program (Youth Services);
  • Services, Training, Education and Policies to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking in Secondary Schools Grant Program (STEP); and the
  • Engaging Men in Preventing Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, Dating Violence, and Stalking Program (Engaging Men).

The Consolidated Grant Program creates a unique opportunity for communities to increase collaboration among:

  • non-profit victim service providers;
  • violence prevention and child- and youth-serving organizations;
  • organizations and programs that support men’s role in combating violence against women and girls;
  • schools; and tribal and local government agencies.
This program has two primary purposes and supports projects that implement one or both of these areas. First, the program supports comprehensive child- and youth-centered prevention and intervention projects that maximize community-based efforts and evidence-informed practices to more fully address domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. Comprehensive projects supported under this solicitation must address a continuum of strategies, specifically, prevention, intervention, treatment and response. These strategies include victim services to children and youth exposed to violence; training for professionals to improve interventions and responses; coordinated school-based strategies; supportive services for non-offending parents; and coordinated community responses to violence targeting children and youth. This solicitation refers to these projects as “Comprehensive Projects.”
Second, the program supports multi-faceted prevention strategies that involve community organizing, outreach, public education and mobilization that utilize men as influencers of other men and boys and encourages them to work as allies with women and girls to prevent domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. This solicitation refers to these projects as “Engaging Men and Boys Projects.”

Technical Assistance

{{this is the “T&A” part — which replaces the “actually helps” part that would otherwise be in place.}}

The technical assistance portion of this solicitation will support comprehensive training and technical assistance to the grantees awarded under this solicitation. The technical assistance to be provided must be able to meet the diverse needs of the eligible entities, as well as, provide training and capacity building to help grantees address specific issues and all purpose areas within the scope of the Consolidated Grant program.

OVW FY 2012 Consolidated Grant and Technical Assistance Program to Address Children and Youth Experiencing Domestic And Sexual Violence and Engage Men and Boys as Allies

***More in UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS from the Baltimore site:

The Unified Family Court is a single court system with comprehensive subject-matter jurisdiction over all cases involving children and families. The court coordinates efforts to produce resolutions tailored to an individual family’s legal, personal, emotional, and social needs. UFCs are a response to clear and devastating problems.

For many lawyers and judges working in family law, it became apparent years ago that the justice system was not working as well as it could or should for the parties and for society as a whole. The family justice process was expensive, inefficient, and often traumatic, and it did not make the most effective use of community resources that could help families undergoing difficult transitions. This growing recognition of a fractured family justice system created urgency for law reform. Professor Barbara A. Babb, the founder and director of CFCC, was one of the early proponents and continues to be a leading scholars arguing for a refashioned approach through her interdisciplinary model of a Unified Family Court. Professor Babb’s scholarship outlined a blueprint for a Unified Family Court.


I’d like to note that (I just searched the last 8 weeks of OVW awards) there’s a nearby grant of $2,500,000 — to go to ONE grantee — called:

08/29/2012 OVW FY 2012 Training and Technical Assistance to Support Grantee Reporting Office of Violence Against Women OVW-2012-3380
heres another for $750,000 from “OJJDP” which specifically results from the DEFENDING CHILDHOOD INItiATIVE:
07/27/2012 OJJDP FY 2012 Enhancing Law Enforcement Response to Children Exposed to Violence Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention OJJDP-2012-3371

Description

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs, will fund a qualified, eligible applicant to establish a training and technical assistance provider for law enforcement agencies regarding children’s exposure to violence. This provider will develop and disseminate an array of tools and resources targeted toward law enforcement officers, their multidisciplinary team members, and their community partners who are often the first responders to incidents of children who have been exposed to violence. This program is a part of the Department of Justice’s Defending Childhood Initiative. OJJDP will administer this program in partnership with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance; Office for Victims of Crime; Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Office on Violence Against Women; and Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking.
For more information, see the notes from the May 2012 Defending Childhood Working Group meeting at www.ojjdp.gov/grants/solicitations/LE-CEV-Meeting-Summary.docx.
This program is authorized under the Department of Justice Appropriations Act, 2012; Pub. L. No. 112-55; 125 Stat. 552, 615.  
that part in large font here is one place that some controls might be exerted — in APPROPRIATIONS.  But, not if we aren’t paying attention.    
From the OJJDP grant I notice some descriptions (full announcement) is available.  In part:
Creation of a series of tools and resources that address law enforcement agency operations, activities, policies, procedures, and focus on children’s exposure to violence, while also incorporating the agency’s work with other partners, (i.e. social and child protective services, domestic violence providers, mental health providers, medical providers, schools and early education, courts, prosecutors, and community and faith-based organizations)

faith-based organizations have developed significant problems on the HHS, including grants fraud (it attracts the wrong kind of personnel) and as a woman, I find them objectionable — among the worst abusers are the religious kinds, and we already (as the public) know that this includes coverup.  It’s why groups like “SNAP” exist to start with.

“ENGAGING MEN AND BOYS” as a phrase:  Found @

UNFPA  (UN Populations Fund)

engaging_menandboys_gender_lg.jpg

Engaging Men and Boys in Gender Equality and Health

A global toolkit for action Author: Promundo, UNFPA, MenEngage No. of pages: 98 Publication date: 2010
  • INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR RESEARCH  ON WOMEN: (TO STOP VAW)

    http://www.icrw.org/what-we-do/engaging-men-boys

    Men and boys worldwide continue to hold more power than women – in parliaments and on playgrounds; in the household, the classroom and the workplace. Men in many countries also often decide whether women can take steps to improve their own well-being and that of their families.

    Such unequal power dynamics in relationships, coupled with cultural expectations that reinforce gender inequity, make men and boys more vulnerable to harm. For instance, societal messages that encourage men to have multiple sexual partners increase their risk of contracting sexually transmitted infections, such as HIV. But like women, men have the ability to be agents of change in their own lives – as well as in those of their wives, sisters, girlfriends and daughters.

    It is imperative to involve men in efforts to better women’s health, economic and social status. Society must acknowledge how some men’s behavior and attitudes limit women’s lives. But it’s also critical to address underlying traditional expectations and structures that lead to their actions – as well as help men understand how they can benefit from changing their behavior. Ultimately, to achieve more equitable relationships, we have to question men’s and women’s beliefs about their roles in society.

Advertisements