PROFIT V. EVIDENCE - Since taking office in 2008, President Barack Obama has made controversial OCSE initiatives a top priority for his administration, yet experts say that in many cases, the programs may not be helping good fathers, but arbitrarily decreasing the number of fit fathers and mothers who have custody in order to meet the federal funding mandates. The programs then provide these noncustodial parents (some of whom are recruited from prison) with “technical assistance” (legal assistance, supervised visitation, waived criminal penalties, reunification therapy) in gaining custody of the children they may or may not be fit to raise. Records show that in 2002, a Washington based demonstration project overseen by Pearson used the OCSE funds to help Beltway Sniper John Muhammad sue his ex wife for custody. Mildred had only recently located her children after John kidnapped them, moved into a shelter, and enrolled them in school under fake names. When Mildred took the children into hiding, John embarked on a cross-country shooting spree that left 9 people dead. In Connecticut, the court’s AV program grants are partnered with Fatherhood programs and overseen by Task Force member Joseph DiTunno, who is a manager in the Court Support Services Division. The funding is used to sponsor the court’s mediation programs, supervised visitation, and court operations. At last week’s hearing, several mothers testified that judges often awarded sole custody of their children to violent criminals, then ordered fit mothers with no history of abusing or neglecting their children to purchase parenting time from supervised visitation centers. They say the courts refused to allow them to utilize the federally subsidized services, essentially starving them out of their parenting rights. In 2010, the Judicial Branch signed a multi-agency agreement between the Judicial Branch, the Department of Corrections, Department of Parole and other agencies which requires signatories to use State resources to promote the Responsible Fatherhood industry, or rather, to deliberately discriminate against parents on the basis of gender in various government services affecting the outcome of custody cases. DiTunno is listed on the agreement as the CSSD contact liaison. Michigan based Father’s Rights activist Doug Dante also questions what the grants are being used for. “It does not appear that there is meaningful federal control or supervision which would prevent fraud, waste, and abuse at the parenting time program,” says Dante. “In at least one state other than Connecticut there is significant evidence of grossly inflated fees, serious financial conflicts of interest, and underhanded activities by parenting time coordinators.” PARENTS QUESTION AFCC INFLUENCE Tolmoff testified that Zaslow failed to disclose his conflict of interest that he is an AFCC member, and he founded and operates a trade association for family court industry professionals together with some of other professionals assigned to his case. Parents like Peter Szymonik testified to similar experiences with AFCC proprietors and speculated that the Judicial Branch’s own investment in the corporation’s services may be the reason why so many complaints about AFCC affiliates were dismissed by authorities without proper investigation. In 2001, CSSD Director and AFCC past President Robert Tompkins received an award from the AFCC, and CSSD manager Steven Grant was elected to AFCC’s board of directors. According to AFCC member/donor/CSSD Regional Manager Debra Kulak, the Judicial Branch subsequently awarded the AFCC a contract to “research” and set up the court’s case screening protocols. The “research” team includedDiTunno and AFCC affiliated CSSD employees Grant, Kulak, and Catherine Ceruti.In 2009, Judicial Branch Operations Manager Marilou Giovannucci won an award from AFCC for her “behind the scenes efforts in helping the association reach new audiences and expand its reach.” Controversy arose in 2013 when several Connecticut judges and court employees founded a State chapter of the trade association together with some of the professionals who appear before them on family court cases. The Judicial Branch then paid the corporation to conduct trainings usually allocated to said AFCC affiliated employees. In 2013, the Commission on Judicial Ethics ruled that judicial membership in such organizations is a violation of professional codes of conduct, yet the Judicial Review Commission subsequently dismissed all complaints filed by parents against AFCC affiliated judges who heard cases involving other AFCC proprietors. The Secretary of State’s office has not recorded any changes to the corporation’s board of directors since the corporation’s establishment. What are AFCC proprietors training the Judicial Branch to do? Most parents testified that they initially agreed to joint custody, only to have their rights revoked for arbitrary reasons. This could mean CSSD’s programs are working as intended, as the grants can only be justified if offenders and noncustodial parents increase their time with children. While the programs may decline to assist fathers like Tolmoff, the system appears to be working extremely well for predators like [ex] Father McGann. Read more at commdiginews/life/dying-for-custody-part-1-doj-announces-investigation-into-connecticut-court-programs-4659/#7WRuHP7TtAlQ66Rm.99
Posted on: Sun, 30 Mar 2014 04:01:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015