DECEPTIVE PILOT PROGRAM THE TIP OF THE ICEBERG ON HOW FATHERHOOD FUNDS ARE SPENT!

In yesterday's blog dated January 6, 2013 I spoke about the questionable use of billions of dollars in fatherhood funding.  Thus, it was interesting to me when I stumbled across a Pilot Program tucked away in the CT Judicial Branches' Strategic Plan for the year 2010. 

 

Deception is the fundamental basis for this Pilot Program from beginning to end.  For example, look at the title.  It is called the "Problem Solving Initiative Report 2010".  In reality, it is not about "Problem Solving" at all.  It is about promoting a fatherhood rights agenda. 

 

Of course, if you were doing a search for fatherhood programs in the State of Connecticut on google, you'd probably never come across it.  After all, it has been placed under the key idea "problem solving".  Great way to  deceive citizens in this State by using deceptive language to hide information!

 

Still, it is all about fatherhood funding.  In the cover letter for the program, Judge Barbara M. Quinn announces the basis for the program as follows:  it has been established "Pursuant to Public Act 09-175, An Act Concerning Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Families."

 

This act is located at the following link:

 

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/sum/2009SUM00175-R02HB-06486-SUM.htm

 

This act, which was passed in June 2009, allows a magistrate to suspend a father's child support obligations and direct him towards skills training and all the many perks that involvement in fatherhood intiatives provide.

 

For more information about the the corrupt practices associated with the distribution of billions of dollars in fatherhood funding read "A Life Sentence" by Keith Harmon Snow at the following link:

 

http://www.consciousbeingalliance.com/2012/05/a-life-sentence-family-courts-sacrificing-mothers-and-children-in-america/

 

For those of you who are interested, the following legislators co-sponsored the bill:

 

 Andrea L. Stillman, Andres Ayala, Anthony J. Musto, Antonietta "Toni" Boucher, Antonio Guerrera, Arthur J. O Neill, Barbara L. Lambert, Beth Bye, Bob Duff, Bob Godfrey, Bruce V. Morris, Bruce Zalaski, Carlo Leone, Catherine F. Abercrombie, Charles D. Clemons, Chris Perone, Christopher A. Wright, Christopher L. Caruso, David A. Baram, David A. Scribner, DebraLee Hovey, Diana S. Urban, Donald J. DeFronzo, Douglas McCrory, Edith G. Prague, Edward Meyer, Eileen M. Daily, Eric D. Coleman, Ernest Hewett, Ezequiel Santiago, Gail K. Hamm, Gary A. Holder-Winfield, Gary D. LeBeau, Gerald M. Fox, Henry J. Genga, Jason W. Bartlett, Jeffrey J. Berger, Jim Shapiro, Joan A. Lewis, Joe Aresimowicz, John A. Kissel, John C. Geragosian, John W. Thompson, Joseph C. Serra, Joseph J. Crisco, Joseph S. Mioli, Juan R. Candelaria, Karen Jarmoc, Kathleen M. Tallarita, Kelvin Roldan, Kenneth P. Green, Kevin D. Witkos, Larry B. Butler, Lawrence G. Miller, Lile R. Gibbons, Linda M. Gentile, Livvy R. Floren, Marie Lopez Kirkley-Bey, Martin M. Looney, Mary Ann Handley, Mary M. Mushinsky, Maryanne Hornish, Matthew J. Conway, Michael P. Lawlor, Michelle L. Cook, Minnie Gonzalez, Pamela Z. Sawyer, Patricia A. Dillon, Patricia B. Miller, Paul Davis, Paul R. Doyle, Peter F. Villano, Russell A. Morin, Steven T. Mikutel, Susan M. Johnson, T.R. Rowe, Themis Klarides, Thomas A. Colapietro, Thomas J. Drew, Toni E. Walker, Vincent J. Candelora, William Aman

 

Take note of the name Minnie Gonzalez, a representative who purported to be sensitive and concerned about issues related to Protective Mothers.  Were we deceived?

 

So getting back to this wonderful problem solving intiative, what kind of "problem solving" do we have going on here?

 

We have a program that ostensibly seeks to increase a "parent's"--they won't say father even though this is arising from a "Responsible Fatherhood" initiative and fathers are its primary focus--ability to work, a parent's ability to pay child support, and, among other things, surprise, surprise, assist parents in strengthening their relationship with their children. 

That wouldn't be by switching custody from the Protective Mother to the "parent" would it? 

Further talking about deception, the example, denoted touchingly as "A Parent's Story" which the Pilot Report chooses to discuss in regard to the Fatherhood Initiative is a Woman. 

Right! 

We are going to begin our campaign to develop a responsible fatherhood program by focusing on a woman.  Yet, let's look at the statistics for this program.  It says that 86% of non-custodial parents served by this Pilot Program were men. 

And they couldn't find a good example of a man to use as the primary example of a case from this program? 

Of course not, because they are trying to disguise this Responsible Fatherhood program and the blatant sexism it represents as a Responsible Womanhood program!  And the reason why is, I suppose, because the program participants are so unsavory. 

Let's take a look at this "woman", the public image of this program,  and find out what she is like.   She hasn't seen or had any contact whatsoever with her thirteen year old child in ten years. 

She has no home, no employment, and no driver's license. 

She is diagnosed with bipolar and mood disorders, does not comply with her treatment program and is a self confessed "raging alcoholic." 

That tells you again why they had to use a woman as their primary example.  If most people read this description, and it was a guy, their first question would be, why in the world would you want to "assist this person in strengthening his relationship with his children."  They are using presumptions surrounding issues of gender to deflect from the immediate criticism they know they'd get if citizens in the State of Connecticut had any idea that this was going on. 

Did the people who conceptualized programs like this ever wonder about how the children would feel being forced to so called strengthen their relationship with a person who is so completely dysfunctional? 

Did they wonder how the Mothers would feel being forced to interact with Fathers who are "raging alcoholics"? 

I am sure they were not too delighted. 

And get this!  This is what is the most ridiculous, the majority of participants in this "problem solving" program, up to 73% of them, have criminal convictions.  You have to wonder whether some of these men were convicted for domestic violence or the sexual abuse of their children.  After all, nothing in the program guidelines would exclude them. 

And remember, approximately 30% of incarcerated individuals are psychopaths, and if you add other personality disorders such as narcissistic personality disorder and anti-social personality disorder, you get almost 2/3s of the prison population.

I am sure that makes the custodial parents even more delighted to hear about their ex coming around for bond strengthening activities. 

Oh, and Naturally, with such a difficult group of fathers--I mean, parents, to deal with, Problem Solving requires a "team approach" involving "the judicial authority, through the Family Support Magistrates; Support Enforcement Services, through a case manager; community resources and treatment providers; and the parties or litigants and their attorneys." 

I get it, this means it will cost lots and lots of money and lots of people are going to be making lots of money off these fathers. 

In 2010 when this Pilot Program For Problem Solving was underway, Judge Lynda Munro, Chief Administrative Judge of the family Division directed the project.  Judge Munro is notorious for her role as judge in multiple cases in which she supported abusive fathers in their custody battles against protective mothers. 

It has been two years since this Pilot Project began, and I am sure that it has been developed considerably since then.  In 2010, the authors of this project were happy to report that participants reported feeling really positive about their experience in the program.  

I am sure they did.