Press Release: Historic US Supreme Court Case

May 5, 2011
PRESS CONFERENCE May 6th, 2011 at 12 Noon
Location:  US Supreme Court One First Street, NE Washington, DC 20543                                                                                             
Sidewalk in front of the US Supreme Court
Child Advocates and Legal Scholars are anxiously awaiting the filing of a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari on May 6, 2011 at 12 noon at the US Supreme
Court in Washington, D.C. in the Sacks v. Sacks case.

This truly will be an  Historic Day at the US Supreme Court, for  America’s
children and their “Protective Parents”, as this landmark case is being hand
delivered by a Florida Mother and exposes a national crisis all over the US.

The Sacks v. Sacks case is the perfect opportunity for the US Supreme Court to
thoroughly explore and address the issue of Battered Mothers and child abuse,
and their documented evidence of “protective parents” losing custody  and the
failure of family courts and Child Protective Services to thoroughly investigate
and handle Domestic Violence, child sexual/and or child physical abuse cases
properly, therefore resulting in a verdict, contrary to the “bests interests of
the child(ren)”.

Kathleen Russell, from the Center for Judicial Excellence, in the California
Progress Report, on 10/19/09 “When Family Courts Get It Wrong”, says “When a
parent harms his or her own child, family courts are supposed to step in and
safeguard the victim. Can you imagine what a tragedy it would be if courts
awarded custody to the wrong parent Actually according to one conservative
estimate, more than 58, 000 children a year are court ordered by family courts
into unsupervised visitation contact with physically or sexually abusive parents
following a divorce in the U.S. The fact that this type of scandal is taking
place in the American justice system defies the imagination. Not since the Roman
Catholic Church pedophile scandal has the US seen this type of institutional
harm inflicted on innocent children.” (

The National Organization for Women, NOW and the NOW Ad Hoc Law Committee
are  addressing this issue and in their Spring 2011,  “and explore what can
happen to  a protective mother and her children when she does nothing more than
to protect her children”, as quoted on page 36 of the Petition for Certiorari.

The Petitioner, in the US Supreme Court case, Linda Marie Sacks, has been chosen
as the “Poster Mother” of the Family Court Crisis, is interviewed for the
article.( Click on the Family Law Spring Newsletter.
On April 21, 2011,  in the BMCCVI Digest Number 2011, reports that Eileen King
representing Justice for Children participated in the Office of Violence Against
Women Roundtable Discussion that took place at George Washington University Law
School. The Roundtable was organized by Rita Smith, the Director of the National
Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Prof. Joan Meier, Director of the
Domestic Violence Legal Empowerment and Appeals Project (DVLEAP) at GWU Law
School. OVW will post a report about the Roundtable on their website in the near
future. ( and (

As noted by Barry Goldstein, Esq. The Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) is
part of the US Justice Department that provides grants for programs to reduce
and prevent domestic violence. They recently sponsored a forum for their staff
and other professionals in various parts of the government to learn about the
crisis in the custody court system.

 “It was a discussion based upon current scientific research and actual
experiences that courts are routinely making catastrophic mistakes in failing to
protect children and domestic violence survivors.

Linda Marie Sacks, a Florida Mother, truly the “All American Mom”, has only seen
her children at the Family Tree House Visitation Center for  82 hours in the
last 4 years and 2 months, is challenging the “Best Interests of The Children”
Statute 61.13,  as Domestic Violence, child sexual and physical abuse must be
considered in a judge’s decision determining the “Best Interests of the
Children”. In the Pro se Cert  Petition, Sacks raises  the constitutional
implications of a fit parent to the care, custody, of her children, and without
a finding of unfitness by clear and convincing evidence, established by the US
Supreme Court ruling in Santosky v. Kramer, U.S. 745, 769-770 (1982).

Her daughters said in April 2007, “Mommy fight for us and do something every day
to get us back and don’t ever stop”. Their Mother not only kept her promise to
them, but nowisa national spokesperson on the child custody crisis, and is
speaking up for her children, and all of America’s children affected by the
failure of our justice system to protect our most innocent children from sexual
and physical abuse. She is a formidable legal opponent, as she has been self
taught, going to “Internet Law School” to continue her legal challenge after
spending $140,000 to undo an unjust custody decision. The Fifth District Court
of Appeals REVERSED and REMANDED the issue of child custody back to the lower
court  for a violation of the Petitioners constitutional rights to due process,
in 08/08. This rare reversal provided no relief as the lower court of Judge
Shawn L. Briese refused to abide by the Appeals court and refused to protect the
children and said one child lied about being sexually abused.

In an article by John Weiss, from Post-Bulletin, Rochester, MN , “Do children
lie about sexual abuse? Not Usually.” Children do lie, but seldom about being
abused. “All human beings can and do lie, but it’s hard for kids to do it about
sex”, said Victor Vieth, the director of the national Child Protection Training
Center at Winona State University. “They can’t lie about something they have no
knowledge of” he said, and children don’t learn about oral sex from Sesame

Dr. Deborah Day of Psychological Affiliates, the court ordered custody evaluator
said the minor child at 8 years old had pediatric bipolar and that negates any
child sexual abuse, and then  thwarted the DCF investigation. The court record
clearly showed that the child DID NOT have bipolar, but  the trial court still
refused to protect the children, which is typical from cases all over the US.
One day justice will prevail for America’s children. Could it be in the Sacks v.
Sacks case?
 National Advocacy groups and Mothers will be attending events to shed light on
this crisis in America’s Courts.
Mothers Day, May 8th, 2011  in Washington DC will also have the Mothers of Lost
Children from 6-9:30 PM at the White House. 

6:00-9:30 p.m.
6:00 pm speak out
7:00 pm march
7:45 Candlelight vigil
Information will be available on Sunday night about activities onMonday.
And another group will be having the:
Million Mom March Mother’s Day 2011 in Washington DC
Feb 152011


For more information and press
Please contact:
Kathleen Russell 
Executive Director
Center for Judicial Excellence
495 Miller Avenue, Suite 304
Mill Valley, CA 94941
Main 415.388.9600 Fax 415.388.4610

6 comments on “Press Release: Historic US Supreme Court Case

  1. miss j says:

    Hi again –

    I’m not sure who was at the round table, but I bet somebody from NCADV or NNEDV was there. OVW knows of the family court problem, just hasn’t really done anything yet (altho I think DVLeap received a grant from them).

    NNEDV is working with Dr. Phil (sigh) and he recently spoke about DV on Capitol Hill. Believe me when I say, we are all hoping he has learned more about DV and has given up on the PA/PAS b.s. Oprah is not really involved – I think she did one show on family court.

    In regard to corruption – I know CJE was instrumental in getting audits of Family Courts in Marin & Sacremento counties. They threw out files before the audit. But the audit did find a lack of DV training.

    Many activists in this movement follow judges, corruption charges, etc. MOst complain that judges & evaluators seem to have impunity. They were able to get Judge Lemkau (Katie Tagle’s case) out.

    In regard to grants – we know about the Fahterhood Initiative and those grants and then there’s some from the Dept of Labor to non-custodial parents (ie men). I guess people aren’t sure how to fight these – maybe ppl are doing something but I”m not aware of it. Actually, I probably not aware of a lot of what’s going on tho. 🙂

    J- (my name is Joan Dawson)

    • familycourtmatters says:

      Dear J (thanks for identifying yourself — I have read a lot of your writings, good stuff!)

      If you had a child at risk in a custody situation (I DNK if you are also a survivor, forgive me) what would you recommend doing? Because the Leadership Council has a mission statement, and
      helping noncustodial mothers fend of a custody challenge from a batterer is not listed under its Mission. Look at that the 990 filing of Center for Judicial Excellence — that’s not ITS mission, either.

      This comment got long (again), but I just would like to put out some information that others don’t, so much. I heard that the writ of certiori (above) was denied.

      I don’t mean to give others a hard time. However the information I’ve found in the past 2 yrs has been on the net for MANY yrs but is not picked up by so many of the protective mothers or DV advocacy groups. Instead, they go on and on (and on and on) about Gardner, as though Gardner didn’t actually have a vital PR group that survived his death — and it’s running the family law system (for the most part) from the top to the bottom and sideways — and it actually has a name. The name is AFCC.

      Moreover, fathers know — why don’t mothers — that the child support enforcement system (a $4 billion a year operation) is involved using federal grants and helping Dads get kids away from the mothers. This can be done because of the AFCC judges’ connections to some of the program facilitators, etc. This has been documented MANY times, in cases that both CPPA/CJE (West Coast) and Justice for Children (East Coast, at least in part) is aware of — Karen Anderson (Amador County) and Genia Shockome (NY/Texas, I guess) — and in plenty of other cases. It is a system. The system also sometimes involves kickbacks. So how is it not politically correct to talk about this, a LOT, and show mothers who to find out if some happened in their own case?

      ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

      What I recommend is that all mothers start thinking more in terms of understanding the grants, the nonprofits, and the associations enmeshed with their local (county-level usually) court system, and child support systems. I will be setting up a new blog soon, hopefully it will have some practical links from all the research I’ve been doing in individual cases across the country. We need to help each other, and stop depending on all the professional advocates who aren’t telling all they know in these matters, at least at the policymaking level.

      RE: “OVW knows of the family court problem, just hasn’t really done anything yet (altho I think DVLeap received a grant from them).” — the current head of the OVW is Susan Carbon; prior to this she was President of the NCJFCJ (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges) — it’s a major organization. She also was a family judge in New Hampshire, right? The grants system tells a story to be followed:

      The violence (including homicide/familicide) is happening to women AT the family court level, so you tell me how many more years it’s going to take to get OVW’s attention? Will more vigils or rallies do so?


      Are you the NCADV Joan Dawson?

      (this is old, but says: “Joan Dawson, our Public Policy Assistant, is a seasoned journal and textbook editor and has a background in public health and human rights. For the last several years, Joan has written about and been active on the issues of gender-based violence and family court reform. Joan will lead our communications operations and assist with our grassroots efforts.”)

      Why hasn’t NCADV been reporting on the group that runs the courts, and promotes PAS? If one is against PAS, it would only make sense to figure out who is promoting it and study how that’s done — as I have, and others. It’s commonly known in our area that Center for Judicial Excellence was made aware of and rejected certain “angles of approach” which identified fraud, embezzlement (of federal program funds, affecting custody) and so forth. Instead, through another angle, files get shredded and the conclusion is:

      “a lack of DV training” — (??). That makes absolutely no sense when both fatherhood groups and AFCC have commandeered the “domestic violence” term, paired it with “parental alienation” (as if both were of equal value) and run conferences on it.

      NCADV is based in Denver. In 2008, the AFCC ran a conference called “Traversing the Trails of Alienation” (or similar title). Yet this gets no press — so women remain mostly ignorant.

      I noticed NCADV is helping sell the Mo Hannah/Barry Goldstein-edited book, and some other cool stuff, like (body creams, shampoos, etc.):

      “Mineral Fusion has partnered with NCADV to help raise awareness and show survivors of domestic violence that they are not alone. Mineral Fusion supports NCADV with products proudly displaying the NCADV logo and website along with monetary donations and product contributions for shelters”

      and among the corporate sponsors is the Office on Victims of Crime

      .”Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody. Find out more.
      (links to Civic Research institute where those with $135 can order the book).” Or if they had $135 they could’ve gotten into the Anaheim conference last summer:

      This conference was also advertised by a newer nonprofit, called Women In Fatherhood Inc. (“WIFI”)

      Click to access NewsletterJune2010Final.pdf

      Perhaps it’s time that noncustodial mothers and others knew about some of the activities of these groups;, for example, WIFI appears to be the fatherhood industry’s attempt to clean up its image, and let these women speak for MOST women…. and HHS is supporting this group, too. While Center for Judicial Excellence goes to the white house, so does this group, “WIFI”

      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – – – – – –
      People should know about the HHS grants systems — whether it’s to promote fatherhood, marriage, more noncustodial visitation gime (i.e., father’s rights to children as property), abstinence (yeah, abstinence grants still going on)

      and when it comes to “Domestic Violence” we might do well to acknowledge where a lot of the funds are going: At “” you can sort by “CFDA” (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance”) — and these two grants show that the larger bucket of grants is labeled “Discretionary” BUT there are others going to the state Coalitions against DV, also:

      FDA Number = 93591, 93592
      OPDIV = ACF
      Summary = CFDA Program

      Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 CFDA Programs

      (these are the column titles):
      CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title #Number of Awards ~Number of Award Actions $CAN Award Amount

      (ROW 1 = 93.591)
      ***93.591 ACF Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions #219 ~326 $50,549,946

      (ROW 2 = 93.592)
      ***93.592 ACF Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants 341 660 $165,402,937
      Page Total 560 986 $215,952,883
      Report Total 560 986 $215,952,883

      What it seems if you study these grants — the money supposedly going to shelters is lumped in with “Discretionary” or “Coalition” monies and the focus is on “prevention” activities instead.

      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – — – –

      Meanwhile, grants continue to fatherhood “demonstration” (how does the Federal Govt pay for demonstrations of fatherhood? (I searched grants with the word “fatherhood” in the name, 2010 & 2011 only on Taggs)

      Here’s a sample from Colorado:
      $ 2,000,000

      I looked up the Colorado Fatherhood grant (90FR0085), and found that:

      “In October 2006, the Colorado Department of Human Services, Colorado Works Division was awarded a federal grant of $10 million distributed over five years with the focus and intent of improving paternal relationships and parenting. Of the $2 million received annually, more than $1.1 million is awarded to appropriate organizations statewide that meet the application requirements.

      “Funding priority is given to faith and community based organizations that provide fatherhood parent skills training and healthy marriage / couples relationships training as core services. Of the total community access funds available for service providers, 70 percent is allocated for community and faith based organizations that have social services as a part of their mission, are headquartered in the local community, have a total operating budget of $300,000 or less or have six or fewer full-time equivalent employees.”

      Anyone can look at the variety of organizations (including some Muslim groups, visitation centers, and arms of government, AND child support services of Jefferson County, CO.

      FOR EXAMPLE: WHen TANF is involved, or there is an open child support case, then fatherhood funding can get involved in our custody cases!

      “Jefferson County Human Services/Child Support
      PRF Funded: YES

      3500 Illinois St, Ste 1300
      Golden, CO 80401


      Jefferson County’s Fatherhood Program connects non-custodial fathers to responsible fatherhood life skills, job skills and parenting skills and co-parenting classes to the community. Father mentors, Wednesday night support group, in collaboration with HeadStart, and * * *seminars are provided to non-custodial fathers through collaboration with the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF)/ Child Welfare Collaboration Project (TCCP)/Work Force Services/Jefferson County Mediation Office in Jefferson County. * * * * *

      Why would a County Mediation Office get involved with a fatherhood grant? mediation is supposed to be a neutral service! mediation is NOt advised for domestic violence survivors, but we are forced into it anyhow.

      The fatherhood course is available to all non-residential dads in Jefferson County free of charge if they have an open and active child support case with the CSE office in Jefferson County. Our program is also a recipient of fatherhood curricula from the National Fatherhood Initiative Resource Centers and implemented a Child Support Problem Solving Court in 2009. Click here to read a spotlight on Jefferson County’s Fatherhood Program in the December 2008 issue of The Face of Fatherhood In Colorado.

      Click here to read a second profile of Jefferson County’s Fatherhood Program in the September 2010 issue of The Face of Fatherhood in Colorado.”

      – – – – – – – –
      That’s the county CSE (Child Support Enforcement) site.
      Women & mothers now pay child support, more and more — yet the office is still geared to help fathers. Same, nationwide…


      Fatherhood Contacts
      The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.

      “The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives, . . . . becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community.

      Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated. The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility the Fatherhood Program Manager in implementing the plan.

      Best of all, these services are FREE. ”

      (yes — they’re free to the Dad because they are paid for by the IRS from grants to the states, agencies, etc.)

      “I have been ordered to take a parenting class by the judge, so can I chose to take this class to satisfy the court order?

      “It may satisfy the court order, however all of the dads who participate in the Fatherhood Program or fatherhood class must do so voluntarily. We do this for two reasons: first because the funding for the program requires voluntary participation;…”

      So, the judge can order a fatherhood program participation — but the father must say it is voluntary. From there, apparently, they can go help get with a mediator and the mediator can then recommend to the judge more parenting time for Dad.

      Not Mom.

      If this then means a reduced child support obligation, so much the better for everyone (except the custodial parent and the kids) because it makes Colorado look better in the eyes of the federal OCSE, etc. etc. explained this on her site also (Search “OCSE”). And of course Liz Richards has been explaining it since about 1993 — but I don’t suppose that’s too relevant.

      (I’m going to apologize for the length here, feedback welcome). Groups can be nice, but the primary question for any protectie parent in a fight is how to win that fight. PART of winning any fight includes knowing the opposing side. Failing to talk about the role of the OCSE, the history of the AFCC adn its agenda and intents, and just forgetting to mention that, for example, several states have passed fatherhood Commissions!! — is hardly helpful!

      In English 101, Accounting 101, Geography 101, History 101 — there are certain basic requirements. If a person isn’t taught they are requirements, they won’t be prepared for English-Accounting-Geography-History Dissertation level.

      A court case is a dissertation level, hands-on, full-immersion sink or swim operation. Women have to stop going into it naked, stupid, and thinking that talking about “PAS is wrong” is going to get them something besides retaliation, and possibly supervised visitation. And when the blood is still on the streets, perhaps we need some different “coaches” or just look elsewhere for a strategy. The cheese has moved — figure it out!

      The heart of the matter in a family court case is often (not just occasionally) financial fraud at a different level (outside the courtroom). It’s NOT always about the ex! Find it and address it and stop telling our stories — tell the story of who is dealing with whom in the courtrooms, in as wise a way as possible.

      While I’m here, some fathers really are getting extorted by the child support system as well; they either pay up,or participate in the local (fatherhood, etc.) program, and the funds are NOT well traced. This is the lesson from the original AFCC organization operating without paying taxes (meaning, without tracking money flow) out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse, using its EIN#. This type of activity is STILL going on today, and in the same circles, if not in that particular courthouse.

      I’m blogging and I’ll do what I can to put out local links.

      (I’m not an attorney and this is not legal advice. That’s my disclaimer…..)

      • miss j says:


        Yes, I used to work with NCADV. Whenever I talked with a woman going thru a custody battle, I would try to warn her. I recall vividly how one woman said getting custody (from the abuser) should be a “no-brainer” – I let her know that it is not. Some cases do turn out well, but many do not. NCADV is trying to work on this. I know they’ve gotten thru to a few Congress Members and have talked to OVW.

        There are so many problems with family court – the use of psychologists and others who are paid, ideology, sexism, lack of knowledge about domestic violence, DYFS, of course all these fathers rights policies…. There are different ideas about how to tackle the problem – I’m sure it will not just involve one angle – it will need a multi-pronged approach.

        I think CJE is doing pretty well at attacking the problem -getting courts audited, getting laws passed or blocked, getting publicity (Dr. Phil is just one). Non-profits only have so many resources and we are fighting groups that are often well-funded.

        Many of the Mothers Rights (Randi James, etc) know about the FAtherhood Grants – but the general public doesn’t. It’s ridiculous that the same guys who say VAWA is discriminatory are the ones benefiting from the Fatherhood Initiative monies. I agree with you that this needs to be raised – I try to do my part (which isn’t much, but I do this in my spare time now).

        I understand your frustration with the problem – I get very frustrated too – and also want the problem fixed sooner rather than later. I hope your blog is successful – I also agree women need practical resources, esp free legal representation.

  2. miss j says:

    Hi – Thanks for replying.

    You are correct – Barry Goldstein is no longer practicing. He is still an activist though. And, yes, Mo Hannah coordinates the BMCC.

    I disagree that individuals in this fight are just seeking financial gain – in the form of federal grants. The people I have met are dedicated to this issue – I consider them lucky to have found a job that allows them to fight for this issue. Many of them attend events, vigils, list servs, etc. that offer no pay and cut into their personal/family time. I do what I can (I write articles on the subject when I can) and always feel inadequate.I wish I could do more.

    The Center for Judicial Excellence is doing great work. So is the Leadership Council on Child Abuse. Justice for Children is another. Stop Family Violence. NOW. NCADV. Lots of blogs (see my blog roll). This is a humungous problem and there are different ideas on how to tackle it – and, hopefully, one day we will.

    I wish you all the best,


  3. familycourtmatters says:

    Barry Goldstein is not an Esq. any longer — but he is an author, speaker, and on the conference circuit to help promote his book, with others who contributed (it’s a compilation with two lead editors, Mr. Goldstein and Mo Hannah, Ph.D. who organizes (I think) the BMCC conference.

    Mr. Goldstein, whose support of mothers in the courts I do appreciate, lost his “Esq.” in the Genia Shockome case. Viola Stroud’s embezzlement activity may have been influential. I just reported some of this (again) today, an alternate way to view custody proceedings which shows who promotes whom, and how.

    The new book being promoted mentions none of this material, which also would then lead to talking about other topics, such as misappropriation of federal grants funding — resulting in custody switching to batterers and elimination of child support. Or forcing both parents to consume classes and services by AFCC personnel. The new book doesn’t mention AFCC either, that I can tell. Nor do many other groups.

    It’s possible that some of these high-profile leadership (protesting domestic violence and child abuse) have been personally threatened and that’s why they simply coverup what’s going on — while reporting on the most obvious parts, kids are going to batterers and molesters.

    But it’s more likely — and their literature and recommendations (more training for judges, only better training — THEIR training) back this up — at least Mr. Goldstein and the people who compiled the large book on DV, Child Abuse and Custody — which is several people – wish to be on the same grants stream, only to address the problems which others (also the federal grants streams) have been causing.

    In other words, they want a piece of the pie. But they don’t want to confront people in any profession too close to their own — which is problemsolving, conferencing, starting nonprofits that complain about the courts ,and selling books around the topic.

    The difference with AFCC members is that their judges can llterally order parents to classes (or go back to jail in some cases where child support arrears to a father is involved). Or, they can force a mother to have a custody evaluator on her case when the facts are already clear enough which way to rule. Either way, it’s extortion by the courts.

    The entities propelling this court case to the Supreme Court (JFC, etc.) on the other hand, cannot force anyone to buy their services. So, they have to promote and sell them.

    I’ve been in this court system as a custodial, then noncustodial parent for 10 year, and before that 10 years in abuse (just about), I know the local politicians and district attorneys’ involvements in some of these matters. I hope enough mothers “get” this to change tactics, and stand a better chance of getting their kids back — or preventing improper removal… There is another way. (and no, I”m not selling anything)…

  4. familycourtmatters says:

    Dear Miss J

    Haven’t been to your blog in a while; I am looking for the actual agenda or participants in the “August 2008 Roundtable on Domestic Violence and Custody” which OVW sponsored (Catherine Pierce, then director).

    This came up from

    I know / know of (have communicated with) several of the people & orgs involved in the Linda Marie Sacks case, and revisited it today, reading the Writ of Certiori. One thing that’s a little disturbing is her citing to “other authorities” such as Dr. Phil & Oprah, (and several of the organizations supporting this case, including CJE, above). Stop Family Violence is a nonprofit sponsored by the Tides Foundation run mostly by Irene Weiser? (I think) and unless they have a new cite, it seems inactive since about 2010. Go see the site.. That’s neither here nor there.

    I haven’t got the timeline of the custody-switch down yet (was she a custodial mother for 4 years, 2003-2007, then reported, sought an injunction order and Judge Briese, denying the order, pulled in a court crony (Deborah O. Day, who is AFCC which means a PAS-specialist, basically) and Dr. Day’s business “Psychological Affiliates, Inc.” per the FL Sec of State site, has been around (it’s just her, formerly her and husband?) probably taking court-ordered business since 1995 til now. Par

    Judge Briese sits on Florida Dispute Resolution Center (or did for 15 yrs) on one of its quality control sectors. Deborah O. Day (during same timeframe) was on another one — same privatized organization. Dr. Day also is an “affiliate” member of the FL state bar, whatever that is.

    The Family Tree House Visitation Center Linda had to attend for 4 years, I just found is under another larger agency,Partnership for Strong Families ( READ:

    “In 1998, the Florida legislature mandated that all foster care and related services be privatized, or provided through contract by private, non-profit agencies across the state. This transition was to begin in January, 2000 and be completed over a 3 year period.”

    “The initial contract between the Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) and Partnership for Strong Families (PSF) was signed on June 29, 2003. Since that time, PSF has provided comprehensive child welfare services for judicial circuits 3 and 8, which consist of Alachua, Bradford, Columbia, Dixie, Gilchrist, Hamilton, Lafayette, Levy, Madison, Taylor, Baker, Suwannee, and Union Counties.

    While PSF is the Lead Agency for this community, we are by no means the only agency.”

    For Linda Marie’s daughter(s?) she was assigned to receive supervised visitation starting in 2003, at a center that comes under this PSF which has a contract with the same entity (DCF) that identified the abuse!

    This Treehouse place is a direct (not even subgrantee) recipient of Access Visitation Funding — which is known to promote more custodial parenting time for fathers–

    “Child Access and Visitation Grants: State/Jurisdiction Profiles … › OCSE Home › Publications – CachedMiami, FL 33136. Phone: (305) 325-2632. Children’s Homes Society-The Family Tree House. Visitation Center. 525 S. Ridgewood Avenue. Daytona Beach, FL 32114 …”

    There have already been identified cases — several of them, both coasts — where embezzlements, kickbacks, double-billing and switching the children to the abusive parent took place. Genia Shockome case was another.

    I attempted to recommend looking into this to Linda, by phone, when I first heard of her case. I’ve also brought it up to at least CJE and others she cites to. No One — to my knowledge, at the BCC which Linda Marie’s writ also cites to (under “other Authorities”) even mentioned these grants which are $10 million/yr since 1996 and rapidly expanding — since then.

    Failure to look into these things is downright negligent, and this case is going to possibly make fools of custodial mothers as a whole. This seems like a classic case of potential mis-use of program funds, which the mothers are kept in the dark about, but fathers are not. It’s standard practice. For the groups involved ot have just not FELT like doing even as much background lookups as I, another noncustodial mother, went through horrible grief in how it happened is just irresponsible.

    People who reject relevant knowledge are going to look and act foolish; this discredits other mothers who don’t act like this. I understand if the information was not on-line and hadn’t been already presented to the parties. But it HAS been.

    Please consider what I say and more at my blog My blog has been used to help others turn their cases around — but they have to drop the drama, and get the SYSTEM facts on their own cases. There is a legalized racket run by AFCC judges in high places driving business to each other and changing laws to streamline this. They are CROOKS.

    There are federal — not custody- laws that have the clout to handle such situations, and it does not require going to the Supreme Court just to help promote certain nonprofits that like to go on Oprah and Dr. Phil and talk about the problem — not the causes of the problem.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s