Mothers Against Court Custody Abuse
Rules for Mothers Against Court Custody Abuse (MACCAbuse) Movement
What the movement is and is not - Motherless America was written to prove that the federal government funds abusive fathers receiving custody. MACCAbuse is founded to educate, demand accountability and seek reform. Ideas for reform will be developed by a working group. Doreen Ludwig, Motherless America, and MACCAbuse.org do not advocate for mother-centric reform, including but not limited to: motherhood.gov, mothers rights, or mothers political party. We will especially not be involved with any mother who has alienated important advocates such as Lundy Bancroft.
If you are still interested in joining our campaign: Read More
By Doreen Ludwig
What happens when a mother divorces her abusive husband? "Motherless America: Confronting Welfare's Fatherhood Custody Program" six memoir chapters answer the question in a raw tale of corruption and cover-up. Three protagonists, a lawyer, a psychologist and a judge, collude to eliminate mother from the children's lives by calling her mentally ill, jailing, depriving her of financial resources and the ability to educate and improve herself. Under dire circumstances, Doreen plows forward, learns the law, only to discover and investigate the government program that funds father's abuse. Six memoir chapters humanize by using real life to demonstrate problems, showing how policy affects lives. It is not common knowledge that our government finances a family court industry that mandates abusive fathers over protecting women and children. Motherless America shines a light on a government program designed to give fathers control of children by way of family court.
CLIFF NOTES FOR CUSTODY FUNDING RESEARCH
Page references from Motherless America; Reports are available under "Research" sidebar at www.MACCAbuse.org.
There are five identified government sources that go to custody litigation. Funding begins on page 218. The five gov't sources are:
- Grants - $75/mil fatherhood; $75/mil marriage - these two programs interact. This is the funding that Connie forwarded. Mathematica report proves these programs offer men custody and support legal assistance. Page 204-210.
- TANF and State Matching Funds - Fatherhood/marriage money is listed as "formation of 2 parent families" or "formation of 2 parent families." The total amount for 2011 is $267,079,277. Page 221.
- Social Security Block Grants Title IV-B - Equal to TANF amount - designated to programs like children and youth, foster care, and in PA is used to fund "Family Centers" which work with released prisoner dads and marriage promotion families.
Child Support - Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) - Social Security Title IV-D - Page 222 -229.- This is a BIG funding stream. Basically, support offices have a father-custody-mandate. This office runs access/visitation which pays court appointees to get involved in litigation and mediate for fathers and deny abuse. It's also covered on page 211-215 under access/visitation program prototype.
Also, the Federal OCSE has a separate fatherhood grant of $10/million a year as an "incentive" for states to institute fatherhood programs. This money has gone directly to programs but has also been used to "grow" the program by funding commissions or task forces which work to use all parties (judges, court admin. lawyers, MHPs, FRs, DVs) to get dads custody. To date, over $180 million has been spent.
- Private Foundations - Ford Foundation funds programs and reports. Casey is a BIG funder and promoter. Big fatherhood movement supporter. Connections to NFI and NCOFF run out of U of PA. Reference book on page 230
Child Support - Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) - Social Security Title IV-D - Pages 222-229 of "Motherless America: Confronting Welfare's Fatherhood Custody Program."
Support offices have a father-custody-mandate. This office runs access/visitation which pays court appointees to get involved in litigation and mediate for fathers and deny abuse. See pages 211-215 under access/visitation program prototype. Making Fathers Count proves program is for dads and no protection for abuse. Fatherhood Initiatives proves abuse left out of program.
Both CRS Fatherhood Initiatives and Mathematica report mention access/visitation as a fatherhood program but do not assess the program. Both genders participate, but they are treated differently. For proof we have the court record and mothers experience. There has NEVER been a forensic audit of any access/visitation program. Jurisdictional Profile proves the program is meant to increase fathers custody - see page 214 (2nd paragraph).
The Federal OCSE has a separate fatherhood grant of $10/million a year as an "incentive" for states to institute fatherhood programs. To date, over $180 million has been spent. See Sec. 469B. [42 U.S.C. 669b] Note: the statute permits contracts with courts.
This money has gone directly to programs but has also been used to "grow" the program by funding commissions or task forces which work to use all parties (judges, court admin. lawyers, MHPs, FRs, DVs) to get dads custody. See "Collaboration and Strategic Planning Guide for States" - it tells states to get funding from other sources too - including DOJ and fees and taxes on things like marriage licenses. Tells states to include fatherhood advocates in their groups. This is collusion - not collaboration. There is NO plan for oversight, adherence to state custody laws requiring protection or assessment of abuse, no mention of ethics or conflict of interest, no due process - because they keep evidence of abuse off the record. For a sample plan see "Changing the Culture of Custody in Pennsylvania."
Mathematica report proves programs are for dads only - see gender - 97% are 100% male. The ones that claim to serve woman have very low numbers, 2-12%.
AFCC article Current Fatherhood Program Analysis - which was written by Mathematica, proves programs are for fathers only, that custody is the most used aspect of program and that dads do not participate in other program components such as relationship skills (2-15% attended one session in 4 months). The program assessment admits they did not speak to mothers and that men are illiterate, felons, unemployed.
Access/visitation has NO DUE PROCESS because it orders the use of court service providers to mandate father's custody. (See statute Sec. 469B. [42 U.S.C. 669b].)
All these services are litigation.
Non-custodial is a euphemism for fathers, pages 233-235 of Motherless America. See history of legislation in Fatherhood Initiatives. See Making Fathers Count.
Because abuse protection is NOT part of fatherhood programs, including access/visitation - see pg 236-241 - there is NO DUE PROCESS. These programs were developed solely to go around state laws requiring abuse to be a consideration in custody. See CRC Newsletter. Read chapter 8, War on Women. See chapter 9, best interests of father, pages 236-241,
The most egregious proof of the intentional ignoring of all forms of abuse in order to forcibly increase custody, is the federal reporting form entitled "State Child Access Program Survey: Guidance." (see AV Guidance) This form confirms that states are keeping records of family court cases affected by the intentional custody mandate. Page 4, under "Counseling" confirms mental health practitioners ignore (not focus on) abuse including sexual abuse of children, domestic violence, battering, anger, alcoholism and drug addiction in order to increase custody for the non-custodial parent who is usually the father. This mandate is never disclosed to litigants. I know of no lawyer who has disclosed the mandate of the program to litigants. Counseling services are mandated and counselors use other positions of appointment to get themselves these counseling assignments.