Thank you for your willingness to investigate the use of Federal HHS funding of fraud-based child custody litigation. HHS funds used to create fraudulent custody litigation include TANF, Access/Visitation (Child Support Enforcement), Fatherhood Initiatives, and grants to institutions.

HHS programs ignore abuse.

GAO Report 05-701, August 2005, TANF State Approaches to Screening for Domestic Violence Could Benefit from HHS Guidance, “Thirty-one states reported using federal TANF funds for marriage or responsible fatherhood programs, and limited research indicates that such programs generally do not specifically address domestic violence.”

CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAMS: PROMISING PRACTICES” Prepared by Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, Inc.[1]

The Summary and Recommendations confirms that TANF and Access Visitation funds are heavily influential in court litigation, often, they are the driving force.

“It seems to us that the most effective programs have staff based in courts where paternity andchild support (custody) matters are heard. There appear to be many advantages to this location for services.

- In court settings, judges and hearing officers can make immediate referrals to mediation, andnegotiation sessions can be conducted on the spot… the court can instruct the noncustodial parent to file a pro se motionfor visitation that will lead to a mandatory referral to mediation at the next scheduled courtdate. Further, agreements generated in court settings are easily promulgated as legally enforceable court orders by either being incorporated in the child support order or entered asa separate (custody) order.

- Court-based AV programs tend to enjoy subsidies from the court, including access tomediators, administrative personnel, and facilities. This stretches AV program resources andenhances their capacity to serve a greater number of families.”

This same report confirms erroneous knowledge of abuse and how it plays out in custody litigation.

HHS programs are calling abuse “high conflict.” They are forcing victims to “conciliate” with abusers. These programs are blaming the victims for the abuse. They give equal responsibility to the victim for the abuse. Over time, the victim is termed “uncooperative,” “alienating,” “mentally ill,” or abusive themselves, often merely for acting to protect children from abusive Fathers. Leaving abuse out of HHS programs has generated custody litigation that places children with the abuser and even denies access/visitation to the protective parent!! HHS should not be funding pro-abuser counseling, mediation and custody orders!!

SECTION 3, SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES, SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

“Families at the high end of the dispute continuum consume a great deal of court time. They alsopose the greatest dangers for children who may be exposed to violence, the threat of abduction,and other forms of parental misconduct. For these reasons, many states have used their AVdollars to create or help to support interventions for the most contentious families. A review of state AV grant activities shows that jurisdictions are experimenting with differentways to serve high-conflict families. Some interventions involve generating needed informationfor the court so that it can make access decisions in a timely manner and refer families toappropriate services. Others focus on monitoring visitation exchanges and actual visits to ensurethat visitation occurs as ordered by the court in a safe manner. A few jurisdictions areexperimenting with techniques aimed at modeling appropriate parenting and co-parentingbehaviors by providing assistance on an as-needed basis in unsupervised settings over a sustainedperiod of time, or taking a more activist approach to visitation in supervised settings byparticipating in the visits and giving parents feedback on their parenting behaviors.One limitation with all these programs is that they focus exclusively on parents with court orders

concerning custody and visitation. Necessarily, this means that the primary focus is on divorcingand divorced families seen in the family court, and/or never-married parents who have an orderdealing with visitation. It is more challenging to identify and serve IV-D populations who haveserious conflicts about access and/or safety issues that make visitation questionable. Programs inCalifornia try to accomplish this through the state’s mandatory mediation program, which is

available in all courts at no charge to litigants. Like their counterparts in Family Court, judges inSupport Court can refer couples to court-based mediators for assistance with the development ofan agreement dealing with custody and/or visitation. Thus, if a visitation matter is raised in the course of a proceeding dealing with the establishment or enforcement of a child support order,

the judge may refer the family for mediation services. And if the mediation plan includes anagreement for supervised visitation, the family can access the court’s high-conflict service mix. Ifthe parents fail to reach an agreement, their case will be heard by a family law judge who canorder supervised visitation. Without the ready availability of court-based mediation services,however, it would be impossible to link child support populations who have severe conflicts

about parenting with remedial services. Thus, a key requirement to the effective provision ofservices for high-conflict families is having services like mediation for families with lower levelsof conflict.”

“The following describes how states have used their AV funds to promote the enforcement ofvisitation orders. The range of interventions that we describe below includes providing pro se legalassistance, legal representation, and/or creating a complaint process under the supervision of the court.”

Research indicates that the majority of cases that go to court as "high conflict" contested custody cases have a history of domestic violence. HHS directly funds abusive custody litigation!!![2]

Many States, including Pennsylvania, use Contempt of Court proceedings to incarcerate litigants who become entrenched in manufactured custody cases. Judges are permitted to incarcerate litigants who do not pay the counselors, mediators, lawyers, etc. assigned under programs WITHOUT due process trials. Counselors, mediators and parenting coordinating sessions are conducted off-the-record, without witnesses or transcription. These Court appointees then give heresay evidence, often favoring the party most likely to continue payment.

Counselors, mediators, parenting coordinators, deny due process, act as an impediment to court access, and abdicate judicial authority to off-the-record proceedings. The outside neutral encroaches on family liberty interests, brings the government behind the closed doors of people’s lives, injects a third party into parents private life without proof that they are more capable to make day-to-day decisions about their own families, values and goals. [3]

States who use HHS funds for custody litigation are devising plans to increase the participation of counselors, mediators and parenting coordinators in fraudulent cases. As Liz Richards has documented, and as HHS reports confirm, the unethical counselors, mediators and parenting coordinators are receiving federal HHS funds!!!

Pennsylvania is in the process of increasing the funding of custody litigation using HHS funds. TANF funds are given to court appointees without regard for due process, state law, or ethics (

By ignoring abuse in custody litigation and in Fatherhood, HHS (unwittingly?) supports pedophilia and a network of counselors intent on silencing the victim.

“The vast majority of children who appear in child pornography have not been abducted or physically forced to participate. In most cases they know the producer—it may even be their father—and are manipulated into taking part by more subtle means.”

“Physical abusers: Offenders who sexually abuse children and for whom an interest in child pornography is just part of their pedophilic interests. They may record their own abuse behaviors for their personal use, in which case, from a legal standpoint, the possession of pornography is secondary to the evidence of their abusive behavior that it records. They may or may not network. Bydefinition, a physical abuser directly abuses victims and his securitydepends upon the child’s silence.”[4]

HHS funds counselors intent on deprogramming victims of abuse, forcing them to “love” their abuser and remain silent. These counselors work with Courts to manufacture false records. One therapist is Dr. Barry Bricklin. Dr. Bricklin confers with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, trains other counselors in bogus methodology including Parental Alienation Syndrome (a legal tactic used by sexually abusive Fathers), and authors “tests” that can be scored improperly to show favorable results. A deprogramming institution is The Rachel Foundation. The Rachel Foundation was given a $50,000 DOJ grant for operation of a deprogramming facility in Texas.

“Some children have reported receiving treatment involving threats and coercion. The child may be told that he or she may not return home until they have accepted a more favorable view of the denigrated parent. Sometimes reunification therapy does not involve confinement and separation from the primary parent, but involves forced therapy sessions with a rejected parent. Many of the same ethical questions apply to this type of therapy as well, as the child is often forced to attend these sessions against his/her will. If the child is being forced to reunify witha parent he has clearly stated was abusive to him or her, the child may react with increased symptoms, suicidal ideation, or even suicide attempts.”[5]

The National Fatherhood Institute (NFI) received HHS grant funds for a media, research, and program development. The NFI has helped develop a network of professionals working in custody whose sole intent is to help Fathers avoid support payments by obtaining custody. Abuse is ignored! The best interests of the children are ignored! Victims are punished by continued abuse by proxy of family court even to the extent of jail! Support incomes are often fictional in order to reward the abusive parent.

HHS has funded the proliferation of profit-motivated court-affiliates who have a vested interest in prolonged litigation. I have expanded on problems in my second attachment titled “ATTACHMENT: Doreen Ludwig’s comments in response to Pennsylvania plan to increase funding of Counselors, Parenting Coordinators, etc. using HHS OSCE and TANF funds.”

There is NO accountability for HHS programs funding Court litigation, at the State or Federal level. Courts are denying appeals for fraudulent cases! Judicial Boards of Conduct do NOT hold Judges to the requirements of due process! State Ethics Boards excuse unethical conduct by counselors, mediators, etc! Pennsylvania has even passed a law forbidding filing of ethical complaints against mental health practitioners involved in custody litigation!

I specifically request that Pennsylvania be included as part of the investigation. My experience, documents and research prove that Pennsylvania’s BerksCounty is rigging child custody cases by manufacturing false records and denying due process. There are many reasons for case rigging, but the principle motivator is the awarding of custody and control to Fathers with NO regard for negative parental habits such as abuse, alcoholism, criminal records, etc. A custody evaluator is hired to provide a false report meant to award themselves with counseling or parenting coordination. The County uses TANF payments. BerksCounty treasurer will NOT release payment documents. A parenting class is run through the Court which is designed to blame abuse on the victim. This class is called Children in the Middle. BerksCounty has purchased this video-program from Ed Hanna, who is not the author of the program. I suspect HHS funds were used to pay for this purchase. The County has refused to release purchase price. The Court Administrator, Lisa Siciliano, tracks and approves payment and referral/orders to unethical counselors such as Dr. Timothy Ring. Attorney Jacqueline Mark double bills in order to pass-on funds to other parties through non-profit gifts (grants to family members) and honorariums (for non-existent speaking engagements).

The FBI/DOJ acknowledge that court cases are rigged, yet the FBI claims they have “no resources,” “do not work for me” and “are not my private investigator.” The FBI/DOJ should have a separate department for investigating of judicial color of law crimes (18 USC 241 and 242). Color of law crimes in family court have increased with the increase of HHS funding aimed at helping fathers decrease support payments by obtaining custody and by permitting family courts to have “favorite” mental health practitioners who are NOT held to any legal, ethical or scientific standard.

It is imperative that HHS investigate how TANF, Access/Visitation, OSCE, Fatherhood, program funds are supporting fraudulent custody and support litigation. The investigation needs to occur at a micro-level. Who are the Counselors? Parenting Coordinators? Researchers? Who advises on domestic violence and why are HHS programs NOT relying on qualified experts who refer to unbiased and first hand experience? Why are mental health practitioners and Judges purposely omitting abuse from custody (and support) records? Has a network of pro-abuse profiteers infiltrated HHS programs aimed at helping families instead created systematic Court abuse of women and children who attempt to dissolve abusive relationships by forcing Fatherhood over protection from abuse?

I have a compilation of research on problems and solutions, as well as proof of the accusations I’ve made herein. I look forward to inclusion in any discussion about the problem of HHS funding impact on family court, especially in cases of high conflict which are really cases of abuse.

I will be sharing this with my Representative Timothy Holden, Senator Casey, and Representative Sestak, as well as several groups that I know to be interested in solutions. I would appreciate your sharing my work with any interested parties and with the HHS Executive Director and the appropriate department within the Department of Justice.

Sincerely,

Doreen Ludwig

195R Wanner Road

Reading, PA 19606

ATTACHMENT

RESEARCH INDICATING THAT THE MAJORITY OF CASES THAT GO TO COURT AS "HIGH CONFLICT" CONTESTED CUSTODY CASES HAVE A HISTORY OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Compiled by Professor Joan S. Meier, Esq.
George Washington University Law School

I. Janet Johnston's publications

Janet Johnston is best known as a researcher of high conflict divorce and parental alienation. Not a particular friend of domestic violence advocates or perspectives, she has been one of the first to note that domestic violence issues should be seen as the norm, not the exception, in custody litigation.

Janet R. Johnston et al, "Allegations and Substantiations of Abuse in Custody-Disputing Families," Family Court Review, Vol. 43, No. 2, April 2005, 284-294, p. 284.

Janet R. Johnston, "High-Conflict Divorce," The Future of Children, Vol. 4, No. 1, Spring 1994, 165-182, p. 167.

Johnston has noted that approximately 80% of divorce cases are settled, either up front, or as the case moves through the process. Studies have found that only approximately 20% of divorcing or separating families take the case to court. Only approximately 4-5% ultimately go to trial, with most cases settling at some point earlier in the process. (Citing large study by Maccoby and Mnookin, dividing the child: social and legal dilemmas of custody. Cambridge, MA: HarvardU. Press [1992]).

Johnston cites another study done in California by Depner and colleagues, which found that, among custody litigants referred to mediation, "[p]hysical aggression had occurred between 75% and 70% of the parents . . . even though the couples had been separated. . . [for an average of 30-42 months]". Furthermore, [i]n 35% of the first sample and 48% of the second, [the violence] was denoted as severe and involved battering and threatening to use or using a weapon." -Johnston (1994), supra, citing Depner et al., "Building a uniform statistical reporting system: A snapshot of California Family Court Services," Family and Conciliation Courts Review (1992) 30: 185-206.

After surveying the research, Johnston concludes:

"Taken all together these studies suggest that, in divorces marked by ongoing disputes over the custody and care of children, both inside and outside the court, there is often a history of domestic violence in the family and a likelihood that the violence will continue after the separation." - Id.(1994) at p. 169.

It has previously been observed, based on research which predates the domestic violence/parental alienation battles that are now a feature of the field, that "multiple allegations of abuse are a feature of those higher conflict families" whose cases become contested custody litigation. - Johnston (2005), supra (citing Maccoby and Mnookin (1992).

II. Peter Jaffe's compilation of studies

Peter Jaffe is one of the world's leading experts on children, domestic violence, and custody.

- Peter Jaffe, Michelle Zerwer, & Samantha Poisson, (2004),"ACCESS DENIED: The Barriers of Violence and Poverty for Abused Women and their Children After Separation," p. 1.

In "Access Denied", Jaffe states the following:

"Myth: Domestic violence is rarely a problem for divorcing couples involved in a child custody dispute."
Fact: The majority of parents in "high-conflict divorces" involving child custody disputes report a history of domestic violence."

Jaffe et al also lists the following studies (with the following descriptions) as supporting the position that most custody litigants have had a history of domestic violence:

  • In a review of parents referred for child custody evaluations by the court, domestic violence was raised in 75% of the cases. - Jaffe, P.G. & Austin, G. (1995). The Impact of Witnessing Violence on Children in Custody and Visitation Disputes. Paper presented at the Fourth International Family Violence Research Conference, DurhamNH (Rep. No. July 1995)
  • Of 2,500 families entering mediation in CA, approximately three quarters of parents indicated that domestic violence had occurred during the relationship. -Hirst, 2002
  • Between 70-75% of parents referred by the family court for counseling because of failed mediation or continuing disputes over the care of their children, physical aggression had taken place. - Johnston & Campbell, (1988), Impasses of Divorce: The dynamics and resolution of family conflict. New York, NY, US: The Free Press.
  • Attempts to leave a violent partner with children, is one of the most significant factors associated with severe domestic violence and death. - Websdale, N. (1999). Understanding Domestic Homicide. Boston, MA: University Press.
  • A majority of separating parents are able to develop a post-separation parenting plan for their children with minimal intervention of the family court system. However, in 20% of the cases greater intervention was required by lawyers, court-related personnel (such as mediators and evaluators) and judges. In the majority of these cases, which are commonly referred to as "high-conflict," domestic violence is a significant issue. - Johnston, J. R. (1994). "High-conflict divorce." Future of Children, 4, 165-182.

III. NationalCenter for State Courts