Anonymoms (we are everywhere): 2011-07-10

16.7.11

Abra Cadabra? Cut $4BB HHS OCSE Funding Used to take Battered Mothers Children and Give to Abusers

Abra Cadabra? Cut $4BB HHS OCSE Funding Used Against Battered Mothers

OVERVIEW

There is $4 billion of untraceable funding within the HHS TANF budget used by OCSE to encourage enforcement agencies to illegally use HHS Office of Child Support Enforcement funding against stated purpose, guidelines, and federal law; it provides funding so that the more families fight, the more federal money DCSS and the Court receive. Grant Programs include Parenting Opportunity Programs and/or Access to Visitation Programs. These programs do not have appropriate oversight, The success of the program is defined exclusively by the number of fathers who are participants as opposed to measuring the degree of healthy outcomes for entire families. The Court is in charge of awarding these federal funds to nonprofits, but also orders litigants to retain their services. Court and child support programs are specifically required to collaborate with Fathers Rights nonprofit organizations which service the courts. This gives these same nonprofits a vested interest in the outcome of the cases; and the higher the conflict case, the more lucrative for agencies and the courts. This system has incentivized extortion, corruption, and fraud, as well as endangered children. Judicial authorities in select regions also improperly capitalize on grant money. Frequent conflicts of interest have arisen.

Congressional and DOJ investigations have been initiated both during and prior to 2011, and extensive documentation is available to congressional and/or senatorial officials.

PETITION LETTER

Eliminate Access to Visitation & POP Funding within the DHHS OCSE.

Greetings,

I am writing to voice my concerns about widespread financial waste and fraud within the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Child Support Enforcement, and request that funding to the offending TANF programs be cut until these issues can be resolved (if ever.)

At a time when tax payers are required to endure severe financial hardship and sacrifice, it has become abundantly clear that the $4 billion per year of untraceable tax dollars spent on Child Support Incentives, Access and Visitation, Healthy Marriages, and Responsible Fatherhood programs is unjustifiable. These over funded programs are not needs based, and the funds are actually being used to abuse and extort fathers and families through support enforcement programs and the family court litigation.

The problem is that when a father owes support, he is called into the child support offices and sometimes told that he can attempt to pay down unreasonable arrears and risk jail time, loss of his license, frozen bank accounts, or file for custody with the “help” of these programs. State and Federal DHS programs require custodial parents (often mothers) who are due child support currently in arrears, and who apply for TANF for financial aid, to file charges against the non-custodial parents in order to be eligible for aid. The requirement to pursue the arrears is often the trigger that creates a custody battle.

These programs are dangerous because OCSE funding mandates require recipients (the court and child support enforcement agencies) to partner with fatherhood promotion nonprofits which provide mental health services to the Court. The more a family fights, the more the recipient gets paid, and this incent5ivizes family court professionals to engage in fraud and extortion which harms families.

A 2008 study performed by the Government Accountability Office1 found that:

“HHS has a program monitoring system, but it lacks the mechanisms to identify and target grantees not in compliance with grant requirements or not meeting performance goals. HHS uses multiple tools to monitor grantee programs, such as site visits and reviews of reports submitted by grantees. However, HHS lacks specific guidance for conducting monitoring site visits. Moreover, HHS’s ability to target grantees in need of assistance is hindered by the lack of an effective Management Information System.”

This report and others have also found that these ARRA funds were being used to fund illegal programs, that they did not properly notify participants that they were participating in gender-biased Fatherhood programs which may be adverse to their own interests.

This is unacceptable at a time when congress is asking families are being asked to go without basics.

They should be trimmed to allow the money to be used for things needy families actually want, like jobs, housing, childcare, food, healthcare, etc. Promoting their relationship status is not a legitimate use of tax dollars during a national crisis. Further, these programs lack any legitimate purpose without appropriate review based upon outcomes for the entire family, and not participation alone.I just signed the following petition addressed to: United States Senate.

13.7.11

FATHERS RIGHTS to MURDER, MAIM and TORTURE their Wives and Children STOP THE FEDERALLY FUNDED GENOCIDE!!

After another tragedy of children being killed by their father in the context of high-conflict custody litigation, court professionals, fathers-rights’ leaders and others have been engaging in excuses including: inadequate evidentiary standards, or insufficient evidence or biases against mothers, to avoid blaming the courts.

As the founder of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice (NAFCJ), the oldest grass-roots national group of protective mothers (since 1993) with a data bank of more than 1,500 intake callers, I know of many mothers with mishandled cases worse than that of Silver Spring’s Amy Castillo, except for the lethal ending. Her estranged husband is held in the drowning deaths of their three children in a Baltimore hotel.

Many mothers not only lost all custody rights but all visitation rights. Judges and court professionals routinely disregard and proactively work against mothers who make abuse complaints against fathers. Even the mother’s own attorney will tell her to keep her mouth shut because nobody want to hear about abuse.

Omitted from the debate are important factors:

(1) Widespread use in custody litigation of the discredited pro-incest/anti-mother Parental Alienation Syndrome (P.A.S.), a custody evaluation methodology that purports to identify manipulation by one parent against the other parent.

(2) Steering to judges who are cross-affiliated to fathers’ rights leaders, facilitated by a secretive judicial group.

(3) Organized case-rigging to ensure abuse complaints by mothers are discredited.

(4) Use of federal HHS-ACF (Health And Human Services Department — Administration For Children And Families — Access-Visitation) program funds, intended for parental counseling and resolving disputes but instead diverted to pay for pro-father custody evaluations.

Knowledge of this pattern has come from sources such as fathers’ rights literature, feedback from whistleblowers, documents mistakenly placed in court files, and threatening remarks by fathers demanding the mother agree to their litigation terms: (e.g., You better agree to joint custody, because the judge is on my side and will never rule in your favor).

Judges handling these pro-father rigged cases leave a trail of evidence — such as refusing to hear witnesses against the father as being prejudicial, then ruling against the mother on false grounds that she lied about the abuse because she had no witnesses to support her complaint while ignoring the fact the judge refused to listen to the witness or read submitted medical documents.

Other dishonest tactics include signing emergency ex-parte custody changing orders for the father on frivolous grounds, such as he ‘fears’ the mother will abduct the child — after she files an abuse complaint against him with CPS (Child Protective Services) or police.

The court never gives the targeted mother the required counter-hearing to rebut the father’s claim. Her child is summarily removed from her home by police for an abduction that did not occur, or wouldn’t have been a violation of any court order, law or prior agreement, even if she took the child on a short out-of-state trip. Many of the affected mothers don’t see their child again for years.

A good example is the D.C. case of Lillian Porter, who lost custody of her 2-year-old boy to the biological father on the dishonest grounds she was incarcerated after abducting him.

She never married or cohabited with this father, who hadn’t paid her child support and had pressured her with threats into signing an out-of-court joint custody agreement. He next proceeded to destroy her ability to work and pay for child-care by calling the DC government and have her benefits terminated by having his high income added as a factor. She moved to live with relatives in Arizona, but returned after he threatened abduction charges. Despite flying back to DC and turning the child over to him at the airport, he continued to pursue abduction and custody when she was incarcerated in the DC jail and not allowed to attend any of the court hearings. He claimed and got sole custody on grounds the child was with him and she was unable to care for the child because she was incarcerated.

Nobody cared that the father’s abduction and custody grounds were bogus and contradictory. Fortunately after some time, she got the case reversed and now has primary custody again, but this devious father continues to litigate on various frivolous points.

Fathers’ rights groups coach men on stalking, harassment and sabotage tactics. A whistleblower at one of their visitation centers quit in disgust and told about the pattern of set-ups against the mother. The fathers’ rights men working at the center tell a mother the visitation time had been changed or canceled by the father, then quickly go to court with the cheating father to get him an emergency ex-parte custody switch claiming the mother refused to bring the child(ren) at the appointed time.

This is not happening by chance. HHS-ACF family program grants are used for monetary incentives and kickbacks. Some mothers obtained written or taped evidence of the collusion between fathers and judges.

The founder of a judicial association by Los Angeles, Calif., family court judges, started in 1982, was also the founder of the leading fathers’ rights group, and the two groups are still heavily cross-affiliated. In Maryland, the Montgomery County Family Court’s evaluation unit is headed by a member of this judicial association along with leaders of the fathers’ rights group.

Many other courts and people all over the country in this group are involved in training custody evaluators and using the anti-mother PAS methodology against protective mothers to discredit abuse complaints against fathers.

Men and their co-conspiring court professionals are running custody mills to deliberately fuel high-conflict litigation to justify billings to HHS-ACF fatherhood programs intended to resolve these problems with nonlitigious counseling and mediation and not for paying custody evaluators and fathers attorneys. They are essentially running a litigation racketeering scheme funded by the federal government.

Shouldn’t we doing something about this, including congressional oversight investigations and in-depth discussions with HHS officials to stop these program misuses?

Violent, Selfish Fathers vs. Violent, Selfish "Mothers on Trial"

Phyllis Chesler is (again) 100% right on the money. While the media fixates on Casey Anthony (or Susan Smith or Andrea Yates), hundreds of fathers massacre entire families and nobody outside the local media market even takes note. It IS a total double standard. Paternal violence is continually excused ("he was frustrated") while maternal violence is treated as prima facie evidence of maternal monstrousness.
See Dastardly Dads: http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com
See " Mothers on Trial. The Battle for Children and Custody,"http://www.amazon.com/Mothers-Trial-Battle-Children-Custody/dp/1556529996/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1308166564&sr=8-2

Amplify'd fromwww.foxnews.com

During the time that Florida mother Casey Anthony was in custody and on trial, any number of American fathers, stepfathers, and live-in boyfriends killed their children.

Daily, the local and national media dutifully report awful examples of paternal cruelty and infanticidal violence.

Most recently, on June 30, 2011, a single Texas father, Carlos Rico, choked his four-year-old son, and then left him for dead; miraculously the boy lived. This father faces attempted murder charges. One wonders whether he will become a media sensation. He should. His only motivation seems to have been that his son’s very devoted stepmother left him and changed her Facebook status to “single.”

On June 13, 2011, a 37-year-old Maine father shot his wife and their two children (ages 12 and 13) inside their home. Angry and frustrated about an ongoing custody dispute, he resolved the matter by killing everyone, including himself.

On May 8, 2011, a Los Angeles father shot his girlfriend, their two five-year old twins, and then himself. Precious little ink has been spilled about this.

On April 19, 2011, an Arkansas father ran over his two children, ages 18 months and 4 years-old; he was arrested and was charged with two counts of capital murder.
Nobody knows his name. No petitions have been launched, no demonstrations held. For the record, his name is Robert Carter and he is 23 years-old.
In addition, during this approximately two month period, if we are to believe the existing studies, an untold number of fathers abused their wives and children both physically and sexually.
However, the American public did not launch any vocal campaigns against any of these violent and abusive fathers or against fathers in general.
Why not? People expect men to be violent. It is a given. When male-on-male, male-on-female, or male-on child violence erupts, people are not all that surprised and they do not condemn all fathers for the crimes of a few. In general, people want to forgive male sinners, or at least to show them compassion.

This is not true where mothers are concerned. In general, once a mother is accused—merely accused—the accusation itself psychologically convicts her. Unconsciously and automatically, people presume that she is guilty, not innocent. Her sexual and reproductive history is held against her, as is everything else.
We tend to have double standards when it comes to parenting. We expect much less of fathers and are ready to reward them for doing very little or to forgive them for failing one or two or three obligations: marrying the mother of their children, economically supporting the family, “helping out” from time to time. We do not expect fathers to fight for custody and when they do we are quick to assume that there must really be something wrong with the mother and that the fighting father is heroic.
According to an original study included in the updated and revised second edition of "Mothers on Trial. The Battle for Children and Custody," which features eight entirely new chapters to honor its 25th anniversary—the kinds of fathers who battle for custody are wife batterers (62%) who willingly impoverished the mothers of their children (67%) and also kidnapped their children (37%). Few of the paternal kidnappers were ever found and when they were, they were rarely jailed or custodially punished. Paternal kidnappings continue to this day and are far more common than stranger kidnappings.
When mothers kidnapped their children (mainly in order to protect them from being beaten or repeatedly raped by their fathers), they were invariably hunted down, jailed for long periods, and punished with limited and supervised visitation.
Which brings me to Casey Anthony. I am not privy to any insider details about the case. Neither the jury nor I know who murdered poor Caylee.

I have never met the mother.

What I am familiar with is the lynch-like sentiments of strangers who wish this mother dead. Why? Because she is seen as a “slut?” This is not a capital crime.

Or, more to the point, because she did not report her child missing within minutes as any normal, caring mother would do? This behavior is quite upsetting, troubling, but it does not mean she murdered her daughter. It does mean that her anti-maternal behavior has upset many grownups.
Why are people so upset by what they see as her lack of maternalism? Just as we expect men to be violent, we do not expect women, especially mothers, to be violent, and certainly not violent towards their own young and helpless children. Mothers are seen as civilization’s last line of defense against violence and anarchy. We each personally feel endangered, we each identify with the murdered or abused child, and our fury at the mother knows no bounds.
All women, all mothers, are seen as caretakers, and if even one mother turns bad, our species and culture as a whole feels endangered.

Phyllis Chesler, Ph.D. is a frequent contributor to Fox News Opinion. She is the author of thirteen books, including the 25th anniversary edition of "Mothers on Trial" and may be reached at her website www.phyllis-chesler.com

12.7.11

HAL RICHARDSON - COURT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF; VIOLENCE, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BATTERY AGAINST CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, etc

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, BAR FIGHTS - HAL RICHARDSON - COURT CRIMINAL RECORDS OF; VIOLENCE, BATTERY ON LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, BATTERY AGAINST CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, DRUGS, ALCOHOL, etc…

WHAT KIND A EVIL BASTARD WOULD HURT HIS CHILD SO BADLY BY TAKING HER MOTHER AWAY FROM HER? RIKKI DOMBROWSKI THE WORLD IS APPALLED, KANSAS IS SICK. THIS MAN WILL KNOW JUSTICE ONE DAY—GOD WILL JUDGE ALL WHO HELPED TO KEEP YOU SEPERATED FROM YOUR LOVING MOTHER.

GOD’S JUDGEMENT DAY—AND TOPEKA KANSAS WILL BURN

95LA014502-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,, (aka)2OE
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
95D 000419-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1OR
97LA009121-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
98LA006122-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
92CV000432-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
96CV000937-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1P
92LA000089-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
96LA012692-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97LA017898-RICHARDSON,HAL,,1D
97U 000055-RICHARDSON,HAL,,D/B/A/ TOPEKA VINYL TOP,1D
90LA007629-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA GATEWAY FUNDRAISING,1D
97LA018158-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
96LA003402-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
98U 000141-RICHARDSON,HAL,,DBA TOPEKA VINYL TOP CENTER,1D
04SC000200-RICHARDSON,HAL,,III,1D
03C 000086-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR TRACT 84,184D
95U 000500-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
03L 010117-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
05L 001833-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95SC000448-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1D
95LN000161-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,1OP
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
94SC000355-RICHARDSON,HAL,,OWNER OF MINUTEMAN SOLAR FILM,1D
89CR 01537-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,, (aka)1D
90CR 01308-RICHARDSON,HAL,G, (aka)1D
96LA019246-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
96LA000348-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97CV000960-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1D
97LA011585-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,2D
08SC000096-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,1P
05C 001464-RICHARDSON,HAL,G,JR,TRACT 76, (aka)133D
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)1OR
96D 000217-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE, (aka)2OE
97CV000778-RICHARDSON,HAL,GEORGE,JR,

2 p.

95cr 00836 dv against dombrowski conviction

7 p.

12-1-1997 Joan Hamilton DA Refuses to Prosecute Admitted CrowBar Assault

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candidate for RECOMMEND PRISON for Criminal conviction of CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI

4 p.

1995 DV 95CR836 Mary Kelly PSI Not Good Candiate for Probation_2

2 p.

1999_2nd ABP Heartland Consult an Tans Hal Richardson

3 p.

1996 Alternatives to Battering Per Domestic Violence Conviction against Claudine Dombroeski and Order of Probation Hal Richardson...

1 p.

1995 PSI Mary Kelly Recommends Prison for Hal Richardson as Conviction History of Violence past 15 years

5 p.

1995 ABP Records Hal Richardson CR Conviction of Domestic Violence to Claudine Dombrowski (HE WAS KICKED OUT!)

2 p.

1990 SARP Alcohol Drug TX Hal Richardson From Conviction on Battery of Law Enforcement Officer

2 p.

1995-Feb 21 D.A. Affidavit for Domestic Violence (Conviction) Case No. 94-CR...

3 p.

1997 Closed Camera Inspection of 30 Day Drug Alchohol Hal Richardson Aug_1

Many more Court Documents here

and here

11.7.11

Vanderleest Victim Breaks Silence

http://www.politiscoop.com/component/content/article/35-last-24h-news/382-vanderleest-victim-breaks-silence.html

Senatorial Candidate VanderLeest ‘s Former Wife Speaks Out

Green Bay Wisconsin -- Today I had the opportunity to speak to Rachel Gerritsen, the former wife of David VanderLeest. VanderLeest is challenging Senator Dave Hansen in the 30th district recall election. I spoke to Rachel by phone and you can listen to the audio of the interview here. Below you can read the transcript. Rachel states that she is still living in fear of VanderLeest. Despite this Rachel was brave enough to set the record right by telling her side of the story.

Significant information came to light in this interview. Rachel countered the claim made by VanderLeest in many press statements that she willingly and freely recanted the domestic violence statement included in the police records. Rachel claims that VanderLeest wrote the statements and she signed them “to get back to my son”. Although Rachel didn't directly say, if you listen to her words carefully, it appears her son has been used as a pawn in an abusive game that VanderLeest has been playing for years.

Rachel also spoke of VanderLeest’s inability to handle his own finances, his inability to pay his taxes or to provide adequately for her son by buying him basics like shoes or even by providing a stove in his apartment so he is able to cook his son dinner.

When asked late last week by Politiscoop, VanderLeest claimed that he had no idea what the “Oconto Investigation” of him was about. Rachel however tells us that there has been a police report filed for child abuse against VanderLeest and that he is aware of it even though he has not yet been formally charged.

After we concluded the interview, I followed up with the Oconto Sheriff's department and inquired about the case status that Rachel referred to and was told the case is not closed and that charges could be pending. This may be an interesting twist to the Senate race. Can a candidate campaign from behind bars?

Politiscoop - How long were you and David married?

Rachel – 3 years

Politiscoop – You two had a son together. How do you feel about him using your son in the political ads for his Senate campaign?

Rachel – I think it should be absolutely separate, that whatever he is dealing with is his and my boy is only 7 years old and that should be his little childhood life. Not a political life, that’s how I feel.

Politiscoop – I know this is a hard subject, but he claims you recanted on the domestic abuse issue, is that true?

Rachel – Well I recanted, only to get back to my son.

Politiscoop – So this paper that he handed me in his interview from Marshfield, WI, I don’t see a date on it, but did you write that statement or did he?

Rachel – David wrote the statement and the only reason why I signed it was to move back to Green Bay to be closer to my son that is the absolute truth.

Politiscoop – Do you still feel threatened by David?

Rachel – Yes – especially after I give this interview.

Politiscoop – I appreciate your bravery, it is not often that people speak out against somebody that’s harmed them in that way so you’re a very brave woman, thank you. Recently we heard of an investigation in Oconto, of David VanderLeest. Any idea what that’s about?

Rachel – That has to have involved some abuse towards his son, but I really can’t give any more information on that but, I do have the police report, I do have proof of that but I can’t put it out there because it involves my son.

Politiscoop – I totally understand that, so when David claimed in an interview with me that he knows nothing about it and he has never been contacted that would be a lie?

Rachel – Well actually I don’t think he was ever served or anything like that but he does know what it was about obviously I mean, he definitely knows what it was about but he was never served, I guess is a word for it.

Politiscoop – Do you feel that David VanderLeest is fit to hold office, if not why?

Rachel – Absolutely not. Because he can’t even pay his own rent, his own taxes, or anything like that so how he thinks he can hold office, I just don’t even understand it. I mean even if you look at his clothes it doesn’t even look like they’re fit to be tied. Let’s put it that way.

Politiscoop – so he has problems with his own finances and he doesn’t have any business handling the peoples of Wisconsin finances basically.

Rachel – yeah.

Politiscoop: Do you know anything about how he lives? I understand he has custody of your son?

Rachel: No, he doesn’t have custody or my son. He has primary placement of my son which means that is my son’s address, but we have 50/50 custody, so that’s a lie.

Politiscoop: Oh, okay -- that is what he stated in his interview.

Rachel: Well he said primary placement which people think, but it is not. I have 50% custody of my son.

Politiscoop: Okay Great. That is something that he failed to disclose last time we spoke. Is there anything about your ex-husband that we don’t know, that we should know?

Rachel: I think they pretty much dug up everything that needed out. The taxes and … I don’t know that building that he lives in.

Politiscoop: And that building that he lives in and I was unaware until yesterday that he has tax issues.

Rachel: Well, I was too.

Politiscoop: Is he providing for your son?

Rachel: No.

Politiscoop: Not at all.

Rachel: No.

Politiscoop: Rachel, this is your time to tell your side of the story and you have answered these questions . . . and I commend you for that. Is there anything else you would like to say?

Rachel: Well, I would just like to say that I definitely do not think that he should be in office because he can’t even buy shoes for my son or anything else and I he doesn’t even have a stove for my son in his own apartment building.

Politiscoop: Oh my Goodness.

Rachel: The apartment building that he does not pay taxes on, so that is my statement.

Politiscoop: Rachel, I really appreciate you doing this interview today. I do wish you the best and we’ll all pray for your safety. Thank you very much.

Rachel: Thank you. And you have a good day.

Politiscoop: You too.

10.7.11

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations, Family therapy, Supervised Visits and other ‘profiteers’ in Family Court (mafia)

Children need. . . THIS? standards and practices in child custody evaluations
CHILD CUSTODY EVALUATORS: IN THEIR OWN WORDS

APA Guidelines for Evaluating Parental Responsibility - parenting evaluations - child custody

IMPORTANT NOTICE: here
ANOTHER IMPORTANT NOTICE here
parenting parenting plan or time parental rights and responsibilities for MAIN ARTICLE see here
This webpage is: CUSTODY EVALUATOR QUOTES at http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/custody-evaluator-quotes.html

AGENDAS

· Doubting Child Sex Abuse Allegations

· Doubting Women's Domestic Violence Allegations
...but the MHP's Fears are Justified

· False Memory Theory

· Father's Rights (or anti-Mother) Custody Advocacy

· Father's Rights Anti-Relocation Advocacy

· Joint Custody in the Absence of Research

· Parental Alienation Theory

· Reluctance to Believe Mothers' Allegations, Believe Father's

· "Sex Positivism"

· Speculation about What Children Need

· Speculation and Assumption When that Suits the Agenda
      ...but Requiring Hard Research When it Doesn't
            ...Such as in Battered Women's Surveys
                  ...or Sibling Attachments
                        ...or Post-Divorce Relocations