Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Dina looks pregnant in that photo. Does anyone know if she is having another baby?
If she is, I sure hope that she has stopped drinking..........
Thank you KZ!
The video promoting Maxie's Law is cloaked in falsehoods. The foundation mission is providing safety to children in blended families. The video begins highlighting laws that were painfully constructed by families whose children were abducted and murdered. I understand that out of tragedy sometimes we can bring much needed change and as these cases brought forth exceptional legislation. These cases had their day in court, an awful person was found guilty and punished for the murder of their children. Max's death has not been presented in any court nor has anyone legally been accused or found guilty of harming Max.
In my opinion, Dina and the board are bordering on fraud in this video. Possibly crossed that border. Max's accident had nothing to do with the safety of living in a blended family. It has not been proved in a court of law that Max was murdered let alone by a member of his blended family. It has not been proven in a court of law that Max's accident resulted from a lack of safety in his blended family. Max's death was an accident. This video grossly misrepresents the truth and blatantly lies to viewers. A person who has not followed Max's case after viewing this video would most likely believe Max was murdered by the persons Dina has publicly accused. Completely untrue.
Let's promote safety in blended families by lying. Lying is already a big problem for people who live in blended families. How can a foundation based on finding support for blended families consciously lie to promote their legislation? Dina is not only exploiting murdered and abducted children, she is exploiting the fears of people who live in blended families. Dina is telling worried parents that her child was murdered because resources were not available to protect her child. Absolutely false and intentionally misleading. Dina may believe this is what happened. A belief, not a fact. In my opinion, she is preying on the emotions of parents that have real fears and concerns for the safety of their children.
If Dina was so concerned about Max's safety while he was under the care of Jonah and whomever Jonah had in his home, then she should have filed a motion with the family court in order to have something done about it. As far as we know, she never did that............IMO, this is total BS about her having any concerns for Max's safety while in the care of Jonah, and just a parting shot against Jonah and Rebecca after the fact because she saw an opportunity to try and make Rebecca look like a horrible person.
Not just a parting shot. The nonprofit brings in income for Dina. IMO, she is probably the only paid member. But a lot of responsibility comes with whatever size that paycheck is, since it is cloaked in a nonprofit. That is different than spending your own money to perpetrate a fraud or false message.
It would be extremely difficult for Dina to get any kind of paid or employed position as a clinical psychologist at this point, unless she was self employed and hung out her own shingle. (And someone was willing to pay her out of pocket for counseling. Unlikely that she could bill effectively on her own.) A group or health management system would not hire her at this point, for multiple reasons. But that's a non issue, as she and her supporters have indicated that income isn't a necessity for her. So, why not use her OWN money to further her "message?"
I think she should seriously consider spending her own money for these ridiculous videos and such, and leave the nonprofit out of it. She is dancing on the edge of real, ongoing, expensive legal problems, IMO.
Since we haven't seen the records for this non-profit, I'm really curious who is getting paid. Of course we are not privy to DS' settlement with JS which leaves us guessing as to exactly how much $ she has available. Considering what we read, she has considerable resources. Why wouldn't she have done that from the beginning? Is the entire purpose of her NFP to slander someone who cannot defend herself and her minor sister? What exactly does that accomplish? Especially with so many unanswered questions to who was actually there that day.
I hate to go there but why in the world, when we are coming up on two years why hasn't the mother of the two minor S children been showing their boarding passes to every available LE agency and MSM. I know if they where my kids, I'd want the pubic to know and this has been a huge speculation point. I would bet that DS has way more love for the kids she knew, then to RZ's minor sister. I'm not saying that they were there or anything to that effect, but come on...by now....a scan of a boarding pass isn't a huge deal.
Who is it that knows where everyone was? I really want to believe that the S kids were on a plane. It's so easy to prove. Why don't they?
Always, MOO
P - Human Services
NAICS: 623990 - Largest/examples: P70 - P7 - Search P70 - Residential Care & Adult Day Programs
Organizations that provide alternative living arrangements for people who require care, supervision and support on a 24-hour basis or during part of the day. Use this code for organizations that provide residential, custodial care, but the specific nature of the facility is unclear, or which have multiple facilities which fall into more than one category below.
Key words: Custodial, Residential Care Facilities; Housing; Respite Care
Scope notes: Use this term for residential facilities for individuals who need custodial or developmental care. For facilities that offer residential care in conjunction with clinical treatment, use F33, Residential Mental Health Treatment. For facilities that are focused on serving children and young adults, use P76, Homes for Children & Young Adults.
See also: Residential Care for Children & Young Adults (P76); Foster Care (P32); Group Home (P73); Residential Mental Health Treatment Facilities (F33); Nursing Facilities (E91)
NTEE Core Codes (NTEE-CC) Overview
The National Taxonomy of Exempt Entities (NTEE) system is used by the IRS and NCCS to classify nonprofit organizations. It is also used by the Foundation Center to classify both grants and grant recipients (typically nonprofits or governments). NCCS and the IRS use the NTEE-CC system, described below, while the Foundation Center uses a slightly different version with more codes, as well as "population/beneficiary" codes to indicate the type of population served and "auspice" codes to indicate religious or governmental affiliation.
History
The original NTEE was developed by NCCS during the 1980?s with the collaboration of major nonprofit organizations. According to Russy D. Sumariwalla, one of the principal developers of the system, the use of such a system:
facilitates the collection, tabulation, presentation, and analysis of data by the types of organizations and their activities
promotes uniformity and comparability in the presentation of statistical and other data collected by various public and private agencies
provides better quality information as the basis for public policy debate and decision-making for the nonprofit sector and for society at large
In the mid-1990s, the IRS decided to begin classifying new organizations using the NTEE system. The "IRS determination specialists" -- the individuals who decide whether or not an organization is eligible to receive federal tax exempt status -- would classify the organizations based on descriptive data in the organizations' applications for recognition of tax-exempt status (Forms 1023 and 1024). Before beginning, they requested a simplified version of the NTEE to ease classification and to provide a better fit into the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), the new federal government economic classification system that replaced the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes in 1999.
I just noticed that Maxie's House is designated as 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) not a 501(c)(3). I guess it mostly has to do with where they get their funding?
Maxie's House website has changed. The parental disclosure act video appears to no longer be linked.