Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

While We’re There — the Northern California Mediation Center . . . and ITS corporate records, history, people, etc. (publ. 9/22/2012)

with 4 comments

While We’re There — the Northern California Mediation Center . . . and ITS corporate records, history, people, etc. (publ. 9/22/2012) <==Full Post Title + shortlink.

[ca. 8,000 words.    Significant additions after publishing.NCMC   introduced as to corporate filings, some personnel. Post concludes  showing how “parental alienation” indoctrination happens,is self-perpetuating, and is hostile towards mothers, generally, and is definitely a marketable scheme [yes, scheme] as well. See “train-the-trainers” @ public cost mentality.In midstream, I’m taking (to another post) a basic explanation of what “Corporation” means, FYI]

We might as well talk about the Northern California Mediation Center alongside  The Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition, and right alongside respective corporate and nonprofit filings, fundings, tax returns affiliations and actions.{{The introduction is a little passionate, but it’s about a dozen paragraphs.  Scroll down if you want to skip them!  I added numbers to make it easier!}}


And the historical development of all the above, from another point of view than the mutual press releases, publications, and in general buzz.    There IS another point of view, and it deserves to be heard and placed alongside the scope of influence available to the networks that have developed around these surprisingly few (but well-published) psychological, psychoanalytic, and legal writers, trainers, speakers, consultants and in short authorities.


TIMEFRAME:  After all in the 1980s Joan B. Kelly, Judith S. Wallerstein, Janet R. Johnston (see last post), some others, started corporations (organizations) to promote and practice their theories (promote their analyses)  in direct response to the “no-fault divorce” and feminism of the 1970s — and have helped move the nation further forward (or back, depending on one’s point of view) towards treating divorce as a crime and the divorcing parent as a criminal, even if the reason for divorce was criminal behavior by one parent towards the other, or the child, or third parties.


In addition, as I have discovered, til one knows the business/corporate ~ government grants & contracts relationships, one doesn’t know “squat” about who’s right or what’s right, or even what’s up.


I would say more — right here, right now — except this post was already published; after thinking about it overnight and the overall scope of the situation here — I have QUITE a bit more to say.  But let this be a start of saying: (particularly to leadership of mothers losing their custody inappropriately, and to those following them uncritically) those that complain about certain professional’s tendencies, influence, and theories (like parental alienation) — shame on you!  Put in the personal time, put your behind down on a chair, in front of a laptop (or wherever else information is found, including where records are kept — and put together a coherent account of the problem, how it developed, WHO developed it (and who tolerated its development) and then what you want to do about it — that actually, for once, makes some sense.


And analysis that omits the entire federal welfare system (HOW much money is that?) privatization of welfare with 1996 welfare reform (Block Grants to States) and the role of, for example, the Child Support System (OCSE) — which information HAS been summarized and identified — is a poor analysis.  You cannot analyze the problems of an entire nation from a single-issue point of view!  Moreover, you cannot organize them without taking into account how the flow of power and influence (which means money) occurs.  In doing this you are going to have to seek out experts above your experience level, and do some hard thinking and reflection also.


(Take it away from a rally to Washington, D.C. and begging whoever’s President to “Do something, Please listen to us, Help us, form a task force, do an audit, start an initiative!”  Or even “Stop marriage/fatherhood funding” (and then failing to properly identify its history and spread, or the scope of its influence).  All this does is suck power from your energy and deliver it to the one place that needs LESS (not MORE) power — Central Control, i.e., the United States (or State level) Executive Branch!   Great example of this:  The Defending Childhood / Children Exposed to Violence initiatives.  I hope someone is happy –because NOT ONE leader in that task force speaks to and represents what has happened in the family court arena.  “Thanks a lot” for heading us further towards dictatorship, fascism, or socialism (pick one — how different are they, really?).


In short, ANY PERSON who WILL NOT CHECK FACTS — this includes CORPORATE/ECONOMIC facts — and develop few skills, learn some tools to do this — and will not analyze one’s friends as thoroughly as one’s chosen “opposing parties” –should shut up, sit down, and look up til things make sense.  So that you could explain it without having to quote everyone else, and be unable to provide a halfway coherent HISTORICAL development of how certain groups gained their influence over so many lifes, and courtrooms.  And then you CONTINUE looking and expanding your understanding — was there something you missed? (an area)  — was there someONE you missed?  Are you prioritizing it efficiently towards the most urgent situation, and then seeking what to do about it — or not?


After all — the idea is complaint and stopping it, right?  How can you stop something you YOURSELF haven’t stopped to analyze!?!


I did this — my life was brought to a complete stop (all the principle activities) to fight this ridiculous battle, because so much was at stake, and the situation was far, far more extreme than most realize.  ANYONE could overnight be uprooted, lose a child, lose housing, lose work — and without due process, or recourse. Being already stopped, I had to analyze how in the world did that happen?  I had the option to stay in victim, trauma, emotional, rally, claim, join and reblog mode — but I chose, pretty quickly after the most devastating traumas available, to go into analyze mode.  But, until I had a few clues as to where to look, there was nothing to “analyze.” Until I also took a hard look at why certain advocacy groups were intent to run in specific ruts, and reject outside input, or understanding of the problems they’d already determined the solution to — I didn’t run across that extra data — which relates to the court-connected nonprofits and where the federal funding fits in.


Those ethical, honorable, non-wifebeating, non-child-abandoning, non-child-abusing, nonlitigious, and often nonparent simply PEOPLE, whose work continues to help make businesses, universities (and/or government) whirr and hum  — who are also so sure this won’t be them, are many times contributing to the problem — are actually tolerating and financially supporting an abusive, warlike government that is doing this to its own population.


In other words, from WHERE do we think the power to make life and death decisions in 20 minutes (or, ex parte) over a child’s safety or a parent’s -based on a complex formula of financial incentives, wide discretion by judges, the need of individual states to keep their welfare funding (regardless of the strings that come attached with it) – — comes from, huh???

Most of the above added Sunday 9/23/2012)..  Back to the more narrow topic:

(All right, I know some of that sarcasm — about NCMC/”The J.W. Center.” — wasn’t really called for — but neither do I believe this outfit is, or was):


This is a beautifully tailored website to a California Nonprofit that doesn’t just DO business with the family courts, it’s helping direct that business and has personnel (at least currently) that are part of it.

They have talked about themselves more than adequately, so it’s time to take a closer look as a consumer.  FYI, a “Consumer” is someone who financially support the (national) family courts, not just individual clients.  If you’re contributing to the economics of the country through taxes (wages, sales, etc.) — that’s you.  Gotcha, right?  Basically anyone not in this system is pretty well contributing to it — and its expansion; where does the money come to pay for the trainings, the salaries, and the services?



Or, as seen through the “Registry Search” site on California Attorney General:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA MEDIATION CENTER 045685 Charity Delinquent SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity

(looks like nothing for 2011, and an IRS? missing for 2009 — I’ve seen FAR worse records not marked delinquent, so don’t know what that designation’s about… the “delinquent” mark seems to have a lot of discretion attached)

The rectangles below shows their revenue– but from the IRS; apparently our state didn’t get their Forms??

Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-11
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-11
Total Assets: $26,872.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $317,670.00
RRF Received: 07-JUN-12
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted
Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09
Total Assets: $45,964.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $305,552.00
RRF Received: 20-MAY-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: N
Status: Accepted

For reference:  NCMC — JOAN KELLY // The Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition — JUDITH WALLERSTEIN (obviously), also Janet R. Johnston, Vivian Roseby, Cheryl Vander Waal, etc.

Most of them, probably also members of AFCC, and/or (as appropriate) APA, ADR (Dispute Resolution) Conflict Resolution groups, and multiple other spinoff associations relating to professional niches developed, such as Mediation, or Collaborative Divorce.  When talking about publications, publications are often professional journals of some of these associations.  When talking about trainings, trainings are often at CONFERENCES of some of these associations, and/or CEU (Continuing Education Units) for trainings to qualify others in the fields of practice — i.e., Conciliation law, the family law courts, etc. — that some of these helped form and influence!!

 There’s also the ABA, which some are, some are not members of — and it’s my impression that NEITHER Kelly nor Wallerstein are attorneys, although currently running the NCMC there is an established and obviously accomplished attorney, Nancy J. Foster.

Joan B. Kelly is often found being quoted alongside Judith B. Wallerstein by, for example, Janet R. Johnston — which makes what they’re saying even more true than if it had been observed by a neutral third party, eyewitness, but without a Ph.D. to validate it . . . . .

All of them have many honors to their names, so let’s deal first with the Joan B. Kelly honors, on the website of NCMC.*    

*I’d like to mention at this point that although the picture and bio are up (and so far as I know, she’s active) on a tax return of the organization, Joan Kelly is described as “former employee” “sharing in organization revenues.”  Most likely she’s still a contractor, but you’d have to look, or ask them yourself.  

First of all, she’s from Yale — so who can counter that? (in 1970, that is). . . . and unlike those of us going through divorce and the family law scene these days, it appears she’s been able to hold her field of study together and stay with it.  What I’m intending to show (over the course of a few posts) is that one way such people can do this is by forming the nonprofits, and organizing well, including organizing their funding from the beginning, working well with the PR, and staying close to the source of business, generally speaking, the courts…

Kelly is a clinical psychologist, researcher, teacher, and consultant, who was a Founder and Executive Director of the Northern California Mediation Center from 1981-1999. [FN***]
…Kelly received her Ph. D. from Yale University. Since 1970, her research, clinical, and teaching career has focused on research in children’s adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, divorce mediation, applications of child development research to custody and access decision-making, and Parenting Coordination. She has more than 90 publications in these areas of interest, including the book Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce (Basic Books, 1980). ***

Joan is a frequent keynote speaker, workshop leader, and trainer at state, national and international conferences, including judicial and legal conferences in many countries, AFCC, American Psychological Association, Family Mediation Associations in Canada, England, and Scotland, and the New Zealand Psychological Association. Dr. Kelly has been honored with many awards, including Fellow of the American Psychological Association, the Distinguished Mediator Award from the Academy of Family Mediators, and the Distinguished Research Award and the Meyer Elkin Award from the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. Joan is Past-President of the Board of Directors of the Academy of Family Mediators and the Board of the California Dispute Resolution Institute.

Joan can be contacted at: P.O. Box 7063, Corte Madera, CA 94976-7063

Note:  THIS POST IS STILL UNDER REVISION (I’m taking some time out to define a few basics for people who may not think about them very often; incorporation, names, board, founder, nonprofit, etc.  This will most likely then become a separate post, but hasn’t yet. Scroll down past it to get to original content more directly related to NCMC (I do like to set a rather WIDE context when talking on a subject… and went into “teaching” mode here for a bit.  I feel it’s necessary, knowing many of the readers of this blog.  I also help it will encourage more people to look up – and who knows if we might even pass a bill to get the public a better database here for lookups!).

“FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR:”  Down-to-Earth Definition of Terms.

[FN*** To found a corporation requires obtaining a business name not in use, and a filing for it (for a very minimal fee, sometimes $25.00).  Some people do it directly, some hire companies that do this so often and pay them.  If you go to the California Secretary of State site and start browsing (pick a general company name), you’ll see many are filed by CTCorporation.   This corporation could have any number of names — there are 79,000+ records (many dissolved or suspended, no doubt0 with the words “Association of” in them — I just searched.  I searched “California Dispute Resolution” and unfortunately for our search site here in Calif — came up with 60 records:

Results of search for ” CALIFORNIA DISPUTE RESOLUTION ” returned 60 entity records. (NOTE if you performed this “Business Entity” search again (I selected “Corporation” bullet out of three choiceds)  from at “Kepler.sos.ca.gov” the results may have changed — but the results shown the “Entity Name column will be active links showing one (and only one) more level of detail for each result — giving Jurisdiction, Entity Address and Registered Agent Address.  These are important to see if researching individual, or potentially related corporations.   (This comment added during update 12/23/2015 // LGH))

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Entity Number: C3239935
Date Filed: 01/04/2010
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:
Entity City, State, Zip: BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212
Agent for Service of Process: MARK FOTOHABADI
Agent Address: 9595 WILSHIRE BLVD, 2ND FLOOR
Agent City, State, Zip: BEVERLY HILLS CA 90212


Example from the top row (still active**) Mark Fotohabadi.  He’s still filing his annual returns, no doubt. This is probably a for-profit, not a nonprofit.  Once you have the corporate status, then no problem, you can do business IN CALIFORNIA –(or state of registration — it’s a commercial legal status, is my point, which is obtained by filing paperwork properly and paying the associated fees.  I’m not sure if this is true of For-Profits, but when it comes to Not-For-Profits, the fees go up with the revenues…).  THAT is what “founder” means, generally speaking.  He “founded it.”  He paid someone or they donated a seal, put up a website, put his bio and history on it, and that’s pretty much it… Agency for Dispute Resolution  (Still active Dec. 23, 2015 also; this was a Sept. 2012 post…/LGH)

Agency for Dispute Resolution

Then he can describe himself, his firm, his background, product, purpose, unique reason you should do business with his firm (and not someone else) and at xyz prices.  It’s JUST FOR COMMERCE, get it?


Principal | Founder

Mr. Fotohabadi is Principal and Founder of the Agency for Dispute Resolution (ADR). He is responsible for overseeing day-to-day operations while focusing on strategic growth and overall direction of the agency. Mr. Fotohabadi is a visionary and proficient entrepreneur with strong interdisciplinary academic and professional backgrounds in real estate development, investments, architecture, urban planning, construction management, finance, regulatory affairs and alternative dispute resolution (ADR). 

(keep reading –background isn’t exactly family law, but the Pepperdine Dispute Resolution and Alliant International University connections overlaps with court-connected corporations and professionals spheres, i.e., the family courts):


Principal | Founder
Previously, Mark was managing broker of a leading construction financing firm. He was also instrumental in the capacities of business development and regulatory compliance at an international trade advisory firm. Prior experiences include project management posts with a local residential tract home developer; and direct construction management experience with a prominent designer and developer of multi-million dollar custom homes.Mark received his Bachelor of Science degree in Urban & Regional Planning from California State Polytechnic University, (Cal Poly) Pomona; earned his Master of Business Administration (MBA) with an emphasis in finance, from Pepperdine University’s Graziadio School of Business; and obtained a Master in Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from #1 ranked Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution at Pepperdine University, School of Law. Mark also holds a Ph.D. in Leadership, from Alliant International University, Scripps Ranch in San Diego, California.Mr. Fotohabadi’s diverse heritage and extensive international dispute resolution training, make him especially effective on appreciating and strategically leading a thriving organization.

If you click from the Sec. of State database on that company’s name for our (pitiful, in my opinion) data look up as a person living in this state — I could see that he is also the Agent for service of process.

This establishes a legal/commercial relationship with the IRS, the State Franchise Board, and with the State of California.  Under US Code, corporations are “persons,” as are trust as are, in most but not all situations, flesh and blood human beings.  By “incorporating” this puts a level of tax perk and protection/liability onto the “person” of that corporation as opposed to depending on the type of corporation) Mr. Fotohabadi himself.  A main purpose of incorporation (other than publicity and sales) is PROTECTION of wealth (from being taxed too much — because expenses are deductible) and protection of the owners from lawsuits, i.e., when it says “Agent” for service of process, that process means, if someone is going to file a lawsuit against the corporation.  GOT IT?

Here’s another of the 60 “dispute resolution” corporations that’s still active…


this may or may not be a one-person operation (only followup would tell), but we can notice that the “entity address” and the “agent address” are the same, and that it was formed back in the mid-1980s (when this was beginning to take hold?).

Entity Number: C1295640
Date Filed: 01/06/1986
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 444 W OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1500
Entity City, State, Zip: LONG BEACH CA 90802
Agent for Service of Process: JOHN P BLUMBERG
Agent Address: 444 W OCEAN BLVD, SUITE 1500
Agent City, State, Zip: LONG BEACH CA 90802

Whether something is — in it’s CORPORATE NAME — called a “Center” a “Board” an “Institute” an “Agency” (the word “agency” comes from the word to do, or to drive — not that agencies always accomplish things, but they certainly often do drive situations down the road a piece when they are state or federal “agencies!” — but a private corporation can be called an Agency also.  It’s just in the name, that’s all!

Now let’s look at the final qualification of Ms. Joan B. Kelly, above, from this point of view:

the Board of the California Dispute Resolution Institute.

I’m trying to demystify (and, OK, “dethrone”) the phrases used to define and describe fields of expertise and authority within those fields.  This is NOT to diminish what it takes to actually run any successful organization (business, that is) — it takes a LOT — including money, help, and maintaining relationships .  It may require capital, and backers — or if not, sales and a good income-to-expense ratio.  The only place where one can get along with seriously NOT having a product (or service) pay for itself in the business plan — and there’s a lot if it going around — is IF one has backers and funders (i.e., as the Amini Foundation helps fund some of the research put out by someone with a Board of Directors relationship to the Center for the FIT did, or as HHS does to many corporations around the country) — or IF one can RAISE capital through stock (private or public offerings, right?) bonds, or otherwise.  In other words, someone has to pay the bills // input to outgo.  So THAT is what’s important to keep in mind when dealing with institutes, agencies, centers, Board memberships, and all that!
The word “institute” is a name meaning, someone, or group of persons (people, orlegally speaking, “persons”) Instituted something.  Look up the definition. Institute, Constitut(ion), etc., Statute — has to do with standing.   So where is California Dispute Resolution Institute — which I am sure does some commerce (collects money, sells things for its services or products) in California here – it has to be a corporation (or trade name of a corporation) IF it’s doing business here legally.  So — Voila:
Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Well, that’s rather interesting, huh?  But not unheard of in the business, obviously.
ALSO NOTE — 1996 was “welfare reform” year and through Access/visitation funding, something of a bonanza for people that wished to provide any services supported by this funding.  Look it up elsewhere on the web, or my blog (or california judicial council/administrative office of the courts website!)  $10 million/year nationwide, with California regularly (since 1996) getting close to $1 million (because of our size) for the central state agency receiving those funds (which you can see on TAGGS) to set up programs for mediation, parenting education/counseling and supervised visitation. As I recall.  the GOAL of this (within welfare reform) was to “increase noncustodial parent access” which theoretically would increase child support payments.  In fact, what we found (later — guess I’m ‘chatty’ today) was that the collections were (at least in Los Angeles, but also elsewhere) not actually always getting to the recipients, resulting in “undistributable funds” (and pooled interest on those funds) and in a windfall for state governments.  See “the 66/34 Effect.” (Federal pays 66, states 34% of enforcement costs, basically — or look up “undistributable child support” and HHS/OIG/OAS audits on where it went..)
Entity Number: C1994843
Date Filed: 12/03/1996
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 760 MARKET ST STE 516
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102-2406
Agent for Service of Process: ROBERT C BARRETT
Agent Address: 760 MARKET ST STE 516
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
“This book makes a major contribution to the expanding body of empirical information about how alternative dispute resolution techniques are being used in American corporations. It is practical and specific and should be read by everyone with an interest in reducing the cost of conflict in the workplace.”
— Robert C. Barrett, director, California Dispute Resolution Institute,
University of San Francisco
(credit on a book; this quote shows up a lot on search)  This is more about WORK conflicts.
Roert C. Barrett on Lexis-Nexis on should California legislate mediation certification? SB 1428:

Copyright (c) 1996 University of San Francisco School of Law
University of San Francisco Law Review

SYMPOSIUM: CERTIFICATION OF MEDIATORS IN CALIFORNIA: Commentary: Mediator Certification: Should California Enact Legislation?

Spring, 1996 ~30 U.S.F. L. Rev. 617 ~Author

By Robert C. Barrett * Excerpt

THE INCREASING USE of mediation and other “alternative” dispute resolution processes has given rise to expanding efforts in the California Legislature to promote, and to regulate, their use. 1 Most of the legislative attention focuses on arbitration, where the neutral has decision-making authority, rather than mediation, where the parties retain control of the outcome.

Mediation, as a facilitative process in which one or more neutral persons help parties to surmount the barriers to a fair and efficient negotiated resolution of their dispute, 2has been used in a wide range of settings3 Though lacking authority to actually impose an outcome, an incompetent mediator can do parties substantial harm by, for example, disclosing confidential information, allowing tensions to escalate, or showing favoritism. Many argue, therefore, as does Senator Newton Russell in this Symposium, that the time has come to enact basic standards for mediation. Central to this effort was a proposed bill, Senate Bill 1428 4 (“SB 1428”), introduced on January 24, 1996, to create a voluntary mediator certification program with requirements for training, experience, and a personal assessment evaluation. Under the program, any mediator could choose to apply for a certifi- cate indicating that he or she had at least a minimum level of basic training and experience. However, on April 8, 1996, SB 1428 failed to get out of the Senate Business and Professions Committee. 5 Despite the Bill’s demise, the debate surrounding mediator certification should continue.

It becomes clear that the Institute (as a corporation) has now morphed and is a program of “The Leo T. McCarthy Center, USF” and associated (I don’t yet know how) with a similar named (and still active) CORPORATION (above), “California Dispute Council” (as opposed to “Institute.”)  From a corporate point of view, both are corporate names, that’s all.  One kept up its annual registration filings (a simple thing to do– usually one or two pages, affirming the corporation still exists in the state — again, this is for tAX reasons, as well as consumer protection I guess) — and the other, the Institute, did not.  But the name remains — ina  different context.  That’s what we should also pay attention to… Once a business name becomes defunction (and, for example, “California Healthy Marriage Coalition” did this) anyone else can pick it up and incorporate, or use it as a trade name; in essence the legal “person” changes hands.  I believe that even the same human (or other “person,” like a corporation) that let it slip can file again and re-instate.   Here’s a 2003 conference:

California Dispute Resolution Institute (A program of the Leo T. McCarthy Center, USF)

California Dispute Resolution Council USF School of Law and Law Review


The 10th Annual ADR Policy Conference

ADR in an Adversarial World: Challenges and Opportunities

November 14, 2003

University of San Francisco

. . .[conference description available at link]

put on by:
also a report from Sacramento by

Donne Brownsey, CDRC’s Lobbyist in Sacramento

and a presentation about ADR use in state government by

Kathleen Hamilton, Director of the California Department of Consumer Affairs

Co-sponsored by: American Arbitration Association; Arbitration, Mediation and Conciliation Center (AMCC); Association of Conflict Resolution – Workplace Section;Association for Conflict Resolution, Central CA and San Diego Chapters;Association for Dispute Resolution of Northern California (ADRNC); California Dispute Resolution Programs Act (CALDRPA) County Coordinators Council; College of Commercial Arbitrators; CPR Institute for Dispute Resolution; JAMS, The Resolution Experts; Judicate West; Mediate.com; The Mediation Society; National Association for Community Mediation (NAFCM); Southern California Mediation Association; Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution – Pepperdine School of Law; Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation; SF Bar Association – ADR Section; University of San Francisco School of Law; Western Justice Center Foundation.

~ ~ ~

To found a nonprofit corporation requires having enough of a board and passing the state & IRS qualifications as a nonprofit (501(c)3 or etc. under specific designations to be either PRIVATE or PUBLIC foundation/ nonprofit.  It may not be easy, but it is common and many, many groups do so.

I know that information from having looked up so very many “articles of incorporation” from HHS grantees and other court-affiliated nonprofit groups.  They file, pay a filing fee, write up by-laws, and that’s incorporation.  They submit an application to become a nonprofit, and if they qualify, get a “letter of determination” from the IRS (and presumably franchise //state-level) tax board that “you’re in.”  These letters can usually be read — for PUBLIC NONprofits, which means Public Benefit organizations -in an on-line format, i.e., as a pdf file and for free.  Some states it’s harder than others.-

OK, warning, I’m going into expressive, responsive mode for a while here…. but not the rest of the post!

Those are tremendous awards, not to mention getting through Yale.

Thank you, Joan Kelly, for your and friends’ theories that helped make bring my personal life (including academic and professional) AND one of my daughters’ personal future educations to a grinding halt through repeated interruptions directly attributable to the AFCC’s (and some of the above-mentioned organization’s) collective determinations that THEIR future retirements and professions were worth more than my family’s — or many family’s, particularly female-headed families — and determined that what the world needed, really, was clinical psychologists, psychiatrists, and behavioral health advocates in control of things.  Things, like the court system.

Only through this type of reasoning could it truly be possible for the eradication of the concept of a crime as defined by law, and replacing a concrete definition of crime based on actions (evidence) with  the crime of one’s inability to get along with a criminal, and/or people who, when given standards, refuse to keep them based on, because of their gender and the particular scene in the courts these days, they don’t have to?

Not to mention, the courts don’t apparently have to follow THEIR own rules either.  After all, this is therapeutic jurisprudence based on what’s best for the child (according to the professionals on child development, psychology, and the politics of alienation…)

No — really — how’d you like it if your Yale Ph.D. became irrelevant,  (as well as pretty much  your character, work life, and financial future) pretty much because you took a serious stand against what was clearly wrong (abuse, assault and battery, extortion, abandonment, threats, slander, perjury, and forcing a spouse and kids to beg while the other spouse was adequately banked, transported, clothed, and had no POW situation going on?) and insisted on appropriate boundaries — with the other parent . . . only to find out that the court doesn’t approve of those (socially moral, legally understandable)??   For comparable situation of someone closer to your generation, please contact Judith Reisman and read her autobiographical pages, then come back and tell me — is incest acceptable or unacceptable, throughout society?

This is exactly what a walk through the family court system has become.  The first thing established is who has the power– and it’s most important to make sure that this is not the parents, but the practitioners, which of course teaches children as well (who see this in action, and are smarter than given credit for) — that the most important thing in life is WHO YOU KNOW not WHAT YOU DO — and definitely not concrete standards of right and wrong they can then have as a structure.

This is EXACTLY what happens to many mothers walking through a family court system.  They come up against the egos of every practitioner and the biases of every federally-funded incentive in the neighborhood — and are not told of this in advance, naturally.    How many of us can really process and comprehend that NOW, the criminal system + the family court system in tandem often cancel each other out.  Police don’t have to arrest, DA’s don’t have to prosecute and judges have wide discretion; no one really HAS to do anything, but if the parent doesn’t do as he or she is told, that parent could be held in contempt, tossed in jail (or threatened with jail) and lose everything — children, housing, reputation, and friends.

That’s interesting, as one of the Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition’s 3 incarnations is in Corte Madera also.  Obviously Kelly & Wallerstein have been working together (i.e., collaborating on books and projects) since the 1980s, but maintaining their separate organizations businesswise.  This is kelly’s — the other is wallerstein’s.  (see last post);

Note on the Book referenced above “Surviving the Breakup.”

Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce

Judith S. Wallerstein, an internationally renowned expert on marriage and divorce, is principal investigator of the Children of Divorce Project. She is the founder of the Center for the Family in Transition, in Corte Madera, California, and the author of the bestselling Second Chances, a follow-up study of the same families in this book ten years after divorce. Her most recent book is The Good Marriage.Joan B. Kelly, co-principal director of the Children of Divorce Project from its inception until 1980, is known internationally for her research, articles, and presentations in the divorce, custody, and mediation areas. She is a past president of the Academy of Family Mediators and is executive director of the Northern California Mediation Center in Corte Madera, California.Judith S. Wallerstein, an internationally renowned expert on marriage and divorce, is principal investigator of the Children of Divorce Project. She is the founder of the Center for the Family in Transition, in Corte Madera, California, and the author of the bestselling Second Chances, a follow-up study of the same families in this book ten years after divorce. Her most recent book is The Good Marriage.Joan B. Kelly, co-principal director of the Children of Divorce Project from its inception until 1980, is known internationally for her research, articles, and presentations in the divorce, custody, and mediation areas. She is a past president of the Academy of Family Mediators and is executive director of the Northern California Mediation Center in Corte Madera, California.

The Incorporation in 1981 was by a J.D. who is now also its executive director, and whose bio is also on the website.

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

compare the timing of a related firm:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Entity Number: C1049143
Date Filed: 07/10/1981
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 175 NORTH REDWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 295
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN RAFAEL CA 94903
Agent for Service of Process: NANCY J. FOSTER
Agent Address: 175 NORTH REDWOOD DRIVE, SUITE 295
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN RAFAEL CA 94903
This bio of Nancy Foster at Mediate.com tells me a number of things, including a possibly Christian or Catholic background — she taught at Pepperdine, she
Nancy J. Foster, J.D., is Director of the Northern California Mediation Center and has been mediating divorce, family, business and organizational disputes since 1988. She received her law degree from the University of Michigan Law School and specialized in the

Nancy Foster

 practice of commercial litigation, securities and real estate law for over ten years prior to becoming a mediator. Nancy has taught at Pepperdine University School of Law, the Academy of Family Mediators, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, and has coached communication skills at the National Institute for Trial Advocacy, Dominican University, Hastings School of Law, U.C. Davis Law School and Stanford Law School. She serves on the mediation panels of the U.S. District Court for Northern California, the California Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District, San Francisco Superior Court, Marin County Superior Court, California Lawyers for the Arts and the Keybridge Foundation. She served as President of the Northern California Mediation Association for 2 years and as Vice-President of Marin County Women Lawyers. Nancy is a member of the Marin County Bar Association (ADR and Family Law Sections), and is an Advanced Practitioner Member of the Association for Conflict Resolution.
If she specialized in  securities and real estate law prior to family law, be assured she understands how the money works. ….  I don’t know what year the UMichigan Law Degree was (interesting, because Janet R. Johnston and (the amini foundation “founder,” the late Faribroz (sp?) Amini, M.D. was also up there at a Neuropsychiatric Institute —  and there is a well-known Children’s Law Clinic there as well (which relates to this field of family law obviously.  NACC & AFCC are overlapping institutions sometimes as to conferences, sometimes as to memberships).
SAN RAFAEL,  CA  94903-1978
Available 990s
Year IRS Process Date Form Type Assets
2010 06/09/2011 990 Initial Return $43,453
2009 07/13/2010 990 Initial Return $45,964
2008 06/30/2009 990 Initial Return $11,940
2007 12/30/2008 990 Initial Return $13,968
2006 09/13/2007 990 Initial Return $25,357
2005 12/14/2006 990 Initial Return $21,714
2004 12/12/2005 990 Initial Return $9,479
2003 12/08/2004 990 Initial Return $6,181
2002 07/30/2003 990 Initial Return $10,763

ERI Economic Research Institute is constantly updating this Form 990 Library as new images are provided by the IRS. The list of returns above may include ones marked with

icon indicating that the image is being converted for viewing and will be available within 2-3 weeks, so please check back. Forms 990 from 2001 on are available for viewing on this site. Forms from years prior to 2001 are available through a subscription toERI’s Nonprofit Comparables Assessor & Tax-Exempt Survey.

IRS Business Master File Information
The following information comes directly from the IRS and is posted here without any changes. If information for your organization is not right, please contact IRS Customer Account Services at 1-877-829-5500 to correct it.
EIN: 942768875
Ruling Date: 01/1982
Group Exemption Number: 0000
SubSection: 03 – Charitable Organizations
Affiliate: 3 – Independent – This code is used if the organization is an independent organization or an independent auxiliary (i.e., not affiliated with a National, Regional, or Geographic grouping of organizations).
Classification: 1 – Corporation
Deductibility: 1 – Contributions are deductible.
Foundation: 15 – Organization which receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or the general public
Filing Requirement: 01 –
Activity Code(s):
124 Other Instructions and Training Activities
I just finished looking (briefly) at an tax return for this nonprofit — and am wondering for what reasons can an organization which has $331K or so of Program Service Revenue — an Executive Director whose 40 hour work week nets $173,967 (that’s salary) and the same person is also listed on the same tax return as an Independent Contractor for $132,376.  Also transactions with persons of related interest (like Joan B. Kelly, Former Employee) indicates they shared program revenues (but no $$ figure shown).
The Executive Director is also an attorney — which just goes to show that attorneys are SMART about organizing their finances — Nancy J. Foster, who is featured on the website:
She is also on the “Keybridge Foundation” which turns out to be a USDOJ-funded foundation that administers TItle II and III ADA (Disability) mediation for people with complaints based on their ADA status.

KBF ADA Mediation Program

The Key Bridge Foundation for Education and Research received a grant in 1994 from the US Department of Justice (DOJ)
to administer a mediation program to settle complaints under Title II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

“In 1994, the Department of Justice established the ADA Mediation Program. Initially funded through the ADA Technical Assistance Program, the Mediation Program now operates under a contract with the
Key Bridge Foundation.”


This ADA topic is often related to situations resulting from divorce, i.e., someone is injured — or someone having been stalked or repeatedly traumatized through the courts as well may develop an exacerbated PtSD situation such that they cannot, literally, defend themselves in the courtroom..

So then, they would normally go look for a family lawyer who (incidentally) will also be marketing books by Wallerstein, Kelly and friends (Vicky Lansky seems to be another one, I’ve still seen Richard Gardner books around, although he allegedly committed suicide after coming up with the Parental Alienation theory as to why Suzy doesn’t want to visit Daddy and is acting out in pre-school in ways beyond her years . . . . .    ).

Or they can be (and I’ve seen them) also be marketed through the AFCC network or statewide Unified COurt System that requires parenting classes of ALL people modifying a custody plan (mandatory):

Here’s one (random choice) from Oregon, showing Wallerstein, Kelly, Lansky, and even Isolina Ricci (also associated with the California Court System//Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC.  In other words, MARKETING!  MANY family lawyers will recommend these books — why wouldn’t they?  Many family lawyers are AFCC members, and AFCC helped develop the family law field (i.e., add a psychologist) to start with.  “You scratch my back . . . . .”


Recommended Books About Family Law Issues: 

NOTICE SOME OF THE YEARS ON THESE BOOKS — THEY ARE OLD, LIKE 1970s, 1980s.  Moreover, anything 1980s and pre-1996 predates welfare reform, which made a HUGE difference in the family court system child support, and a lot more.  It funded many of the programs mandating counseling, mediation (in some states), etc.  It set up the supervised visitation network as an (inappropriate in my opinion) response to the battered women’s shelter movement, i.e., keep the family separate from the person that was going to harm them or had been.

Books for Adults
Parenting Children of Divorce
Single Parenting, Remarriage, and Step-Parenting
Books on Divorce for Children: Pre-School and Early Elementary (Ages 3-7)

I mean, any clinical psychologist with some experience in this field gets to put out a book, and it’s likely to be circulated among the ranks.  Here’s Lois Nightengale, apparently from California but it shows a MA? license (notice, being marketed on in Oregon family law site.  they must have some conferences in common, right?)

Dr. Lois Nightingale is one of the very few psychotherapists licensed both as a Clinical Psychologist and as a Marriage, Family and Child Counselor.

{{actually I don’t believe that’s this uncommon…}}

This means she holds both a masters degree and a Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology [[FROM….??]], has completed the thousands of hours internship requirements for each therapeutic specialty and passed both the written and oral exams in California for these two therapy licenses. She has extensive experience working with families, couples, adolescents, children and adults.

Dr. Nightingale has received additional post graduate training in many modes of psychotherapy including Behavior Modification, Short Term, Relationship, and Family Therapies, Chemical Dependency, hypnosis, Cognitive-Behavioral, Jungian and Transpersonal psychotherapies. Because it is a high priority of hers to bring clients the most current and up-to-date treatment, she spends over 200 hours a year in continuing education and specialized training.

She specializes in family communications; behavioral contracting and helping families in conflict and crisis find practical tools that work. She primarily uses solution-based therapies with a focus on short-term problem solving orientations, along with humor and a strong emphasis on the positive.

Since 1980 her experience in the mental health field has also included being a faculty member of the Holmes Institute School of Ministry, forensic evaluations, court testimony, and program director of two psychiatric hospital units


Yep, the Holmes Institute (San Diego) — Graduate School of Consciousness Studies  // Religious Science… (distance learning….)

“Holmes Institute is the premiere training program in the world today for Religious Science Ministry”



Bring it on – hypnosis, altered consciousness, religious science, and psycho-educational classes for my kids with whichever brand comes our way (including the very religious brands as well, in which divorce is truly a crime against God and man….) . . . . .

This unique program is dedicated to educating Licensed Ministers for United Centers for Spiritual Living through a quality distance education program in the areas of education, leadership, philosophy, science and spirituality, psychology, and religion

It is the intention of United Centers for Spiritual Living to anchor everything we do in Divine vision. For almost 10 years, we have embraced visioning as a community spiritual practice, committed to allowing God’s idea of who we are as an organization and a movement to emerge, express and actualize. We anchor our organization in visioning via our Vision Core, while our Vision Facilitator Program supports our covenanted communities in discovering and expanding their use of visioning.What’s New!

  • It’s Back! Quarterly Visioning TeleSeries
    April 17 & 24, 2012— Attend at 11 am or 6 pm Pacific
    Join Visioning Team Chair Rai Jordan, RScP hosts and guests as we practice and explore visioning.


I keep saying (in private and in public) that psychology and psychiatry are, at their essence one of two things:

  • Personal worldviews shared by people with enough degrees to get these worldviews socially accepted and named “scientific” although essentially they are religious.  The shared terminologies through conferences and publications is essentially confirming (self-validating) the framework among themselves.   I’m not the only person that has mentioned this — see also writings of Nicholas Cummings, or just look at the foundations of the APA and various leaders, whose following basically attained cult-like followings, from about 1900 on.  See particularly the role of YALE in these (home of Skull & Crossbones??)  . . . I notice Kelly is from Yale, and Marsha Kline Pruett (above) I think is there.
  • On the darker side — and do I confront this enough yet, or not? — they are studies in the science (for real) of behavioral modification, including some very immoral but with military applications, practices in how to fragment the human mind (including in very young children) to create multiple personalities, some of who can be controlled through hypnosis.  (see again wanttoknow.info — or see testimony of Paul Bonacci in The Franklin Coverup.  People have survived this and given some testimony. . . . . .

Practically speaking, this is the cumulative effect of this system of setting up a virtual network, widely spread, but with a few and limited circle of ideas and people in control — and having it close to the courts (control and access to population to study) AND close to the federal funding as well.

I picked on one person (a “Dr. Nightengale”) but in the above sample list I also noticed a John Gottman, Ph.D. as an author….

Some people are having a real heyday with this – and others are having hell.  

Gottman, Ph.D. book for sale:

  1. Workshop Dates & Registration – The Gottman Institute


    There are TWO WAYS TO ATTEND the Gottman Institute weekend workshop for couples: 1. Come to Seattle where Drs. John and JulieGottman present The Art 

  2. Marriage & Couples – The Gottman Institute


    The Art & Science of Love is offered live in Seattle several times per year with Drs . John & Julie Gottman, or around the country with one of our Senior Certified 

The Gottman Institute

  • Four National Institute of Mental Health Research Scientist Awards
  • The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy Distinguished Research Scientist Award
  • The American Family Therapy Academy Award for Most Distinguished Contributor to Family Systems Research
  • The American Psychological Association Division of Family Psychology, Presidential Citation for Outstanding Lifetime Research Contribution
  • The National Council of Family Relations, 1994 Burgess Award for Outstanding Career in Theory and Research

the NCFR is a conservative organization which also gets the HHS grants.

This guy I can at least respect — he got the Math/Engineering background and then took it into psychological research, as opposed to going straight psychology and then joining AFCC and drink the Kool-aid.

Educational History:

B.S. Mathematics-Physics (Magna cum Laude), Fairleigh Dickinson University, 1962 M.S. Mathematics-Psychology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1964 M.A. Clinical Psychology-Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, 1967 Ph.D. Clinical Psychology, University of Wisconsin, 1971

Title of Thesis: Time-series analysis in psychology and education, and a methodology for

action research (Richard M. McFall, supervisor) Honor Society: Sigma Xi

Anyhow — organizationally (I looked at the NCMC’s articles of incorporation) – nowhere are bylaws, or any record of its original principal — only the registered agent:

“JOEL A. SHAWN, ESQ. Friedman, Shawn, Sloan & Ross 407 Sansome St., Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111”  (Which would be downtown SF, basically I think the financial district, high rises, etc.).

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

it started out in Greenbrae, at a place now listed as a LMFT place:

Dan Neuharth PhD MFT Psychotherapy and Marriage Counseling in 

therapists.psychologytoday.com/…/Dan+Neuharth+PhD+MFT+ …

Office. Dan Neuharth PhD MFT Psychotherapy and Marriage Counseling in Marin 900 South Eliseo Drive Suite 101. Greenbrae,California 94904. Show map ..

But by 1984 nonprofit registration accepted, the address was in a Corte Madera address which now shows a law office (and possibly other offices nearby):  in Corte Madera, CA — at a place (incl. suite #) now listed as a law office (1981) and by 1982 (nonprofit status letter) was “300 TarnalPlaza, Suite 175 Corte Madera, CA 94925″_ _ _ (for what it’s worth . . . . . ). . . .

ANYHOW, all are into training.  Here, for example, is part of a vitae of a Janice Burrill — whose FULL of all kinds of workshops, including several (as I recall offhand) taught by Kelly & Wallerstein, or Foster — for CEUs.     Please look it over carefully and sacn what types of terminology and framework these people are being trained in — and then ask what chance would a lowly litigant with a real situation of danger, or real child abuse — be able really, to do about it — with all this “alienation” theory being pushed so hard?


Janelle Burrill, Ph.D., J.D., L.C.S.W. Board Certified Diplomate

PUBLICATIONS: (this person’s publications):

1. Burrill, J. Parental Alienation Syndrome in Court Referred Custody Cases, 2002, Dissertation.Com.

2. Burrill, J. Descriptive Statistics of the Mild, Moderate and Severe Categories of Parental Alienation Syndrome; Reluctance to Verify PAS as a Legitimate Syndrome and the Reasons for the Reluctance, The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations, Charles C. Thomas, Publisher: Illinois, 2006. Contributing author of the above three chapters.

(IT GOES ON AND ON IN THE SAME VEIN FOR PAGES)(the phrase “parental alienation” shows up 13 times…)

_ Parental Alienation in Post-Divorce Parent-Child Relationships, Northern California Mediation Center, December 5, 1997.

– Fundamentals of Family Law for Mediators, Northern California Mediation Center, March 1996, 8 CEU hours, Nancy Foster, J.D., Joan Kelly, Ph.D.

– Mediation in Sacramento, Ca. Society for Clinical Social Workers, 1996, Tom Russell, Diane Mayo, Jerilyn Borack.  (Borack is “The Hon. Borack,” i.e. a judge — and was quoted in 2011 in an article complaining about custody being given to batterers (Peter Jamison, SFWeekly) which drew over (the article series) 1800 comments, basically men’s and women’s groups fighting.  That the Hon. Borack being quoted was AFCC hadn’t been brought to the author’s attention . . . .  alas…).

– Interviewing Children in Mediation, Advanced Mediation Seminar, Northern California Mediation Center, 8 CEU hours, 1995, Joan Kelly Ph.D.

– Child Development and Parenting Issues for Mediators and Special Masters, Northern California Mediation Center, 1995, 8 CEU hours, Joan Kelly, Ph.D.

– Substance Abuse, UCD, by Jerome Lackner, M.D., 1 CEU hour, 1995. – Shared Parenting Support Group by Dr. Doral Frank Leek, 1995, Court List,Certified Shared Parenting Therapists.

– A Guide to Family Law for Mental Health Professionals: An Overview of Divorce; Divorce Mediation; Child Custody in California by Bartholomew & Wasznicky,

1995. – Parental Alienation: Assessing and Treating Coercion of Children During Divorce and Custody Disputes by Dr. Larry Nichols, Professional School of Psychology, 1994.

– Neurobiological Aspects of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Borderline Disorders – Treatment Indications, Sutter Center for Psychiatry, l994

As to HIGH-CONFLICT — with the hyphen, no:  without the hyphen– twice (which is typical of AFCC talk).  It usually goes about like this:

“Dealing with Parental Alienation in High Conflict Custody Cases.”

High Conflict Child Custody and Trauma Experienced by Children,” Vivian Roseby, Ph.D., Janet Johnston, Ph.D., Marin, California, March, 2000.

(if you made it through my post on the Center for Families in Transition  (published 9/21/2012) — you will note that Vivian Roseby and Janet Johnston (whether separately or together, I DNR) shared Board of Directors status on one or more of the EIN#S associated with “THE JUDITH WALLERSTEIN CENTER FOR THE FAMILY IN TRANSITION” NONPROFIT that is not making any money — but somehow is getting a nice TAGGS grant absent a DUNS# for doing so as far back as 1995….)

In other words, Roseby & Johnston publish together.  When Johnston publishes, she is typically going to quote Kelly or Wallerstein (or both) and talk the same general talk — parental alienation and high-conflict.  It’s what they do — like girls who can’t go to the restroom one at a time — the whole crowd has to go along for security (???) . . . .  lest they meet without their buddies a person on an equal plane and might have to reason with that person absent quoting the experts…

And at least one time it was a foundation with a DR. Wallerstein (Mister, not Mrs.) on the board, whose assets came from a DR. (MISTER) Amini — while Elizabeth Ann (Cunningham) AMINI was signing some of the tax returns or RRFS for this (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family in Transition.

No wonder they don’t have too much problem with incest?  The whole relationships between these groups is inbred in viewpoint, associations, terminology, language, and purposes.

To their credit, they do actualy “Say” the word Domestic Violence in some of these courses (which I take are also collaborating and discussing how to frame it within the co-parenting context):  For example:

Allegations of Domestic Violence in Custody and Access Disputes.

Or, it comes up (this is still Janice Burill’s vita I’m selecting phrases from) — but in this context:

– Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children & Youth, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, San Francisco, California, June 2-7, 1999.

Courses : (see link for context — not as part of the Congress, I don’t think, but DNK)

  • – Factoring Family Violence into the “Best Interest of the Child.”
  • – Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: Intervention and Policy Considerations.
  • Fatherhood: Emerging Roles and Expectations.
  • -Divorce Education Programs: An International Showcase
  • -Substance Abuse and Parenting: Forensic Assessment and Judicial Decision-Making.
  • Meeting the Best Interests of the Child or Achieving Equity for Parents?****
  • – Custody Disputes Between the Psychological Parent and Psychologically Healthier Parent.

And just in case we don’t forget

  • Parental Alienation.

*** I gather that if it’s a toss-up between whether a child may be alienated, or whether both parents may have access to their offspring, the parent most at risk for “alienating” the child should be deprived of custody, because alienating is UNhealthy.    (see Parenting Coordination series, or pcahn.org for a sample of where the “mother” is likely to fit in that scenario, or go survey some of Richard Warshak’s publications (warshak.com) — he has a course out teaching the father’s attorney how to remind the MOTHER’s attorney to threaten her with total loss of contact with her kids — and this is happening.  A lot — if she doesn’t agree to share well (for example, when there’s abuse going on during visitations or other issues they can’t resolve).

~ ~ ~ ~

ANYHOW, IN THIS RESUME “JOAN KELLY” comes up 5 times, “Janet Johnston” 3, I also notice Matthew Sullivan (another family law professional who does parenting coordination); “association of family and concilliation courts” 6 times, (AFCC twice),  etc.

Alienation, Undermining and Obstruction: A Field Guide for Professionals, June 6, 2002.”


I’m pretty sure some of this training is then billable to the public (if it’s a public employee — like a judge, or a court-apppointed mediator or attorney taking it, etc.) AS CONTinuing education.

Such a deal  . . . then the trainings are put onto electronic format (DVDs of the conferences) and books are published, and periodicals (AFCC works with the NY private University, “Hofstra” school of law in to put out the Family Court Review, which it has been doing for years) — and so forth — and all that is subscribed to (professional journal, memberships, travel to conferences, etc.) — AND THEN SOLD ON-LINE.  Plus their books are sold by family lawyers, or sometimes even family courts — throughout the land.

Anyhow, for J Burrill (who’s listed in the Sacramento area — her name is known by protective mothers, and not too positively as I recall, but I don’t know her personally) – — This is the education — we can see that while it has law, her primary emphasis is NOT law but behavioral science — and ideal combination for AFCC purposes:


Janelle Burrill, Ph.D., J.D., L.C.S.W. Board Certified Diplomate




Board Certified Diplomate

2001 Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology (conferred October 22, 2001) North Central University, Magna Cum Laude Prescott, Arizona

1991 Juris Doctor University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Sacramento, California

l989 Master of Social Work California State University, Sacramento Concentration: Mental Health, Adults and Children G.P.A. 3.87

1986 Bachelor of Arts, Psychology, emphasis Brain Physiology University of California, Davis, Regents Scholar G.P.A. 3.92, Highest Honors, Magna Cum Laude

HONORS AND AWARDS 2007 •Who’s Who Among Executive and Professional Women, Honors Edition. 1996 •Who’s Who Among Professionals and Executives for 1996

So this woman is very smart in her field.  I do not respect the field, however — it takes advantage of people and views too many of them as subjects.  And overall, this field is often hostile to plain old mothers…..

moreover, in California in particular (not that this isn’t happening in other states also) there has been high-profile after high-profile family wipeouts (murder/suicides) which many times actually involved some of these professionals.
And still their literature almost never skips a beat.  I don’t get that (look up Seal Beach, California — Scott DeKrai walked into a hair salon (with bulletproof and ammo) andkilled his exwife and about EIGHT other people (two men, the rest women) over not having sole custody (he already had half).  His wife had it on record she was afraid of him and a previous attorney associated with AFCC (and a presenter at some of its conferences) phrased this as a “typical divorce.”  that was fall 2011!

There is a discrepancy of viewpoints, in other words.  Now picture how many people have gone through these trainings in the SF area (plus wherever Joan Kelly, others, went and taught) — and you basically have a pretty good picture of what family law system is like:  pick a state — it won’t be radically different.

_ _ _ _ _

THIS (I just found it when searching web, but it’s on “theLizLibrary” (Liz Cates, FL Family Law Attorney) — and written by a woman in Canada after her experience being trained, and functioning to pretty full capacity, as a supervised access provider — while her husband was a child advocacy attorney.

I’m still reading it, but she is discussing how she came to question her indoctrination into the belief that others were vindictively accusing fathers of sexual abuse as a part of “parental alienation.”  It’s interesting in that it also mentions Nicholas Bala (well known in Canada, and to my understanding, he DOES buy the PAS thing) but states the lack of evidence for their claims.

Obviously my post here is not conclusive, and is alternating between subject matter (of the professionals) and their various business structures.  I just wanted to bring this up and am open to feedback.   People should ALWAYS know the professional incorporation status of their local court professionals — it may be very relevant to individual cases….

So here we go (again, I just found this and am still reading it; my eyes are about to cross from so much time (today, yesterday) so I’ll leave it on this note — go look up the author etc. on the link):

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/Bessette_Francoise_T_2008-09_MA.pdf  I’m interested because in part she narrates her process of being trained to supervise, then questioning her training as she began to prepare a master’s thesis and had to look at the evidence. By the way, the title is very accurate…

Disciplining Divorcing Parents:

The Social Construction of Parental Alienation Syndrome



A thesis submitted to the Department of Sociology In conformity with the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada September, 2008

UChapter 1 UIntroduction

My interest in the topic of parental alienation began in the late 1990’s through my work with court ordered supervised access. My work began through a chance meeting with Jane Grafton, the woman responsible for introducing this service to Vancouver and is now called as an expert witness on matters of supervised access. She started doing the work in the mid 1980’s at the request of her husband, a child advocacy lawyer. His clients wished to have their ex-partners, who were court ordered to be supervised during parental visits, supervised by a neutral party because of concerns of bias and denial of wrongdoing by members of ex-partners’ immediate family and/or close friends. Within a few months Grafton’s business swelled to maximum capacity and she had established a supervision house with several employees. It soon became apparent that specific training was needed to serve the many types of family situations that were referred by the courts for supervision. Karen Flynn, a colleague of Jane Grafton, developed a course under the auspices of the Burnaby School District Adult & Continuing Education to fill this gap. Sixteen women, including myself, enrolled in the initial course, in October 1997, offering a certificate providing the credentials needed to work as a supervisor in contested child custody and access cases involving court-ordered supervised access orders. I was one of two of the first class who completed the program successfully. The course focused on preparing future supervisors to recognize incidents of child endangerment during visits with their non-custodial parent and to write reports of these visits for the use in family court by judges and lawyers.

_ _ _ _ _ _

. . .”Parental alienation was defined as “one parent (alienating parent) brainwashing their child/ren against the other parent (hated parent)”. False allegations of sexual abuse carried this alienation process to the courts and the custody hearings in addition to poisoning their children’s minds. Parental alienation appears as gender neutral but in fact most of the elaboration and research dwells on how mothers alienate children from their fathers. The false allegation notion is almost always explicitly about how mothers raise such charges against fathers.

During my five years as a supervisor I assumed that mothers did regularly alienate their children from their fathers – though I assumed that it was because they feared their husbands because of past experiences. I also assumed that mothers did bring false allegations against their children’s father although I had many questions and determined to make this topic the subject of a master’s thesis. I hypothesized that mothers might use this charge to prevent ex-partners from having contact with their children. I wanted to explore this idea in my thesis.

Once I began my research I was obliged to begin doubting my position regarding the prevalence of false allegations during high conflict custody and access litigation. …

. . .

This information forced me to question the validity of the supervised access training I had taken and reflect on the impact I have had on the lives of those I supervised. I wondered how this new social service area developed from a place meant to protect children from neglect and abuse, while allowing for a parent/child relationship, to one defined as a place for protection against alienation of fathers by mothers.

As a result of these findings, my research topic shifted dramatically. I am interested in:

(1) How the notion of custodial mothers using the “false allegation” defence in cases of high conflict divorce developed; and

(2) How the concept of Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) developed as a legal tactic used by non-custodial parents as leverage in high-conflict custody cases.

Chapter Two introduces the reader to the perspective of social constructionism and some of its major players

(She talks about medicalization of language, which is definitely the process.  If more people would pay better attention to the associations (etc.) and their writings, they’d have a better understanding of what a custody case is actually going to be about…. as opposed to only listening, for example, to “Crisis in the COurts” advocacy groups whose terms and frameworks are favorable to one’s own cause.


I hope this post at least scratches the surface of a few ways to look at this issue!

Other references — again, we’re in Canada now (do you know how this got up to Canada? If not, then you should.  Think “associations” – as in trade associations!)

Johnston, Janet R. 2003. “Parental Alignments and Rejection: An Empirical Study of Alienation in Children of Divorce”. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. Vol. 31:158-170.

Johnston, Janet R. 1993. “Children of Divorce Who Refuse Visitation”. Pp. 109-135. In Nonresidential Parenting: New Vistas in Family Living, edited by Charlene E. Depner and James H. Bray. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications.  {{Depner is AFCC and worked or works in the California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC– search this blog). ..

Kelly, Joan B. and Janet R. Johnston. 2001. “The Alienated Child: A Reformulation of Parental Alienation Syndrome. Family Court Review. Vol. 39:3:249-266.

I TOLD you — these are like girl-gangs, only at the Psy.D. level. They hang together, publish together, start nonprofits that work together . . . . .  and it WORKS.   At least, for the people running the programs and often ONE of the two parents involved….

Rand, Deidre, Conway. 1993. “Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: A Complex Type of Emotional Abuse Responsible for Some False Allegations of Child Abuse in Divorce”. Institute of Psychological Therapies, Vol. 5. Retrieved on line June 17, 2008 at Hwww.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5H

> > > >I know a mother accused of this.  See Charles Pragnell (I think) on the issue. < < < Men almost never get accused of this, it is directed at mothers, as a lot of labels are… < < <

PS. In Bessette’s references she has this:  Ask me about it sometime (I.e., William Bernet of the “Warrior Gene” ???) 

Bernet, William. 2006. “Sexual Abuse Allegations in the Context of Child Custody Disputes”. Pp. 242-263. In The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Conceptual, Clinical and Legal Considerations, edited by Richard A. Gardner, S. Richard Sauber and Demosthenes Lorandos. Sprinfield, Illinois, USA: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.

Seriously, he was studying it:  “Can Your Genes Make Your Murder?”

When the police arrived at Bradley Waldroup’s trailer home in the mountains of Tennessee, they found a war zone. There was blood on the walls, blood on the carpet, blood on the truck outside, even blood on the Bible that Waldroup had been reading before all hell broke loose.

Assistant District Attorney Drew Robinson says that on Oct. 16, 2006, Waldroup was waiting for his estranged wife to arrive with their four kids for the weekend.

(warning — NOT bedtime reading there…. But while we (parents) sometimes have to deal with these real-time situations, the talkers will continue talking (pretty much the same talk they started in about the 1980s, as above) and training, and to heck with the results…. and there have been such results….).

Any result can be reframed as a psychological problem when in fact it was a system problem caused by psychologizing someone else’s safety….  So I prefer (overall) to get back to and keep it to the financial matters, which are (for one) less subjective and a bit more revealing.   And intriguing.

It’s a lot easier to produce some financial material and ask questions, then to defend an entirely subjective label applied by people who have a professional lifetime invested in its truth, and creating followers who also don’t take kindly to this truth being questioned, and forcing for them (as it did for the parents) major lifestyle shifts towards uncertain futures…

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Well once again you’re spelling it out to those who do or do not want to know the truth.
    What human failures. I don’t care what type of financial successes they claim to have. It is much like the typical sociopaths life. The wreckage in their rear view mirror of life are piles of childrens and parents bodies with money flying around and psychology flying above as a buzzard does above a carcass. Tears they will never admit they are responsible for, as their whole lifes work would have to be accepted as a huge “mistake” or CON whichever your belief is about these types.

    I have to believe as this person who wrote their thesis, Francoise Bessette after taking the course in supervision of visitation between parent and child, and second guessing of the teachings of Parent Alienation and protective mothers being vengeful, that many others knew they too, were heading down a slippery slope ignoring what wasn’t feeling right about these teachings, but weren’t willing to address it as Bessette did.

    Janelle Burrill, I am fairly sure is carrying around a huge load of complaints and I am fairly sure her credentials were questioned publicly so your details about her credentials, are something to be considered. I am a complete skeptic as her North Central University first entry on her credentials are the same as a psychologist who called himself doctor and “expert” in my family court case. He has since had his license revoked for many violations in my case alone. I can never seem to find the University they refer to although I think he capitalized different letters calling it Northcentral University. Big Red Flag. Oh and his church has been closed at his house.

    Also, it boggles my mind as I am in a completely different state but the first “fathers rights attorney” used in my case graduated from Pepperdine and came here from California. I must say there was NOTHING Godly about this woman nor Christian although it is presented this way. This attorney was the most vile I dealt with and recommended by above mentioned psychologist/unordained pastor to the father.

    So many rabbit holes leading to the same places and people! You are giving the map and a guided tour to the players infiltrating the courts.

    It is my understanding a task force of the APA has shot down the Parent Alienation claims as an official diagnosis in the new edition of the DSM which is to come out this year. People are touting it is an accomplishment for women and mothers in family courts but it remains to be seen as it has never been in the DSM and has been used to remove children from their mothers as unfit for years when the children reject a father for justifiable and verifiable reasons. As you have stated Richard Gardner pedophile promoter made this up and was also an “expert witness” in many cases where custody was transferred from the mother under the guise of parent alienation”syndrome” but stabbed himself to death later in his life. Money didn’t seem to make him happy, nor false power or false fame he acquired with this tactic, did it? His credentials were later found to be false, too!! Seems to be an epidemic in this arena. “Zoe D Katz” and Emod Tadros showed just how easy it was to do.

    Maybe that’s is the first place to start, credential verifications! Should I open a non-profit and start a class on how to check credentials and pay myself as director and independent contractor $300k? At least it would get the roaches running when the light came on.


    September 23, 2012 at 8:44 am

    • Yes, I noticed the Arizona Connection on Ms. Burrill’s credentials, and as I know this particular school (IF I’m recalling it right — and this I blogged over at “http://thefamilycourtmoneymachine.blogspot.com” look up the Cummings Foundation) — this school only exists because someone with prior wealth (made in a variety of ways which can be seem from the biography, not to mention Nicholas Cummings was more than just a creative thinker — he also was obviously a hard worker, had business smarts (thinking ahead of his time to get behavioral health (i.e. PsyCHOLOGISTs not just PsychoANALYSTs) a field with a future — and sold mental health interventions at the primary care — meaning, Federally funded (I think Medicaid) level. A test case was run in Hawaii with very large scope.

      He also knew — and this is what I want mothers with custody cases to get, for once in our lives, a lot smarter about — some basics about economics, business, and setting up corporations, i.e., maintaining leverage.

      He also kept his family close like a clan to the family’s purpose (i mean, just go take a look) such that his (divorced) daughter is working right alongside.

      I looked at the Association (Is it ‘ABPP”) that sprang up, but I seem remember Dr. Cummings having written or stated that he had helped educate (by starting up schools of professional psychology leading to doctorates in the field, i.e, Ph.D. would draw more of a salary) half of them in California. He helped set up the one at Arizona State too. Endowments and all that.

      His prior background was involvement in the APA (Psychology not psychiatry, I believe) AND having been head of something at Kaiser Health. Clearly most of these individuals driving certain fields today didn’t come off welfare and with nothing — maybe their parents did, but most of them did NOT. I takes maybe a generation to build some momentum.

      That’s why it’s so TERRIBLE what’s being done to us –not becuase of divorce (people need to divorce sometimes!) — but in the process of divorce. It’s basically disenfranchising the next generation and selling the on the open market to not even the highest — sometimes the lowest — bidders, by oppressing their parents. Their parents (or one side of the family line) cannot get JUSTICE in the family courts because they are based on psychology AND law and want to do therapeutic interventions — not due process.

      All of this is about power and money, and if it’s made clear that we can talk the same language — and follow others’ power and sources of influence and money — that may (or may not) make a difference. But at least these efforts should be focused. There are certain things too many people just don’t know because they haven’t been around it.

      There are other things people don’t know because, even after being burnt repeatedly, they still won’t look. I am looking for more people to LOOK as hard as they TALK, and then again, figure out an organizational power base that doesn’t require anyone to join a cult.

      Look at my next post, and I showed the history of the CDRC (California Dispute Resolutions Council) which functioned as a lobbying group. Like the fathers’ rights — they know how groups, lobbying, and the legislature works (many were lawyers, RIGHT?) — and agreed among themselves to let the President speak for them, to focus on certain lobbying and to try and position CDRC as THE go-to person on the topic. THey tried to (and probably have) dominated the field.

      Groups like Center for Judicial Excellence / Justice for Children and The Leadership Council (a self-referential title if I ever heard them, in fact all three are pretentious) while much smaller in size and probably influence, have sought to dominate the “CRISIS INT HE COURTS” FIELD, along with the email lists provided by less financially independent groups, i.e., Ms. Valentine and CPPA. they provide the developed email lists and the others provide some financial backing, some films, and some publicity.

      The Battered Mothers Custody Conference (BMCC) while for many years I was amazed that people were understanding domestic violence (like it seemed no one locally did) and it was very validating to at least read and dream about being able to afford attendance (eventually I did, but not til I’d realized their POV) — did a similar thing in early on, bringing in the DV practitioners (coalition membership) who themselves were — while not getting the BIG grants — were getting HHS grants and some DOJ grants to centralize and dominate the conversation. Doing this was probably not wise. At no point is it credible that Mo Hannah did NOT know about the federal funding to the courts (because of prior associations) she just decided not to go that direction and expose it in the conference.

      As a result, women were informed and sold philosophies (and books, and asked to refer certain professionals) and done this in an atmosphere so thick with pain and emotion (justifiably so, what they were going through individually in their lives — nursing mother a protective order on her husband, told to sit in the back at church so her husband (the perp) could stay up front and not violate it!! Child (infant, really) on 48 hours on, 48 hours off visitation — things that were absolutely INSANE.

      And they don’t tell about welfare reform and access visitation, fatherhood practitioners, NOTHING. !!!

      Then there’s the Family Violence Prevention Fund (now under a different name) — BIG funds recipient — were they at the BMCC? were they invited? Is this group relevant to the field? But did anyone at any of the conferences bring them up? Did anyone talk about AFCC as a topic (not hardly).

      So I find there’s jsut as much hierarchy in female group situations run on what’s actually the male model.

      Not to mention which, I have been personally defrauded (of a retainer / money for services) by one of the presenters at this conference which I have since warned a few people about.

      Well, that’s what I think, and not ashamed of it either. I hope some day some of these people will figure out a good answer for my children when these children hit the age of 30 and may be curious about what happened. Because, if I’m around I will tell — or if not, my words will be, and hopefully theyll be coherent enough such that their story will be heard and understood, in its time and place.






      Let's Get Honest

      September 23, 2012 at 11:04 am

  2. […] to take advantage of and contribute to (you decide) the momentum — Sept. 2012 post, here. While We’re There, the Northern California Mediation Center….” I wrote, underneath its website, and above its state nonprofit filing (where it’s […]

  3. […] take advantage of and contribute to (you decide) the momentum — Sept. 2012 post, here.  While We’re There, the Northern California Mediation Center….”   I wrote, underneath its website, and above its state nonprofit filing (where it’s […]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: