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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for April 2013

AFCC — A Users’ Manual (Intro).. and (for now), some of “Arizona”

with 4 comments

Speaking of Engaging in Lookups:

Just a reminder — I’m not an attorney, and if you need one, go get one. However, at this point in time I don’t personally advise going to get any family law attorney before ascertaining membership or non-membership in this organization, and finding out whether the local Presiding Judge is also a member. Also, are you in a family court (are there actually some left?) or one that has been declared “Conciliation” and comes under a different section of the state code, by jurisdiction. Like they did in California….

That membership information would also be good to get on opposing attorneys, judges, GALs, and others not just currently in any case (heck, people can drop in and out of a case on a dime these days) — but also in the courthouses. In other words, most courts operate as fiefdoms, so who’s (singular, but more likely plural, a group of people) lord of the current one?

Above and beyond that, given how frequent radical jurisdiction switches (between states, I’m talking) can be, I believe it’s wise to get a systemic view of these family courts. As the AFCC is personally taking credit for their primary substance, one great way to do so is to take a good look at two things.

~ ~ How AFCC characterizes itself in its own publications, the public face.

~ ~ The “back office” viewpoint– which is the incorporation records (including withdrawals, suspensions, name changes, state changes, etc., the tax returns, and when-and-where public officials are (as from the beginning) running private associations out of the local courthouse.

~ ~ [added 12/2013. I forgot to mention, who’s paying the piper, apart from the obvious: Us, the public, through salaries and other means. See corporation newsletters and the mother ship’s site, for some clues; not all of them. ]

When ensconced in a position of power and control, which is where the organization’s leadership gravitates strategically to, and FYI it’s not just the courthouse (it’s also the law school and other places close to HHS funding) — and, when there, what they do. I mean, this is not rocket science, it just takes a little sustained attention to pick up on the basic patterns — including language patterns.

Power is multiplied when it’s unified, and when it’s system-wide. So, what’s the system?

Please notice below at which “URL” the May, 2013 “50th Anniversary Conference” has been advertised: It’s at a website that ends “*.gov,” at the “national responsible fatherhood clearinghouse.” It is funded through the repeated extensions of what was originally “TANF” (1996) welfare, but is variously the Deficit Reduction Act (2005), or the Claims Resolution Act (2010), and this is through the OFA (Office of Family Assistance).

Active link. Notice the domain name ends *.gov:
http://www.fatherhood.gov/about-us/events/afcc-50th-anniversary-conference

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ 50th Anniversary Conference, “Riding the Wave of the Future: Global Voices, Expanding Choices” will be held in Los Angeles, CA. Since 1963, AFCC members have spearheaded major reforms in the family law community, including no-fault divorce, joint custody, mediation, collaborative law, unified family courts, parenting coordination, differentiated case management, parent education and myriad hybrid dispute resolution processes. Even with these advances, professionals face growing changes and challenges. What does the future hold? How will the AFCC community influence the constantly
evolving family law system? Join us in Los Angeles, the birthplace of AFCC, as we begin to chart the course for the next 50 years.

Moreover, among its own, AFCC also celebrated and narrated its accomplishments 50th anniversary (1963-2013) and was planning the next 50 years. This was designed for professional consumption, not really the public. It was published in California Conciliation Quarterly and on-line access to the same, starting January 2013. In other words, building momentum for the cause. “Modestly” (and inaccurately) described as:

REFLECTIONS ON LEADERSHIP: FIFTY YEARS OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS

.
(This title is also a link to the publication, see its first page by Peter Salem).

Here, they take credit for developing fields of practice. In that part, it’s honest. I’ve been talking about this as well (i.e., parenting coordination) and highlighting it’s time to stop letting this group create professional niches for themselves at our (the public’s) expense and on the taxpayer dollar. Also, the organization networks with other nonprofit organizations (big ones — ABA, APA — and other well-connected nationwide ones (National Center on State Courts, etc.) which underneath themselves also have other nonprofits of public officials. While obviously there needs to be planning and coordination when MAJOR technological innovations (such as the development of the internet!) are in place, it still remains a nationwide nonprofit suggested in 1978 by a US Supreme Court Judge. As of 1983 AFCC newsletter, marketing all kinds of trainings, the statement was made that AFCC (whoever that was in that year) had decided to have this NCSC be their “secretariat.” Typewritten blurb mentions:

AFCC Publications: All publications are payable in US Currency payable to AFCC c/o National Center for the State Courts, 300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, VA 23185– unless another address & payee is shown

(???)

Truly that is an informative publication; for example how individuals from Los Angeles and Connecticut helped get a NJ Governor to sign legislation to form a unified family court for juvenile and other matters. The conference schedule (for 1984) is also very informative — but only if one notices names, plades, and subject matter. For example, the heading of the newspaper has a different version of the group’s name than the logo on the banner. (Look carefully, you’ll see it’s a single-word difference). For example that at this point in time, what they’re primarily pushing is mediation as a profession (one thing at a time!); however the “unified family court” theme is lurking in the background, c/o Toronto’s “Unified Family Court.”

In case you’re thinking this is starting to resemble an Amway MLM marketing scheme, only with civil servants, I’d have to say, you’re probably right. (cf. the DeVos family). From a “Boycott Amway (for other reasons)” site:

Read the rest of this entry »

Christian Social Services: Taking Federal Funds to Replenish the Ranks of the Faithful

with 3 comments

(This was originally part of a too-long “On the Road to Emmaeus” post, below. Its charts are valuable, and I’m basically splitting that post so the visuals are closer to the top of the page.)

(These are some the charts, figures, and stats on Bethany Christian Services; see last post. It should be viewed as one in a series of posts and is not stand-alone, except as an alert to the size and scope of federal funding of conservative evangelical organizations with documented “bad attitudes” towards women. As these same very well organized and networked organizations are focusing increasingly on adoption, and in our current political climate, I worry about both the safety and the values of the adopted infants, and what this says to our country’s own value system.)

For “chart” purposes, understand that a DUNS# is an identifier required for anyone doing business with government. An EIN#, however, relates to the IRS and tax status. The chart below comes from a search on NAMES (on the HHS database TAGGS), and doesn’t show EIN#s. I don’t believe one can produce a search RESULT showing EIN#s on this database, although you can search by them — at the elementary level only. Probably if they added this field as a results on their “Advanced Search” page, the game would be up on grants to fake corporations…

Already in the example below, I see some anomalies in a single healthy marriage grant…

 

 

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards……..
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES  
GRAND RAPIDS
  MI   49501-0294   KENT   080350796 $20,341,146
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES  
GRAND RAPIDS
  MI   49501-0294   KENT   609890876 $ 500,000
 
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
 
GRAND RAPIDS
  MI   49501-0294   KENT   784751778 $2,099,988
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES OF GEORGIA  
ATLANTA
  GA   30328-1606   FULTON   784751778 $1,000,000
 
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES OF VA
 
FAIRFAX
  VA   22030-2522   **FAIRFAX   609890876   $997,454
 
Bethany Christian Services of Northwest Iowa
 
ORANGE CITY
  IA   51041-1715   SIOUX   859378937  $1,770,994

Only ONE Bethany Christian Services is listed by the IRS as tax-exempt, and its EIN# is: 381524282 [SHOWN BELOW BY AN IRS EXEMPT ORGANIZATION SEARCH, pale-blue background). This is a GROUP tax exemption, i.e., acknowledges there are affiliates.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

April 7, 2013 at 8:10 pm

“On the Road to Emmaeus,” When Life Demands a Major Shift in Understanding

with one comment

[[Speaking of “Easter” and all that…]]

Phew, what a hard post to complete! I am still not at all happy with it, but posting the information for future reference, while figuring out better ways to communicate it. We are in the realm of public direct payments to evangelical (faith-based) organizations — from HHS — for the primary purpose of evangelizing. It just so happens that these days many faith-based (Christian) organizations are evangelizing throught adoption, as they’ve been trained to. They have been social service organizations for many years as all, but the more I look at the tax exemption angle — and what churches are, meanwhile, doing to men, women and children in the name of God — I’m starting to understand this as every bit as much “PR” to make up for the damages as I also understand that the Rockefellers, Carnegies, Fords, MacArthurs, (Rhodes), Guggenheim, (Annie E. Casey) and etc. tremendous philanthropic organizations — donating millions (if not billions) to build libraries, concert halls, and other monumental institutions, are doing it (a) with taxes they didn’t pay and (b) with the profits from cartels, monopolies, and in general treating their menials like dirt, if not quite slave labor, and (c) for PR.

What do they have that wasn’t donated to them, or that the followers weren’t talked, or bullied (forced) into handing over? I mean, how many of us really have a say (agreed) to the special tax status churches enjoy and with which to expand infinitely (see internet) without having to file tax returns like regular nonprofits. And then how many nonprofits are simply situated right in church buildings? They cannot really stand independently of government while taking privileges from the same (collectively) to even exist. Meanwhile, government these days is using church-based networks for its own purpose and in my opinion, both have specialized in the hiding assets and money-laundering aspects (while covering up other kinds of abuse) from their followers.

This may not be universally true, but it is institutionally (and in general) true.

~ ~ ~ I was genuinely surprised to realize how blatantly this is happening as we speak.

I would love some morally justifiable excuse NOT to deliver this message, or to sugar-coat it, but see none… I would cut out entire sections, and more would grow in their place, as I continued simply telling what I see — and from government sources (databases, tax returns, corporate registrations, charitable registrations, and public websites advertising the same groups). Finally, it is just getting posted. The substance of it shows up in tables — if you do nothing else, scroll down to them and bypass narrative; AFTER running a search!

So, this post got its start an “Adoption Opportunities” grant series I found (foster care and adoption has been on my mind a while — see page in Children’s Law Centers (NCLN) which thrive off this — and this industry has affected family courts also, by way of promoting the use of GALs for custody cases with even a smidgen of conflict (or domestic violence). To better understand it, please read the comments thread at the bottom of the March 30, 2013 post.
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: