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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

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:

This should properly be understood as the group’s collective, and mythological, oral history. It does NOT match with the corporate history — for one, this organization has it appears not stayed incorporated anywhere, that I can see, consistently within a state, while doing business in the same state — for long. Easily proved as corporate records are kept by Secretaries of State, and tax returns are kept by the IRS. Some of this is on-line, and some of it can be further obtained (records not available on-line) by FOIA or other requests.

And some people have been and still are taking time (and expense) to compile it and narrate it — for which we all should be thankful!

MYTHBUSTERS:

It’s time that “the other side of the story” is told on this organization, and who better to tell it than those who were not “in on” the formation of this group, but who have been most affected by it? Like us parents who lost contact with our kids, went bankrupt, witnessed or were forced to live in fear of becoming, familicides, homicides, suicides, or homeless; who’ve watched the system NONresponse to parental kidnappings, and in general the underminine of the concept of justice within the past 50 years? Of course, our voices are not welcome in the dialogue, so it’s about time to tell it in objective terms and with evidence – not “social science terms” or anecdotal evidence.


It is my intention that “Business as Usual” with this Association (to call it “corporation” wouldn’t be quite accurate; obviously it only applies when and where a legitimate corporation actually exists) will not be “business as usual.”

They are organizing to take it up to a new level, most likely. While most of us are not that well-connected, or well-organized (obviously), this is a GRRrrreat!!! time to Undress this “cult in the courthouse” by looking up its tax returns and examining its leadership, and their Practices which, when you get right down to it, do mirror the behavior of some renowned cults. In fact at times there seems to be even some personnel overlap.

Along the lines of:

Exposing and Prosecuting Judicial Corruption through Common Law Discovery” (1998), and Engaging in Lookups — and then using clear, objective words to describe what one has found: Corporations, or lack thereof, when it comes to services provided and funds exchanged in and around the courthouses of the country..

And intentionally NOT Along the lines of:

~ establishing that custody of children is going to people who then abuse them. (it’s been established)
~ engaging in verbal sparring and name-calling matches in comments fields about Parental Alienation, Fatherhood, Domestic Violence, Crises in the Courts, Our Broken Courts,

~ regurgitating information from NONPROFITS or PROFESSIONALS whose “raison d’etre” is to get you to do that, under their name, and for the publicity (and possibly for other reasons)….

~ demanding someone else Audit the Courts and doing next to nothing to demonstrate, how, or on what (or validate that this is the most relevant or critical area), or

~ narrating “My Horrible Experience with a Family Court Judge/GAL/Custody Evalutor (etc.)” (alternate version, “my friend’s/spouse’s horrible experience with a family court judge”)

~ trying to win (on-line) the “we have the most corrupt county around” award, etc.
. . . . .(note: if any single county has to win that designation, it is probably Los Angeles; HOWEVER even out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse, and before it was built (FYI!) the presence of multi-state nonprofits (and later, the internet, etc.) have started to flatten that distinction out). Some of this can be seen in my recent posts, others in the early newsletters of AFCC IF one pays attention…

~ marching around HHS and attempting to get a hearing on ANY of the above, which is most likely to result in more of the same “Defending Childhood Initiatives” (a.k.a. fees for friends situations).*

*These behaviors still haven’t found the vocabulary — or used the correct tools — to even describe the system, nor has it taught others these same tools with the goal of finding more individuals (citizens) who would actually use them. Moreover, when the above activities are entirely absent ongoing explanation of the group who itself claims credit for spearing family law reforms — including no-fault divorce (!?), how (or why?) should followers of the advocacy groups not be systematically told of this?

In short, why should you have to hear it from individuals like myself, who don’t have a PR budget and tend to burnout?? As it turns out, some of the genius of the system (besides tax evasion) is stiffing the public through welfare funding with the actual costs of running the PR campaigns; and finding other PRIVATE interest groups (a.k.a. foundations) who feel like supporting the cause.

SOME OF US ACTUALLY PRIORITIZE WHAT TO LOOK AT and LOOK UP, DO SO WITH PURPOSE, AND POST THE EVIDENCE!

In the courts and going through the courts, coming and going — we are dealing with money. And face it — the people who control countries, understand money concepts, how to talk about it, how to raise it (legally and illegaly) how to collect it (legitimately and through extortion), and how to maximize control of it after they’ve got it (note: this includes through establishing foundations // trusts & philanthropies and giving lots of it away, too). They clearly understand there’s a value in keeping some people more ignorant in their concepts and confused, distracted, and malleable in their understanding in these very matters.

In the United States, there are legal and illegal ways to move money around. The cults in the courthouse (and there are some) have specialized in the illegal, while sitting in judgment about legal issues to the rest of us. Like what we would call a sociopath or an abuser in the local level, these are sociopathic and abusive systems which literally depend on our ignorance of operations — while making sure more and more peoples’ dinner, mortgages, and own futures are woven into the expanding web, such that to confront their employers would be to possibly to lose their housing.

HOWEVER:

We are in the information age and the internet has been around for decades. The pace of change is accelerating, and it’s not a good time to leave one’s thinking back in the mid- to early 1950s, and continue believing that government is restricted to what’s happening at the municipal or county level. We need to know better, and do better — and this requires self-education.


I am going to talk about yet another low point in recruiting efforts by AFCC members in positions of power, and on the public payroll. It appears that solicitations were indeed sent out to hundreds of professionals (presumably from the interdisciplinary groups who serve the courthouses) FROM those helping run at least one Connecticut branch — to pay up for another nice conference at a law school (catch those students before they havae significant life experience and become harder to indoctrinate….) — BEFORE INCORPORATING TO DO BUSINESS AS A NONPROFIT in the STATE OF CONNECTICUT.

It should be understood that going “state by state” to an organization with a history of filing — and then either withdrawing themselves, or getting involuntarily suspended — incorporations with three-state jurisdictions — and board memberships in probably a few more states, is hardly going to do the subject justice.

Formerly at the bottom of the “Look it UP Page” and intended as an example — while looking it up myself. Please scroll down to at least where you see charts, and below that, “AFCC — Hidden Out in Open ?” I glanced at the conference page, and saw an upcoming Connecticut conference (see post on, why we should be watching conference agenda!). This one slipped up on me, so after quickly looking up date of incorporation — and remembering Marv Bryer’s earlier work —

And — well, what do you know: It looks like “The Connecticut Chapter of AFCC, Inc.” was just formed, ah . . . last month. It’s Date of Incorporation is March 26, 2013 — apparently just in time for this conference. So perhaps having the conference IN Connecticut, complete with the above fees, is possibly to help kickstart the chapter financially? Its President is Linda Smith, Ph.D. [in what, is the question…], there are others. You can look them at the Connecticut search site, which I just did. ….

Connecticut Chapter Annual Conference
The Truth about Joint Custody: Weighing the Evidence
April 12, 2013
Quinnipiac University School of Law
Hamden, Connecticut
More Information

However, based on ‘Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut’ (an article in the Washington Times, also discussed in blog link to right), it appears there’s already an “AFCC Courthouse,” just about literally, in the state.

That’s a characteristic of the group. Members have also done this in Lackawanna County (as I last recall) [operating out of the public building without paying lease, or having a contract for it]. It should be understood this is routine — and possibly can be avoided. But only if the public wakes up to the practice.

I’m quite indignant about this, and found out, I’m not alone in this. More TBA — however, I think it’s time to go state by state (particularly after failing to find AFCC at the street address in Wisconsin where it’s listed (AFCCnet.org) and failing to find the organization itself even registered as an organization to do business in Wisconsin — let alone -in Madison! No wonder corporate nonprofit assets have more than quintupled since about 2003 (see charts already posted on Look It Up page!).

Along the business operation lines of “Economics of Production: Sam and Doug Unload boatloads of White Agricultural Substances” — until the below-the-table (tax-evading, illegal) money is accounted for, we don’t have a fair playing field, and moreover, don’t know what the hazards and risks are. This is a VERY important point, and it is relevant to how in particular, it seems that too many of the personnel involved with this Wisconsin-based group AFCC (which isn’t registered to do business as ITSELF in Wisconsin) has NORMALLY worked, for years.


I think it was after this post (but researched separately) a woman researched, and thankfully was actually published on how it’s done in Connecticut. To get this information — she had to get the corporate filings. This is called “work” and “asking for documentation from the people that have it” (when it’s not already available on-line; which a lot of it is….).


Most people never bother, and don’t get around to even thinking of it, which translates as — about ready to be fleeced, and the wool exported for manufacturing and sale. Why enter into some sort of “contract” with anyone [regardless of their official titles] without finding out some basics about who ARE they? As citizens, or taxpayers, we are already under contract by assent to fund the court and those who inhabit them, called civil servants, and we also call this collectively “government“. Taxes also fund legislators who pass laws favoring their expansion (i.e., marriage/fatherhood/access visitation, Promoting Safe and Stable Families, all kinds of causes which can permanently eradicate parent/child contact, after which the NEXT obvious cause is, funding to “reunify” families.) Well, apart from the illegal factor, there’s also an immoral factor –government is (see Walter Burien, CAFRs) not exactly open about its own holdings, and the income from those holdings, and WE have not held them accountable, either. Perhaps this comes from believing that most of what’s important in life can be known from a combination of print and on-line newsmedia (who owns them?), selected “indy” stuff maybe, and our circle of friends and acquaintances. [Wrong!!]


So, what’s the principle shown in: Economics of Production: Sam and Doug Unload boatloads of White Agricultural Substances. We are in 9th grade again. What’s the main concept, could you summarize it? Does it make any sense, or do you believe there is no drug trade. If there is a drug trade (apparently there is), then where do its profits go, and how come it continues despite the war on drugs being conducted by the US Government, which we also are funding?


OK, suppose this wasn’t about the war on DRUGS, but the war on, say, “Child Abuse” or “Domestic Violence” or “Fatherlessness.” Could, potentially, the same principles of doing business without paying ANY taxes on it, put those who ethically DO register and pay taxes, out of business, regardless of how smart, efficient, and worthy they are? [The answer is Yes, or No. If you choose No, can you justify it? Because I can show the “Yes;” at least I can show plenty of “failed to stay incorporated” groups that allegedly (per who are still getting grants, and moreover, I can prove, easily, that the database is itself corrupt (probably on purpose, showing intent to confuse and distract anyone who might be unemployed or inquisitive enough to actually look at the thing. And in four years, I haven’t met many people who do….]



Sam works his behind off, and earns perhaps 5-10% (year after year). Dave sets up shop and earns multiples of that.

Again, in using this example, I’m talking the business model — not necessarily the product being marketed. I’m talking systems — not substances. Although I hardly agree with the “subject matter” being marketed around AFCC either — dispute resolution, conciliation, parental alienation, explicating domestic violence, emphasizing “false allegations,” etc — I STILL understand the greater problem is the systems being setup, and using the leverage to continue Systems Change (selling that as positive to the public) when in fact, the system of due process, I”m actually in favor of it.


I don’t believe that a system of hybrid law (not tort, not criminal, but handling casees involving both) somewhere between civil and criminal law called “family law” was the smartest invention around — unless you’re in the business of confusing people as to where the line between legal and illegal is whenever a family is involved.)


Sam and Dave’s different Systems are Separate and Unequal

Sam represents people who go to work, mind their own business and attempt to keep a profit margin above 0, year after year. But strangely find other financial factors slipping and sliding underneath them, or laws unfavorable to them, or over-regulating, over-charging them, to continue cutting into profits, and don’t quite know why. Let alone business owners, how about plain old employees depending on one, or maybe two, jobs to make ends meet? Their tax base is different, and their clout is different, at least in non-Union professions, which is plenty of them.

“D” is for Different. Dave is on a DIFFERENT business plan. And to understand where Honest (or at least Basically Honest) SAM is, it’s necessary, like it or not, to understand who the Different Daves are and the contrast between the two business modelsFrom the same website:

Now, after Dave pays his workers and all his costs of growing and transporting the drugs, and after he and his wife spend the weekend in New Orleans and he pays himself a bonus and buys some new harvest and radar equipment and spends what he needs on bribes and bonuses to a few enforcement and intelligence operatives and retainers to his several law firms, how much cash does he have left to deposit into his bank account? Or, another way of saying this is what is Dave’s net cash margin on his drug business?

It’s also going to be a multiple of Sam’s margin, right? Maybe it will be 20 percent or 30 percent or more?** Let’s call it B for Big, or BIG PERCENTAGE

Dave the drug man has a much bigger “cash profit per boat” than Sam the sugar man. Part of that is, of course, once Dave has set up his money laundering schemes, even after a 4-10 percent take for the money laundering fees, it’s fair to say his tax rate of 0 percent is lower than Sam’s tax rate. While it is expensive to set up all the many schemes Dave might use to launder his money, once you do it you can save a lot avoiding some or all of the IRS’s take.

[[**that link simply mentions The Carlyle Group, and is not claiming it’s involved in drug trading or illegal activity. However, it does show that wealth attracts wealth, and how a private equity firm charges percentages of returns, and in general shows extremely creative ways to raise money and get its investors (formerly $5 million minimum) very hefty returns on their profit. They deal heavily with government contracting firms (including Pentagon) and have had former military, (Presidential), CIA, etc. on their boards. Very interesting group.]]

And I seriously believe this should be considered. The C.A. Fitts article uses the example of Sam who sells sugar for a SLIM percentage, and Dave who sells Drugs for a multiple of that percentage — for one, because the tax rate is simply zero. Both are business operations — they just operate differently.)

[[2013 Dec. addition: Again, let’s consider this. Does the Federal, to the States (50) and territories, do the Counties (do the math) within each state, to the REGIONAL authorities and Enterprise Authorities (again, see Walter Burien, Carl Hermann (washingtonspostblog) or Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com) for more info, or look yourself; I have set up a preliminary reference site at Cold,Hard.Fact$ — do they pay taxes? Are they in business? (absolutely!) are they making profits (again, absolutely). Being government, do they pay taxes on their profits? (no). So, who, really, would the collective governments actually have more in common – -the money-laundering drug-running element which pays nothing on its profits (it’s tax-exempt because, well, it’s illegal!) and their VBP (Very Big Profits) — or the poor slobs who clutter up the government’s welfare offices, prisons, and are always complaining about their rights, their schools, their courts, and their neighborhoods — what do THEY have to offer in return (other than a cheap, or slave, labor force, and at some point, their kids to be trafficked one way or another)???



Looked at this way, those who say, “I pay my taxes, I work my job, let the government do ITS job” just don’t understand government. At some level, expecting it to restrain itself is simply an irrational thought. A more rational thought would be to consider these matters, and if you are personally unable to force the government to quit extorting the poor and/or the rich, while not cleaning up even its own JUDICIAL COURTHOUSES (the topic here IS AFCC, right?) — then perhaps it’s because you’ve been played, and allowed it too long, you don’t have the financial option of cleaning up government, or helping your friends who have been oppressed by it, without losing something you can’t afford to lose — like housing. More of your time is needed for work than can be dedicated for activist involved investigation (self-initiated) of government operations (that means, those CAFRs at a minimum).

WHY? Profit margin. The wage-earner’s profit margin for too many is too small. For others, they have balanced their lifestyles according to social status, and it’s still, percentage wise, perhaps not the best ratio — compared to the billionaires investing in things they shouldn’t be.


There’s no way a public who DOES pay taxes, and is taxed to pay professionals whose primary organization(s) even as nonprofits, don’t stay incorporated and allow us to track their own funding!

The moral of the story is pay better attention. Mea culpa, in that regard… which by definition means pay LESS attention to something else, unless there are ways to extend and stretch time, and slow the accelerating expansion of organizations who don’t play by the rules, is truly possible.

Here’s the EIN# filings for this organization in Wisconsin — under the following EIN#. Notice the “assets” column’s progression since 2003: (the same chart also on “Look it Up” page).

I’m rechecking the Wisconsin Corporations Search page for our main organization above, again.

A 990 search shows that the Wisconsin Organization has MORE THAN quintupled its assets (let alone revenues!) since 2003 under this EIN#:

WI 200927$1,720,84495-2597407<25$1,403,91795-2597407

READER ALERT — suggest you re-run the reports, some formatting errors may have me correcting it into the wrong row (these are hand-html’d tables; if you want to complain, click on “Donate” button first, and I’ll upgrade to a commercial site, or Premium WordPress!). This is to give a sense of the situation — to encourage reading of the tax returns. Right now — this organization ain’t registered to do business at the state level IN wisconsin. An October 2012 conflict-of interest chapter filing now exists. The registered agent, Carl Stansbury, is both a family law attorney and a court commissioner; the street address lists also another partner, Barbara L. Barbach (ALSO a commissioner and family law attorney), etc. Wisconsin is a MAJOR welfare reform state, and UMadison is well-known. Children’s Rights Council “Family Law Advisory Board” I learned recently, contains a person (Eloise Anderson) who formerly headed up the welfare system (and helped smooth from AFDC to TANF) in Wisconsin — then moved over to inflict some more damages (through this programming) in My state, California. See sidebar text (the long, long, long one!).

CRC was instrumental in structuring some of the grants that AFCC members love to receive support from (A/V and marriage/fatherhood, etc., parent education ….) — so connect the dots. Watch the organizations with multi-state membership, court-connections, federal funding savvy — and an agenda!!!

WI 200927$1,720,84495-2597407

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE / YEAR Form990pgs TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts


(Click to read the 990. READ the 990!)

WI 2012 27 $2,765,359 95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts WI 2011 23 $2,373,599 95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts WI 2010 28 $2,192,367 95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts WI 2008 26 $1,743,428 95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts WI 2007
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts WI 2006 20 $1,158,339 95-2597407
Association of Family & Conciliation Courts WI 2005 17 $929,894 95-2597407
Association of Family & Conciliation Courts WI 2004 17 $636,483 95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts WI 2003 16 $467,421 95-2597407


Continued (and also moved) from the “Look it Up (Impromptu / Checkpoints) page to the right, link at top of this post. Arizona has been on the Conciliation Court setup from very early in the game (see early AFCC newsletter links, below). … Not proofread, and fact-checking is the reader’s responsibility.

AFCC-AZ

Remainder of this page deals with the, and was assembled earlier this week.

ARIZONA CHAPTER OF THE ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS

This seems to be a very active state; there are many key AFCC personnel from Arizona (recalling it’s right next to California) and historically have been.  For example, in 1983 or 1984 newsletters (early AFCC) at the bottom of my blog (or to the right if they display there on your screen), a Judge? Russell Schoeneman was heading the Conciliation Court Services early on.   So I figured, perhaps, as Wisconsin didn’t seem to be “home base,” perhaps things had changed since I looked, and Arizona was (the mother ship).  Anyhow, that led to these lookups.  I began looking up individual board members below, and then got a little detoured into one of the references a certain board member had to a religious counseling center (with really spotty incorporation records itself).  The tax return looks deliberately vague — but in fact, if these trainings are setting the standards for the field, then the public deserves to and should know more about them, regardless of which state they are written off as nonprofit expenses in.

And — it’s a trade organization with a particular ideology on the field of divorce and family.  Not everyone shares this ideology — nor should the courts be forced to share it.  However, if training and credntialing controls who gets to practice, that’s virtually a private control of public courts.

My “STARPAS” (Arizona Corporations search) page shows it does exist as a nonprofit “Business, Professional and Trade” corporation, which it’s nice to see they at least admit.  It incorporated in 1986 (looks like fairly steady maintaining annual reports) and the home address showing matches the home address of a family law attorney who got her JD from Arizona State in 1984, and who’s currently also a board member of the AFCC (Main association).  One thing at a time, however:

Just look it up by name:  “Arizona Chapter of the Association of Family Conciliation….” (whole title doesn’t fit, obviously).  And Arizona database is also transitioning to a new system, like other states’…
Additional Corporate Information
Corporation Type: NON-PROFIT Business Type: PROFESSIONAL, COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, OR TRADE
Incorporation Date:  06/03/1986 Corporate Life Period: PERPETUAL
Domicile:  ARIZONA County: MARICOPA
Approval Date:  06/09/1986 Original Publish Date:  06/26/1986

Lookups

:

The Arizona Chapter Tax Return is bare-bones simple (about $54K) and offhandedly says (in all caps) it “AZAFCC serves the Professionals in the Legal and Mental Health Fields with the required and necessary Training The Chapter Holds an annual  conference.”

In the section where the public is supposed to be able to look at income and expenses for specific program purposes (page 2, Part III on almost every income tax return), it restates the organizations purposes (item #1), and in Item #4a where one sometimes gets a little actual detail, it simply excerpts one phrase from the “purposes” and enters nothing — at all — as to dollar figures!   4b and most of 4c are then completely blank, and in very fine print at the bottom of 4c, again it states “Training for Professionals in Legal and Mental Health field” and claims expenses of $44,011.”   It then puts this also under 4d AND under “Other Program Services (Describe in Schedule O), the same amount, for a total of $44,011.

While I’m here, I noticed that in 2011, Philip Stahl (Great PAS promoter) is on this board.  They do trainings.
On page 20 (of 21) of the tax return, where one would get (normally) some detail in “Other program Services” it says only (and I quote):  ”

there’s a Schedule O which– in SOME places, contains more detail on what the organization did.  It reads, and I quote  “Training for Professionals in the Legal and Mental Health Fields” and “Expenses $44,011.”

Can the public learn a little more about that, and has anyone checked the books?  Schedule O (page 20, here), “ORGANIZATION’S PROCESS TO CHECK THE 990 FORM”  TYPED IN:  “NO REVIEW WAS OR WILL BE CONDUCTED.”

GOVERNING DOCUMENTS DISCLOSURE EXPLANATION:  “NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.”


INTERESTING.  WHILE I”M HERE, I FIGURED I’D SHARE THE NAMES OF THE (ALL UNPAID) BOARD MEMBERS:
There seem to be three “Hons.” (presumably judges), a retired “Judge” and about seven “JD’s” (two possibly spouses? same last name anyhow), and some “Dr.s”  -David McPhee and Philip Stahl.  Stahl isn’t an M.D. and probably Dr. McPhee isn’t either.  Also I think, John Moran? and Faren Akins were also..

That leaves just a few people not in those fields, that we know of.

In order of appearance on the tax return (year 2011):
(copied by hand from tax return.  I don’t have the best handwriting and may have mis-spelled some first or last names; but you have the link).

If anyone from Arizona has some of these individuals on their custody cases, possibly you already know what the general paradigm is likely to be, as shown by the organization’s publication.  Don’t act “high-conflict” or else.  Also if you are seriously dealing with some abuse or violence in the situation, that’s probably either high-conflict and you’re making it up to gain an edge in the custody — or it’s PAS.  And there are ways to correct either high-conflict or PAS, obviously….

[[Any linking below, I did through web-search.  Readers responsible to double-check I have the right ones where there are identical names and different people.  I believe I have the correct links, however if a mistaken link (wrong identity) is discovered, please comment and I will correct it).


Laura Bealleau

  • more references(Appealing to women in divorce, mention of VAWA)About Laura Belleau: Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law. Author: “Practical Pointers Litigating Domestic Emotional Distress Claims,” Fairshare, 1997; “The Violence Against Women Act and Its Impact on Domestic Torts,” Journal of American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Spring 2000. Judge Pro Tempore, Pima County Superior Court, 2001-. Member, Board of Directors, Planned Parenthood of Southern Arizona, 1996-2001. Member, Board of Directors, Sporting Chance, 1994-. Member, Morris K. Udall Inn of Court, 1995-2000. Fellow, American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.(Certified Specialist, Family Law, Arizona Board of Legal Specialization) Partner in Karp, Heurlin & Weiss, Tucson, AZ. http://khw-law.com/

David McPhee

  • A blogger relates experience with McPhee’s failure to disclose conflicts of interest until after three “90-minute” sessions AND his complaint to the licensing board (AZBHE).  48 comments. Read! Blogger also seems to be a psychologist or psychiatrist..

John Assini.

  • Apparently Mr. Assini taught first grade for six years, said FORGET IT!, went back and got a JD and is sitting atop the heap (Executive Committee on Family Law, Arizona, etc.).  Family Law seems to be a fast-track as an attorney, and people into “education” also get into family law.

Collaborative Law Group (typical AFCC) membership

Barbara Atwood

  • (President-Elect, stellar credentials — and clear AFCC affiliation) 2004 AZAFCC LETTER, see inset, page six.  Also note articles on therapeutic jurisprudence.  Also notice who’s on the board of this organization (page 1, banner inset to left) as of that date, including which judges…  The President of AZAFCC that year was ALSO judge (Hon. Mark Armstrong) of Maricopa County Arizona Superior Court.  How might that have affected the culture of the courts?

Therese Bennett

Joy Borum

  • [[Psychology/Law/JD — been mediating since 1982…)

Fees
Sliding fee scale based on annual, gross income. Minimum $235/hour for $125,000. and below. $290/hour for $125, -200,000. $350/hour above $200,000.


Description of Practice
Mediating since 1982. Collaborative mediator. Co-provider 1st adv. family mediation training in AZ. Co-author univ. mediation text. Former Judge Pro Tem and parenting coordinator. Provide continuing educ. & mediation training. Consultant to other mediators.

Professional Background
Educator, trainer, former car dealer & politician Chaired state and county bar ADR sections, founding member co. family mediation assoc. & president. Train & consult . Advanced training in psychology, couples & small systems.

Experience
25 years/1,000+ cases. Joy is a partner in The Family Mediation Center, established in 1981. Joy has an active law license plus decades of training and experience in psychology, family and organizational systems, mental health and stepfamilies.

  • [Opinion:  This woman doesn’t need to be on the board of AZAFCC — she needs to be replaced!!  She pre-dates welfare reform by about a generation, and has hardly tried something new since 1982, looks like..Let’s see how she fares being jerked around overnight on hearsay — like domestic violence victims forced through it through “mandatory mediation” and restructure a work, housing and family life overnight without good (or legal) cause based on “expert opinion.  Same old, same old, same old…”]  Blurb from Family Mediation Center (see also colleague’s blurb above hers) shows she was also Vice President of “Faith Counseling Center” of Scottsdale, described as:
  • Faith Counseling Center was the first and only dually accredited pastoral counseling center in the state of Arizona. In 2004 FCC was accredited by The Samaritan Institute and The American Association of Pastoral Counselors. In May 2008, FCC received re-accreditation from The Samaritan Institute and continues to be accredited by The American Association of Pastoral Counselors.


Our Mission is to be a be a channel of love and healing, assisting all persons to find and maintain wholeness of spirit, mind, body and community.


Our Vision is to be an extension of the faith community. We provide spiritually based counseling, pastoral psychotherapy, psychiatric and interdisciplinary consultation, as well as research and educational programs that are professionally competent and morally grounded.  [[MORALLY GROUNDED defined as ???]]

[Jan. 2013 ltr on the site says it’s closing, for economic reasons.  Arizona Corporations search shows it started (was inc.) 2000, and Joy Borum is still listed as a Director.  Its purpose is “SPIRITUAL COUNSELING.”).
((more, interesting — below)***

[More Board Directors…each one could be looked up, and probably should be, for an awareness that these individuals are in cooperation with AFCC basic beliefsets, policies and most likely, practices].

Sid Brickman

Judge Gloria Kindig Ret’d.

(Actually, Judge Kindig has a remarkable background; she is White Mountain Apache from Colorado, spent time on a Navajo Reservation, got a degree in 1973, from “NM Institute of Mining and Technology,” showed aptitude as an engineer, worked in Wyoming, and ended up in Arizona. She got her law degree later in life (1989), but while getting it, started a supportive network for Native Americans, and continued on to become the first Native American elected Superior Court Judge. She was Judge in Navajo County in 2002 during a state of emergency due to forest fires and had to sign a lot of administrative orders regarding criminal court, as the place was being evacuated, and law enforcement had to go help at the fire line. This is about a former ranch hand // Brigham Young University (i.e., Mormon) judge who ran against her (and lost) in 2000 but later made it to the Arizona Appeals Court.
In 2009, this article from the Navajo-Hopi Observer describes the Tribal Council (incl. Judge Kindig) over-riding one of their ordinances about who is on the Hopi Tribal Court of Appeals. Someone outed filed a lawsuit, and explained that resolutions don’t over-ride ordinances. To my understanding, this sounds somewhat like an administrative ruling over-riding a law. Easier for you to read than me to explain.

(Somehow, I don’t see this retired Judge would be a problem personnel in this organization. She at least has varied life experience and isn’t simply a psychology major who got bumped upstairs by the existence of AFCC…))

Jason Castle

link notes handled cases of allegations of molestation and abuse, which were “successfully resolved.” Another link here at “Dickinson Wright“, shows more biographical detail. Includes criminal defense (incl. against DV) and family law both. Was recently made a member, Rising Star attorney, etc..:

Experienced in handling all aspects of family law matters, including, but not limited to, paternity, annulment, child custody, parenting time, child support, spousal maintenance, business valuations, Orders of Protection, and post-decree matters involving enforcement or modification of the original Decree. He is admitted to practice in the State of Arizona and the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

Most recent family law experiences include:

•Dissolution of marriage involving a complex family business that had several investments in property around the world;
Obtained a modification of custody based on allegations of child abuse (which way?);
Defended against a modification of custody and parenting time based on allegations of sexual abuse. Father was ultimately awarded custody of his child;
•Establishing paternity and obtained joint custody with reasonable parenting time for father despite allegations of drug use;

•Dissolution of Marriage involving the division of multi-million dollar community business, custody, spousal maintenance, and child support; [[what did she get?]]
•Successfully obtained an Annulment of marriage;
•Enforcement of child support and spousal maintenance awards with attorney fees in a matter involving thousands of dollars owed by Father; And,
•Establish mother’s right to relocate with her children outside the state.

[This bio from a Presenter’s blurb at the Arizona Psychological Association…Mr. Castle provided counseling services to children and families before receiving his law degree from Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio. He started his legal career as a prosecutor for the City of Phoenix. Since joining Mariscal, Weeks, McIntyre, and Friedlander, PA, Mr. Castle’s practice has focused on family law and criminal defense.

Mr. Castle is the Past Chair for the Family Law Section of the Maricopa County Bar Association; the President Elect for the Arizona Chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts; and was recently named a “rising star” for Arizona by the Super Lawyers publication for the Southwest.  Mr. Castle recently appeared as a commentator for CourtTV on the show In Session, which covered the baby Gabriel case.

Sounds like an average guy with an average education (BA General Studies, Indiana Univ — (HUGE undergrad class, no particular interest?) who went into social work, then law.

Hon. Carey S. Hyatt

Helen Davis

Kiliu Davis (sp?)

William Fabricius (link just gives a flavor.  Arizona State U, etc. presenting with Sanford Braver ….) (being quoted by Robert Franklin in Fathers and Families)
Fabricius in an article plebians like (parents) have to pay to access, in order to know what this professional is saying about (us):

Listening to Children of Divorce: New Findings That Diverge From Wallerstein, Lewis, and Blakeslee†


*Portions of this research were presented at the 2000 and 2002 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conferences. I wish to extend thanks to the dedicated undergraduate students who have helped with this project: Domenica Nersita, Jeff Hall, Kindra Deneau, Kristin Turner, and Meena Choi.


†Abstract:I review new findings on (a) college students’ perspectives on their living arrangements after their parents’ divorces, (b) their relations with their parents as a function of their living arrangements, (c) their adjustment as a function of their parents’ relocation, and (d) the amount of college support they received. Students endorsed living arrangements that gave them equal time with their fathers, they had better outcomes when they had such arrangements and when their parents supported their time with the other parent, they experienced disagreement between mothers and fathers over living arrangements, and they gave evidence of their fathers’ continuing commitment to them into their young adult years. These findings consistently contradict the recent, influential public policy recommendations of Judith Wallerstein.

(Huh?  How? Anyhow, those are the children that actually made it to college post-divorce…)

Here’s a first draft of Fabricius’ May 2011 presentation in front of a Canadian Senator “Anne C. Cools” (!!) Roundtable on Family Dynamics with further emphasis on fatherhood matters, abstract, heavily quoting Paul Damato and Sanford Braver, about equal parenting time and trying to associate physical health problems among young adults with the quality of their previous father/child and young-adult/father relationships.

Hon. Colleen McNally
Hon. Rhonda Repp.
Hondan Slayton
Philip Stahl
John Moran (ex officio)
Faren Akins
Elizabeth Crosen

Kathy McCormick (Treasurer)

  • AzAFCC address is c/o Ms. McCormick at the Yavapai County Superior Court in Prescott, AZ. Ms. McCormick’s linkedin shows she has 3 years of study in psychology, a Legal Assistant Degree, and has gone into this field. Oh yes, and ADR Director at the Courthouse and recently activity at a West Yavapai (Behavioral Health Services) Guidance Clinic.The listing of this county’s ADR program shows up in a Court ADR database at “RSI” [Resolution Systems Institute) which lists Center for Conflict Resolution — out of Chicago (read the find print, click on links at bottom of page). I’ve been there before; the web page presentation is absolutely elegant, classic look. However they are two Chicago corporations, or so it says anyhow.We see that the ADR was adopted by Administrative Rule:

    DATABASE SEARCH RESULTS
    YAVAPAI COUNTY, ARIZONA, SUPERIOR COURT RULE 19 – ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION

    Superior Court of Yavapai County, Arizona. Adopted effective October 15, 2002

    http://azrules.westgroup.com/

    This rule establishes a program for the use of alternative dispute resolution processes. Under this rule, after the first appearance of a defendant, the parties to a case must confer to discuss ADR. Appropriate cases shall be referred to a specific ADR process. The rule outlines procedures for conducting these processes, including selection of a provider, compensation, powers and authority and the provider, serving of subpoenas, and notice of results.

    Understanding as we do that one of the purposes of AFCC is to push such things (as their membership practices), like mediation and “ADR” (Alternative Dispute Resolution), I think it’s worth reading a 2003 Grants report on how this works (for example, the civil filing fees go into the ADR fund, then courts can apply and subcontract out. (cf. my Posts on how this works in California, “There is in the State Treasury a Family Law Trust Fund” as to Conciliation code….). Sentence one: “The 1989 Commission on the Court recommended the expanded use of ADR in dispute resolution” (TOPIC: “Alternative Dispute Resolution Fund.”). So, I go and get that 1989 Report (129pp pdf here), called “The Future of Arizona Courts” easily found at a database of “NCJRS.” [National Criminal Justice Reference Service] Here’s the “Cite” and here’s the PDF. What I’m looking for, naturally, is who set up the “Commission on the Courts” and who was on it.

    p. 32 is “Establishing Alternative Dispute Resolution” and p. 88 or so is under Children and Families, “Domestic Violence.” p. 108, “for the future” — what else, “UNIFIED FAMILY COURT.” Gee, I wonder where that idea came from. (list of Commission and Task Force Members towards the end).

    From this I learn that in 1988 (Arizona Supreme Court) Chief Justice Frank X. Gordon, Jr. appointed a commission with FOUR Task Forces to plan the courts from 1988 til about 2000. (Note: AzAFCC being one of the oldest chapters, it says, was formed by then). They were: COURT ORGANIZATION AND ADMINISTRATION; COURT PRODUCTIVITY; ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES IN THE COURTS. The suggestions included forming a Judicial Council (note: California had one), Council on Judicial Performance (to sand-bag complaints..), etc.

    That (very nice, by the way), biography of this Chief Justice, who came from Chicago, IL and whose father also was an attorney, got a BA in Sociology (met Sandra Day O’Connor), and this particular Commission on the Courts was funded by a FEDERAL GRANT in which they were to compare what other states were doing, get it back in two yearas. He was proud that many of the recommendations were in effect by 1992, President George H.W. Bush also honored him for a (computerized, I believe) reading program for juvenile offenders, and etc. (see link to justice’s name).


    [[That’s all I have time to look up now, however it would seem wise to know who’s on the board of all state chapters, and put up some links to their work, etc. Obviously a few “Hons.” on any board are significant. In this case, I have said next to nothing about Philip Stahl, but he’s a major player when it comes to PAS -promotion. If all the people complaining about “richard gardner theory” had taken some time (previously) to do their lookups, they’d know how come “Richard Gardner theory” was still alive and kicking (though he himself isn’t) and how that happened. There’s a link at the bottom of this page, I believe his name is somewhere on faculty: The Evolution of Psychotherapy 2013 Conference. Stahl came from Northern California (SF Bay Area) out to Arizona a while back. I doubt it was for the weather…]]

    Faith Counseling Center of Scottsdale (Joy Borum, Director) apparently incorporationed in 2000, and managed to file annual reports for 2001,2,3, 2004, and then quit.  (Actually it was seven months late filing as early as 2002, even after a delinquency notice).  It appears to have been more trouble than it was worth to keep track of (for the state).  Quick summary from the corporate records:

    [From Arizona State Corporate Records as to “Faith Counseling Center,” easy to see on-line).Document Number Description Date Received
    01 ANNUAL REPORT 04/20/2001
    02 ANNUAL REPORT 11/05/2002
    03 ANNUAL REPORT 04/16/2003
    04 ANNUAL REPORT 07/02/2004
    05 ANNUAL REPORT 01/07/2013
    06 ANNUAL REPORT 01/07/2013
    07 ANNUAL REPORT 01/07/2013
    08 ANNUAL REPORT 01/07/2013
    09 ANNUAL REPORT 01/07/2013
    10 ANNUAL REPORT 01/07/2013
    11 ANNUAL REPORT 01/07/2013The heading lists.
    Joy D Borum “Date of taking office 2012” (It was not operating above board — and had been dissolved involutarily by the state at this point, looks like… Our professional mediator didn’t notice?)
    Look at the “Date Received” column.The organization formed, and filed annual reports for about four years, then simply quit filing annual reports (were they still open for business and taking funds?)In fact (see description under Ms. Borum’s name, above), it looks like the same year it got accredited by “The Samaritan Institute” [whoever that is,] it quit filing its annual reports…after filing 3 months late in 2004, that is.  (see chart above).The second year of operation (04/2002), they didn’t file an annual report and so received another notice four months afterwards (8/2002) and finally (seven months late) filed one in 11/2002.In Dec. 2006 they were mailed a notice of delinquency, and apparently didn’t respond (having been given 3/4 year to respond) so were dissolved in Sept. 2007.They then finally filed retroactively for years 2005-6-7-8-9-10-11 and 12 on 1/7/2013, getting re-instated, and then the president or someone posted a letter on the site that they were closing their doors.It looks like someone simply moved operations and didn’t leave a forwarding address with the State of Arizona — unless it’s at fault?11747011034 04/05/2006 2006 ANNUAL REPORT/MAIL RETURN
    32016000675 12/11/2006 NOTICE OF PENDING ADMIN.DISSOLUTION
    11768027044 01/08/2007 DELINQUENT NOTICE/MAIL RETURN
    11780017044 03/29/2007 2007 ANNUAL REPORT/MAIL RETURN
    32066004339 09/13/2007 CERTIFICATE OF DISSOLUTION
    11828012011 10/01/2007 MAIL RETURNED/NOTIFICATION LETTER
    11954019032 01/07/2013 CERTIFICATE OF REINSTATEMENTThat’s “morally sound”??

    This link shows which churches the various board of directors were from, and the letter (20 days after filing retroactive annual reports!) mentions that they drew congregants from 22 local churches.  Another reason I believe churches and other religious groups should completely lose tax-exempt status..

    My lookup (IRS SELECT ORGANIZATION CHECK) showed Faith Counseling Center lost its nonprofit exemption as of 5/15/2010 for failing to file — three years in a row.  Handy tool that:

    Does this not give an entirely different perspective on the public declaration of what the group has been doing (and for how long). I have not yet looked up “The Samaritan Institute” who accredited them in 2004 (after which this center stopped filing its annual returns) and apparently again, later. For what that’s worth — no personnel in common, presumably?

    Exempt Organizations Select Check

    Exempt Organizations Select Check Home
    Automatic Revocation of Exemption Information

    The federal tax exemption of this organization was automatically revoked for its failure to file a Form 990-series return or notice for three consecutive years. The information listed below for each organization is historical; it is current as of the organization’s effective date of automatic revocation. The information is not necessarily current as of today’s date. Nor does this automatic revocation necessarily reflect the organization’s tax-exempt or non-exempt status. The organization may have applied to the IRS for recognition of exemption and been recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt after its effective date of automatic revocation. To check whether an organization is currently recognized by the IRS as tax-exempt, call Customer Account Services at (877) 829-5500 (toll-free number).

    Revocation Date (effective date on which organization’s tax exemption was automatically revoked):
    15-May-2010
    Employer Identification Number (EIN):
    86-0985586*
    Legal Name:
    FAITH COUNSELING CENTER
    Doing Business As:
    Mailing Address:
    7585 E REDFIELD RD STE 211
    SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85260-6938
    United States
    Exemption Type:
    501(c)(3)
    Revocation Posting Date (date on which IRS posted notice of automatic revocation on IRS.gov):
    09-Jun-2011
    Return to Search Results     Return to Search Page

    FOLLOWUP (on this, admittedly, minor organizational reference from an AZAFCC board member and lifelong mediator….)

    *note:  this doesn’t seem to be a religious exempt organization and one year did note (on Starpas Az site)about $50K; but I haven’t been able to locate ANY 990 filing (looked on two sites by EIN#).  Its business address matches a certain “Dr. Franklin Morris Berry, Sr.”

    Entity Type Code : Individual
    Provider Name (Legal Business Name) : DR. FRANKLIN MORRIS BERRY SR. PH D
    Provider Business Mailing Address
    First Line : 7585 E REDFIELD RD
    Second Line : SUITE 211
    City : SCOTTSDALE
    State : AZ

    Zip : 85260-6938

    After wading PAGES of “Dr. Frank M. Berry” listings, I found out what his doctorate was in, and what he does:

    He is a PSYCHOLOGIST, with a 1969 degree from University of Alabama – Tuscaloosa — and apparently very fond of the “Dr.” designation; works in addiction (rehab) and here’s the website:

    http://psychtap.com/dir/psychologist-listings/franklin-m-berry/
    [[PSYCHTAP director is a service of a company listed in England:

    Who We Are

    PsychTap.com is a service of Mulhauser Consulting, Ltd., a company registered in England no. 4455464. Registered office: 55 De Tracey Park, Newton Abbot TQ13 9QT. The company is registered in the United Kingdom as a Data Controller under the UK’s Data Protection Act 1998. /// We have a total of 10,439 psychologists — organised by location, specialization, board certifications and more. (Randomize?)

    Theoretical Approach or Methodology
    Cognitive or Cognitive Behavioral
    Psychodynamic
    Focus and Specialization Areas

    Couples Psychotherapy
    Hypnosis or Hypnotherapy
    Individual Psychotherapy

    This is probably a good place to remind us that the Milton H. Erickson Foundation (for clinical hypnosis) has strong roots in Arizona (and is in Phoenix), and strong supporters (along with in general the concept of getting PhD’s for psychologists) from Nicholas J Cummings et al.  (SEE BELOW HERE)***  

    (Average cost per session noted elsewhere:  $120/$130, no sliding scale, takes (listed) insurance coverages).

    Be that as it may, looks like this office was used for “Faith Counseling Center’ address, and they did not file annual reports or, most likely, tax returns for funds received from their clientele, who appear to have been drawn from the church population.

    While Joy D. Borum didn’t list any religious affiliation (as a board member) it does reflect on her, by association, with this organization.  Personally, I wouldn’t be citing them on my resume, given the corporate records…


    There is an AFCC // PAS // MHE // Nicholas Cummings connection around these issues (I have no idea why religious groups are getting involved with the hypnotherapy, which for Christians would be contra-indicated [spiritually speaking, under “consulting familiar spirits” or the occult]).***The Evolution of Psychotherapy 2013 Conference (Dec, Anaheim, California) fine-print faculty and speakers list:

    [THIS PAGE IS A WORK IN PROGRESS]

4 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Be sure to check out (online pdf version)… “Improving Implementation of the Federal Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980” by Judge Leonard P. Edwards.

    Re-read page 8.

    Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2013 02:43:03 +0000 To: waynealan42@hotmail.com

    Wayne Alan

    April 14, 2013 at 3:26 am

    • Thanks for the feedback.

      Is this what you mean?
      http://nc.casaforchildren.org/files/public/community/judges/March_2011/Edwards_3.pdf (THIS?)
      Care to comment any further?

      I just read page 8 (that’s a lot of text overall) and it appears that the only Teeth the Feds have for juvenile court judges screwup is to penalize the state’s Title IV-E monies. Also clearly California was a screw-up (315 out of 804 cases).

      ——
      Based on this:

      http://www.scscourt.org/general_info/news_media/newspdfs/EdwardsJuristoftheYear.pdf
      (2003 accolade, “developed one of the first unified family courts in California” (Santa Clara) and also on various committees — including domestic violence — I’m going to guess, he’s probably AFCC-friendly.

      http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/CCR_06SPRING.pdf
      2006 Court newsletter shows page 16 “The Mediation Miracle.” Yep. The Blurb says he was Past President of California AFCC. He was in family court for a whopping two years (1982-1984!) before being judged president of this organization which formed itself in: 1981, was it?? (MEDIATION first became Mandatory. In fact, anyone who wants to understand the correspondence of development of family courts as we know them now, and a certain agenda by AFCC, this is a virtual narration of it.

      There’s a reason all the self-congratulatory publications aren’t circulated to more clients going through the system.

      ============

      It must have been interesting as President of a group that didn’t incorporate for the next six years (1981 — per news article; 1987, per California Secretary of State): https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/look-up-a-nonprofit-impromptu-how-to-checkpoints/ (scroll down for the colorful tables, details below in orange/yellow backgrounds.

      AFCC itself (the Illinois/Denver/California registration) incorporated in 1981…

      The more Unified any Court is, the more Centralized it is. Then all that remains is, who’s running it? Unified Family Courts bring in dependency law and so can order more services and “therapy” of various sorts.

      In general, there’s going to be more and more specialized treatment courts (juvenile, criminal, family) in this program, which will come in handy when the person being treated is principal of an elementary school in a Unified School District caught dealing drugs in an on-line sting which started at a gay dating site.
      http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/09/24/santa-clara-principal-set-for-court-appearance-following-drug-arrest/

      (Circular link with drop-down menu isn’t active? I can’t get to the sub-menu showing who’s on the council.
      http://www.sccgov.org/sites/owp/Domestic%20Violence%20Council/Pages/Domestic-Violence-Council.aspx

      History
      The DVC was established as a County Commission in 1991 as an advisory body to the Board of Supervisors in matters pertaining to domestic violence.  The Council makes recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding policies, programs and legislation and promotes effective prevention, intervention and treatment techniques to reduce domestic violence in our community. 

      have a nice day.

      Let's Get Honest

      April 16, 2013 at 1:45 pm

  2. […] think certain interdisciplinary organizations would get the hint by now. Apparently they still haven’t.** I guess rules and laws of incorporation are just for plebians who are not anointed with a […]

  3. […] The “Let’s Get Honest” blog has also researched the AFCC: https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/2013/04/11/afcc-a-users-manual-intro-and-for-now-some-of-ari… […]


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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: