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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Ignorance — about Privatization, Reorganization of Government within the USA– Ain’t Bliss!

with 5 comments

[In present form, this post is over 12,000 words. I’m posting it anyhow; it should raise awareness of certain types of national organizations [nonprofits or centers with the word “national” in their title] as a pattern, as well as awareness of specific influential ones –some long-standing, some newer– each with its agenda for ALL states [as witnessed to in part by their name including the word “national“] which bypassing the local (state-level) legislatures and general public awareness locally, then, through force, bullying (one example below, this includes litigation — suing), or simply “outflanking” informed consent of the public through inclusive, open, public debate seeking to inflict privately-agreed-upon models, practices and values developed among collaborating experts, as “in the public interest” and therefore, to be applied to all.  
I hope this reveals some of the strategies already in place to bypass due process in writing, passing state laws, or policies.  You MUST look at the nonprofit sector as the powerhouse it really is, and as the position that nonprofit organizations hold by virtue of not having even public shareholders — and by partnering with the significant financial clout involved in government entities.  501©3s  and 501©4s, for example, being private NONstock entities (although they certainly can and do invest in or own stock, or sometimes even control for-profit related businesses) are primarily accountable to their boards of directors.   Even after their existence reaches one’s awareness, their funding is not always immediately obvious.  Where that funding is private, it also may not be traceable at all.  Where it’s public, it’s listed on the Form 990s as “government grants” and good luck locating consistently– from which government agencies!    These organizations, as a sector,  therefore should NOTbe ignored!
Whatever the specific agenda and policies end up being — you can be sure it will involve moving the balance of power away from government into the private trainer, technical assistance, and program-providers.  Government, meaning, “the public,” of course is welcome to continue funding all stages of the system change, and the new systems — coming, going, and inbetween.]

Recently, I re-booted (so to speak) a service which lets me see where blog visitors are coming from.  Highly recommended (statcounter.com) and not too expensive. Readers cannot view this on the site, it’s a password protected service to help bloggers understand their audience.

On seeing the quality and affiliations of visitors (WHO is watching — or at least repeatedly visiting this site), I decided to speak more plainly about the macro-systems through which privatization of government and progressive reorganization of the Executive Branch of the USA has been set up, was planned at least 100 years ago and is proceeding, fast, in the same direction:  Undermining representative government at the individual level, and strengthening the stranglehold of the nonprofit/government alliances.

I was surprised to see that despite over a year and a half of silence (no new posts), within 2016 alone, including before I broke the silence on January 23, 2016, FamilyCourtMatters was visited, repeatedly, by: HHS, USDOJ, several state governments (as in “State of Minnesota, State of Hawaii, Colorado”), repeatedly from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and, for some reason  DOD NNIC (Navy Network Information Centers), Bureau of Corrections in two states, Northrup Grunman, Lockheed, Ford Motor Company,multiple universities (Including MIT, and Yale at least once), a few law firms, California Judicial Council AOC, “The City of New York,” (and various other cities), surprisingly, several school districts, the IRS and the FBI — I think perhaps someone else may be getting the message that we are (I am!) now still reporting on certain things whether or not it’s popular, or picked up in mainstream or social media.

If these entities are at still looking at this blog, perhaps the average viewer (unaffiliated person) might also just want to acquire some time and patience to consider its basic messages, and the supporting evidence.   (Qualifier:  These are IP addresses which come in with their labeled names via statcounter, and not individual people or homes.  I do not have access to individual viewers by IP and would not report if I did).  Some of the visitors seem to relate to what I was blogging on, or potentially my own visit to their site. A visit also doesn’t tell me why someone was reading, and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the visit was related to official business by any of the above.  It’s just a “came from” web address, that’s all. It could be people on break at work, etc.)

There aren’t many comments on this blog, and for one which has been around so long, really not that many registered followers.  I’m not promoting it enough (or consistently) on Twitter, on Facebook (basically at all).  I have always focused on writing my own material, which makes for less frequent posts (possibly less traffic).  Certainly, I quote plenty of others within posts, but I personally search out, personally process the information (to varying levels depending on the relevance)  and write.  The overall position I take, on the blog and on specific posts and, on the topics covered in each post, is my position:  this is my voice and understanding, and no abject copycat of a political, gender-based, or group-based.  If we were sitting face-to-face, I would say the same things conversationally, referring to the same themes, and offer even more in-depth examples.

Perhaps that’s what makes this resource (the blog is a resource) different from so much information now available on-line about domestic violence, child abuse, custody battles, and even “custody of children going to batterers,” let alone “protective mothers”  —  a term I hate because the “-ive” ending on “Protective” indicates a job not done or even likely to be accomplished, at least not in the family court venue, which was designed for:  collaboration, mediation, cooperation and (in effect) “conciliation” — not protecting children, or for that matter, their mothers.    The family courts have carved out a completely different market niche, namely “therapeutic jurisprudence” and “bring on the behavioral health experts…”

A much better designation involving the word “mothers” might refer to our ability, developed possibly in the process of raising children, or maybe it’s instinctive, innate? in being able to smell a rat, or smoke out a lie, particularly when offered as a pitiable excuse for some recent very bad behavior.  For example the words smart, savvy, or a well-placed comment, “Seriously?” Anything indicating we are actually a force to be reckoned with, instead of highlighting the victimization might be better than “Protective Mothers.”

For this Smart, Savvy, “Seriously??” “Force to be Reckoned With” to actually apply to mothers (or others), mothers (or others) have to exercise some due-diligence-reading, and use logic, commonsense, and a wider field of vision than just single-topic scenarios. A  sense of history (time passing in the development of any trends) also.  The ability to summarize, impromptu, key elements in creating a certain condition (in the courts, or elsewhere), to “get to the bottom of the issue” and then talk about it in those terms.

SO, in 2016, there have been admissions that federal incentives to the courts exist, and in recent years (2011ff) some investigations into the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts operations (state chapter in Connecticut especially). Should this be called, “Breaking the Silence (on Who or What is Behind The Family Court Curtains)”??. Maybe, but….

What about the dozen, or more, OTHER associations also involving mixtures of judiciary (judges) or other civil servants (or, government entities) and private business interests?  Can you name a few? In this environment, is it really possible to discuss government without reference to the tax-exempt sector?

These can be just about recited by matching category of government entity OR civil servant which distributes grants, or authorizes contracts, adding the word “National” (or “International” as it comes up), or “American” at will:  State Courts, State Legislatures, Governors, and I even found a “Council of State Governments dba National Lieutenant Governors’ Association” based in Lexington, Kentucky.  Also, Child Support Enforcement Agencies, District Attorneys, Juvenile and Family Court Judges, City/County Managers.  In fact the one for “City/County Managers” no longer even pretends to be just National, but has incorporated “International” into its acronym, “ICMA.” (“Leaders at the Core of Better Communities“).  Catch, and get used to, the lingo:

ICMA, the International City/County Management Association, advances professional local government worldwide. The organization’s mission is to create excellence in local governance by developing and fostering professional management to build better communities.

ICMA identifies leading practices to address the needs of local governments and professionals serving communities globally. We provide services, research, publications, data and information, peer and results-oriented assistance, and training and professional development to thousands of city, town, and county leaders and other individuals and organizations throughout the world. The management decisions made by ICMA’s members affect millions of people living in thousands of communities, ranging in size from small towns to large metropolitan areas.

Its contact address is in Washington, D.C.  It says 2014 was its 100th anniversary.  Doing a little basic math, I’d say it was formed right after we got, or rather, right after the 16th Amendment establishing the income tax, was ratified.  See also a Brief History of the IRS (from “IRS.gov”):

The roots of IRS go back to the Civil War when President Lincoln and Congress, in 1862, created the position of commissioner of Internal Revenue and enacted an income tax to pay war expenses. The income tax was repealed 10 years later. Congress revived the income tax in 1894, but the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional the following year.

16th Amendment
In 1913, Wyoming ratified the 16th Amendment, providing the three-quarter majority of states necessary to amend the Constitution. The 16th Amendment gave Congress the authority to enact an income tax. That same year, the first Form 1040 appeared after Congress levied a 1 percent tax on net personal incomes above $3,000 with a 6 percent surtax on incomes of more than $500,000.

In 1918, during World War I, the top rate of the income tax rose to 77 percent to help finance the war effort. It dropped sharply in the post-war years, down to 24 percent in 1929, and rose again during the Depression. During World War II, Congress introduced payroll withholding and quarterly tax payments.

So, how many of this blog’s readers have EVER heard, or thought, of “ICMA”?  How about some of these others?  I’m sure we’re all aware of taxes, but who is giving considerable thought to the consequences of widespread tax-EXEMPTION of corporations and associations which (a) involve civil servants or whose primary membership IS civil servants (and restricted to them), or represents the business interests of civil servants as a sector? or (b) which are organized primarily to advise government on how to operate?  Considering tax-exemption has been around about as long as taxes, it would seem to be a relevant topic…. are all these organizations audited, really, ever?

Turn on your TV, it’s Presidential Election Time.  Find ONE mainstream mention, let alone, discussion on the impact of tax-exempt organizations across the board, on the nation’s finances.  (Good luck…..).  But that category involves corporations whose assets run into the billions of dollars, and can be organized to draft model practices, model laws, best practices, and how to coordinate the systematic alteration of government according to privately collaborated determinations of which direction it ought to go.

The Acronyms combining the word “National” with some form of government, or governmental employees, are almost endless.  They are MANY, and many of them have been around for decades (a few, for a century now….)  

Therefore (I say), recently admitting the existence of one, two, or maybe even three solitary nonprofits (such as “AFCC” or “the National Fatherhood Initiative,” when it comes to the “protective mothers’ movement” (sic)) as connected with the family courts, is hardly a major accomplishment!

Rather, this ought to be a topic of focus, and study, and the average entangled in the courts parent ought to be enlightened up front, and so be able to make better decisions on where to focus their survival strategies (and/or advocacy efforts).

As I’ve been saying, for a few years now:  See post 8/30/2013  (link also on sidebar to blog), and it links to others.  I have a chart on there, and links to other posts demonstrating again, how to look things up, particularly if it’s called a “Center.” Don’t let names just slide by unidentified:  Public or Private // For-profit or not-for-profit? // How Old?  Where’s the Domicile?  How Big?  How honest is the website in identifying the group, business, or named “thing.”?  Legally separate entity (even if located at a university, or associated with another famous nonprofit) — or not?

Which exhorts:

However, that awareness must be acquired.  Some may be inhaled by association, but those are shallow breaths without exerting effort.  Someone has to turn on the ignition, and move away from indifference (passive acquisition of beliefs, like second-hand smoke).    The goal is understanding, not the ability to parrot, or quote others only (who can’t do that???).  LOOK IT UP!!  DEVELOP THE LOOK IT UP HABIT, TOO!  BECOME MORE CURIOUS!

Get off the couch and turn off Oprah and Dr. Phil (if certain nonprofit advocacy group self-promoters get another audience with them, I’m sure it’ll be publicized well enough next time) — and get some basic vocabulary.  Certainly I don’t have it down, but even my amateurish basic labels actually can be applied, accurately and to tell the truth, easily.  I have given examples AND instructions and suggested where else to look for more practice, Here in “”Where’s Waldo? and Who’s Your Daddy?” How and Why to Run Background-Checks on (any and all) “POLICY,” or “RESOURCE,” or so-called “JUSTICE” Centers” (a Sept. 2013 post).

The table below is currently blank.  However, some of those blanks are filled in (in narrative form) in my August 9, 2013  post called “What Centers for ABC__XYZ Policy, Especially Marriage Policy, Really Mean”  By SYSTEMATICALLY looking certain things up, if a group catches your attention, or is active in the fields you are concerned about, you actually have something more objective [with which] to compare one [to] another..


FYI (FOR EXAMPLE): “National + (Name your Gov’t Entity (or targeted Gov’t Employee)”

Here’s a list of acronyms you can search (and organizations I’ve looked at, over time, and sometimes, in detail, meaning, I read those Form-990s!):   NCSC (“Trusted Leadership.  Proven Solutions.  Better Courts.”), NCSL, NCJFCJ (coming up soon in some posts), NCSEA, …

NDAA (National District Attorneys Association), NGA (National Governors’ Association, “the collective voice of the nation’s governors”– which has, on its website, its own personal R&D nonprofit, “the NGA Center for Best Practices,  but is itself not a nonprofit, but “an instrumentality of government.” Further proof below)

The National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) develops innovative solutions to today’s most pressing public policy challenges and is the only research and development firm that directly serves the nation’s governors.


REALLY.  Now I find that interesting (and I’ve posted on it before 2014 also — See table of Posts, one about “the list”). More on this NGA below, but first, let’s continue looking at more “national” organizations:


FYI  (FOR EXAMPLE):  “National + (Name your Cause)”

Then there are those “National” organizations whose title indicates not a certain level of government employee, but a specific subject matter which might be related to altering (improving — of course) or otherwise transforming the justice process.  These are going to say “National” and then identify a subject matter, not government position or entity, for example:  National Council on Crime & Delinquency:NCCD.  (But don’t kid yourself, the aim on this particular one is still at the government institutions, only from a different position).

(This extended section marked by light-blue background color. Below that, other “National” nonprofits are referenced).

National Council on Crime and Delinquency (“NCCD”),  longstanding nonprofit and subcontractor for Children’s Rights, Inc. (since 1994) and funder, in part of UPennsylvania Sociologist Robert J. Gelles, Ph.D. activities.

Speaking of which, NCCD & Children’s Rights, Inc., & Robert J. Gelles & Powerfully Positioned PhD’s Sociologists (UPennsylvania here…) (There may be more references to this on my 6/29/2014 post or other related post; topic came up in Gelles’ response to an ABA Toolkit, Myths about Domestic Violence…..)

For example, NCCD works alongside a NY nonprofit “Childrens’ Rights Inc.” (or similar name) which goes around suing child welfare agencies and forcing, with the settlements, a restructuring of those agencies to utilize — what else — better practices.  These “better practices” just happen to involve a lot more data analytics, and be software-based:  software that NCCD (which one year was a Children’s Rights, Inc. subcontractor, develops, controls, promotes, and/or holds the rights to

Where it caught my attention the second or third time around: Why did an East Coast (NY) contractor go for a West-Coast (CA) subcontractor?  Then I read NCCD’s tax returns and (NCCD being now a California-based charity) its RRFs showing WHICH government entities were contributing.  The list was international in scope, beyond anything I’d seen to date (and, I see a LOT because I’m always looking!!) and it’s been on “high alert” as to something fishy going on, ever since).

  • NCCD EIN#13-1624111 RRF for 2012 (marked May 2013) $14M from two pages (fine print 11×8’5) GOVERNMENT GRANTS (Searchable by EIN# (or several other fields) at California Charitable Registry / Details.  Find organization, click on its name to see details, scroll down to find this “RRF.”) Or go to CharitiesNYS.gov and look for the same information, for example, on their Charitable Details, one of the Annual Returns.)

Here are the federal Form 990 returns – notice increase in Total Assets column:

Search Again

National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2014 990 32 $11,102,090.00 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2013 990 29 $10,415,127.00 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2012 990 30 $8,015,446.00 13-1624111

Although the address reads “California” the legal domicile, as the return says, is New York, and date of formation — 1907.  This one literally predates the Federal Reserve Board and the income tax!


Page 2 of the returns (I’m looking at “2012”) shows expenses of $12.7M (total) on four categories of activity — with zero (no, nada) revenues from any of them.  The categories correspond (at least 4a,b, and c) to sectors of public institutions:

4a (Code ) (Expenses $ 5,516,747 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $


4b (Code ) (Expenses $ 4,886,476 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $


4c (Code ) (Expenses $ 1,759,108 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $


4d (Code ) (Expenses $ 546,876 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $


As you can see:  Adult Criminal, Child Welfare, Juvenile Justice, and Public Education (about these matters).    Page I, Part I (Summary), at a glance it’s clear the organization is dependent on Contributions — its revenues were $16M contributions.  its Expenses for that “Current year” were $8+M, Salaries and $7+M, “Other Expenses.”  When their contributions increased, by several million, in 2012, they also increased the “other expenses” category considerably.  Take a look!


Go to page 8.   Of the $16M of revenues, nearly all of it is “Government Grants” (Line 1e).  To summarize, government grants — and these are international in source (See California Charitable Registry RRFs for this organization) — are being used to restructure the above Criminal (Adult, Juvenile and Child Welfare) systems, with a focus on diversions to services — of the public institutions of the USA, NATIONALLY.  In 2012, the url (website) read:  nccd-crc.org (“CRC” referring to their Madison, Wisconsin “Children’s Research Center,”) but it has since turned to “NCCD-GLOBAL.org.”   The tax return cites activity in other countries (Canada, Australia, Taiwan) as “Structured Decision Making” (some of their software) and totaling $815K.


This is actually NCCD’s New York State Charity Registration showing Oakland, California address:


I loaded its 2006 Annual filing — the Government Grants were about ¼ of the size of 2012 ($4 million) and lists agencies involved, with amounts involved.  The technical steps to get this to display on the blog presently elude me, but you have the link, just above.


Incidentally, I looked up Children’s Rights Inc.” (punctuation may be off, I don’t recall exactly) when I saw the involvement of Richard J. Gelles Dean of UPennsylvania’s  “School of Social Policy & Practice” (<==2014 c.v., see list of grants and basic academic background) among his many grants-supported activities while having a sociologist’s career studying child abuse and domestic violence, etc.

(Richard J. Gelles is a committed sociologist, and the field has rewarded his dedication — and smarts — well over the decades.  Academic background, BA in 1968, and hasn’t switched fields since:

Bates College 9/64 – 4/68 B.A. (Sociology)
University of Rochester 9/68 – 6/70 M.A. (Sociology)
University of New Hampshire 9/70 – 8/73 Ph.D. (Sociology)

One look at the average, high-published PhD professor (in many fields) will often show the (A) governmental and (B) tax-exempt foundation (big ones, often) grants behind them.  So, I hadn’t heard of “Children’s Rights, Inc.”, looked up its returns, found NCCD, looked up their returns.  That’s what I do, and in this case, I’m glad I did!  


This public and private money, obviously from universities (here, a public one, but also obviously to private ones), is also continuing to set social policy, probably as much as or more than grassroots citizen input.

Principal Investigator, Children’s Rights, Inc. Case Record Reading: New Jersey Division of Youth and Family Services. 8/02 to 5/03, $125,432.

Children’s Rights needed some case record reading help because they were probably, at the time, SUING the State of NJ.  As I now recall, another person who alerted me to this might have been a desperate parent from Georgia commenting on her situation.  I asked for specific names, and was given names citing a lawsuit.

There are MANY organizations around with the words “Childrens Rights” (with or without the apostrophe) in their name. I am referring to a specific one incorporated in 1994, CEO Marcia Robinson Lowry (earning about $300K), and with a targeted strategy towards systems-change through litigation, aimed at the state-level child welfare agencies.

Charitiesnys.com (New York State Registry search site) shows their proper name and EIN#:

NY_Reg#_ EIN Registrant Type City State
Children’s Rights Inc. 05-51-35 133801864 NFP NEW YORK NY

They take NO government funding (that I can see) and it seems primary revenues are “Program Service” not “Contributions.” In this setup, those “Program Service Revenues” (summarized on p.1 of the return, named, somewhat, on Part VIII (“Statement of Revenues”) Line 2 (Line 2, unlike Line 1 of the form, doesn’t have prompts, but blank lines to be filled in. Childrens Rights Inc. fills this in (for example, year 2013 below) as “attorneys’ fees.”

Childrens Rights NY 2014 990 32 $7,936,339.00 13-3801864
Childrens Rights NY 2013 990 28 $9,617,446.00 13-3801864
Childrens Rights NY 2012 990 27 $7,386,328.00 13-3801864

Middle row, Year 2013, click on org. name to and look at Part VIIB (bottom of a page, small print) listing “Independent subcontractors.”  I saw the letters “NCCD” –noticed it was in Oakland, California (odd, I thought, for a successful NY nonprofit), and looked it up.  NCCD was paid $254K that year.  Another subcontractor (more than one year) was “Innovative Philanthropy.”

So, a look at the tax return shows me that a lot of expenses goes to salaries, and their key employees are pulling in about $1M a year.   The revenues, being attorneys fees, and it being public agencies which are being sued — comes from the public, indirectly.

The moral, and bright logo at ChildrensRights.org, is that they are defending America’s abused and neglected kids — by suing child welfare agencies.  It started out under the ACLU and NYCLU:

…Children’s Rights uses the law to hold governments accountable and defend thousands of kids when foster care systems fail. We have secured court orders mandating top-to-bottom child welfare reform in more than a dozen states. As a result, kids are safer. They get the education and health care they need. They have better foster homes. Best of all, children find permanent, loving families more quickly, ensuring they have the brightest possible futures.

Children’s Rights began as a project of the New York Civil Liberties Union and, later, the American Civil Liberties Union, and in 1995 became an independent nonprofit organization. We have won landmark legal victories in Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Washington, DC and Wisconsin and engaged in advocacy efforts that are changing the way child welfare is practiced in the United States.

Children’s Rights is proving that failing child welfare systems not only can be fixed, but can be made to run well

Sounds like a plan — sue parts of government, win substantial settlements, direct funds to employees and attorneys, use some of the revenues to hire contractors and continue the fund-raising (One tax return I looked at said $120,000 for fund-raising that year).   Subcontractors (Form 990 Part VII-B, listed after Trustees, Directors, Officers, Key Employees, Highest Paid Employees, which is Part VII-A).

SUBCONTRACTOR to Children’s Rights, Inc. – Innovative Philanthropy, founded by daughter of super-star entertainment lawyer….already board of trustees of Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in NYC:

CRI is using a firm called “Innovative Philanthropy” at 5 Hanover Square #2013, New York, New York.  I took a look.  (“dos.ny.gov” = NYS Business entity search):

Entity Name

The top one may be unrelated; was founded in 2009.  The bottom one, DOS ID# 2844191 was formed 12/11/2002 and lists Jennifer Grubman, 420 Lexington Ave #2216 (NY, NY 10170).  The address, aka the Graybar Building, it says is “New York’s most convenient location” (Over Grand Central Station).

Its President and Founder (founded 2002) has this background. 


As Founder and President of Innovative Philanthropy, Jennifer Grubman Rothenberg works with a wide array of philanthropic organizations and individuals to achieve breakthrough results around fundraising and donor relations, events, organizational strategy-setting, grant making and board of director development.

Prior to founding Innovative Philanthropy in 2002, Jennifer was a successful fundraising executive at The Robin Hood Foundation, a major philanthropic organization targeting poverty in New York City. During her tenure there, Jennifer focused on designing high-impact new fundraising programs, improving fundraising campaign effectiveness, and growing the foundation’s donor base.

Jennifer began her career of community service as an assistant district attorney with the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office in the Appeals and Special Litigation Bureau where she focused on domestic violence and child abuse cases. Prior to that, while in law school, she served as an intern for the Legal Aid Society in the Law Guardian Department and at Sanctuary for Families, a domestic violence agency. Jennifer holds a J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City and a B.A. from Boston University. She was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2000. Jennifer is currently a member of the Board of Directors of Cardozo Law School.

Not meaning to get off-topic here, but the three names of the founder made me curious about Ms. Rothenberg’s background.  Her father Alan J. Grubman is a powerful entertainment lawyer — sounds self-made (City College of New York, Brooklyn Law School).  He signed Bruce Springsteen in 1982, and has a significant roster of musicians.  (Wikipedia).  I can see how this, generally speaking, might be helpful in fund-raising!

Allen J. Grubman is an American entertainment lawyer.

Grubman was born and raised in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, and graduated from City College of New York and Brooklyn Law School.

His clients include superstars and top record companies and their executives.[2] In 1992 Business Week reported that he was considered “the most powerful lawyer in the music business,” and in 2001 Newsweek called him “perhaps the music industry’s wealthiest and most powerful attorney”.

In 1992 Business Week reported that Grubman was considered “the most powerful lawyer in the music business.”[2] In 2001, Newsweek called him “perhaps the music industry’s wealthiest and most powerful attorney”.[9]

His clients have included Springsteen, Madonna, U2, John Mellencamp, Rod Stewart, Sean “Puffy” Combs, Luther Vandross, Elton John, Jennifer Lopez, Mariah Carey, and Andrew Lloyd Webber.[10][11] 

Family Life: — Two wives, two daughters by first wife:

After graduating from law school, while he was still living at his parents’ home, he met his first wife, Yvette Fischer Grubman.[12] She divorced him in 1988 after 19 years of marriage, and died of cancer in 2001 at the age of 58.[13][13]

They had two daughters, their elder being Lizzie Grubman, a celebrity publicist. Their younger daughter Jennifer Grubman Rothenberg holds a BA from Boston University and a J.D. from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, is President of Innovative Philanthropy, and is a member of the Board of Directors of Cardozo Law School.[13][14][15][16][17][18]

Grubman remarried in 1991, at the New York Public Library.[16] His second wife is Debbie Grubman (née Haimoff), a Manhattan real-estate broker.[19][20][21]

Some of those Wiki footnotes give an idea of the (glitterati) level of wealth involved; the footnote on NYMag “Reversal of Fortune is more about sister Lizzie than Jenifer Grubman Rothenberg, but gives an idea of the crowd.  An incident in the Hamptons:

Lizzie Grubman was a girl who had everything: burgeoning career, glittering social life, powerful father. And when a girl like that gets into trouble like Lizzie’s Conscience Point catastrophe, the war really begins.

The Grubmans, as much as anyone, are responsible for the modern Hamptons, in all their obsession with wealth and celebrity and their thrilling, stupefying social excess. Lizzie’s father, Allen Grubman, is a singularity in the music business, the industry’s sole superpower attorney. And that clout has made him one of the East End’s prime celebrity nexuses.

Grubman is a man of almost cartoonish crudeness — an effect he amplifies with a comic edge. He revels in his working-class Crown Heights roots, in the fact that he came from so little and has acquired so much. The Grubman family crest, he likes to say, should be an S with two lines drawn through it. He’ll happily calculate for casual luncheon guests the burn rate of his Lily Pond Lane mansion: about $40,000 per weekend.

“The first time I met him at a tailor’s,” says an acquaintance, “he started shouting, ‘You don’t make enough money to be here.’ A few minutes later, he takes out an American Express black card, which is moguls-only. You have to spend like $150,000 a year to get one. ‘See this?’ he says. ‘It’s the closest you’ll ever come to one of these.’ But he’s just playing with you.”

Grubman, 57, attended Brooklyn Law School, bootstrapping his way to the absolute pinnacle of his profession and a three-floor office in Carnegie Hill Towers. As a music-business lawyer, Grubman has often played both sides of the fence, representing a Sony artist like Springsteen while simultaneously representing Sony, and, miraculously, both sides will come out happy (except Billy Joel, who had a nasty legal dispute with Grubman over just such an issue). In the music business, it’s a sign of weakness to have someone other than Grubman as your lawyer. And his music-business power has tended to help pull clients like Puffy Combs out to the Hamptons.

 Lizzie Grubman grew up having the likes of Springsteen and Madonna over for lunch, so fame was never a big deal to her. She radiated that sort of casualness to her clients and at her events. She was her father’s daughter, in other words — loose, brash, forceful, unintimidatable. On the social circuit, she’s not known as someone who parties every night, but she’s certainly not a teetotaler — business and pleasure are inextricably mixed. Lizzie’s sister, Jenny, is the analytic side of Allen, a hard-charging young attorney who works in her father’s firm.

The sorts of skills Lizzie possesses, however, are not ones that produce prep-school success — quite the opposite. She was asked to leave three city prep schools: Horace Mann, Lenox, and Dwight. “There’s always that one tough kid who’s the ringleader. They’ll boss everyone around,” recalls one Horace Mann mother. “That was Lizzie.”

In eighth grade, Lizzie was asked not to return to the school. At Dwight, she was known for her liberal use of her father’s credit cards and her expertise about which East Side bars permitted underage drinking. Lizzie attended Northeastern University for two years but didn’t graduate.

(And her sister is on the board of directors of Benjamin Cardozo Law School! Jennifer is also (not surprisingly) on the Board of Trustees of her twin children’s former Montessori preschool & Kindergarten, ‘Washington Market School.”

The Washington Market School is the first and remains the only non-profit Montessori-affiliated Early Childhood Center on the Lower West Side. Our program blends the creative educational experience of an open classroom with the supportive guidance and structure of a challenging Montessori-based curriculum, timetable and drive to learn about life. It combines engaging materials and activities with the individual freedom, social experiences, and adult guidance necessary for each child to fulfill his/her own developmental needs.

Since 2006, we have also embraced the innovative preschool programs of Reggio Emilia, Italy. The Reggio Emilia philosophy emphasizes children’s competency and ability to construct their own knowledge through in-depth investigation and research. Children are encouraged to depict their understanding through one of many symbolic languages, including drawing, sculpture, dramatic play and writing.

Anyhow, CRI is suing public agencies, and with the take, from its tax returns, paying both fund-raisers, several attorneys (program service revenues — attorneys’ fees), and accepting from what I can tell NO government funds.  NYS Charity site says that CEO/founder Marcia Robinson Lowry was making $200K from this profit in 2005, and more recently, $300K.  Meanwhile, another subcontractor, NCCD (year, 2012) is itself primarily dependent on government contributions (not earnings) from around the world.  The public, in the long run, funds both nonprofits, and their being tax-exempt corporations both, whatever services they do not provide for government, the slack is to be taken up (or, services reduced) from the allegedly primary source of government revenue — taxation of individuals and corporations.

In fact, this appears NOT to be the primary (or largest) source of government revenue at most levels (not just federal).  However, that is a CAFR topic. I have blogged CAFRs at Familycourtmatters, at related blog “Economicbrain.wordpress.com” and of course you may read about them on-line (and read them on-line by searching).  Walter Burien (CAFR1man.com) explains them well, as does Clint Richardson (realitybloger.wordpress.com), or Carl Hermann, or “cafrman.com” (web author deceased in 2004).

Leadership Change at Children’s Rights

Marcia Robinson Lowry will leave Children’s Rights on August 15, 2014, and will begin working as an independent counsel on M.D. v. Perry, the ongoing class action in Texas, alongside CR and Texas co-counsel. In addition, she will assume full responsibility for monitoring and enforcing reform efforts in Washington, D.C., Mississippi, New Jersey and Oklahoma.

“Marcia Robinson Lowry has dedicated her legal career to making a marked difference in the lives of tens of thousands in foster care,” said Alan C. Myers, chair of the CR Board of Directors. “She has pioneered a body of law that will inform child welfare advocacy for years to come. Thanks to her work, states are more accountable for the safety, stability and support of kids in state care.”

Private tax-exempt corporation (CRI) changing law by class-action suits against public agencies, according to privately determined standards, profiting another private (tax-exempt) corporation with its propriety software.  Bookmark & study that NCCD — this organization has been around so long, and is one to reckon with, obviously.  It is a New York Organization, and I looked recently at its list of government agencies sponsoring in Year 2005 (total, around $4Million between federal and “State” activities — “state” including apparently parts of foreign countries, from the list).  That has quadrupled in size over the years, and now $16M is being contributed FROM government to NCCD.

The Children’s Rights Board of Directors has appointed Chief Operating Officer Sandy Santana as interim executive director, a role he assumes immediately. Associate Director Ira Lustbader will become litigation director, with Sara Bartosz and William Kapell playing prominent roles as lead counsel.

“The Board of Directors looks forward to working with this talented and capable leadership team to advance the organization’s mission. CR will continue to be a leading voice for abused and neglected children for many years to come,” said Myers.

Well, one more search revealed that as of January 2015, Ms. Lowry in fact had a split in philosophy with Children’s Rights, Inc., and founded another nonprofit (in California?) “A Better Childhood, Inc.,” being joined in it with her sister — see sister’s background below.  Meanwhile, NJ is still dealing with the child welfare overhaul initiated by Children’s Rights, Inc., earlier.

N.J. back in court today on child welfare system overhaul, with new faces, lingering concerns Jan. 22, 2015 (updated Feb. 20, 2015) by Susan K. Livio. (This article is thus almost exactly one year old as I write)

NEWARK — As the court-appointed monitor today releases her latest critique of New Jersey’s child welfare services, a newly-formed advocacy group is taking over for Children’s Rights, the national nonprofit whose lawsuit in 1999 prompted a major overhaul of the state’s troubled foster care system.

Marcia Robinson Lowry, the executive director and lead attorney for Children’s Rights, said she has split from the organization she founded and launched A Better Childhood, Inc. a new legal advocacy group that will continue its work to enforce the settlement she first reached with New Jersey 12 years ago.

When she and Children’s Rights mutually parted ways last year, over philosophical differences, Lowry took the New Jersey, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Washington D.C. litigation with her.

“I’ve seen so many people working hard. I’ve put a lot of time and energy into making these systems better, and there was no way I was going to walk away from the children I represent,” Lowry said.

Fighting alongside her will be Lowry’s sister, Sara Robinson-Glasser, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in central California who has joined A Better Childhood as co-counsel. Robinson-Glasser brings 20 years civil litigation experience, which is key to the strategy of her newly-formed organization, Lowry said.

The latest monitoring report by Judith Meltzer arrives at a time of turmoil within the department following an attack on a caseworker, two days after the administration had closed a special child welfare unit inside the Human Services Police Department that dispatched officers to accompany caseworkers to dangerous neighborhoods. Police officers occupied dedicated office space inside the Camden office before the unit disbanded, according to union officials…….

The 10 a.m. hearing today before U.S. District Court Stanley R. Chesler also will be the first time the plaintiffs and state officials are together in court since July, when Children and Families Commissioner Allison Blake made a surprise statement saying she wanted to renegotiate some of the settlement’s requirements. ***”I believe we are at a crossroads regarding the (settlement) in its current form,” Blake said in court. “In some areas the (settlement) does not fully capture our performance. In other areas, eight-year-old benchmarks would benefit from a fresh look.”

[Click here for the rest of article — and active links in article (which I didn’t copy); quote from one of those links is next;]

***Surprise Statement by Children and Families Commissioner Alison Blake:

In surprise court announcement, N.J. child welfare leader wants some reform mandates changed (same author, date July 17, 2014):
NEWARK — After eight years of following a court-ordered, 50-point checklist to improve New Jersey’s child welfare system and achieving about half of those goals, the agency’s top administrator said today she wants to rewrite and relax some of the requirements.

Declaring that the “ ‘highly problematic’ organization that signed the Modified Settlement Agreement eight years ago no longer exists,” Children and Families Commissioner Allison Blake said she intended to seek changes to the ambitious blueprint that had been approved by a federal judge in 2006.

“I believe we are at a crossroads regarding the (settlement) in its current form,” Blake said. “In some areas the (settlement) does not fully capture our performance. In other areas, eight-year-old benchmarks would benefit from a fresh look.”

Blake’s statements in federal court surprised the monitor overseeing New Jersey ‘s reform plan and the head of a child advocacy group whose lawsuit led to the court-supervised overhaul of the state’s child welfare system. The three parties appeared before U.S. District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler to discuss the latest progress report.

The report, prepared by child welfare expert, Judith Meltzer, praised the state for making “significant progress” since 2006 but concluded the department met 23 goals, missed another 23 and partly met seven from April 2013 and December 2013.

Blake’s statement particularly surprised Marcia Lowry, executive director of Children’s Rights, the national child advocacy organization that filed the lawsuit.

Children’s Rights’ 1999 lawsuit had accused the child welfare system of being so under-financed and poorly managed that it was doing more harm than good for abused and neglected children. The state settled the case in 2003 following the outcry as well as the national attention drawn by the death of 7-year-old Faheem Williams while under state supervision.

The settlement required the state to spend millions of dollars a year on a new cabinet-level department, hire and train workers, update its computer tracking system, recruit hundreds of foster homes, and expand medical, mental health and other services for families.

But since 2010, the settlement also required the department to show it was protecting children better and reuniting families whenever possible, and in many areas, progress has been mixed. One goal requires caseworkers to hold “family-team meetings” with 90 percent of parents to discuss a foster child’s future. The state averaged a 54 percent compliance rate, according to Meltzer’s report.

This requirement, Blake argued, “does not allow for meetings and visits that fail to occur for reasons entirely beyond our control, including when parents are unavailable or missing or refuse to participate, or when meetings and visits are precluded for legal or safety reasons.”


OTHER Nonprofits named “NATIONAL ALLIANCE (Coalition, Council, etc.)” + “SUBJECT MATTER” (or, SAY “Demographic profile”)

So, I mentioned “NCCD,” — but how about NCADV (Denver) (form 990s displayed on my January post):


The vision of NCADV is to create a culture where domestic violence is not tolerated; and where society empowers victims and survivors, and holds abusers accountable.


NCADV is the voice of victims and survivors.  We are the catalyst for changing society to have zero tolerance for domestic violence.  We do this by effecting public policy, increasing understanding of the impact of domestic violence, and providing programs and education that drive that change.


Public Policy

The NCADV Public Policy Office collaborates with other national organizations to promote legislation and policies that serve and protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, and we work to change the narrative surrounding domestic violence. We seek macro-level change in order to create a society in which domestic violence is never tolerated or minimized, in which victims and survivors are respected, and in which service providers have the resources to serve all victims and survivors. In turn, we rely on our members and our partners’ members to provide grassroots support, contacting their congressional delegations and making their voices heard at the local level. We also provide technical support to individuals and groups seeking information on legislation, laws, policy, studies, and other resources pertaining to domestic violence at the national level.

SPONSORS — NCADV lists currently EIGHT different private sponsors, including, strangely, “Valeant Pharmaceuticals” and Verizon Hopeline(™) program, plus a foundation, and some other companies.  NOT mentioned — through membership sliding scales, the public is indirectly sponsoring NCADV through HHS grants to the Statewide Coalitions which are members.   They list the Statewide Coalitions, but not that they are HHS grantees (as well as probably receiving other types of grants).

Rather than show at first level-click on “Membership,” NCADV requires a second click to reveal that membership fees depend on “How big is your nonprofit?”which might, I believe, provoke further investigation into the sources of revenues coming through those statewide coalitions:


Membership with the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV) is an Investment in the Future

Click here to see NCADV membership levels, benefits, and pricing.

Individual = $100/year.  Associate = $350/year.  Affiliate = $700/year.

Associate:  “Qualifying Resource members of NCADV include Shelters, Tribal Coalitions and Non-profit DV, SA, or Dual (both DV & SA) Programs.

Affiliate:  Qualifying Affiliate members of NCADV include State Coalitions, Government Agencies and other qualifying (qualifying HOW?) organizations.

This is a membership organization.  Sounds like its members, when they are themselves government (public)-supported, are thus supporting the policy of NCADV as unified with the statewide coalition policies also.  Coordinated, centralized control — NOT ‘the voice of the victims.”  Unless enough victims have $100/each to spare and even if they did, this being a nonprofit, nonstock organization, these individuals are unlikely to represent a “power bloc” — as the policy is determined by the board of directors.

NCADV has hooked up (along with other DV organizations) with BMCC (Battered Mothers Custody Conference) for many years and in general, goes along with their historic policy, despite the subject matter being for that group “custody,” for the most part, ignoring the material I report on (the nonprofit factor, the federal incentives, etc.).


NCFR (“National Council on Family Relations” with a Minnesota Address but I learned, an Illinois Domicile, “Catalyzing Theory, Research and Practice” (“The National Council on Family Relations is the premier professional association for the multidisciplinary understanding of families.“).  (NCFR is one that readers of this blog ought to bookmark and learn about –it’s an older one, has some ties between the sociology and previously-acceptable eugenics movement (!!), is deeply into professionalizing “family life” and is an HHS grantee pushing — of course — marriage and fatherhood education. It’s also conservative:

NCFR is the only professional organization focused solely on family research, policy, and practice. It was founded in 1938 by Paul Sayre, a law professor at the University of Iowa, Ernest Burgess, professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, and Rabbi Sidney E. Goldstein, Chair of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, New York City.

NCFR conducts an annual conference, publishes three scholarly journals, provides the Certified Family Life Educator (CFLE) credential program, and provides an opportunity for interaction and communication among members through a variety of publications and media.

From its inception, NCFR was organized by state and regional affiliates and by subject area sections related to the principal areas of family science. The national office is located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. NCFR is governed by a board of directors composed of professionals from across the country….

(Searchable term Popenoe (father and son) for more information….)

NCFR isn’t financially large — it’s just been around long enough and continues to publish, conference, promote its own membership — and it IS influential in social policy within the country as relates to families, studying and educating them in particular:

National Council on Family Relations MN 2014 990 33 $4,177,287.00 41-0762436
National Council on Family Relations MN 2013 990 29 $4,044,485.00 41-0762436
National Council on Family Relations MN 2012 990 24 $3,578,006.00 41-0762436

Paul Amato, PhD listed as President (see “Part VIIA”) in the “2014” return.  Some may recognize this name as on the advisory board of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, started around the turn of this century.   His “cv” available at Penn State “Population Research Institute” under Dept. of Sociology and Criminology.  Research Interests:

Marriage and marital quality, causes and consequences of divorce, parent-child relationships, psychological distress and wellbeing

Academic Background — PhD in Behavioral Science, Australia — but I see, BA and MA obtained in my “neck of the woods” (SF Bay Area).  Note — while these are respected universities, they are not top-tier ones.  In fact in California, the two levels of public universities were specifically intended to sort top-potential scholars from the more “vocationally” directed ones, i.e., top levels:  University of California – (name the location); secondary level:  California State University – (name the location).  This can be looked up, I cannot speak for other states, but deduce it might be similar.

1983 Ph.D. James Cook University (Australia), Behavioral Science

1976 M.A. San Francisco State University, Sociology
1973 B.A. California State University, East Bay, Sociology

The next section may look like I’m “Picking on” Paul Amato.  I am.  He was on the Research Advisory Group (“RAG”) of the “OMI.”  Along with, per a recent version of this site (and — notice the affiliations — also notice Ron Haskins being on it):

RAG Member Affiliation
Paul Amato Professor of Sociology, Demography and Family Studies, College of Liberal Arts, Pennsylvania State University
Robin Dion Senior Research Psychologist, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
Kathryn Edin Professor of Public Policy and Management, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University
Dave Fournier Professor of Marriage and Family Therapy and Family Sciences, Oklahoma State University
Norval Glenn Ashbel Smith Professor of Sociology, Stiles Professor of American Studies, The University of Texas at Austin
Ron Haskins Senior Fellow of Economic Studies, Co-Director of the Welfare Reform and Beyond Initiative, Brookings Institution
Howard Hendrick Cabinet Secretary for Human Services and Director of Oklahoma Department of Human Services
Christine Johnson (Co-chair) Associate Dean for Research and Graduate Studies, College of Human Environmental Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Human Development and Family Science, Oklahoma State University
Pamela Jordan Associate Professor of Family and Child Nursing, University of Washington
Howard Markman## Professor of Sociology, Co-Director of Center for Marital and Family Studies, University of Denver
Mary Myrick President, Public Strategies, Inc.**, Project Manager, Oklahoma Marriage Initiative
Steve Nock Professor of Sociology, Director of Marriage Matters, Co-Founder of Center for Children, Families, and the Law, University of Virginia. (Dr. Nock passed away in early 2008.)
Theodora Ooms (Senior Consultant) Independent Consultant, formerly at Center for Law and Social Policy  [“CLASP”]
Scott Stanley (Co-chair)## Co-Director of Center for Marital and Family Studies, University of Denver

**Public Strategies, Inc. is a public relations firm and significant HHS grantee.  HHS probably helped “make” this firm.  See TAGGS.hhs.gov and search “recipients” and the grants.

##Markman and Stanley, in Denver, involved with Prep, Inc. curriculum, long-term.

I am doing so from an awareness of the impact (negative) of Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, and the federal grants — of which the NCFR was at least a recipient of — upon single mothers leaving abuse, and of the shameful manner in which state-level government in Oklahoma (prompted in part, I later learned by the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices) in pushing fatherhood initiatives, and using the state welfare system (and other resources) to distribute and run marriage and education curricula such as Prep, Inc.  (searchable, check out the site), which is a private, Colorado company owned by, last I looked, some UDenver Professors (also cited in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  I’m sure I blogged it some years ago, on this blog, and also tweeted several links.


Here’s a 2005 Publication at Princeton.edu in “The Future of Children.” — Vol. 15.  Notice that although he still can’t PROVE that single-parenting is bad for children, he’s pushing evidence which “suggests” it is.  The first sentence contains an unspoken presumption which shows the process involved here isn’t logic, or reason, but rather persuasion.  I would think that a good high school, or entry-level college English (writing, that is) teacher, on having received such an essay, might point out the fallacy, but this is coming from a recognized PhD — in behavioral science, that is!

Paul R. Amato:

Summary (looks like someone else wrote the summary?)

How have recent changes in U.S. family structure affected the cognitive, social, and emotional well-being of the nation’s children?

How have recent changes…. affected the (xyz) well-being” assumes that there has an effect.”

Paul Amato examines the effects of family formation on children and evaluates whether current marriage-promotion programs are likely to meet chil-dren’s needs.

Amato begins by investigating how children in households with both biological parents differ from children in households with only one biological parent. He shows that children growing up with two continuously married parents are less likely to experience a wide range of cognitive, emotional, and social problems, not only during childhood but also in adulthood. Although it is not possible to demonstrate that family structure causes these differences, studies using a variety of sophisticated statistical methods suggest that this is the case.

There you have the admission:  It is NOT possible to demonstrate that family structure causes these differences (which, in fact, brings in to question the entire marriage-promotion policy of 1996ff PRWORA in funding it, administered through HHS, about ten years earlier).. but  (let us throw some scientific, objective-sounding terms around to clean up that admission), “a variety of sophisticated statistical methods SUGGEST that this is the case.”

Amato then asks what accounts for the differences between these two groups of children. He shows that compared with other children, those who grow up in stable, two-parent families have a higher standard of living, receive more effective parenting, experience more cooperative co-parenting, are emotionally closer to both parents, and are subjected to fewer stressful events and circumstances.

Standard FR rhetoric — go visit “fatherhood.gov” and find some more.  It rarely changes much.

Finally, Amato assesses how current marriage-promotion policies will affect the well-being of children. He finds that interventions that increase the share of children who grow up with both parents would improve the overall well-being of U.S. children only modestly, because children’s social or emotional problems have many causes, of which family structure is but one.

If this is admitted, then why the obsession with promoting marriage?  There must be another reason, and I believe that other reason has a simple translation:  Profit.  Private profit at public expense, and professional prestige. (See the rest of this blog for more details!)

But interventions that lower only modestly the overall share of U.S. children experiencing various problems could nevertheless lower substantially the number of children experiencing them. Even a small decline in percentages, when multiplied by the many children in the population, is a substantial social benefit.

Go just a few more paragraphs further in and we’ll find the guy quoting AFCC professionals Joan B. Kelly and Judith S. Wallerstein.  I’ll show you, on the next page (76) of Vol. 15 No. 2, Fall 2005 The Future of Children” which most of us weren’t actually supposed to read anyhow, it goes back to first person singular (i.e., Amato taking responsibility for his ideas):

My goal in this article is to inform this debate by addressing three questions.

Like I’m saying, however frames the questions, limits the debate….

First, how do children in households with only one biological parent differ in terms of their cognitive, social, and emotional well-being from chil- dren in households with both biological par- ents? Second, what accounts for the observed differences between these two groups of children? And finally, how might current policies to strengthen marriage, decrease divorce, and lower nonmarital fertility affect the well- being of children in the United States?

” Lowering nonmarital fertility” is entirely within the field of population control based on socially acceptable demographics and status quo.  On the same page, the first heading, again, in this “research” context, the “social scientists” reign supreme — no one else is mentioned, up front anyhow:

Research on the Effects of Family Structure on Children

The rise in the divorce rate during the 1960s and 1970s prompted social scientists to investigate how differing family structures affect children. Their research focus initially was on children of divorced parents, but it expanded to include out-of-wedlock children and those in other nontraditional family structures

One paragraph for the 1960s and 1970s (no footnotes, or cites) and right into the AFCC “grand-dames” While they are footnoted, the footnotes are not on the same page, but at the end of the article, presumably, meaning no visual immediate link (by reader) to the source.

Parental Divorce

Early studies generally supported the assumption that children who experience parental divorce are prone to a variety of academic, behavioral, and emotional problems. In 1971, psychologists Judith Wallerstein and Joan Kelly began an influential long-term study of 60 divorced families and 131 children.

Not mentioned is why both Wallerstein and Kelly’s writing might have such influence, such as the Wallerstein’s (I don’t know exact years) connections to UCBerkeley, and her husband being also a prominent psychoanalyst with university connections, the sponsorship of AFCC, and as to Kelly, a nonprofit Northern California Mediation Center (see my Table of Posts for more).  The study was in fact of a narrow demographic also (Marin County!) etc. …   Never mind, it’s been echoed year after year throughout the ranks…..  See some of my sticky posts for more of (where I stand) on these things.  Particularly the post “Suppose I’m Right?”

According to the authors, five years after divorce, one-third of the children were adjusting well and had good relationships with both parents. Another group of children (more than one-third of the sample) were clinically depressed, were doing poorly in school, had difficulty maintaining friend- ships, experienced chronic problems such as sleep disturbances, and continued to hope that their parents would reconcile.2

He then has an entire paragraph on just one other study involving 144 preschool children by an individual whose affiliation, or area of expertise (etc.) is not even referenced in the text, before moving on to his next proposed topic, “meta-analsysis” to “Make sense of the data.”  Next para:

Despite these early findings, other studies in the 1970s challenged the dominant view that divorce is uniformly bad for children. For example, Mavis Hetherington and her col- leagues studied 144 preschool children, half from recently divorced maternal-custody families and half from continuously married two-parent families.

This statement isn’t even a complete thought.  Studies don’t just drop out of the sky– someone commissions them, or someone obtains permission to do them somehow, and those “someones” usually did it in a place (state/geography) in a year (start/end) and sometimes published results under the auspices of ________.  To not even reference this in passing, shows the article is not sounding scholarly without bothering to actually BE scholarly, at all.  It only vaguely gestures in the direction of some concrete facts.  (Why not be more specific?)  Which has me questioning what is the purpose behind the publication “The Future of Children,” although it’s certainly a well-known publication (in these fields, and I run across it often enough while looking up individuals or organizations for this blog).

During the first year of the study, the children with divorced parents exhibited more behavioral and emotional problems than did the children with continuously married parents. Two years after divorce, however, children with divorced par- ents no longer exhibited an elevated number of problems (although a few difficulties lingered for boys). Despite this temporary improvement, a later wave of data collection revealed that the remarriage of the custodial mother was followed by additional problems among the children, especially daughters.3

One footnote for two (old) sets of studies with contradictory results? I just looked it up:  In fact, here are the first three endnotes, which reveal that one of Mavis Heatherington’s publications was edited by Michael Lamb. Also, notice the dates!

ENDNOTES (The Impact of Family Formation Change on Well-being of the Next Generation)

  1. For examples, see Sheldon Glueck and Eleanor Glueck, Family Environment and Delinquency (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1962); J. F. McDermott, “Divorce and Its Psychiatric Sequelae in Children,” Archives of General Psychiatry 23 (1970): 421–27.
  2. Judith S. Wallerstein and Joan B. Kelly, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Di- vorce (New York: Basic Books, 1980).
  3. E. Mavis Hetherington, “Divorce: A Child’s Perspective,” American Psychologist 34 (1979): 851–58; E. Mavis Hetherington, Martha Cox, and R. Cox, “Effects of Divorce on Parents and Children,” in Nontraditional Families, edited by Michael Lamb (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1982), pp. 233–88.

Here’s Michael Lamb referenced — 40 years later (1982 + 40 = 2012):

(found at “Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage“)

Renowned psychologist Michael Lamb publishes definitive article on child adjustment

Cambridge University Professor Michael E. Lamb has impeccable credentials as one of the world’s leading experts on child development.  Among other things, he was Chief of the Section on Social and Emotional Development of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development for 17 years.  His list of publications is about 50 pages long (that is not a typo!  check it out here).  He is credited with, among other things, determining that fathers, as well as mothers, matter to child development.  It is no doubt that early finding of his that endeared him to the “father’s rights” movement and the fatherhood movement that sought to pathologize women raising children without father involvement.
Michael E. Lamb (Wikipedia) is a Zambia-born American psychologist with a PhD from Yale and who also taught at the University of Cambridge (England, that is) and made headlines not just about fathers, but also regarding heterosexual vs. gay parents, including with California’s Prop 8.
I see he’s still a Professor of Psychology (at Cambridge University/Sidney Sussex College)) in Great Britain, while President-Elect of the Developmental Psychology division of the American Psychological Association:

Research Interests

Michael Lamb’s current research focuses on forensic interviewing and the factors affecting children’s adjustment.  He and his colleagues have shown how developmentally sensitive interviewing improves the amount and quality of information obtained from young victims, witnesses and offenders in investigative settings:  Child Sexual Abuse: Disclosure, Delay, and DenialTell Me What Happened: Structured Investigative Interviews of Child Victims and WitnessesChildren’s Testimony: A Handbook of Psychological Research and Forensic Practise, and Children and Cross-Examination.

His other research has documented the roles played by parent-child relationships and other experiences in shaping children’s adjustment and well-being: The Role of the Father in Child Development and Mothers, Fathers, Families, and Circumstances: Factors Affecting Children’s Adjustment.

General treatments of developmental science can be found in The Handbook of Life-Span Development: Social and Emotional Development and Developmental Science: An Advanced Textbook (7th Edition).

(More “NATIONAL + “Cause”)

or, say, “National Alliance for the Mentally Ill” a.k.a. NAMI?  That is a nonprofit — or rather, a whole nationwide network of similarly-named nonprofits — whose naming pattern is “NATIONAL ALLIANCE….for the” and the subject matter, “Mentally Ill.”

There is a “National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds” (Those funds seem organized at the state level, and it mentions which federal agencies they work with.  These are often going to be recommending certain programs to “prevent child abuse before it happens.”)

The National Alliance of Children’s Trust and Prevention Funds (Alliance) is the only national membership organization representing state children’s trust and prevention funds (CTFs).

Check it out (the Children’s Trust funds individually and collectively often seem to run fatherhood programs as well.  They are also going to be if not a part of government, functioning nonprofit) INDIVIDUALLY, as well as NETWORKED, no question they are a power base.  See my 2/21/2016 post (Walter Burien post) speaking of investment power bases in government (Green-background quote):


The first CTF was created in the State of Kansas in 1980 and today trust funds are found in almost every state and the District of Columbia. Their mission is to prevent child abuse and neglect before it occurs and to promote positive child development and strong family support. Our members are the largest funders of community based child abuse prevention strategies in the country and each year expend approximately $100,000,000 on strengthening families and preventing all forms of child abuse and neglect. They fund proven effective programs, implement strategies to improve systems that impact families and serve as catalysts for new initiatives in their states. CTFs are most often the key leaders of the family strengthening/ child abuse prevention movement in their states. They work collaboratively with numerous partners from early childhood, child welfare, mental health and other who share our mission.

I would be satisfied if it was “prevent further abuse after it happens,” but preventing abuse “before it occurs” is bound to be invasive, intrusive, and presumptive on what causes abuse.

The Alliance is a national leader in child abuse prevention and family strengthening. Our numerous initiatives exemplify a wide range of approaches to these issues and we partner with other national organizations and federal agencies to accomplish our goals. We are active partners with the two federal agencies that invest most heavily in preventing child abuse before it occurs – the Federal Office of Child Abuse and Neglect (OCAN) and the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

To support CTFs across the country, the Alliance provides peer mentoring, national membership meetings, teleconference trainings and webinars, linkages of CTFs to national initiatives, distribution of new research findings and customized training and technical assistance as needed. Following are brief descriptions of some of our other projects and initiatives. Please also see the navigation at the top left of this page to explore more detailed information about our work.


Once a network is set up, of course the next step is expanding capacity and then going into technical assistance and training mode, if not there already.

Based on evidence regarding quality organizational practices and assessments with state Children’s Trust Funds, the Alliance created Essential Functions and Quality Indicators. The Alliance provides capacity building strategies that support CTFs in assessing their growth and development and supports their roles as key state leaders in strengthening families and preventing child abuse before it occurs.


The Alliance is working with state CTFs, state and federal agencies, parents, and national partner organizations to prevent child neglect and to promote the well-being of children and families. With funding from the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Alliance launched a three-year effort to expand the national conversation around this important concern, to collect the current knowledge base and to work with selected states to document examples of ‘what works.’ Our formal announcementprovides additional information along with an invitation to join us. Click here to share information.

I do not recall exactly, offhand, what programming this one is running — but start looking at its tax returns, and if any related organizations / subcontractors, sources of revenues — and no doubt one can learn a lot more.


How about NACC (National Association for Childrens’ Counsel) out of Colorado? That’s one “national” nonprofit and the subject matter is “Children’s Counsel.” (Bookmark this one!). It also happens to have been an HHS grantee about ten years ago under the category “Adoption Incentives” (or similar) for the purpose of setting up certification process for counsel (i.e., attorneys) for children. It has collaborated and published with the San Diego-based “Children’s Advocacy Institute” (see “Robert C. Fellmeth” — who also, FYI, sits, or sat, as board member on (by recall, double check current situation) on the DC-based “First Star” — and running “report cards” on various states according to their framework of promoting representation of minor children by independent counsel. NACC has some overlap of personnel and it seems associations (may conference together at times with) AFCC. I learned about this during the years of close interest in the Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. Membership of AFCC and NACC were involved in the topics of the FBI raid of that courthouse, at the time… Interesting….).

Here’s a 2006brochure posted at “ct.gov”:  

Modeled after Medical Board Certification, Attorney Certification brands attorneys as specialists, thereby identifying them to clients, peers, and court systems as proficient practitioners. Board Certification elevates the quality of the practice of law by encouraging attorneys to be among the best in their communities. Attorneys have been board certified for years in areas such as real estate, bankruptcy, criminal law, and estate planning. There are approximately 25,000 Board Certified attorneys in the U.S. The NACC certified the first Child Welfare Law Specialists in the United States in 2006.

The NACC is a national non-profit child advocacy and membership organization of juvenile law attorneys. Founded in 1977, our mission is to improve the delivery of legal services to children, families, and agencies, and develop the practice of law for children and families
as a sophisticated legal specialty. The NACC is headquartered at
the Kempe Children’s Center at The Children’s Hospital in Denver, Colorado. The NACC has approximately 2400 members representing all 50 states, DC, and several foreign countries. The NACC is a recipient of the Meritorious Service to the Children of America Award given by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The NACC is accredited by the American Bar Association to award specialty certification credentials in Child Welfare Law (Abuse, Neglect, and Dependency cases). The program is supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Children’s Bureau

(click on the pdf “http://www.ct.gov/ccpa/lib/ccpa/NACCprogram_brochure_10-06.pdf” to read more).

The HHS grants were only $600,000, and only for a few short years:

(TAGGS.hhs.gov) Recipient EIN = 840743810 Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

[“DUNS Number” should not have been blank, from what I can understand).  Click on name to see the grant number is 90XW0006 .]

Fiscal Year Program Office Award Number Award Title CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions




If you look at where these organizations (and organizations they are, NGA in fact is an Organization whose members are the Governors of the 50 States and 5 US Territories which just happens to have its own private, tax-exempt R&D firm “related organization” and submit (as I recall) consolidated financial statements for both entities.

NGA address:  National Governors Association
Hall of the States, 444 N. Capitol St., Ste. 267, Washington, D.C. 20001-1512
Phone: (202) 624-5300 | Fax: (202) 624-5313 | Email: webmaster

NGA’s own website describes itself as an organization — not part of government itself — and as representing the governors’ interests among states, and the states to the federal government.  It was formed, it says, in 1908, and as such pre-dates the income tax, and is OUTSIDE of government  but seeking to influence public policy, in fact it is a Washington, D.C. “public policy organization.”Who We Are

Founded in 1908, the National Governors Association (NGA) is the collective voice of the nation’s governors and one of Washington, D.C.’s most respected public policy organizations. Its members are the governors of the 55 states, territories and commonwealths. NGA provides governors and their senior staff members with services that range from representing states on Capitol Hill and before the Administration on key federal issues to developing and implementing innovative solutions to public policy challenges through the NGA Center for Best Practices.** NGA also provides management and technical assistance to both new and incumbent governors.

**But, the tax return below states that this Center for Best Practices was only formed in 1974 — so what was the NGA doing without their nonprofit center, for the previous 66 years? (1908 – 1974)?What We Do

Through NGA, governors identify priority issues and deal collectively with matters of public policy and governance at the state and national levels.

Tax returns for “NGA Center for Best Practices” (Please look!) shows its funding is approximately 2:1, private to government contributions, meaning, that it is more than 50% funded (tax-exempt!) by private parties in setting, obviously, what the Governors, collectively, believe should be policy for –most aspects of human life (except, perhaps, “HUD-related”).

Schedule R shows the “Related Organization” is actually NGA, EIN#52-1020381, and this NGA Center for Best Practices is EIN#237391796. (click links to see any year’s tax return; the fiscal year (here) ends 6/30, so “2014” is actually Fiscal Year (tax return) for 2013
:I say, if ANYONE starts reading tax returns of this type of organization (or, any organization), that individual, if they are semi-literate, but still can read, and can understand that a form asks a question, and the filer (who prepared the tax return, which someone representing the organization then signs) is answering the questions, sooner or later it will start to make sense.  
It may not be easy to read, but there is some underlying logic.REVENUES = + for the organization, and “EXPENSES = – for the organization.One look at page 1 shows that its “Revenues” are mostly contributions — $13M, that year.  Part VIII details those Contributions by source, where you can see that $4.8M is “Government Grants” and $8.6M “Contributions” meaning, private sources.   Roughly speaking, we are talking, the majority of sponsorship of this organization does NOT come from government, but private sources.  Yet, keep reading, the purpose is setting national, coordinated policy on things the public will be supporting, through taxation, across the board!

Basic glance tells you if they are claiming to spend more than they are taking in, even on page 1, and how much has been stockpiled over the years since they were formed.  Year Formed is part of the heading, and for this one, it reads:  “1974.”  As you can also see above, in “2012” it had $20M but 2014, $24M. So, it’s increasing its Assets — but how many $$ are moving through its hands, and to do what? (according to the tax return)?For example, on the Year 2013 Form 990, Part I Summary above, Line 5 asks how many employees, and the number “0” is entered in. Yet on the same page, we see an amount claimed for “Salaries” which is over $7 million.  Clearly, there are some employees somewhere, but how many, and with that, how legitimate the claimed expense, is not being shown.& NGA’s Schedule-R Related Organization with which it has a “common paymaster” agreement and from whom (it says) it leases its employees:  “SCHEDULE J PART II-THE ORGANIZATION ENGAGES IN A COMMON PAYMASTER RELATIONSHIP DEFINED IN REGULATIONS SECTION 31 3121(S)-1(B) NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION,A RELATED ORGANIZATION. IS THE COMMON PAYMASTER.”  Another section of the return describes who pays the vendors:  NGA does, and files the Forms for them as vendors, as it does the W-2s for Employees.  The question then comes up — what does this organization then exist for in the first place?   They record the expenses that another (related) entity pays for, sharing both real estate and a website, and personnel including their own key employees, and officers?



Yet this organization has “members” and its Members are — the Governors of the 50 states and 5 US Territories.”    Look at page 2 of the tax return to see that the various sectors of society are outlined, and expenses claimed for “innovative solutions” to these problems (i.e., basic aspects of social, community, civil life).    There’s a lot of fine print, but they’ve divided it into four categories, according to the form which has blanks for 4a, b, c, and d, of “Program Service Accomplishments” (i.e., “WHAT DID YOU DO?”).  Not including the fine print descriptions, each segment is, respectively:


Looking (Year 2012) at Part VIIB — that’s “Independent Contractors over $100K” — they list 5, the total amount is something over $1M.  These contractors, then provided help with:  “Employment and Training, Employment and Training, Consulting, Consulting, Consulting” (respectively), with highest paid listed first.  (I’m sure the second one probably should read “Cooperative” instead of “Coprorative”)


Even more interesting is part VIIA of the return (please click to see):  Four Governors, working less than an hour a week, are “Directors or Trustees” (Mary Fallin, Samuel Brownback, Maggie Hassan and John DeJongh in Fiscal year 2013) (they obviously rotate leadership)…Then there are only TWO Officers, who are very well paid:   Dan Crippen, CEO (earnings:  $297K base salary) and William Gainer, CFO (Earnings:  $247,000, base salary) — but not from this organization; instead from “Related Organization” — the NGA itself.
Then there is a roster (again, paid it says from the “other” organization, as to Part VIIA) some very nice salaries going to five “Key Employees” and five more “Highest Paid Employees” (all represented by check-marks in various columns).Although an EIN# was cited for the “nonprofit” NGA, you cannot find a corresponding Form 990 because NGA, being an instrumentality of government, does not file Form 990s.   This can be established by reading from their “Consolidated Financial Statements” which (taking an example — Years ending 2012 and 2013) references “Governmental Auditing standards.”  Link Here:

Other Reporting Required by Government Auditing Standards

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated January 15, 2014, on our consideration of NGA and NGA Center’s internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering NGA and NGAC’s internal control over financial reporting and compliance.

(electronic signature, “McGladrey LLP”) McLean, Virginia January 15, 2014

That was from the Independent Auditor’s letter, found near the top of the report.  Later on, there are the financial statements, then “Notes to the Financial Statements.” (see “CAFRman.com” for more information — I’ve also blogged this, a LOT, since 2012):

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements

Note 1. Nature of Activities and Significant Accounting Policies

Nature of activities: National Governors Association (NGA) is an instrumentality of the states of the United States of America whose membership is restricted to the governors of the states, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

NGA’s purposes include:

  •   Providing a medium for the exchange of views and experiences on subjects of general importance to the people of the United States; ***
  •   Fostering interstate cooperation;
  •   Promoting greater uniformity of state laws;
  •   Attaining greater efficiency in state administration;
  •   Facilitating and improving state-local and state-federal relationships; and
  •   Vigorously representing the interests of the states in the federal system.National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) is a separately incorporated 501(c)(3) entity organized for the general purpose of establishing and maintaining a center for tracking, evaluating, and disseminating information on state innovations and best practices. The membership of NGA Center is the same as that of NGA, and the organizations operate under the oversight of common management. NGA Center’s Board of Directors is appointed by the NGA Chair and Vice Chair

**Does this say “a medium of exchange WITH the people of the United States for subjects of general importance to them”?? No it does not.  How could it be, when most of the people of the United States may not even be aware this organization exists, as a meaning of inter-governmental (laterally connected) communications, and with a separate nonprofit taking private sponsorship for its’ recommended practices” solutions at a ratio of approximately 2:1?   In fact, I discovered this organization (with I admit a sense of betrayal) when I was looking up responsible fatherhood initiatives, and realized that this had been promoted — through the NGA — as “best practices” as far back as 1994!!  Two years later, “voila” — Congress voted in a major “welfare reform” and along with it, $150M of direct grants under (administered by) HHS.  (Note:  the 501©3 National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonprofit intended to counter women’s rights organizations, specifically “NOW” — and taking HHS grants from near the start — was also formed in 1994, when VAWA was also passed by Congress.)

National Association of Counsel for Children CO 2013 990 26 $600,788.00 84-0743810
National Association of Counsel for Children CO 2012 990 24 $515,769.00 84-0743810
National Association of Counsel for Children CO 2011 990 25 $475,332.00 84-0743810
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2014 990 43 $24,025,416.00 23-7391796
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2013 990 43 $21,492,523.00 23-7391796
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2012 990 41 $20,505,756.00 23-7391796

5 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. COMMENT after publishing (Curiousity!) I looked up Marcia Robinson Lowry’s new nonprofit (splitting from “Children’s Rights, Inc.” in NY. It was registered 9/2014 in New York as a Domestic Nonprofit, but with its (DOS representative) a Tulsa, Oklahoma Law firm:

    Selected Entity Name: A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC.
    Selected Entity Status Information
    Current Entity Name: A BETTER CHILDHOOD, INC.
    DOS ID #: 4637882
    Initial DOS Filing Date: SEPTEMBER 17, 2014
    Jurisdiction: NEW YORK
    Current Entity Status: ACTIVE

    Selected Entity Address Information
    DOS Process (Address to which DOS will mail process if accepted on behalf of the entity)
    TULSA, OKLAHOMA, 74103

    Their website indicates a trademark of some sort is involved, So I looked for that:
    Trademarkia.Com says something was filed 4/2015, “Allowed” 2015″ and lists Penina Michlin Chiu (at the Tulsa law firm) as the correspondent:


    On Monday, April 13, 2015, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for A BETTER CHILDHOOD by A Better Childhood, Inc., Chappaqua, NY 10514. The USPTO has given the A BETTER CHILDHOOD trademark serial number of 86595050. The current federal status of this trademark filing is NOTICE OF ALLOWANCE – ISSUED. The correspondent listed for A BETTER CHILDHOOD is PENINA MICHLIN CHIU of Frederic Dorwart Lawyers, 124 E 4th St, Tulsa, OK 74103-5027 . The A BETTER CHILDHOOD trademark is filed in the category of Advertising, Business & Retail Services , Personal & Legal & Social Services . The description provided to the USPTO for A BETTER CHILDHOOD is Public advocacy to promote awareness of abused and neglected children while in foster care and other disadvantaged children.

    Let's Get Honest

    February 23, 2016 at 2:35 pm

  2. Penina Michlin Chiu — California and Oklahoma Bars passed (not too long ago), undergraduate at MIT, I”m guessing, plenty smart:

    California State Bar Member page: http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/239431 (Law Degree from UCBerkeley, Boalt Hall).

    Oklahoma Bar passed (94 of 121 applicants passed) in 2007 (New Attorneys Take Oath)

    Click to access OBJ2007Apr28.pdf

    …(from the Oklahoma website page): http://www.fdlaw.com/lawyer.cfm?id=4
    Ms. Chiu was admitted to practice before the U.S. patent office in 2008 and has extensive experience prosecuting patents and managing international patent portfolios. Her patent practice currently focuses in the areas of mechanical engineering and computer technology. She has a strong background in a broad range of technologies from oil and gas technologies such as submersible pumps and offshore natural gas to electronic gaming. In addition to prosecuting patents, Ms. Chiu represents clients in reexamination proceedings and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and provides opinions related to invention novelty, freedom to practice and patent validity.

    Ms. Chiu has extensive experience with trademark prosecution and the management of international trademark portfolios. Ms. Chiu provides trademark availability opinions, assistance with branding issues, as well as representation with respect to opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Ms. Chiu also represents clients in trademark litigations in federal court, including priority and infringement disputes.

    In addition, Ms. Chiu provides advice regarding intellectual property licenses, and the treatment of intellectual property in commercial transactions and entity formations.

    Ms. Chiu also has experience working with banks, PE Funds, and major international companies in the areas of M&A, entity formation and other corporate and business functions. This includes substantial experience in helping firms manage their FCPA compliance issues.

    Prior to joining Frederic Dorwart, Lawyers in 2006, Ms. Chiu completed a judicial clerkship with Judge Edward C. Prado of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. She also completed an externship with Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the Northern District of California, and a summer associate position at the United States Department of Justice in the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section, in Washington DC. Prior to law school Ms. Chiu was a staff scientist at a patent litigation firm in Los Angeles.

    Ms. Chiu received her J.D. from UC Berkeley at Boalt Hall where she received awards for excellence in Legislation and Intellectual Property. Ms. Chiu was an Executive Editor of the California Law Review and a member of the Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Ms. Chiu received her S.B. from MIT in Materials Science and Engineering, with a minor in Physics.

    Ms. Chiu is a member of the Board of Trustee’s Audit Committee at La Jolla Country Day School and a member of the MIT Educational Council.

    Let's Get Honest

    February 23, 2016 at 2:45 pm

  3. A Better Childhood, Inc. Founder’s Sister: (referenced in the article):

    http://members.calbar.ca.gov/fal/Member/Detail/147437 (Sarah R Robinson-Glasser State Bar California 1990). She had a practice in Grants Pass, Oregon. Married a Steve Glasser in 1997 (http://www.goldmark.org/betty/photos/weddingpic1.html) (Beautiful photo: http://www.goldmark.org/betty/photos/wedding3.html), Linkedin here: https://www.linkedin.com/in/srglasserlaw, shows JD from UMiami School of Law in 1983.

    Let's Get Honest

    February 23, 2016 at 3:01 pm

  4. The EIN# for “A Better Childhood Inc.” in Chappaqua, NY (Westchester County) is:
    47-2004064 A Better Childhood Inc. Chappaqua NY United States PC

    (Courtesy IRS Exempt Organizations Select Check. I didn’t find the company “A better childhood” registered in Oklahoma (its mailing address for service of process), and didn’t find it registered as a nonprofit or charity in NY. I could of course try again now that there’s an EIN# to search….

    I had a thought to check (on the same site) whether they are filing an IRS Form 990-N, which means receipts less than $50,000. They have. Guess Marcia is being paid from another source, or not paid yet, then?

    Tax Period:
    2014 (01/01/2014 – 12/31/2014)
    Employer Identification Number (EIN):
    Legal Name:
    Mailing Address:
    1095 Hardscrabble Road
    Chappaqua, NY 10514
    United States
    Doing Business As:
    Gross receipts not greater than:
    Organization has terminated:
    Principal Officer’s Name and Address:
    Marcia Robinson Lowry
    1095 Hardscrabble Road
    Chappaqua, NY 10514
    United States
    Website URL:
    http://www.abetterchildhood .org

    Let's Get Honest

    February 25, 2016 at 12:16 am

  5. I searched the law firm name and came up with a Childrens Rights page talking about Oklahoma, and a social worker John Goad (the same page posts a major — over 100 pages — report he authored, with others, and at the back, his background (substantial work). He attended some MSW courses for two years (1979-1981) and got his masters in 2001, and has been very busy before and after. Interesting reading — however, here’s the reference to the Tulsa firm which is taking service for the so far, underfunded “A Better Childhood, Inc.” a New York Charity as above:

    Goad, a social worker and consultant with extensive child welfare experience as both an administrator and front line caseworker, conducted this review in conjunction with the Juvenile Protection Association (JPA).

    Children’s Rights joined local Oklahoma law firms ***Frederic Dorwart Lawyers** and Seymour & Graham and the international firm Kaye Scholer in filing a federal lawsuit in February 2008 seeking widespread reforms throughout the Oklahoma child welfare system on behalf of more than 10,000 abused and neglected children statewide who depend on the system for protection and care. The federal judge presiding over the case denied a motion by DHS to dismiss the case in January 2009, and, in May 2009, ruled that the case could proceed as a class action on behalf of all children in DHS custody. DHS subsequently appealed that decision, and a federal appeals court unanimously upheld the district court’s decision in February 2010, allowing the case once again to proceed as a class action.

    The full text of the new expert report released today and more information about Children’s Rights’ efforts to reform Oklahoma’s child welfare system can be found at http://www.childrensrights.org/oklahoma.”

    Let's Get Honest

    February 25, 2016 at 12:37 am

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 )

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: