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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

“Chasing Down Corporate and Charitable Registrations for Court-Connected Nonprofits” (Such as Kids’ Turn SD, SVN, and others) and Their Donors). Part 1. [Revisiting-viewing-formatting my Aug. 31, 2011 post @ Jan. 2018].

leave a comment »

This is a “makeover” of a previous post, which reflects how early in my blog (if not two years earlier, ca. 2009) I was focused on and sounding the alarm to emphasize “looking it up” meaning, at a minimum corporate registrations.

This post’s title and shortlink:

Chasing Down Corporate & Charitable Registrations for Court-Connected Nonprofits” (Such as Kids’ Turn SD, SVN, and others) and Their Donors) Part 1. [Revisiting-viewing-formatting my Aug. 31, 2011 post @ Jan. 2018]. [with case-sensitive shortlink ending: “-7Ia”] [where the middle digit is a capital “i” not number “1” or lower-case “L”].  Currently about 13,000 words (and there is a “Part 2”).

[The above paragraphs are repeated below for the wider blogging context, though in a different order].

Did you catch my new, short “Page”  published Jan. 2, 2018?  It was written in part to explain some of the detail unearthed in this post, regarding Child Abuse Prevention gone National… Title and link to it further down on this post (yellow-background), and it will be on the Vital Links/Alpha Chrono blog sidebar menu (right side).  In addition to outlining the basics, I posted ALL the images of a single year’s Schedule I grantees of the National Children’s Alliance at the bottom in image gallery format.

I find it odd that two completely different nonprofits organized to stop child abuse and provide intervention, treatment, and of course public education and advocacy, both developed in the 1970s (although one incorporated only in 1992) and both took it national, with chapters of all sorts.

The new page despite its title mentioning only one of these two, deals with both (National Children’s Alliance and Prevent Child Abuse America).  You may not realize how deeply entrenched both are in local (county, state) government operations.

Anyhow, when (specifically, in late Sept. 2017) a “parental alienation prevention and treatment” nonprofit called “Kid’s Turn” — founded by AFCC- and Family Court professionals (a lawyer and a judge) in 1989 and taking court-ordered business, for the (Greater Bay Area) San Francisco Area — submerged itself into a chapter of the sponsored-by-National-Children’s-Alliance – “SFCAPC” (“SF Child Abuse Prevention Center”) which recently changed its name to “Safe & Sound” it got rather “interesting.”

Meanwhile, the San Diego version of Kid’s Turn remains separate and under its own identity.

So, those two national child abuse prevention nonprofits are:

Total results: 3Search Again. EIN# 631044781  Formed only in 1992 (per IRS forms) or 1988 (per its website).

National Childrens Alliance DC 2016 990 77 $5,583,437.00 63-1044781
National Childrens Alliance DC 2015 990 82 $5,790,038.00 63-1044781
National Childrens Alliance DC 2014 990 154 $4,712,656.00 63-1044781


Total results: 3Search Again.   Prevent Child Abuse America, EIN# 237235671, formed 1972, Domicile IL, Fiscal Year = Calendar Year. Website:  “preventchildabuse.org”

Prevent Child Abuse America IL 2016 990 39 $6,243,040.00 23-7235671
Prevent Child Abuse America IL 2015 990 38 $5,039,476.00 23-7235671
Prevent Child Abuse America IL 2014 990 39 $4,656,308.00 23-7235671

Followers of this blog and people familiar with a situation in Connecticut about six years ago (involving the confirmation of a Judge Maureen Murphy over the protests of testimony — including from Harvard-based Dr. Eli Newberger citing to medical evidence of child sexual abuse of a young boy — and its coverup.  Hon. Murphy was then the involved GAL. I’d posted (a number of times, but also) June 6, 2013 on “Finding Ground Zero in Connecticut — the Underground Economy in an AFCC Courthouse.” A link to the related story and financial drill-down at the bottom of that post (it was in Washington Times communities” has expired, but it’s now posted elsewhere (by title search) at — get this — “CGA.ct.gov”:

Immunity for GAL Destroys Connecticut Family (read the closing paragraphs).

(See nearby link from “Cta.CT.gov” Immunity for GAL destroys Connecticut Family)

I mention this because, as to the Max Liberti (9 yr old boy) case, Newberger had testified in his case. This journalism was unique in that it told the story in large part, from the point of view of billings and invoices by the involved professionals. Not shown there,* but FYI, Newberger was an early President of a “Prevent Child Abuse” local nonprofit in Massachusetts. *I show this on my new (related) page.

A passing reference to Newberger’s involvement was published in the Connecticut Mirror, 2/22/2012, “A judicial confirmation goes off-script.” I blogged along these lines at the time, knew (electronically or by phone) some of the involved protesters), and remember reading his testimony.  It may be on this blog. Note: The parent whose relationship with a young son was being destroyed, this time, “happened to be” (sic) the mother. Warning: it is graphic reading.

And I found this (reported back in 2011) announcement that Kid’s Turn Curriculum will be run by some UK charities, and an admission that our system is based on the British system anyhow.  Guess that’s the beauty of having “government by and for the 501©3s” in America:


Dateline:  San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.

{Commentary stemming from the “Relate” and “Family Mediation” references above added post-publication.  I don’t look further into either of those nonprofits within this post, however…

Commentary/reminders in fine print, light-blue background, next section. There are corollaries to the Jesuit “change-agent, transform society” mentality which impact how to handle criminal matters, and which do relate to the establishment and intent to spread the authority (subject matter jurisdiction) of the family court system — and to label “dissidents” as “sick” and in need of treatment (re-indoctrination). These should not be overlooked.}

Exemplifying the tradition of using (a) the nonprofit sector and especially (b) the social services/mental health sector to strategically align the family courts of nations with different constitutions, positions towards a national (patriarchal) religion — with corresponding tough viewpoints on divorce and varying views of the role of women in society (and their individual rights as human beings) via nonprofits, including but not limited to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Again, just a simple reminder, the UK has a national religion and centuries-old tradition of it (as to Anglican) and religious wars along with the rest of Europe and the Reformation, to demonstrate that commitment.

The U.S. Episcopal sector, which had to separate itself to accommodate, well, the formation of this country (i.e., allegiance to the Crown was inappropriate for a US-based religion), didn’t allow women to be ordained until the 1970s and has split in recent years, among other things, over the ordination of homosexuals. In 2001, after “thirty years of dialogue” (do the math! — starting about 1970s, corresponding to feminist movement, and beginning of admission of women undergraduates to some of the nation’s top Ivy League colleges, finally) the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and the Episcopals entered into ‘full communion” via a “Concordat agreement allowing “clergy and laity to move freely between the two churches”

Meanwhile, the U.S. Government continues to grant funds directly to the Episcopal Church under the (dis)guise — which it is — of “Episcopal Migration Ministries,” as one among several “VolAgs” (Voluntary Agencies) helping with immigration and refugee resettlement. I went looking for ‘EMM” a year or two ago, which is one reason I know that it’s a mis-nomer.  There is no such entity….

AFCC, meanwhile, continues to draw upon its relationships with Jesuit universities in urban centers for more “dispute resolution services” (Werner Institute, establ. 2005 at Creighton University in Omaha; University of Santa Clara, and “USF” in the San Francisco Bay Area;  Marquette University School of Law in Milwaukee [Wiki says one of only two law schools in the state, the only private one. Wisconsin is also unique in allowing lawyers “diploma privilege” to practice without passing the state bar…], etc.)

The Dispute Resolution Institute at Marquette (Law School) even admits to partnering with AFCC in 2011, and a Certificate in the field is offered. At all points, “the more dispute resolution, the better” is the constant push:

… In  Fall, 2011, the Dispute Resolution Program partnered with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and the Resolution Systems Institute to host The Future of Court ADR: Mediation and Beyond.

In addition, Marquette hosted the first ever Dispute Resolution Works in Progress conference in 2007, and the International Media and Conflict Resolution Conference took place at Marquette University Law School in 2009. The Marquette Law Review Symposium Issue from the IMC conference is available here.  The Marquette Law Review also hosted a special symposium on the Uniform Mediation Act in 2001. The first symposium on the emerging interdisciplinary negotiation canon was held in Fall 2003.

….and to continue pushing mediation over litigation, a very “Christian” point of view, supposedly, and one which also has served to cover spousal abuse “within the faith”  — and child abuse — for generations of women, including my generation, and recommend “treatment” for women angry about their own degrading and dangerous treatment by violent partners, or concerned about abuse of their own children.

And yes it relates to the family courts topic.  The “CAC” model was used as a basis for Family Justice Center model (which came out later — around 2003) — if a “one-stop-shop” model works for child abuse (DOES it?), why not try it for domestic violence survivors too?  Meanwhile, I found that “CACC” (Children’s Advocacy Centers of California, representing a 2014 name-change from “California Network of Child Advocacy Centers,” cannot decide whether it’s a program of (the) “Calico Center” or a chapter.  It claims to be both simultaneously, while causing some grief, apparently, at the charitable registry of trusts level through it’s “filing-resistance.”

Last, but not least, I went looking for a mysterious, 2007 formed “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” which granted Kids’ Turn funds in 2010, but the website keeps redirecting to the ($666M assets) San Diego Foundation, and no financials are found, that I could find.  Cute….

I’m posting this “Part 1 of 2” now and will add some tags later. //LGH Jan. 3, 2018.

This post’s title and shortlink:

Chasing Down Corporate & Charitable Registrations for Court-Connected Nonprofits” (Such as Kids’ Turn SD, SVN, and others) and Their Donors) Part 1. [Revisiting-viewing-formatting my Aug. 31, 2011 post @ Jan. 2018]. [with case-sensitive shortlink ending: “-7Ia”] [where the middle digit is a capital “i” not number “1” or lower-case “L”].  Currently about 13,000 words (and there is a “Part 2”).

This is a “makeover” of a previous post, which reflects how early in my blog (if not two years earlier, ca. 2009) I was focused on and sounding the alarm to emphasize “looking it up” meaning, at a minimum corporate registrations.

Link to the 2011 version of this same post (after my intro here, and with potentially some cleanups/updates as the title indicates) is:

Chasing Down Charitable and Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits… [publ. Aug 31, 2011; re-formatted re-post expected in late Dec. 2017] (with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link ending “-Qp.”) (With updated title and a preview there to explain the re-post.  Readers might want to start by reading that update...)

Any 2017 updates lengthen the long original post; so this one will be split. Splits mean that points of internal reference within either part may refer to the other part.  While working on it, I see no clear dividing point, so an arbitrary one, by word count, may be necessary….

{Split by size created a Part 2.  Part 2 title/link– repeated at the bottom — is now:  Chasing Down … Court-Connected Nonprofits and Their Donors, Part 2 (Kid’s Turn San Diego gets Development Help from Taproot Foundation, Inc.(see ‘Gen3 Draper-Richards Venture Philanthropy’) and SVN, the Supervised Visitation Network (with short-link ending “-8it,” started (post split) New Year’s Day, 2018).}


This is a “makeover” of a previous post, which reflects how early in my blog (if not two years earlier, ca. 2009) I was focused on and sounding the alarm to emphasize “looking it up” meaning, at a minimum corporate registrations.

(1) To be honest, I’d hoped re-posting this relevant, and already complete, 2011 post might buy me some time with a quick clean-up and repost, while I continued working on more current, but related, themes around “Reunification Camps,” especially the trend of involving horses (equine therapy).  On closer look, it didn’t, but I’m still following through to re-post….

(2) Previous behaviors by AFCC-spinoff nonprofits such as Kid’s Turn (and replicas, like “Kids First,”) and ongoing associations (SVN – Supervised Visitation Network) reveal their founders and founder-associations character and habits. For example, on KT (San Francisco) I posted on the organization, it merged out of existence into “SFCAPC”, which I then reported, and now SFCAPC changed its name and brand again to “Safe & Sound.” (next image):

Note. 2015 entry — KT merges into it. (But KT San Diego, separately, remains outside). For “children undergoing the trauma of parental separation and divorce.”

Viewed 2018. Sec. of State records says name change was only last September.







SFCAPC (before “Center” it was “Council”), was started in the 1970s by a UCSF/SF General Hospital Chief of Piediatrics, Dr.  Moses Grossman, says the website (and other sources support) as “part of a national movement” (See image).

From Safe & Sound website “About us” timeline.

That national organization is in DC, but its legal domicile isn’t.  ALWAYS look for the Form 990 where one may exist for more information!

Total results: 3Search Again. EIN# 631044781  Formed only in 1992

National Childrens Alliance DC 2016 990 77 $5,583,437.00 63-1044781
National Childrens Alliance DC 2015 990 82 $5,790,038.00 63-1044781
National Childrens Alliance DC 2014 990 154 $4,712,656.00 63-1044781

This is both interesting and revealing (not my first time looking):  NCA is legal domicile Alabama, was formed just a few years before passage of the Violence Against Women Act (1994), in a U.S. Presidential Election Year (Clinton’s first win), and four years before passage of welfare reform (1996), a time when as I continue to point out, fathers’ rights groups calling themselves children’s rights groups were flourishing (the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. formed in 1994).

Total assets are typically less than revenues moving through a group, so remember to take a look…

NCA is following standard “nationalize, set up chapters, get gov’t grants, redistribute to private chapters to standardize (w (and privatize) handling of core identified cause  — here, child abuse prevention and treatment models.  It’s mostly government supported.

Example:  FYE2014 (YESep 30 2015, middle row) $11M out of $12M grants were “govt” and nearly $2M in Program Service Revenues. Gross Receipts (pg.1 header) were $14M.  Redistribution:  $9M granted out to Child Advocacy Centers (or state coalitions of the same).  Basic redistribution of wealth (federal funding), and anyone wishing to track it can painstakingly go look up each individual grantee***…  Meanwhile only a few NCA employees (23) and Part VIIA employees show Teresa Huizar being paid a nice $266K salary.(Look for yourself!).

  • ***I believe this is worth a separate page to illustrate.  FY2014 (middle row above) grants were reported only 3/page.  The year before, I see it was ONE per page only(!). Alpha by grantee, with any grantee whose name begins with “The” all listed alpha under “T”… This is the link.At the bottom of the new page, I imaged ALL grantees and posted them.  The new page also, for comparison, looks at a similar-purpose, but different-tactics nonprofit, Prevent Child Abuse America:..
  • For example, National Children’s Alliance, Alabama-based (legal domicile) and its network of CACs and Statewide CAC Coalitions (FY2014 Grantees) (Published New Year’s Day +1, 2018; case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8iP”).  Page is under 4,000 words.
  • Page 2, as well as where the money is being spent primarily, makes it clear that this umbrella group’s primary activity is grantmaking to their own members or centers, year after year.

NAMI and some other mental health organizations follow the same pattern.  So do groups like Focus on the Family and its “Family Councils” with the exception, not taking primarily government grants.  Instead, with “Focus” private contributions sponsored multiple look-alike and often “named-alike” entities at the state level, geared to initiate state-wide healthy marriage initiatives, typically also in nonprofit form, which nonprofits were then encouraged to go after the HMRF funding.  Eventually Focus on the Family then spun off the “related entity” which coordinated the family councils nationally.

So did some of the education transformation nonprofits I’ve posted on:  there’s a central umbrella entity, and chapters named after it at the state,or sometimes even regional level (Coalition of Essential Schools, “Communities in Schools,” etc.)

So, the National Children’s Alliance showing the same organization tactics is not new.  However, all of these forms of nationwide “saturation” of causes + curricula + Technical Training & Consultation support (logos, branding, etc.) still leverage public media and represent the ideas of the few, through that leverage, being imposed upon the many, for profit and for control. It’s a “rapid mobilization” tactic reaching into the government arena where possible to add momentum and power.  Once a brand, curricula, infrastructure, and network is established, any “to the contrary” or dissident voices, however, legitimate, face an uphill PR campaign of their own to even be heard. This includes “to-the-contrary” voices which might be the voices of experience and from the street level.

THE SFCAPC not only links back to national curriculum-running nonprofits, and periodically forms more, but it also functions as lead agency in a regional (SF) “CAPC” a public/private partnership.  Description from their latest (FY2015) tax return.  Oddly, audited financial statements through 2016 are made available on the website, but not simple tax returns for 2016:


I did not find any “Bay Area Coalition of Child Abuse Councils.”  Probably because it’s now the “Greater Bay Area” and has the word “prevention” added before “councils”:   http://www.bayareapreventchildabuse.org (see nearby images).  However, I found no corporate (Sec. of State) or charitable registrations (Dept. of Justice/Office of Attorney General) under this name either.

The theme is always, it seems, “Strengthening families…”

The similar acronyms with different meanings for the letters CAC can get confusing.  One is “Child Abuse [Prevention] Council,” the other “Children’s Advocacy Centers.”  One reads “Child” the other “Children’s”….

I did find “CACC” however:

CACC is an accredited chapter of the National Children’s Alliance. NCA provides financial support grants, training and national accreditation for child advocacy centers and state chapters….

Children’s Advocacy Centers of California is a statewide membership organization dedicated to helping local communities respond to allegations of child abuse in ways that are effective and efficient, and that put the needs of child victims first.  CACC provides support, advocacy, training, technical assistance and leadership to local child advocacy centers and multidisciplinary teams throughout California responding to reports of child abuse and neglect.  CACC is an accredited chapter of the National Children’s Alliance.  It run as** program of CALICO, the accredited children’s advocacy center for Alameda County.  CACC has 32 member teams and centers and serves all counties** the state.

{** a few “wordos” on the website there..}  Source of quote: http://cacc-online.org/about-us/

I finally located “CACC” as an entity.  Form 990finder hadn’t caught up with its latest name change, one reason a basic “name search” didn’t reveal its whereabouts.  Nor did the website named after it help much, either…

The records in California show that it didn’t register as a charity (as required to by law) until the Attorney General’s Office pursued it in 2010 (though it had incorporated back in 2008), and thereafter, getting compliance with complete forms, timely forms, properly signed forms, proper reporting of Schedule B of Contributors, was, apparently, a matter of “pulling teeth” and multiple notices of incomplete reports, with warnings that failing to file was in violation of two different government codes, ETC.  Reading this material did help me understand the organization and nomenclature a little better, however…It changed its name from “CNAC” to “CACC” in Spring 2014… The July 2015 image (image of “Notice” from Attorney General Kamala Harris’s (at the time) Office) below reflects the name change.

Total results: 3Search Again. (Actual current entity name isn’t as shown (though its Form 990 shows the older website, “CNAC.org”) but “Children’s Advocacy Centers of California.” Click through to see…

Notice a financial pattern, from an organization that only got it together to incorporate in 2008, get its EIN# in 2009, and finally register as a charity in 2010?…. (Declining total assets…).

California Network of Child Advocacy Centers CA 2015 990EZ 13 $45,405.00 81-0675334
California Network of Child Advocacy Centers CA 2014 990EZ 13 $62,391.00 81-0675334
California Network of Child Advocacy Centers CA 2013 990 19 $103,975.00 81-0675334

Click to enlarge 2015 “Notice of Incomplete Report” for CACC, Inc. a California Entity which Calico claims to be operating as a program, which belatedly incorporated (and filed as a charity) long afterwards…

Among irregularities in the latest return above:  Receiving an exactly $50,000 grant (filing Form 990EZ avoids telling if it was gov’t grant or not, in part or in whole) and claiming $51K of expenses in “Chapter Support” AND by avoiding listing its “Executive Director” claiming no Officer or Director was paid anything — then claiming $37K of the $51K “Expenses” as Executive Director Salary….

That is, deliberately mis-labeling categories of expenses..

Link to Charitable Details (pdfs shown should be active links too):  Childrens Advocacy Ctrs of Calif (fomerly CNAC) EIN#810675334 only registered when forced to, 2008) Char Details (3pp) Revs now under 50K again (<==This is a multi-page “pdf” with active links on the “related documents” section).

The other website also strategically avoids actually identifying itself, while claiming to be simultaneously an entity (i.e., an “accredited chapter” of National Children’s Alliance) AND a program…

A program is a program.  A corporate entity (for-profit or not-for-profit) is a corporate “person” — not a “program.”  Programs are what “persons” run, they are not the “persons” themselves.  But this type of double-talk seems to work well for PR and getting a CAC in (almost) every California County (see image from CACC website, below).

The “CAC” model was later adopted (being acknowledged as the  model) in the “Family Justice Center” themes, starting around 2003, focused on the “one-location” and public/private partnership features.

One primary feature, apart from the “one-stop shop convenience” frequently advertised, is “fiscal obfuscation” when a public/private partnership houses several nonprofits, with, in the case of “Calico” (I just looked) from early on, apparently putting a deputy district attorney on payroll, and recording it under “Other Expenses” (FY2000 return) and, nowadays, characterizing a local county’s chapter as running the statewide organization which, translated practically, means, distributing $197K in small installments, some to nonprofits, and some to hospitals, and several $9,000 installments to out-of-the-area district attorney’s offices!  While running a budget deficit (spending more than is taken in) and with only 12 employees, and a single executive director paid by “related entity” — but the available tax returns I saw fail to record any Sched R officially identifying any “related entity.”

I’ll “post it” separately.  But FYI, here are the Calico Center Form 990 IRS tables (it started in 1997).  To see earlier year’s returns (I was surprised to get as far back as FY2000, but did so), tweak the year in the URL.  There does not appear to have been a change in fiscal year end (from June 30) since it started… FY2016 return hasn’t showed up yet…

Total results: 3. Search Again.

Calico Center CA 2016 990 38 $709,095.00 94-3256781
CALICO Center CA 2015 990 26 $734,097.00 94-3256781
CALICO Center CA 2014 990 24 $740,658.00 94-3256781

Page 1 of Calico Center FY2000 return displayed in two images here. Click each one to enlarge as needed.

This FY2000, amended, Form 990 for “Calico Center,” representing just its 4th yr of operation, looks like it’s been to hell and back again; and bears date and time stamps fully EIGHT years later!! Nevertheless (see top image) you can see it’s primarily government’ funded by about ¾ of Contributions, and (on the bottom part, this image) I marked the “Program Service Expenses.” Nearby, related image (from the same tax return available from the Calif. OAG RCT Charitable Details website on this org.) shows it listed $120.5K payment to “Deputy District Attorney” . And $75K more to “Executive Director,” whose name doesn’t appear on the tax return (!!) out of total “Other Expenses (sic) $222K

Calico Center, FY 2000, “Other Expenses” reveal payments, substantial salary (if in that form and not on a “1099” or otherwise), to a Deputy District Attorney (was this attorney simultaneously on the county payroll ALSO?) and $75K to an unnamed “Executive Director….while the nonprofit itself is about ¾ government funded in the first place…


First few years of contributions for Calico Center in Alameda County, California.










(See my new page, and I’ll try and get out a separate post on the Calico Center/CACC phenomenon in California ….) Meanwhile, “MOVING ON ….”

(From new Safe & Sound, formerly SFCAPC, website)… because “obviously” this is how to stop child abuse and protect children, it can be diagrammed — using (of course) concentric circles, and then strategic steps including “reproduce to scale” “expand partnerships” and “educate the public.”

(Click to enlarge and read the labels on each new concentric solution level).









(3) Subsequent research on related topics (for example, the nature, operations, and purposes of “community foundations” when it comes to tracking funds to court-connected nonprofits) can shed more light, in hindsight, onto how private money is run through multiple fronts to the local service-providing nonprofit linking straight to the county court systems.  In this (2011 update) example, The San Diego Foundation claims an “affiliate” “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” which granted, it said, $20K to Kid’s Turn about 2010 — but I cannot locate ANY financials for the CCF foundation at all.  That’s not good!

[REASONS, cont’d…]

(4) A closer look also can clarify a detail noted, but not fully explored earlier.  For example, on this review, I looked closer at, and still ask, why are there three (“count’em, 3”) discordant punctuations of the still-surviving “Kid’s Turn San Diego” nonprofit? “What Meaneth This?”:

  • Per California Sec. of State and Office of Attorney General filings both (i.e., articles of incorporation and charitable registration based on it) — it’s “Kid’s Turn San Diego” (singular possessive with apostrophe).
  • On the nonprofit’s letterhead, it’s been “Kids’ Turn San Diego” (plural possessive with apostrophe)
  • On the Charitable Details annual filings (RRF) AND IRS Forms 990, after first few years (entity incorporated 1989, earliest I could view were from 2001) it matched the legal business name, but from 2003ff — it’s been “KIDS TURN SAN DIEGO” (no apostrophe)
  • (Updated Org. Website, viewed currently), KIDS’ TURN San Diego (next image); the inserted line in the logo makes it a little unclear that the whole business name might include the city name:

Website “kidsturnSD.org” viewed New Year’s Day 2018. How often do you see nonprofits, charitable organizations with a “Make a Payment” button right next to Donate”? But this runs classes which parents can be and are court-ordered (i.e., forced) to take, so I guess it only makes sense to make it convenient… I’d sure love to see which accounts each button directs money towards.

Which brings up the questions — <1> why couldn’t or didn’t our original resident parental alienation prevention experts show functional English usage, including how to write a plural possessive in the third person? (kids, plural, was certainly meant; try out the phrase as meaning a singular “kid” and make some sense of it)?  <2> If later leadership slightly more literate than the original (family lawyer and family court judge who founded the organization!) caught the mistake, why not simply correct the organization’s name to match their own letterhead, and follow the same standard for filing tax returns and annual charitable registrations?

Such leadership has experience in amending names of organizations (and doing so is simple enough).  But instead of correcting this, the standard continues — legal entity is shown as “Kid’s,” official annual filings at the federal and state levels omit any apostrophe, and the letterhead (and website) put one in, in a more sensible place.

And, looking at the new website, which continues to skirt the issue of domestic violence, avoid direct mention under “Frequently Asked Questions” describing the length of sessions (while saying, if you miss 15 minutes that’s considered an absence) and identifying the costs (even the registration pages don’t say it up front).  But it was just increased 33.33% (From $300 / $400 per parent) starting March, 2018.  So I’ll add reason #5 for my doing this update:

Total results: 3Search Again.

Kids Turn San Diego CA 2015 990 31 $59,760.00 33-0724932
Kids Turn San Diego CA 2014 990 32 $94,598.00 33-0724932
Kids Turn San Diego CA 2013 990 27 $49,780.00 33-0724932

(KTSD = EI#N33-0724932) Small size (only 6 employees), and to run the classes and pay its staff requires about ⅔ subsidy beyond the $300/parent (apparently) participation fees charged. One CEO is paid $85,000. Its Rev – Expenses last shown as a negative. 

Latest Tax Return available – FY2015 only. (KTSD = EIN#33-0724932) The entity doesn’t file even the simplest tax returns on time, and its board is full of lawyers. See “Gross receipts”.


The nonprofit is continuing to exist (since 1996), take court-ordered business at potentially $800/per family for just four sessions (8 ½ hours). It doesn’t post its financials (Forms 990) or EIN# on the website, and (naturally) makes no mention of the close associations its founding and operations hold with the organization “AFCC,” which has a specific viewpoint towards domestic violence and child abuse seeking to minimize it except when defined as “parental alienation” of children from abusers…

PLEASE NOTE • Effective March 1, 2018, Family Workshop tuition will be $400 per parent. Children continue to be free • If your tuition is paid in full by February 28, 2018, we will honor the 2017 tuition of $300 per parent, even if the Family Workshop starts after March 1, 2018 • We will continue to offer a limited number of partial Family Workshop tuition reduction scholarships for families experiencing financial hardships. (form available under Programs tab, Scholarship Application for Reduced Tuition) YOU DO NOT NEED A PAYPAL ACCOUNT TO PAY ONLINE- JUST A CREDIT CARD *A limited number of partial Family Workshop tuition reduction scholarships are available for families experiencing financial hardships. (form available under Programs tab, ‘Scholarship Application for Reduced Tuition’) .

The overview tactfully avoids mention of the potential for family separation to bear any relationship to Domestic violence (or child abuse of other forms, including battering, mistreatment, taking hostages BY the former perpetrator (which Calif. Penal Code, last I looked, in defining child-stealing by a parent who’d committed DV against the other was labeled as putting the child at risk of emotional abuse, and with proper notice to the DA of the reason, justified it on a temporary basis).

AFCC’s basic position is that NO level of abuse is good enough to justify breaking up the family unit and cutting off contact with one parent — although its judges are known for doing this regularly to nonabusive parents anyhow, resulting in an entire separate “advocacy industry” of nonprofits to address “custody of children going to batterers…”

Participants, whether or not court-ordered to attend, must waive right to subpoena any records from the organization or its staff for use in court as part of initial consent.


This annotated image includes a superimposed image from another part of the same website. Stable Paths, LLC is a Florida corporation.


I have been writing on reunification camps in general, and three or four inter-related and AFCC-related ones still active, in late 2017 in specific: Overcoming Barriers, Family Bridges (Warshak), Transitioning Families, and, because of overlapping personnel, Stable Paths (the last two are LLCs in California and Florida, respectively). The one in California was registered and voluntarily dissolved within less than a single year, while the websites remain up implying it’s still operational.  Stable Paths uses “Transitioning Families” concepts

The theme of “reunification camps,” especially ones involving equine therapy (i.e., horses!) to treat parental alienation (including after familial abductions or in at least one case, kids who ran away from an abusive parent, stating that this is why they did so, to better “relate” to the abusive parent — and if possible treat the ‘preferred” parent under threat therapy (of not EVER seeing his/her children again), or as carrot in the “Carrot-and-stick” behavioral modification tactics, “preferred” parents can take treatment in hopes of getting off supervised visitation (part of the “stick” tactics, obviously) — is established, being promoted in the journals, on websites, among AFCC chapters, and recently in a book published by Oxford University Press. (Next image: Third search result on one of the authors, note: “Global.OUP.com” url -for “Oxford Univ. Press”)

Quick search of “Abigail M. Judge”


Using Charitable Registration Number shown below (in the 2011 post) on the California OAG RCT Verification page, I looked up Kid’s Turn (sic) San Diego, and found it now is displaying “Current” (i.e., a Delinquency shown below was cured).  In image form — something I couldn’t do back then, here it is:

Checking Kid’s Turn San Diego (sic) by Registr# search @ Oct. 2017


The original version of this post was about 18,000 words.  The new one is shorter only because I split it into two parts.

This older (2011) post, not yet on any Table of Contents because of its publication date, came up in a recent Google search on a certain topic.  As an earlier post it needs a lot of repair & maintenance (including removing extraneous lookups and since-broken links), but still contains valuable information (including complaint from a mother on constantly changing billing practices of her own supervised visitation monitor) and some state-jumping registrations for an organizations like Supervised Visitation Network,  and “name anomalies” for “Kid’s Turn San Diego,” “The Carlsbad Charitable Foundations (the latter as a donor to Kids’ Turn SD), the “Family Nurturing Center” (Joseph Nullett, Florida) and the like.

The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation (“CCF” for short) is advertised as a “Proud Affiliate of the San Diego Foundation” and as having been created in 2007 from The San Diego Foundation, and still has a brochure describing grantees including “Kids’ Turn.”

There’s just one minor problem —  CCF is not listed with the Secretary of State OR on the Office of Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG/RCT; see “rct.DOJ.CA.gov/Verification… for the searchable database), while being described as an “proud affiliate” of The San Diego Foundation.

I found no registration in 2011 and wanting to, checked again in 2017 — that’s literally 10 years after formation.  Still coming up empty..

Literally, without identifiable financials to the very foundation claiming to donate to the parental-alienation-prevention spinoff of Kids’ Turn (San Francisco, the earlier one), that means donations to it cannot be identified by source.  While the SF Foundation tax return DOES identify several related tax-exempt entities, it doesn’t identify this one.  And the address implying a separate organization exists (“CarlsbadCharitableFoundation.org”) simply redirects to an SDFoundation.org web address labeled after “CCF.”

A few images to explain comments about CCF in previous paragraphs, these images obtained recently:

I marked references to CCF as an organization and (on the left) reference to its donation to Kids Turn San Diego and a website under the name as if it were a separate entity.  Next image shows the only “Related Entities” on the San Diego Foundation’s (public copy) tax return — it’s not there, either:

I realize that every year, new generations of people (men, women and children) are being “processed” through the family court systems which themselves — and the court-connected corporations involved with them — continue to “evolve” and expand (in fact “evolve” is a misleading term.  There are identified driver organizations and I have over the years of blogging also continued to identify how they network with each other.

Hopefully this continued posting, with review of earlier material, will help newcomers.  One place I guarantee you will NOT get this type (or depth) of information is by joining a mailing list of any of the “broken courts” or “protective parents” mailing lists and going through the newsletters month after month.  Which I know in part because I’ve subscribed over the years, and attempted also to introduce this material to the leaders.  Unfortunately, it seems to conflict with an agenda to NOT teach people to research nonprofits or comprehend just how much they’re up against in any measurable terms — measured by number of organization, or scope of federal grant-making AND court contracts, etc.

Once you start to acknowledge that there ARE such things as court-connected corporations, and some of the basic characteristics of, for example, 501©3 nonprofits or other forms of nonprofit (“trade organizations” whose purposes is, literally, to advance the mutual interests of their membership — not necessarily the public or any other individuals NOT members), it’s more administrative overload and time management than “rocket science” to comprehend.  The biggest obstacle to “seeing” is self-delusion.

Seeing what’s literally taking place – and “literally taking place” can be shown according to government (Sec. of State and Charitable Database Registries + the IRS, supplemented with a lesser probability of straight-talk, organization’s own “About us/History” self-descriptions) — is daunting, can be intimidating, and is only “good” depending on which side of the re-direction of resources one is functioning — for example, whether one works for some of these nonprofits, or contracting with them, or in the civil service sector relating to the family courts — or whether one is among the masses such exist to exert increasing control and population management functions over.

Unfortunately August 31, 2011 was before I was demonstrating much control (through manually altering html codes at the blog level which controls formatting) over font size, type, or even the ability to put quotes within boxes.  Re-working this post is a “project.”  Using the “Add Post” function here reminds me to get to it, whereas leaving it buried under posts 2011 and earlier, might help me for-get it..although I still remember doing some of the internal look-ups, because of their memorable results…

Blogging in this “show-and-tell” style involves repeatedly bringing in quotes form other sources, whether as uploaded images (giving credit of course to source) or as quotes with links to original source.  There are drawbacks to both methods; but before I knew how to upload images, or much html sophistication, the many quotes being in such dissimilar styles can be hard to read.  Add to this, the material is somewhat complex, and you have “It’s complicated!” — referring to presentation method, again, not the basic principles which seem to be in operation.

Another post of similar title was “refurbished” (for formatting) where it stood and that link added to a post I’m thinking about publishing soon (“About Holidays…”) under the title “A Bit About ….”   This one came up in the same search results, but below it :

A BIT about how it’s done — Corporations, Associations, and Changing the Courts through AFCC-based liaisons…. (first published 9/2*/2011*, somewhat reformatted 9/12**/2017**) with case-sensitive, word-press-generated post ending “-QJ”

Below here (until I engage in any editing or clean-up) is the former post html, “As-Is.”  Oct. 2, 2017 4:43pm PST.

Chasing Down Charitable & Corporate Registrations for (more) Court-Connected Nonprofits…

(8/31/2011 post) (I think, and not “Page”)

cAnd moreover, what about all these grantor/grantee relationships with corporations that don’t seem (note disclaimer) to be even operating legally in California?  While the promise is that 25 SF courthouses must be shut because of budget cuts….

And I don’t just mean Kids’ Turn /  San Diego, which at least were incorporated here legally, but is now (per the databases) on suspended status, charity registrations delinquent.

Kids’ Turn

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

Incorporation status suspended for the San Francisco branch (top row), but not the San Diego (which was a spinoff nonprofit).

UPDATE: ENTITY #C1657442 “SUSPENDED / CLAIRE BARNES” merged into “San Francisco Child Abuse Prevention Center” (the “surviving entity”) in 2014, which as recently as Sept. 26. 2017, changed its name to ‘Safe & Sound.”  An updated Secretary of State database provided some images on the merger.

I only was able to locate the former Kid’s Turn charitable records at the California OAG/RCT website by looking for an EIN# on “Form 990 finder,” which still reflected the older name, then searching by that EIN# (#942455072) on the site again with the strange result of showing the “merged out” Kid’s Turn” Forms 990 and RRFs under the name “SAFE & SOUND” on the cover sheets and Charity Registry “Details” page, labeled “merged out” but not one underlying document actually reads “Safe & Sound”  or “SF CAPC.”  …   By carefully choosing the “Current” Safe & Sound  Charitable registration # from those search results, I could then go to the charitable Details (and “Related Documents”) showing an older (1976) and larger (FY2015 – $9M contributions, $14M assets) entity which, as it turns out, hasn’t provided the California OAG (OR, the California OAG hasn’t uploaded it yet) any tax return for 2016.

IN being asked to list its “government contractors” it mixed a list of government entities (SF Superior Court and “Dept of CFS” equivalent) along with private entities confirming it was working with the National Children’s Alliance and “California Centers for Child Abuse Prevention”)

Click to enlarge.  This org. was larger in 2001 than the (merged into it in 2014) Kid’s Turn San Diego, and by FY2015 had $9M revenue

FY2015 RRF (annual charity registr form for Calif) for what’s now called “Safe & Sound” but previously (see signature line) SFPAC. The attachment responds to the RRF’s question ” Did you receive any government funding this year? “Yes” answer on p.1. Small print, but you can see some gov’t entities, some nonprofits are identified..

Sept. 26. 2017 namechange of “SFCAPC” to “Safe & Sound” AFTER the Aug. 2014 merger. Note: FY2016 990 missing at both “990finder” and at California OAG websites. 2017 isn’t even due til April 15, 2018…

From California SOS Detail (pdf image available) under “Merged Out” Entity# for “Kid’s Turn”

A bit much to show here; may show separately.   Good grief! .. A few more images taken (actually, New Year’s Eve, 2017):

Search Results (initial level) on the EIN# — apart from the Raffles, notice there are two charities with the same name, but different registration numbers. Neither name reflects anything a person who hadn’t already done some research on the company would be likely to know; and may or may not yet be reflected on the current charity’s website. In an active search, another level of “Char. Details” opens up when you click on a charity (or raffle) active link on left column…

Read image and annotations for more detail.

Calif. SOS level, face sheet with 3 available pdfs to look at under the “merged out” KID’s TURN.” Note this doesn’t say “KIDS’ (plural) TURN”


Table shown back in 2011:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
KID’S TURN 075606 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity
KID’S TURN, SAN DIEGO 102902 Charity Delinquent SAN DIEGO CA Charity Registration Charity

[2017 update.  Compare the columns shown with those on the image above, which adds a FEIN# column). I’ll repeat the search and see what comes up this time. Kid’s Turn (representing the one in SF) does not.  However, proof that the State Registry has mis-placed the apostrophe (defeating a name search) can be seen by a Nov. 13, 2015 letter from the San Diego entity sending its annual “RRF” form for 2014 (7 months late – although WHY is questionable; it’s not that large an organization to start with).

Only one line-item is marked “charity” – the other two are raffles only. Search run 12/29/2017

That image searched “Kid’s Turn” by name, with deliberately misplaced apostrophe, shows Kid’s Turn SF no longer shows up (search done 12/29/2017). Correcting the name to “Kids’ Turn” is now a “no-results” search.

However, I was surprised (on 2017 review of “Charitable Details” pdfs for this entity) to realize it had, indeed, in corporated and received an EIN# from the IRS under the name shown above (KID’s Turn, not Kids’ “possessive, plural” but singular), at some point (see image from 2015) changed its letter head but not legal name.  From 2003 forward it simply began reporting (judging by RRFs and some IRS Forms, i.e., a spot-check) as if there was NO apostrophe.

This inconsistency isn’t a small matter — it’s a matter of an entity’s legal name, which is associated with an EIN#, which EIN#s and proof of existence are part of opening a bank account. It could easily have adjusted the legal name to match the business letterhead (not that big a deal), but from documents available there, never did. “Go figure.” The FY2013 board of directors (which I see includes at least two well-known AFCC members) shows just one Exec Director paid $80K, a significant chunk of the nonprofit’s budget, to fail to get this straight year after year (and she’s been in place for years).  Next five images added 2017, and I hope self-explanatory without additional captions.  By the way I see it hasn’t turned in a FY2015 OR 2016 Form 990, and its “Status” is marked “In progress.”

1996 articles of organization show punctuation “Kid’s Turn” but after 2002, none of the filings (either RRF or Forms 990) seem to — instead they just omit the apostrophe! Meanwhile, letterhead puts it back in — but after KIDS’. Such ‘attention to detail’ …

FY2013 Form 990 (stamped as received 7 months late) unusually doesn’t yet reflect KidsTurnSD.org website. I thought the one shown refers to the (now defunct) KT in SF…

KID’S (or is it KIDS’ or just KIDS?  (: ) TURN San Diego FY2013 (complete listing) Bd of Directors shows all volunteer except one CEO paid $80K for the job. Notice Constance Ahrons, Robert Simon, well-known AFCC members, and as such, promoters of parental alienation as a form of child abuse–and through “education” (forced, surrounding divorce and custody actions) — to fix or counteract. I notice that its program service revenues under “Tuition” would just barely pay for this CEO (supplemented by fund-raising events and private contributions)..




Minor? note:  The organization’s name is KIDS -apostrophe, so one must move the apostrophe (making it Kid, singular, apostrophe, S) to find on either database by name search alone.

Also, California, unlike some other states doesn’t tell the on-line viewer WHEN the license was suspended, i.e., before or after outreach such as this:


Dateline:  San Francisco, California Kids’ Turn formally announces its partnership with Relate and National Family Mediation — two charities in Great Britain scheduled to pilot Kids’ Turn’s curriculum in Fall, 2011. This collaboration is the result of creative international colleagues who let go of ‘attachment to the facts’ believing in the value of shared ideas. We acknowledge the centuries’ old British social service system as the model for social work in the United States. The fact Relate and NFM are willing to implement innovations developed in San Francisco speaks to their commitment to offer evidence-based services to improve the lives of British children negatively impacted by parental separation.

Yes I do believe swallowing some of this would indeed call for release from “attachment to the facts” including that this San Franicsco organization has some really strange financial liaisons.

Or, I wonder if Linda Brandes was able to claim her $10,000 donation to Kids’ Turn San Diego, as their charitable status is delinquent, still, also in 2011:

Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes gives Kids’ Turn San Diego a $10,000 grant

[Update: This link no longer connects to the article; a search for Linda Brandes didn’t go back before 2013, and no obvious “archives” link is shown on the site.]

(Posted May 25, 2011 in the Rancho Santa Fe Review)

Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.

2017 add-in: “The Linda Brandes Foundation.”  <==The 990PF form provides website but without current version of Adobe’s “Flash” nothing, at all, shows. I did locate the 2011 grant referenced above and saw it has only one other director, based in Salt Lake City, Utah and (that year) gave two grants over $200K, one to an art institute, and the other to “Etta and Lee Family Services.”

Total results: 3Search Again.

Linda Brandes Foundation CA 2015 990PF 19 $8,572,404.00 56-2511857
Linda Brandes Foundation CA 2014 990PF 20 $9,126,533.00 56-2511857
Linda Brandes Foundation CA 2013 990PF 23 $9,649,321.00 56-2511857


[missing image place-holder deleted]

Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.

Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.

“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.

For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

March 2, 2011 letter from the California Department of Justice (in file, on-line):

[From:] State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1300 I STREET P.O. BOX 903447 SACRAMENTO CA 94203-4470

Telephone: (916)445-2021×5 Facsimile: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail: RRF1@doj.ca.gov


March 9, 2011



The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $50 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.


Tony Salazar Staff Services Analyst Registry of Charitable Trusts

for:  KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General

Now that they have another donation, they can afford the $50 check. I see no “our check is in the mail” response, perhaps one was sent.  And another letter:

Another letter a week later, same file# (CT 102902) reminds Kids’ Turn San Diego, California needs KT to fill out (not just send partial details) their list of donors, i.e., a “Schedule B,” just like you have to file with the IRS (“oops!”).    Too busy with international expansions of the programs, or is list of donors too hot to touch?

RE: IRS Form 990, Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors

We have received the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF submitted by the above-named organization for filing with the Registry of Charitable Trusts (Registry) for the fiscal year ending 12/31/2010. The filing is incomplete because the copy of Schedule B, Schedule of Contributors, does not include the names and addresses of contributors.

While you and I don’t get this private information (barring anything on the web), it’s nice to know someone is keeping track.

The copy of the IRS Form 990, 990-EZ or 990-PF, including all attachments, filed with the Registry must be identical to the document filed by the organization with the Internal Revenue Service. The Registry retains Schedule B as a confidential record for IRS Form 990 and 990-EZ filers.

Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please submit a complete copy of Schedule B, Schedule of

Contributors, for the fiscal year noted above, as filed with the Internal Revenue Service. all correspondence to the undersigned.

I learned this from “Don Kramer’s Nonprofit Issues” (i.e., I looked up the IRS form # footnoted on the KT San Diego letter) and learned:

Is a nonprofit required to report anonymous donors to the IRS?  Several colleagues have said that it is illegal for a nonprofit to not disclose an anonymous donor to the IRS.  Schedule B of the Form 990 provides a listing of major contributors but I have seen 990s that list the amounts without disclosing names.

You are both right.  Nonprofits of all types, not just 501(c)(3) charities, that file a Form 990, 990-PF or 990-EZ tax information return are required to identify substantial donors (generally donors of $5000 or more) to the IRS on Schedule B, and must include the names and addresses of the donors.  But organizations other than private foundations and Section 527 political organizations may eliminate the names and addresses of donors when they make the Schedule available for public inspection. Therefore, you are undoubtedly correct that you have seen Schedule Bs without names of donors, and your colleagues are correct that the names must have been disclosed to the IRS.

this suggests (but of course doesn’t prove) that the charity in question here (helping kids and parents deal with divorce, right) may have failed to disclose donors of over $5,000 — possibly the figures didn’t add up to the grants received, I don’t know.

The fact that 501(c)(4) advocacy groups and 501 (c)(6) trade associations are not obligated to publicly disclose the names of their donors has made them a very attractive vehicle for people who want to engage in political campaign advertising anonymously.  In theCitizens Unitedcase, the U.S. Supreme Court said corporations could engage in campaign advertising. Since (c)(4)s and (c)(6)s are permitted to support or oppose candidates in election campaigns—unlike 501(c)(3) charities that can lose their exemption for electioneering—many have opted to use anonymous donations for this new activity.


Someone should maybe also contact the “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” who awarded KTSan Diego $20,000 to do at least four workshops for about 100-120 families in Carlsbad “experiencing” divorce and child-custody “disputes.”

Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awards nonprofit grants
13 months ago | 449 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo

From left, Carlsbad Charitable Foundation Grants Chairman Tom Applegate hands over the grant money check to Interfaith Community Services representatives Greg Anglea, Lara Velde and Mary 0Ferro, along with CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Murchison Finocchiaro. CCF also awarded a grant to Kids’ Turn San Diego. Courtesy photo

CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation awarded more than $44,000 to Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services for their efforts in promoting a more civil society in Carlsbad. The awards were presented at CCF’s third annual Grants Award ceremony at the Agua Hedionda Lagoon Discovery Center in Carlsbad on June 29. 

Kids’ Turn San Diego will receive $20,000 to provide no less than four workshops, each lasting four weeks, for approximately 100 to 120 families in Carlsbad experiencing divorce or child-custody disputes. The workshops address the emotional impact that these issues have on children and provide guidance on more effective communication techniques for all members of the family, such as anger management.

And what’s more, they reduce parental alienation, right?
Interfaith Community Services will receive $24,545 to assess resources, existing programs and specific opportunities for social outreach at each Carlsbad faith center. ICS will conduct one-on-one meetings to identify discussion points for Carlsbad’s faith-based community and spearhead at least two community-wide town hall meetings to further galvanize all faith communities/congregations around specific issues.

CCF Grants Chairman Tom Applegate noted that collective resources of Carlsbad’s 40-plus faith communities will be more effectively utilized to help persons in need. . . .

With all those faith communities and enough finances to go around, one might think that there’d be fewer divorces and out-of-wedlock births to start with.  (:

CCF Board Chairwoman Yvonne Finocchiaro said that grants were made possible through the contributions of the members of The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation. “We’re extremely honored to support Kids’ Turn San Diego and The Interfaith Community Services commitment to our community,” she said. “The intent of these donations is to support activities and programs that unify and inspire Carlsbad residents to make a positive difference in the future of our city.”

Kids’ Turn SD has great reasons to be committed to Carlsbad’s Community — see median household income.

Carlsbad’s median income (per its site, whatever date), $92,249, and there are 2.55 people per household.

I can see how that would be stressful, custody of that extra burdensome 0.55 child, occasioning many divorce “disputes.”   The Top 10 employers of this 65,000 population city & average employee salary of $49K, with 40 faith communities, 1% African-American residents, and almost every other adult having a bachelor’s degree, plus 12% master’s or higher,  being:

Top 10 employers (2007)

1,429 Callaway Golf
1,172 Life Technologies Corporation (Invitrogen Corporation)
1,169 Carlsbad Unified School District
1,014 La Costa Resort and Spa
874 Park Hyatt Aviara Resort
862 LEGOLAND California
854 ViaSat, Inc.
797 Gemological Institute of America
714 City of Carlsbad
694 TaylorMade (Adidas Golf)

The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation is an affiliate of the San Diego Foundation, apparently (nothing is listed directly under that name, as my searches below show):

703 Palomar Airport Rd , Carlsbad , CA 92011 | 760-269-3882


The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation’s mission is to “advance philanthropy in Carlsbad in order to build community excellence, stimulate innovation and enhance the capacity of nonprofits.” Every year the foundation splits the total amount of donations in half. One half goes to grants for the year; the other goes specifically to the Carlsbad endowment, which is for the advancement of the community. CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation.

Or, in their own words:

Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation in 2007. This community-specific effort helps meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.

1. What is the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
Inspired by the desire to build philanthropy in Carlsbad that would have impact immediately and forever, a group of citizens partnered with The San Diego Foundation to establish the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation (CCF) in 2007. This community-specific effort would help meet the emerging needs of Carlsbad by encouraging and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy by and for those living and working in Carlsbad.


4. What is The San Diego Foundation?
Founded in 1975, The San Diego Foundation was created by and for the people of the San Diego region. Its purpose is to promote and increase effective and responsible charitable giving. The Foundation manages nearly $500 million in assets, almost half of which reside in permanent endowment funds. Since its inception, The Foundation has granted more than $600 million to nonprofits serving the community.
5. What does it mean that CCF is an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation?
As an affiliate, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation benefits from the experience and management of The San Diego Foundation. The San Diego Foundation provides such back-office support as investment management, staffing, marketing and expertise. In return, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation shares with The San Diego Foundation its local knowledge of the emerging needs and causes important to the Carlsbad community.
6. Who may participate in the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation?
The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation encourages everyone who lives, works, and plays in Carlsbad to participate in the Foundation.

7. What is an endowment?

(on the SAN DIEGO SITE):

For Nonprofits

The San Diego Foundation is honored to be able to claim $60 million in grants to community causes last year, but we cannot take all the credit. Over ninety percent of our annual grants are driven directly by our donors. These are individuals, families, and corporations recommending grants from Donor Advised Funds to the organizations and causes that are important to them.
In addition to Donor Advised Funds, The San Diego Foundation’s program grants fund nonprofits through a competitive application process. Program grants cover subject areas such as arts and culture, civil society, the environment, health & human services, and science & technology.

. . .

Donor Advised Funds

Donor Advised Funds

[Broken Image Placeholder @ 2017]

Donor advised funds allow you to be actively involved in the granting process. Through an agreement with The San Diego Foundation, a donor’s contribution establishes a fund named by the donor. The Fund is managed and administered by The San Diego Foundation, but the donor may be the fund advisor and advise The Foundation about preferences regarding grant recipients and gift amounts. Distributions are made in the fund’s name and the donor receives regular financial statements. As the fund is considered part of The San Diego Foundation’s holdings, it receives the maximum tax benefits and the donor is not responsible for the tax filings.

Designated Funds  (note the photo chosen — things “kids” are great fundraiser causes).

Designated Funds

[Broken Image Placeholder @ 2017]

Designated funds are gifts that provides a source of support to a nonprofit organization selected by the donor. Often this gift is made in the form of an endowment fund. In an endowment, the principal is invested and only a portion of the income is paid out. The remaining income is returned to principal to protect the value of the endowment over time. This option provides support for your fund now and forever.
With a designated fund, at the outset, the donor designates one or more charities who will receive the earnings on the fund in perpetuity. Grant checks are mailed automatically once or twice a year, with the donor choosing the best time or according to The Foundation’s schedule of March and/or September. Donors may also opt to reinvest the earnings until the fund grows to an amount desired by the donor. Fees associated with the designated fund are particularly inexpensive, at 0.5%.
To establish a designated fund, or to learn more information, contact our charitable giving team at GivingTeam@sdfoundation.org or 619-235-2300.


The San Diego Foundation holds raffles, and registered for one in 2009 which raised “$42,564.66.”

Its filings (under the OAG site) show this for 2002 (earliest year shown):

Annual Renewal Information
Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-02
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-03
Total Assets: $361,600,036.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $717,938,952.00
RRF Received: 19-NOV-03
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

and this for 2009 (latest year shown): (notice difference in revenue, but increased assets):

Fiscal Begin: 01-JUL-09
Fiscal End: 30-JUN-10
Total Assets: $466,087,961.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $63,742,314.00
RRF Received: 15-NOV-10
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted


2018 Comments: IMAGES of the “Schedules” show an unusual dip in revenues (by about 90%) in a certain year.  Where it started out with a certain amount of assets and revenues (Gross), the bottom of the same chart shows, despite vastly reduced quantity of “Gross revenues” in recent years, the total assets held has grown and stayed high.  Of course, that’s how stockpiled wealth (if managed well, and kept “tax-exempt”  works in the first place.

Meanwhile, the sheer quantity of money moved by way of “Contributions” every single year defies quanitifcation — or management.  But apart from that, the other thing that really concerns me is how hard it is to locate an EIN# OR FINANCIAL RECORDS FOR that “CCF” (Carlsbad Charitable Foundation) which allegedly gave Kids’ Turn San Diego $20,000 in 2010, just a few years after its own startup, per the brochure on the SD Foundation website (which annotated images are posted herein).

From San Diego Foundation, Charitable Details (at the California RCT) viewed Jan. 2018, starting at the top of the page.


From San Diego Foundation, Charitable Details (at the California RCT) viewed Jan. 2018 (Bottom section of “Schedule” — notice the $$ amounts, Assets (top figure each year) cf. to Revenues (second $$ figure each year). FY2004 (very top row) Revenue is $678M, next year, FY2005, it’s suddenly 1/10th of that at only $68M (I checked tax returns, which show same amounts…)

Organization DetailsEIN:952942582Name:The San Diego Foundation — GoogleLocation: 2508 Historic Decatur Rd Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92106 Report Address ChangeCounty:San Diego CountyRuling Date:1975   (Approximate year when founded)IRS Type:501(c)(3) – Public charity: Religious, educational, charitable, scientific, and literary organizations…Legal basis for public charity or private foundation status (FNDNCD):15 – Organization with a substantial portion of support from a governmental unit or the general publicNTEE: T31 – Community FoundationsMost recently completed fiscal year (TAXPER)06/2010Total Revenue$63,742,314Total Assets:$466,087,961

Organization Mission Statement and Purpose

The San Diego Foundation improves the quality of life within the San Diego community by promoting and increasing responsible and effective philanthropy.

In 2003, it Amended its bylaws on two points:

2. Article VIII is added to the Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation and shall read as follows:

The Corporation is specifically authorized to obtain licensure as a grants and annuities society pursuant to California Insurance Code Sections 11520 through 11524 and to conduct a grants and annuities business once licensed.

I. of The San Diego Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit

3. been duly approved by the Board of Governors. {{This section of quote doesn’t make sense in hindsight. //LGH 1-3-2018}}

The foregoing amendment of Articles of Incorporation has

4. The Corporation has no members.

Grants and Annuities means one can receive transfers of property, provided the business agrees to pay out to the Transferror — or the Tranferror’s Nominee — an Annuity.  Not just anyone can do it, an organization has to have been in operation for 10 years or more and qualifies according to this code:

SECTION 11520-11524 

11520. The following organizations and persons may receive transfers of property, conditioned upon their agreement to pay an annuity to the transferor or the transferor’s nominee, after obtaining from the commissioner a certificate of authority so to do:

(a) Any charitable, religious, benevolent or educational organization, pecuniary profit not being its object or purpose, after being in active operation for at least 10 years; provided,
nevertheless, that 10 years of active operation shall not be required
in case of:

(1) A nonprofit corporation organized and controlled by a hospital licensed by the State Department of Health Services as a general acute care hospital pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; and

(2) An incorporated educational institution offering courses of instruction beyond high school, organized pursuant to Section 94757 of the Education Code, and which is, and for at least one year has been, qualified pursuant to Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 94700)  of Part 59 of the Education Code to issue diplomas or degrees as defined in Sections 94724 and 94726 of that code;

(b) Every organization or person maintaining homes for the aged for pecuniary profit. . . .

This can be problematic, I imagine, if when elders are receiving public guardianship or being placed under a conservator’s care against their will or improperly, for the sake of access to their property.

What is an Annuity?  Investopedia explains:

What Does Annuity Mean?
A financial product sold by financial institutions that is designed to accept and grow funds from an individual and then, upon annuitization, pay out a stream of payments to the individual at a later point in time. Annuities are primarily used as a means of securing a steady cash flow for an individual during their retirement years.

The root word represents “yearly,” as in “ANNUAL.”

Women’e Enews puts in a few words about Annuities, their types and their purpose:

Annuity Funding Explained

When it comes to annuity funding and annuities in general many people are confused. The problem is often because there are so many different kinds. There’s single or flexible-payment, fixed or variable, and deferred or immediate.

Regardless the type of annuity funding you’re ultimately interested in, all annuities are financial contracts which have been created to provide you with a good source of income in your retirement years    & …..

You can choose from a number of annuity options which include a lifetime income, a guaranteed period income where your beneficiaries would receive any remaining payments, a joint and survivor option for couples as well as many other options that a financial advisor or insurance representative can tell you about

In many cases, options can be mixed and matched to provide you with the best kind of annuity funding possible.

The money contributed to any annuity funding may be in post-tax dollars. The advantage to this is that you can contribute as much money as you would like. However before you put any after-tax savings into any kind of annuity funding, it’s often advisable for you to put the maximum pre-tax amount into a retirement plan.

When an annuity is used to fund a retirement plan, contribution limits usually apply. Federal tax laws also generally require that you begin taking minimum distributions by April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which you reach age 70.

Annuity funding earnings are taxed as ordinary income.

A few more comments on annuities, endowments, and related financial/investment terminology;

I’m a novice in this and I’ll BET that Title IV-A people and others impoverished through violence (or the court battles) or just life, are not educated about these things.  That we aren’t is a factor of our school systems and family systems, most likely.

How interesting, because what the child support / fatherhood systems emphasize is getting everyone into a low-income job, garnishing the wages for child support (or don’t) and then, as I like to point out, lose track of it at the state or county level, while splitting the difference with the Feds 66%/34% for a well-behaved State SDU (Statewide Distribution Unit), or failing to report interest income — which can be considerable — if they are not.

How the HHS/OIG/OAS responds to the un-accounted for collected child support  is a concerted attempt to get their 66% but a hands-washing response to, they’re only overseeing, not controlling operations, when the situation is pretty much in epidemic proportions country-wide.   Where the child support programs WORK is when groups like Maximus, Inc. & MDRC, CPR and PSI etc. get their contracts in, their CEO’s get paid (a LOT) and stock values for shareholders manages to stay above water, even if it loses some value.  Meanwhile, what the children are getting, if they’re lucky is a child support allotment that makes it through, is not too substantially compromised, and may represent wages at (judging from what they program materials say they are aiming to help with) perhaps $8.00 to $12.00/hour, not including taxes withheld.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

While there are all kinds of plans for certain types or classes of people (including financially savvy and/or endowed, or sucessful businesspeople or investors) to figure out how to have monthly income — enough to live on, plus some — til they breathe their last breath, even at 80 or 90  years old — and typically its WOMEN living much longer — the philosophy for the vast masses being coached and think-tanked/policy-driven by people that live like this, is that the real cause of widespread poverty includes only one income earner in a household, i.e., fatherlessness and single-motherhood.

I do believe that even my children in elementary school (at least MY kids at that age) could figure out that if one wishes to end up with the number “5” one might add 2+ 3 or 4 +1.  Or one might even go, if x=4,    3x-7 and come up with 5, meaning what one needs to live on.  The factors can be adjusted.

But somehow we are not to calculate the possibility of variety in income when it comes to marital dissolution and fatherhood movements, or child support program evolution, and the need of judges and attorneys to run nonprofits teaching parents anger management, and (once we learn the background of this) giving them plenty of opportunity to practice, although not regarding the other partner so much as who is forcing this on couples already under financial stressor called divorce? and dealing with the family court’s elimination of the concept that a crime is a crime, even if it was committed by someone you previously had a sexual relationship with.

No mention of where that income comes from; the presumption is always jobs only,  or possibly jobs and child support.  Not, for example, ANY form of passive income such as may come from a trust, a foundation, investments, annuities, assignment of rents, royalties on books, or virtually anything that would NOT involve being easier to find and control (and/or threaten) by the IRS.  Not on any form of initiative taking by the single parent(s), or for that matter low-income married parents.

In other words, “wealth” knows how to consolidate, aggregate, distribute according to wealth’s understanding of how not to pay taxes, after which it can tell significant others (like employees in some of their corporations) how to work jobs in which taxes ARE paid.  Last I heard, such things are NOT taught in the public schools K-12; they are still working on reading, period, and basic math, plus how to stand in line without bullying someone else.

So, in 2003, The San Diego Foundation (still solvent, on the books) gets into the grants and annuities business around 2003.  They have every right to.  I’m just pointing it out they did….

The New York Times Reports:

Promising security, U.S. annuities business takes on a new life

(By Paul Sullivan  Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 in The New York Times)

  • BOSTON — Wall Street swings between fear and greed. With U.S. stock markets hitting record highs this month, greed seems to be back in the saddle.

Still, the current wave of retirees, the first of the baby boomers, is as fearful as any group leaving the work force has ever been, many still shell-shocked from the bursting of the technology bubble five years ago, which wiped out huge paper gains.

This group is now looking at a future without gainful employment and only their often diminished portfolios to fall back on.

They do not like what they see.

“People are more fearful and realistic,” said John Diehl, head of the retirement solutions group for the Hartford, an insurance company. “There was no fear in the late 1990s. Being respectful of the markets is a good thing. People have started to think the market doesn’t always return 20 percent.”

Enter the annuities salesmen. The once-stodgy insurance product is having a resurgence. New York Life, one of the largest providers of annuities, has had an annual growth rate of 75 percent from 2003 to 2007, according to Mike Gallo, senior vice president in the guaranteed lifetime income department.

The growth in annuities has tapped into this fear. In the old days, people were wary of annuities because they locked up assets and distributed a payment only as long as the policyholder lived. But the industry has become more sophisticated. New products have guarantees for life, adjust for inflation and, at their most sophisticated, allow people access to some or, in extreme cases, all of the principle.   [sic — that should be “principal,” in context, right?]

[Meaning “principal,” I think, right?]

ALL YOU NEED FOR $5,000/month in retirement is to put down $100,000, sure!

(not including what a $$ will buy at that time…..)

The difference, he said, is that the most popular annuities now offer a living benefit drawn from an income stream, which can rise with any increase in the value of the underlying principle, while carrying a guarantee that the payout will never fall below the initial amount.

The guarantee is financed by building derivative-style collars into the structure of the underlying portfolio to cap potential losses.

Yeah, like we all  know what is a derivative-style collar.  Some people in alternative lifestyles, about dog collars, from dog-walking & pet-sitting….

With such a variable annuity plan, “people aren’t as worried about inflation as they are with a traditional payout annuity,” he said. While the payout may remain constant in percentage terms, the cash amount will rise if inflation – or skillful investment – swells the amount of the underlying fund.

And this is what today’s retirees – without the pension plans their parents had, and uncertain of the continued existence of Social Security – want.

The top concern of the baby boomers nearing retirement is, ‘Do I have enough money to last for the rest of my life,’ ” said Doug Wolff, vice president for business development at Security Benefit, a provider of annuities in Topeka, Kansas. “We’ve seen a major shift from ‘Who can develop the best death benefits?’ to ‘Who can develop the best product to guarantee some minimum investment amount?’ “

Quite different from some people, with more than 0.55 child per household, whose concern is staying alive & housed/fed til next week.

Providers of annuities today encourage people to buy enough coverage for basic expenses, from food to taxes, plus a little bit more. The average portion of a portfolio placed in annuity is 25 percent to 33 percent and most insurers limit a 65-year-old to 75 percent, to ensure the retention of sufficient liquid assets. Coverage of basic expenses can be achieved with either a traditional immediate annuity – the buyer puts $100,000 in and receives a fixed percentage of the initial value, typically 5 percent, every month – or with a variable annuity that guarantees a minimum withdrawal benefit.

. . .   Can get a little complicated . . . . .

Something similar can be accomplished with a joint-survivor annuity – essentially paying out for two lives. A further refinement can be added in the form of a cash-refund feature that pays to the heirs whatever principle is left at death.

What kind of writer in the business doesn’t know how to spell “principal” when that’s what he or she is referring to?

The next wave of innovation is expected to produce annuities that look to address the large health care bills that many retirees will face as they age, Wolff said.

Pricing all of these permutations of annuities can be complicated. There is one constant, however: The more guaranteed features that are attached – from joint-survivor to inflation adjustment – the higher the cost and the lower the percentage payout.

Jack Lemery, a former chief investment officer for Paul Revere Life Insurance, which sold annuities, maintained that this should dissuade people from putting any money at all into an annuity. Lemery is now a portfolio manager at Emerson Investment Management in Boston, where he has sworn off annuities.

(Again, I have been quoting:  Promising security, U.S. annuities business takes on a new life By Paul Sullivan  Published: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 in The New York Times.  The link is still good 10+ years later (@Jan. 2018)

How I’d look up a foundation nowadays — although I see back in 2011 I was also accessing the California OAG Registry of Charitable Trusts.  I just didn’t know how to display the images from what was found there (for example, some of the incomplete letters quoted in part above, as to “KID’S TURN” So-called….

EIN# is 952942582, I’d go to “990finder.foundationcenter.org” and look it up, in addition to the Verification page on the California Registry of Charitable Trusts, from which I frequently quote throughout this blog.

Total results: 3Search Again.

San Diego Foundation CA 2016 990 145 $666,541,014.00 95-2942582
San Diego Foundation CA 2015 990 312** $682,411,787.00 95-2942582
San Diego Foundation CA 2014 990 137 $667,301,267.00 95-2942582

**Typically this high page count might represent the organization opting to display only 3 grantee names/page on its “Schedule I of Grants to Governments and Other Organizations or Individuals in the United States” — as opposed to the about a dozen a page possible.  However, only looking at the document will tell for sure.  Maybe they attached some financial statements or other documents…

(I looked — no, that’s not the cause of the length.  Schedule I grants for this primarily grant-making (and assets management) company were listed about 10/page.  They were only organized, however, in descending order by $$ amount — not alpha by name, and not as some groups do, by their standard classifications (Education, Religion-Related, Human Services, etc.).  I also found a $300,000 grant to itself listed there…   It’s just a long tax return!).  FY2015 also represented a name change for the organization, says its page 1, top left (apparently, adding the word “The” to “San Diego Foundation.”)


Well, in 2006 “The Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was founded (same EIN# as San Diego) and began raising some money, part of which they obviously gave to Kids’ Turn to run classes in THEIR neighborhoods, too.  Sounds from the description at around around  $200 per four-week session per family ($20,000 for four-weeks for 100 – 120 couples).



Since its inception in 2006, the Carlsbad Charitable Foundation has granted $142,731 and has grown to 147 members, with an endowment of $311,000. This year CCF will focus their grantmaking on the environment in Carlsbad.

Grantees 2007-2008
Carlsbad Unified School District $20,000
Biztown $23,780

Grantees 2008-2009
San Diego Hospice $28,406
North County Community Services $12,500
Interfaith Community Services $12,500

Grantees 2009-2010
Kids’ Turn San Diego $20,000
Interfaith Community Services $24,545

For more information visit www.carlsbadcharitablefoundation.org.

BEFORE I FOUND OUT THAT THE “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” was an affiliate of The San Diego Foundation, I went looking for it, unsuccessfully, in the usual places and found a few more interesting groups.

I cannot locate any business, or charity, called “Carlsbad Charitable Foundation” on either site where they are to be registered.  There are 20 results to “Carlsbad Foundation” search.

Apparently this contribution was made, or at least announced, “13 months ago.” In the interim, Carlsbad Foundation’s charitable status seems to have held — but the organization’s name above is “Carlsbad CHARITABLE Foundation” — not the same entity:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CARLSBAD FOUNDATION 124543 Charity Current CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity

Actually, that’s fairly strange as there is only ONE annual RRF (charitable registration) form on file, and for the first 6 years, no IRS filings, then after that approximately just about zero (or close to, relatively speaking) assets OR gross (not net) revenue.

For example, Apr 2009-March 2010, they reported a whopping $220.00 (so how did the $20,000.00 get to Kids’ Turn?  I am such a novice in this field, I don’t see it..)  From April 2010 to March 2011, they had zero revenue.

Carlsbad Foundation’s President (at least in 2010), Jim Comstock, (and the foundation’s address is his office, Comstock & Associates,) is a tax, financial and estate planning professional, so I assume he knows better than I how to pull that off legally:


There are also  least 75 Marriage and Family Therapists (probably some overlap with the 40 Faith Communities) in Carlsbad, including two in the suite right next to Mr. Comstock and, including them, 15 on the same street, perhaps within two blocks (judging by street #s only).  There are fully 20 foundations incorporated in Carlsbad (Search “Carlsbad Foundation) only 4 (and not this one) with “suspended” status:

Entity Number: C2530851
Date Filed: 04/24/2003
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
Agent for Service of Process: JIM COMSTOCK
Agent Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Agent City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008

Though it incorporated 2003, the ruling date shows (NCCSDataweb) as only 2007.   In 2004, however, they filed with the IRS — only tax return showing here:

There are a lot of blanks and “x”s up, including (NOT checked)< “Check here if your receipts are normally under $25,000.”   There are 3 officers, Jim & Linda Comstock, plus Glen Blavet, who appears on Corporation Wiki (for what that’s worth) associated with 2 other corporations.

I looked under “CCF,” but don’t feel like laboring through the entire list.  However, under “Carlsbad Foundation” again, this entry is interesting:

Entity Number: C2980846
Date Filed: 02/13/2007
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2755 JEFFERSON STREET, SUITE 102
Entity City, State, Zip: CARLSBAD CA 92008
Agent for Service of Process: ** RESIGNED ON 12/02/2010
Agent Address: *
Agent City, State, Zip: *

(see address).

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
CARLSBAD COMMUNITY FOUNDATION Charity Not Registered CARLSBAD CA Charity Registration Charity

There are, like, 3 people involved in this one, apparently.  I’m not going to track them down, now that I know the Kids’ Turn grantor was under some other umbrella.

It does make me wonder whether a Donor couldn’t just set up funding and then somehow direct it towards certain charities and not get very well monitored, so long as they keep the amount low enough not to call attention to itself (read on):


The San Diego Foundation, having been started original (it says) with 11 people, is still active corporate status: (There are 269 results for “The San Diego Foundation”), which shows you what good management can do.

Entity Number: C0735981
Date Filed: 05/09/1975
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106
Agent for Service of Process: MICHAEL PATTISON
Agent Address: 2508 HISTORIC DECATUR RD., STE.200
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO CA 92106

And, yes, their 2010 IRS 990 does indeed acknowledge a grant of $22,500 to Kids’ Turn San Diego for “Human Services” (the form is 99 pages long, search the name!)      the grantees (for under $100,000) are asked, in return, to inform the foundation of their “Successes and Challenges” in meeting the conditions for the grant.  As KT is all about communication to start with, and the nonprofit clearly is very good with PR, I’m figuring they did this (although it doesn’t seem the registered as a california charity correctly).

FOr Donor Advised grants over $100,000, IF the Donor advisee requests, the foundation can do some more monitoring.  I don’t see that the IRS shows which funds were donor advised or not.  There are several to churches & religious schools, $8,500 to Focus on the Family and (interesting)

$10,000 to the “Los Angeles Family Law Help Center” 205 S. Broadway Suite 500, EIN# 26-1252578, filed under “Civil Society.”   and  $7,750 to the “National Conflict Resolution Center,” 625 Broadway, Suite 1221, San Diego, EIN# 33-0433314

($15,000 to Oral Roberts University in Tulsa) and many more groups, obviously.  The directors (mostly, but not all, unpaid) would not fit on one page, but those who were paid, salaries (not including retirement or benefits plans) was over $1,000,000; understandable for administering so much.

2006 (formation of Carlsbad Charitable…) was not a good year in San Diego, at least in government circles:

Report calls San Diego’s finances reckless, ‘Enron by the Sea

[08-09-2006, found under USAToday]
SAN DIEGO (AP) — The city recklessly and deliberately mismanaged its finances for years, exhibiting disregard for the law and becoming “Enron-by-the-Sea,” according to consultants who investigated how it created a $1.4 billion pension fund shortfall.

San Diego “fell prey to the same type of corruption” that ruined companies including Enron Corp. and WorldCom Inc. and prompted Orange County to file for bankruptcy protection in 1994, said a report by the risk management company Kroll Inc.

The evidence demonstrates not mere negligence but deliberate disregard for the law, disregard for fiduciary responsibility and disregard for the financial welfare of the city’s residents,” the report concludes.

Good thing there are foundations to pick up the slack….

The $20 million report, presented at a City Council meeting Tuesday, offers one of the most detailed accounts of how San Diego created its $1.4 billion pension shortfall that has crippled its ability to borrow money.

The shortfall — the gap between the value of its pension assets and its obligation to retirees — soared after the City Council in 1996 and again in 2002 skipped payments to the pension fund and, at the same time, enhanced retirement benefits.

The fiscal meltdown that resulted sparked investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and the SEC in early 2004. Five former city and pension fund officials were charged with federal fraud and conspiracy in January.

The report outlines a series of recommendations, including creation of an independent audit committee and more authority for the city’s chief financial officer.

“You got a second chance here, folks,” said one of the authors, former chief SEC accountant Lynn Turner. “I think it’s a marvelous city, but you need to change it from being Enron-by-the-Sea to Emerald-by-the Sea.”

The report found that several former city officials likely violated federal securities law and others were negligent.

It says former Mayor Dick Murphy and members of the City Council failed to disclose the extent of the city’s problems to bond investors and for “knowingly and improperly” causing the city to violate state and federal law in its collection of sewage fees.

Arthur Levitt, former chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, was involved in Kroll’s investigation and said the city overcharged homeowners for sewage to subsidize large businesses.

Wow.  Reminds me of the Los Angeles issues with the Department of Water and Power, but that’s another subject.

ANYHOW, Kids’ Turn SAN FRANCISCO, states on its 2010 Annual report (December? 2010) that half its attendees are court-ordered, that it applied for a grant from the FY 2011 AOC (Administrative Office of the Courts) and is pushing a new curriculum, as well as teaching charities in the UK how to operate like itself, presumably:

The following representative results definitely affirm the efficacy of Kids’ Turn’s 2010 services:

• 50% of Kids’ Turn families are Court ordered

That’s efficacy, or that’s a court-connection?  ! !  Who’s on the Board of Kids’ Turn, generally speaking?

However, the first thing readers are told on this report is:

Program 1. Kids’ Turn sustained its very specialized services in five Bay Area Counties serving 700 participants over twelve months. Kids’ Turn enrollment is down slightly, likely attributable to the economy. It is our impression families are struggling to pay our fees and we are making every effort to negotiate reasonable tuition costs based on the particular needs of each situation. We still do not charge children to attend Kids’ Turn, and parents pay on a sliding fee basis depending on their income. Workshop records verify 60% of the families attending Kids’ Turn are in the low- to moderate-income range.1

(the footnote explains that this is because more wealthy people have less tendency to divorce, because there’s more money to support their families…In fact, let me quote it here:   “As per the Huffington Post’s new DIVORCE page (www.huffingtonpost.com), families with higher incomes have a lower divorce rate, likely attributable to the supporting resources available to them to sustain their marriages (therapists, counselors, mediators).**”

Which just goes to show that **It takes a a Village — of AFCC operatives —  for couples to stay married…..  Or so, those operatives believe!   Those who can’t afford it, might end up needing subsidy to attend Kids’ Turn classes by out-of-compliance nonprofits during their breakup.  I would just love to take classes on a sliding fee with people who attribute marital breakup among the not-so-wealthy to inability to pay for a therapist, quoting the Huffington Post…



Seriously now, how does the world manage to keep turning without the advice of these professions?



. . . . {{CONTINUED with minor overlap, ON : Chasing Down … Court-Connected Nonprofits and Their Donors, Part 2 (Kid’s Turn San Diego gets Development Help from Taproot Foundation, Inc.(see ‘Gen3 Draper-Richards Venture Philanthropy’) and SVN, the Supervised Visitation Network (with short-link ending “-8it,” started (post split) New Year’s Day, 2018).


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: