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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

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.

leave a comment »

This post’s title and shortlink: 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.

If I explain the title and context much more, I’ll need to split the post again.  See part 1, or update to the original published Aug. 31, 2011, for the background! Here’s “Part 1” which contains link to the earlier post.

Chasing Down Corporate & Charitable Registrations for Court-Connected Nonprofits” (Such as Kids’ Turn SD, SVN, and others) and Their Donors) [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”].

For this section, apart from format cleanup (mostly of the quotes) the only real “update” I’m doing is some more insight into who is the “TapRoot Foundation” as shown through its financials.. Coming up first in the text below….

Moving on…

Other factoids (again, this is the SF, not the San Diego, group):


Kids’ Turn Development activities have been shaped and modified in order to accommodate the recent recession while simultaneously continuing projects that will help improve and develop our trade mark.

1. Kids’ Turn launched its new logo in January, 2010. Development of the logo was the result of a grant** from the Taproot Foundation and we are very satisfied with the universal image which emphasizes the protective role of parents for the children in their families.

**2018 update comment:The word “grant” there needs to be taken with a grain of salt.  Taproot Foundation (which is a dba for “Tapfound, Inc.” formed only in 2002 in California — more details below) doesn’t do normal “grants” but exists to facilitate “nonprofits which improve society” through “service grants,” i.e., encouraging professional pro bono service.  These are claimed “grants” but are NOT identified AS grants to specific nonprofits, or anyone else, in its Forms 990 — which seems to be the key purpose of the organization, evading that accountability while claiming major benefits to all (and functioning tax-exempt…).

(Header info from Tapfound, Inc. omitted for size; this is Page 1, Summary, of a FY2014 Form 990). Notice Line 13, “grants to others” (which can be expressed as cash or non-cash on corresponding Schedule I) is “0.” Despite its own self-descriptions, this is NOT a “grantmaking” organization in IRS terms. Avoiding naming the grantees thus dodges accountability while it claims to want “transparency” for the pro bono market…. But notice there IS (Line 9 here) “program service revenue” reported. But on Page 2, (next image) NO such revenues are reported where they should be and by IRS Form 990 definition and Part III instructions, must be.

Although it’s quite likely that many people come to Kids’ Turn after violence- or abuse-related separation, followed by family court involvement, court orders for child support, access/visitation grant diversion for fatherhood promotion, and voila — a parent education project….

2. Kids’ Turn launched its new website in December, 2010. This project was also the result of a partnership with the Taproot Foundation. The new website is cleaner and consistent with the unstated emphasis offered by the logo.

Tapfound NYS Charitable Regi for 2004-05 (signed 08, filed 2009?), fiscal year change, shows they got $10K from Oakland Unified School District (!) and $1M contributions. Service? Says

The above link is to a New York State filing (it’s multi-page) and contains a FY2004 (fiscal year change) tax return followed by a brief independent audited financial statement — something not even provided at the State of California Level (although perhaps that roadblock is that State OAG, not TapFound, Inc.).

Two images from this are a bit puzzling — why is a public school district (often complaining about being “strapped for cash” granting this organization a $10,000 GIFT?  We also can see that by its third year of operation, this nonprofit is already attracting $1M of grants…  You can also see among the details that its President Aaron Hurst is claiming payment of  about $65,000 (later that’ll become closer to $150K, increasing rapidly over time…) while in another place, leaving “compensation for Officers Directors, and Trustees” on the tax return blank — i.e., “0.”  I guess a President isn’t an Officer then?

For 2017 update — using the EIN# provided in the next (older) table, search here

TapFound Inc CA 2016 990 40 $2,105,125.00 91-2162645
TapFound, Inc.- New York Office CA 2015 990 32 $2,927,318.00 91-2162645
TapFound, Inc. CA 2014 990 28 $3,575,943.00 91-2162645

TapFound, Inc (dba Taproot Fndtn EIN#912162645 CalEntity (since 2002) 2374009 OAG CHar Details (4pp) -Nothing before FY2007 uploaded ~>FYchanges from and back to calendar yr  (<==this annotated pdf shows a “schedule” of filings and is a good graphic showing growth of the entity over time.  Also that it’s consistently (without exception) filing its RRFs late, and changed its fiscal year twice within a dozen years.  And that the State OAG has failed to upload the earlier year’s documents…)

Database Providers Change over time, too.

Database URL changes: While this earlier Form 990 table came from the same nonprofit’s database (the Foundation Center) I see that the url “prefix,” domain name, and suffix specs (format specifying search results, such as the EIN# and Year/FYmonth-end, etc.) have changed since 2011. Compare:Earlier search results, when individual returns were clicked, would show urls in this format::

  • http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990s/990search/990.php?ein=912162645&yr=200312&rt=990A&t9=A

[that “php? followed by specs for EIN# and Year (YYYYMM format) connected by “&” is similar format to the wordpress url “protocol” I use for editing (although WordPress tries to “helpful” use a different one leading to a streamlined editor which I don’t find as flexible…).

Using same colors (blue, red, green), here’s how the same nonprofit displays its data in tables now:

  • http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/912/912162645/912162645_201409_990.pdf

The search results in the newer format contain less surrounding detail and the color scheme was also changed, although I artificially copy the older colors into it on this blog, to better distinguish IRS Form 990 tables from other tables (for example, from Charitable Registry Search Results) and maintain consistency over time within this blog.

Another notable functional change is that the newer version at “990finder” produced only 3 results per EIN#.  As you can see from the table I printed in 2011, it used to display more.

………Miscellaneous Info to keep in mind from time to time.

Earlier (click on Any “Org Name” below to view) ( I didn’t color it in this time obviously): [[This was available in 2011, but no longer is active in 2018 — the Foundation Center, as I said just above, changed its database platform…]]








Tapfound Inc. Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $436,604 990A 13 91-2162645
Tapfound Industry Dba Taproot Foundation CA 2004 $350,319 990 15 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2003 $187,547 990 13 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990EZ 7 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation CA 2002 $56,366 990ER 6 91-2162645
Taproot Foundation, Inc. CA 2009 $2,156,525 990 24 91-2162645

2018 update (information available at California Secretary of State website which, in its 2011 format (some is reflected in the post below) would not have been available in 2011 (i.e., that database changed).  Confirms 2002 incorporation date for TapFound, Inc. and, what’s more, names Aaron Hurst as registered agent and a “Lawrence McSwiggan” as “Sole incorporator” (Oct. 29, 2001).

Looking up that somewhat unusual (i.e., searchable) name, I was surprised to find McSwiggan as UConnecticut and “St. Johns School of Law” having passed the (California) bar in 2001 and by 2005 already become ineligible, and again later.  There’s also a “public reprimand” in Massachusetts  — again I do not KNOW this is the same person as TapFound incorporator, but it’s possible — for failing to pay dues, being noticed of this, and continuing to practice law anyhow.  Here are those screenprints:

Cal Entity C2374009 (Tapfound, inc.) Sec of State face sheet for its registration (new format with three available pdfs; I looked at the Registration one — only 2 pages).

Notice it’s organized specifically as a “Benefit Corporation.” I omitted Aaron Hurst address; another page states “The Corporation shall have no members.” Also see Article II, “specific purposeto provide internet and related technology services to nonprofit organizations.

Click to enlarge — notice sole incorporator Lawrence McSwiggan is from Menlo Park (cf. “Silicon Valley”) CA.

Refers to a specific Lawrence Joseph McSwiggan, CalBar# 214415 which may or may not be the sole incorporator of TapFound in 2002.

Refers to a specific Lawrence Joseph McSwiggan, CalBar# 14415 which may or may not be the sole incorporator of TapFound in 2002.

Refers to a specific Lawrence Joseph McSwiggan, CalBar# 14415 which may or may not be the sole incorporator of TapFound in 2002.


(Wow.  The earliest 2002 is missing page 1; the other, parts are handwritten (on forms), parts typewritten (on blank sheets, for example, the listing of Board Members).

The last board member listed is Jenny Shilling, who works for The Draper Richards Foundation, which apparently started Tapfound, Inc. (dba The TapRoot foundation) with $50,000.  The group started with $79,000 assets, not including -$32,000 of “undeposited assets,” for a net assets of $48K.  Its “Liabilities & Equity” just about cancelled each other out, and program service accomplishments for this year were “Service Grant Program awarded 18 nonprofits (not shown) with volunteer teams” — $23K.

An “updated July 6, 2003” board of directors is attached. The 2003 filing (at least the one above I clicked on) shows the act is rather more together, and service program accomplishments reads:

Service Grants were awarded to 63 nonprofit organizations with a total estimated value of $2.5 million (I’ll tell the IRS my return was “close enough for jazz also….”) 582 volunteers were recruited to deliver these services.  (at a cost of $148,872 Program Service Expense).


Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
TAPROOT Charity Not Registered SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity

and (I searched the EIN)

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
TAPFOUND, INC. 120759 Charity Current SAN FRANCISCO CA Charity Registration Charity

I guess the OAG’s office maybe is behind in their database entry, because for a “current” charity, including tax returns showing revenue over $4 million in 2007, the only year the group’s RRF shows up is for 2008; they only reminded of an unpaid registration fee of $150 in 2010.   There is revenue of over $100K on IRS forms from 2003 through 2009, though.     OAG’s (then Edmund G Brown’s) office respectfully requests they send in their $150 fee in September 2010:

September 8, 2010



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

1. The $150 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.

We’re coming up on a year from the date of this letter, so presumably they did, or they didn’t and OAG hasn’t noticed yet, or doesn’t care.  Secretary of State has corporate status active, too:


Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
Entity Name: TAPFOUND, INC.
Entity Number: C2374009
Date Filed: 01/18/2002
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102
Agent for Service of Process: AARON HURST
Agent Address: 466 GEARY ST STE 200
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94102

An independent audit states that for 2010:

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Tapfound, Inc. dba: Taproot Foundation as of September 30, 2010, and the changes in its net assets and its cash flows for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Taproot concept from which Kids’ Turn benefitted, sounds great:

MAKE IT MATTER  (<==”TaprootFoundation.org/About”)

Most organizations tackling social problems don’t have access to the marketing, design, technology, management or strategic planning resources they need to succeed. Without this talent, few are able to have their intended impact on critical issues like the environment, health and education.

Taproot is a nonprofit organization that makes business talent available to organizations working to improve society.

(is it also registering anually as a charity within California, or not?)

We engage the nation’s millions of business professionals in pro bono services both through our award-winning programs and by partnering with companies to develop their pro bono programs. One day, we envision all organizations with promising solutions will be equipped to successfully take on urgent social challenges.



Our mission is to lead, mobilize and engage professionals in pro bono service that drives social change.


While working to expand the impact of pro bono services nationally by leading the pro bono movement, we concentrate our efforts for social impact within five metro areas where we have offices: ChicagoLos AngelesNew York CitySan Francisco Bay Area and Washington, D.C.

Today, we offer three core programs to increase nonprofits’ access to pro bono services. Through these programs we provide millions of dollars in services annually aimed at best enabling organizations to address local social issues.

Service Grant Program

Our signature Service Grant program operates in five cities and, since its inception in 2001, has engaged professionals in over 780,000 hours of pro bono service on over 1,300 projects.


Advisory Services

With our Advisory Services and leadership resources, we support companies and organizations in designing and developing their own customized, high-impact pro bono programs. We apply expertise garnered through our Service Grant Program to design pro bono programs best meeting our corporate clients business needs while ensuring their employees’ service makes a meaningful impact in their communities.


We partner with leading foundations, universities, companies, coalitions and associations to host convenings and run campaigns where we collaborate to design innovative solutions bringing pro bono service to bear for progress on issues facing our cities and society

(July 2010 letter from founder Aaron Hurst….)

There are certain core values that I have made a point of formally celebrating at Taproot.  We close the office on Election Day to stress the importance of civic engagement and democracy.  We honor civil rights, and in addition to MLK Jr. Day we close the office for Matt O’Grady Day, commemorating the marriage of long-term Root Matt O’Grady to his partner in 2008.  The anniversary of every Root is also marked by giving them the day off showing our appreciation for their involvement in our shared success.

We also value the diversity of backgrounds and interests of our Roots and give the team three days a year to create their own holidays. For some people, they use these days for traditional holidays like President’s Day and others use them for their birthday or culturally meaningful days like Chinese New Year, Rosh Hashanah or Cinco de Mayo.

Draper Richards — which provided the first $50,000 for TapRoot (Tapfound, Inc.) is a venture capitalist company, also interesting — in high tech.

Draper Richards L.P. is a venture capital firm investing in early-stage technology companies. We fund entrepreneurs with the energy, vision, experience, and desire to build great companies.

I’m not so sure about making themselves the TapRoot being a great idea, although it’s great market positioning for nonprofits.  Are they as focused on screening who taps into them as they are on making the connections?  And I’ll just point out, this does spread tax benefits around nicely between foundation and nonprofits.


A “taproot” is the core root of a plant. It gathers nutrients from lateral roots and delivers them to a plant to enable it to flourish.

We see ourselves as a taproot for the nonprofit sector, drawing nutrients from the community and delivering them to nonprofits to enable them to thrive.

A bit more on the background of Draper Richards, that helped start Taproot, that helped revamp the logo of 1989 court-connected, court-official run (basically), CCSF nonprofit vendor and access/visitation grants beneficiary “Kids’ Turn” (“Kid’s Turn” on the state search sites…) update its logo.  NOtice all the companies involved.


Three Generations of Venture Capital

The Draper name is well known in the venture capital industry. Bill Draper’s father,General William H. Draper, Jr., became the first professional west-coast venture capitalist when he founded Draper, Gaither & Anderson in 1958. Formerly Undersecretary of the Army, General Draper was responsible for economic reconstruction of Germany and Japan under the Marshall Plan.

Bill Draper began his venture capital career in 1962 with Pitch Johnson, when he started Draper & Johnson Investment Company. In 1965, together with Paul Wythes, he founded Sutter Hill Ventures which was managed with great success until 1981, when he was appointed Chairman of the U.S. Export-Import Bank. In 1985, he was selected to be Administrator and CEO of the United Nations Development Program.

While in the venture capital business, Bill Draper was a founding investor in Apollo Computer (acquired by Hewlett Packard), Dionex, Integrated Genetics (Genzyme), Quantum, Qume (I.T.T.), Activision (Mediagenic), Xidex (Eastman Kodak), Measurex, Hybritech (Eli Lilly), and LSI Logic. In 1995, he returned to venture capital by founding Draper International which focused on venture investments in India. In 1996, he turned his attention to technology companies in the U.S. and co-founded a new domestic fund,Draper Richards L.P., with his partner, Robin Richards Donohoe.

Bill Draper’s son, Tim Draper, left Alex. Brown & Sons in 1985 to become the third generation of venture capitalists in his family with the formation of Draper Fisher Jurvetson. Tim restructured a family-owned Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) that had been set up by his father in 1979 and then created a highly successful early-stage venture capital fund. Draper Fisher Jurvetson has become synonymous with early-stage venture capital. Among other successes, Tim Draper was a founding investor in Parametric Technology, Digidesign, Parenting Magazine, Upside Publishing, PLX Technology, Four-1-1, Hotmail, and Skype.

> > > > > > And Mr. Draper’s Partner, Robin Richards Donahue’s background:

Robin Richards Donohoe
Robin Richards Donohoe, General Partner
Robin Richards Donohoe has over fourteen years of experience in international venture capital. She has served on the boards of many portfolio companies including Kana Communications, Selectica and Digital Impact. Prior to managing the Draper funds, she served for four years as Managing Director of Seaboard Management Corporation, a venture capital firm based in Atlanta, Georgia investing in media and technology companies.

Ms. Donohoe has also worked in Prague, Czech Republic for a venture capital fund and in Paris for an investment bank. Ms. Donohoe is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina and has a Master of Business degree from the Stanford Graduate School of Business. She currently serves on the boards of the Stanford Business School Trust, University of North Carolina College of Arts and Sciences, Advisory Council of the Gladstone Institute at UCSF, Bay Area Discovery Museum, and Gateway High School. She is the Secretary for her Stanford Business School Class and an Advisor to Room to Read.

It seems obvious to me — if we really want to end “welfare as we know it” and eradicate poverty, we should encourage kids to get on the venture capitalist in high tech media track, starting with a college degree that will help them get on board, and perhaps take people out of inner city classrooms and let them see how the other half puts together a deal and structures a nonprofit corporation, possibly one doing business in grants and annuities, or catering to the grants-based marketplace.

This might cut down on “Enrons by the sea” as we all begin to realize that the social services segment of the public-employee sector cannot be trusted (which, in truth it can’t!) to [???…] those setting policy and deciding who is naughty and who is nice in distributing contracts, business, and other grants.

Of course I could be entirely wrong, but I also would suggest that the white collar sector who have their noses to the grindstone for (venture capitalists and the risk-takers with more money to play with) start taking some personal holidays to figure out where their taxes are actually being spent, and do it with a KID old enough to understand watching…

But the two parallel sets of infrastructures — the tax-supported and the tax-exempt — both working together, and seeking clientele among the tax-paying low and moderate income, will help drive their incomes lower, and someone else’s wealth higher, leaving credibility in the dust.  Of course, with appropriate assets to spin off payments into old age, this may not matter, and if the US goes bankrupt, a b/millionaire can afford to live somewhere else, whereas a person living on social security alone, most likely can’t.

This of course would be a little messy at times, actually teaching ALL children (not just the offspring of venture capitalists and others where business knowledge including about the function of taxes and corporate identities, is absorbed from an early age) how to deal with the invisible, or at least underlying, intangible principles and  skillsets, that are the  scaffolding sustaining significant, life-supporting wealth (barring extravagances that lead to early death, such as pharmaceutical or other addictions).

OH WELL, more Kids’ Turn turnabouts:

3. Kids’ Turn took dramatic steps to downsize and reduce event expenses. We downsized the May, 2010 event to a cocktail party (not a sit-down dinner); all invitations were sent electronically (eliminating the need for an expensive invitation mailing). We exceeded our event net goal and will build on this success for 2011.

Yep, that would probably be good.  I’m looking at the 2006 return, and for fundraising activities (“Golf Tournament, “SF Event” (whatever that is), and “Other”) the ration of revenue raised to expenses is rather interesting:

(GOLF — someone contributed $25K, expenses were $24,423, leaving net income of $12,802 out of $62K receipts.  I’m sure golfing was fun.    The “SF Event” (great descriptor) gross receipts of $44,475, expenses $10,752, is it fair to say about 25%? or 11/44ths;       “Other fundraising events” (plural), raised $1,140, COST $13,618, resulting in a net loss of $12,478.  Essentially whatever those other fundraisers were wiped out the golf tournament’s profit completely, except for $530.    And there’s a CPA on the Board of Directors, too.)

Perhaps next time they should simply start raffles — of course this would require REGISTERING those raffles and providing signed receipts from the recipient that the funds were indeed distributed.  But they could also run raffles for themselves and the overhead is pretty low, right, on that….)

4. Kids’ Turn is developing its presence on electronic social networking. We have an active Facebook Fan page (currently 335 Fans); a Board member ‘tweets’ regularly and posts on our behalf on linkdn. Just recently, we began actively posting comments on the Huffington Posts’ DIVORCE page. Interestingly enough, our Facebook fan count has increased exponentially since raising our profile visibility on social networking sites.

5. We submitted our first grant to the Administrative Office (AOC) of the Court in November, 2011. (??) This grant was submitted in a partnership with the Rally Project. If awarded, the AOC will fund low-income, noncustodial parents and their children to attend Kids’ Turn services.

The “AOC” like “KT” contains AFCC members — and actually represents the “Administrative Office of the COurts” which is charged with administering FEDERAL grants to the states from which KT is likely to benefit.  As such, it’s not money from the AOC, it’s money via the IRS from taxpayers.

The Rally Project” – found in a 2006 obituary of architect Allan Levy 

I am posting in August 2011, and this is a FY2010 Annual report, so I’ll just hazard a guess that they mean 2011.  I hope there’s more accuracy when it comes to decimal points.

the “rally project” is actually a Family Visitation center, apparently at UCSF.  I remember trying to find this before.  There are still few references to “the Rally Project’ because that’s not what it’s name is.  And this nonprofit is teaching communication skills, too!

Allan M. Levy Died on Thursday, February 16, 2006 after a five-month battle with throat cancer. He was 60 years old. He died at home and in peace, in the company of family and friends. Allan was born and raised in Memphis, TN, and embodied all of the lovely qualities we Northerners associate with Southerners: he was kind and gracious, inclusive, an attentive host (no one ever left Pam and Allan’s house underfed or thirsty), and an avid storyteller. Allan was a creator of community. He had a small army of friends of all ages, sizes, ethnicities, and socioeconomic backgrounds from every conceivable corner of the globeHe had definite opinions. About everything. He gave quietly and generously of his time and energy to non-profit organizations like Kids Turn and the Rally Project. …Allan is survived by his wife, Pam; mother, Mrs. Emily Davis; sister, Diane and brother-in-law, Arnold Eger; brother, Donald and sister-in-law, Shelley Levy; brother, Steven and sister-in-law, Betsy Olim; sister-in-law, Kate DiGiacomo; six nieces and nephews, a whole bunch of cousins, the above-mentioned army of friends, and last, but not least, his dog Maggie. A Memorial Service is being planned for Thurs, April 6, 2006, 3pm, at the Officer’s Club at the SF Presidio. In lieu of flowers, it is suggested that donations be made to Kids’ Turn, Rally Family Visitation Services, UCSF Palliative Care Group, and The Women’s Community Clinic.

I should note here, as it came up, Rally Family Visitation Services is listed twice when it comes to “SVN” (Supervised Visitation Network) which I imagine is (yet another!) nonprofit — and people from “Rally Visitation Services” are mentioned on BOTH SVN Standards and Guideline Committee Chairs  & on the SVN Board of Directors, right next to the AOC.  I’m sure having a Kids Turn Friend & Rally Visitation Center friend who is networked with the people distributing the access visitation grants and setting standards for who gets them (ideally) — would probably help in obtaining this grant, even if someone can’t figure out which year they applied for it in and proofread their (taproot-foundation-assisted) new website to get it up there right.

Supervised Visitation Network Worldwide

SVN, Supervised Visitation Network, is an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families.

SVN was Founded in 1991 to provide opportunities for networking, sharing of information, and training for agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free access to parents with whom they do not reside.

Providing resources for members and families in need of supervised visitation services

That 1991 date is kind of interesting;  NCCSDATAWEB says the ruling date was 1997.  So far I see it in Tennessee (for about 5 years) and then off to Florida (as of 2007ff) so presumably it started somewhere else, or AS someone else from 1991 to 1996.  Assuming it actually began in 1991…

Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
2010  521831498 Supervised Visitation Network FL 1997 03 218,620 31,703 990

As of 2009, it self-describes (on the 990) as PURPOSE:


And like many nonprofits, simply repeats that paragraph when asked to describe its accomplishments, and then adds a figure — how much it cost:  in 2009 filing, specificallly $218,590 — funds raised from “Contributions” 67,409, “Program fees including govt contracts” $82,875, and “Dues” 62,307.”   This ALMOST adds up to what they spent, however, there’s that $92K of salaries and $5K of fees for contracting independent professionals, plus printing, occupancy ($10K) and did I mention “$143K” of “OTHER” expenses, a section I always enjoy looking at…… meaning they operated this year at a $37K loss despite all the help.  (The $143, unfortunately, displays sideways if I select & paste, but is predictably mostly on travel ($27.3) Conferences ($65.1), Committee meetings ($14.87) and a regional training ($14.68), plus a few other items.  Which makes me think that one great way to travel is to start a new professional, start a nonprofit (dues-based) in which we could meet to figure out how to promote our profession in pleasant locations across the globe, while doing business with the US government (if not a few others), soliciting from the public and/or grants, and write it all (plus some) OFF.

SVN Standards and Guidelines Committee Co-chairs:
Shelly La Botte, J.D., California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program, Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, and Nadine Blaschak-Brown, former Program Manager, Rally Family Visitation Services of Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, San Francisco, CA.

SVN Board of Directors (Fiscal Years 2004-2006):
Jody Bittrich, Rainbow Bridge Safe Exchange/Visitation Center, Moorhead, MN, Barbara Flory (see above), Nancy Fallows (see above), Jane Grafton, (see above), Ona Foster, Faith and Liberty’s Place, Dallas, TX, David Levy, Children’s Rights Council, Hyattsville, MD, Teri Walker McLaughlin (President), Della Morton, Merrymount Children’s Center, London, Ontario Canada, Joe Nullet, Family Nurturing Center of Florida, Inc., Jacksonville, FL, Vayla Roberts (Vice-President), Sharon Rogers, Judge Ben Gordon, Jr., Family Visitation Center, Shalimar, FL, Virginia Rueda, Family Visitation Center, El Paso, TX, Rob Straus, (see above), Georgia Thompson, LA Wings of Faith, Los Angeles, CA., and Beth Zetlin, Forest Hills, NY.

I think it’s time to get another crack in about the field of “Supervised Visitation” and the “SVN” network.

First, it is a nonprofit incorporated in Tennessee.   These altruistic people (including David Levy of the Children’s Rights Council, which helped push the term “access /visitation” to start with, and which nonprofit includes several such centers, not to mention some close connections in philosophy with AFCC founder, it would seem, Jessica Pearson (see my recent posts trying to track down AFCC incorporations over the year, including one time it showed up in Colorado at the same address as Center for Policy Research (I believe) at the time:  Emerson Street, Denver).

This is a 2003 IRS form 990-EZ for “Supervised Visitation Network,” a TN nonprofit of moderate means and large influence:

90~IZ~~ Part III:

Primary Exempt purpose: Public education and awareness;professional development

28.SVNwebsite-provides information for both the general public and for professionals, averaging over 150 hits per week on the pages for parents and over 400 on the pages with information for professionals.- Expenses : $15,000

This blog — which is free, except for my time — gets close to that on a good day, and has been steadily for a few years — including from some sources I know are professionals (like the ones I report on) and others.    Note:  as with the field of “Parent Education” (court-supported) the interest is higher among the providers than the clientele….i

29.Conference-Trainingfor150professionalprovidersofsupervisedvisitationservices Expenses-Netgainof$14,410

30. Publications -Distributed 500 Handbook for Parents, 160 Handbooks for Professionals; 80 Sexual Abuse Curriculums;850 informational brochures;2 Newsletters, primarily forprofessional training, to 600 individuals;.

Expenses -$7.700

Its revenue is about $40,000 Program Service Revenue including government fees & contracts, and about $37,000 membership fees.  Their highest expense is “Products and Promotions.”

Most interesting is the variety of states (plus Canada) the board of directors are drawn from:  If you can’t see the graphic, the pdf is on-line for viewing:

(Karen Oehme also directs a family violence studies institute at Florida State; many of these names are well known) in family law circles, obviously.

At least one of these address shows up as the Office of the Attorney General (445 Golden Gate, SF) — no office given, though.

Shelly Glapion (at that address), 6th floor, at least in 2004, (as we speak?)   was Senior Program Analyst for

  1. California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program

    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    Shelly Glapion, J.D.. Access to Visitation Grant Coordinator. Senior Court 

As far back as 2004, there were concerns about financial embezzlement/fraud, shifting financial requirements for supervised visitation, at least in California.  This is part of a (available on-line) group email (I’ll post complaint and one reply) about the behavior of a supervised visitation monitor, from a mother, criticized for wearing flip-flops (in California…..) and giving her daughter a birthday cake.  it appears that the mother was under supervised visitation, although the typical auspices of this is increased noncustodial (FATHER) parent access, which was how Ron Haskins helped sell it to Congress to start with, as I understand:

Supervised Monitoring Message List
Reply Message #17218 of 22083 < Prev | Next >
I’m in CA. I have had this supervised monitor that stated I’m a danger to my daughter because one time during the summer I was wearing flip flops and gave my daugther a birthday cake for her birthday.
Well, my question is this…now she is constatnly changing the financial agreement we signed several months ago. And she’s now back charging me for phone calls, emails to arrange visits and she doesn’t even respond to most of them. She is now threatening to take me to court if I don’t keep paying her for things I have never agreed to. Additionally, she charges me for cancelled visits and yet doesn’t even notify me that they are cancelled. Isn’t there any law of how she constatnly changes her fees and agreement? Originally it stated that the cancelle of visits is 100% resposnbile for the fees, well last weekend I was 100% resposnbile and she is refusing to credit her account that everyday she comes up with new fees or changes the agreement that was orginally signed. I’m hoping that when she does take me to court that I will not hav to pay for things that I never agreed to and for visits that is clearly stated that I am not financially resposnbile for. She also charges me $5 per min. to discuss any of this on the phone or email. And then she charges me a flat fee ontop of her min incurred fees. Please help me stop this insanity. I also believe that because my ex won in court because of past bribery that he must have also done this upon the monitor. The monitor did state once that the father told her to charge me more and make it exteremly difficult to see my daughter. And the monitor stated that if I wanted this information that I need to pay her for this.

I’ve given up all hope that I’ll be allowed to see my daughter – this justice system provides no justice…because the courts don’t care that they purjed (sic) under oath (saying I have a criminal record and a bunch of lies like that..that I can easily prove false), let alone CPS closed the case because it was unfouned..and now that the courts have allowed him to do this to me of taking 50% of all my wages. At least now I’m hoping that I can get this monitor to stop asking me for money that isn’t due and to stop fabricating these charges of $5 per min. to read an email and then her $25 fee to just have it in her inbox (even if she doesn’t read them).
Any suggestions????
THE REPLY is to contact Shelly Glapion (of SVN board of directors, which this person probably didn’t know, and program administrator, via CFCC)
Re: Supervised Monitoring

In a message dated 11/27/04 10:06:34 AM Pacific Standard Time, XXXXX@… writes:

Is she private or with a supervised visitation center?
Especially if she is connected to a supervised visitation center, you should make a public records request for all payoffs she is receiving, and also ask for her tax returns for the duration of time since she has been providing you “service”.

Then, go very public with the fact that what she is doing constitutes fraud, illegal and criminal misconduct, so that she will dump you as a client in order to try to conceal what she is doing wrong.

After she dumps you, go to the press with evidence of financial and other fraud operative through your case, saying that this is another example of the type of Access to Visitation Enforcement program fraud that is rampant as the means to promote a pro-abuser agenda in the guise of fatherhood and custody programs. Use this article from NY– re: Viola Stroud of CRC being under investigation for embezzlement — to bolster your case:  Click here: Guardian under scrutiny

Next, send a summary (brief and objective re: criminal misconduct and financial fraud) to Shelly Glapion, the CA adminstrator of the SAVP: shelly.glapion@…, asking her, as the person overseeing the AV program in CA, who has been monitoring your supervisor to ensure the integrity of the “service” she is providing. Be sure to tell Ms. Glapion that you hold her personally responsible and legally liable for the kickbacks and illegal payoffs you are sure were being used to cause intential and malicious harm to you and your child on behalf of your ex, using government program funding.

Be sure to send me a copy (use XXXXX not the FCR board) of your complaint, along with the name of the supervisor, the county you are in, your case number, the judges, lawyers and other appointees involved (especially any mediators or custody evaluators) and I will incorporate it into the complaints that we are putting together that are addressing AV program fraud and corruption at the federal level.

Cindy Ross
CA Director
National Alliance for Family Court Justice

To this woman, who says she does not have a criminal record, and apparently CPS was told she was some sort of perp, but closed the case — she is being treated like one, which she reports as basically being cursed (spoken evil of) by the supervised visitation monitor.  The other point of view — particularly from someone on this nonprofit SVN group and probably also running a program that provides these services, it’s not a curse, it’s a blessing!  Barbara Flory, in THIS message exchange (file under “PR”)   The URL is a Florida State University address:    http://familyvio.csw.fsu.edu/messageboard/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/BB_winter_04.pdf

The supervised visitation and exchange programs have truly been a blessingfor so many families.

First of all, monitored visitation provides yet another level of protection for the victim and the children. This protection is essential to victims!

(not mentioned — often, the victims ARE children…. this happens when there’s molestation also):

Second, it allows contact between the perpetrator and the children, which would not have

occurred without said programs.

{{now that’s food for thought……  “contact between perp and children = good.”  (?)}}

This is especially important for those perpetrators who are truly trying to improve their lives and those of their children.

Wow…And the way to tell if a perp is REALLY sincere and wants to improve his(her) life is …..   ask a supervised visitation professional?

Or a judge on the board of a nonprofit benefitting from access visitation (or other) grantsmanship?

It is also extremely important for the children who sometimes do not understand why they cannot see one of their parents, but want to see that parent.

And one tells which children DO and which children do NOT want to see their perp parent?  (See Jack Straton; I get tired of reminding us….)

In many cases it is also the hope of being with the children and helping their children that motivates a perpetrator to understand the cycle of domestic violence.

It’s HOPED that HOPING to see one’s kids will produce character change for a perp.  I’m not even sure we can find definite validation that batterers intervention programs do that…..

These programs provide a safe environment for all involved and they further provide hope!

Yes, hope of virtually guaranteed (court-ordered) income for supervised visitation providers who pay into the system!

Other than that —

No they don’t.  That’s false!   They can become and have obviously become nightmares; moreover, some people have been killed at or around supervised visitation, or while the family was utilizing supervised visitation!   See this chart from 2001 (i.e., in recent memory of the above message), particularly 3rd from bottom row:  The chart is from “MNCAVA” something reasonably accessible to the people involved above:


Staff of the Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation collected examples of behaviors commonly displayed by alleged batterers who were referred to supervised visitation programs in Florida in 2001. As the examples in the following table indicate, the same behaviors of batterers described in the literature, are observed in supervised visitation programs.

Table 1. Common Behaviors of Batterers Seen at Supervised Visitation Programs

Behavior Manifestation at Supervised Visitation Program
Denial of Abuse/ Minimizations Children may ask parent, “why did you hit mommy?” Visiting parent may deny hitting child’s mother, say it was accident or minimize his action. Or he may say it’s the fault of mother he has to see child at visitation program. One program reports a 12 year old asked his father why he chased his mother with a knife. Father denied doing it saying the mother told him to say that. This occurred despite witnesses to the knife incident.
Blaming partner Frequently supervised visitation staff report that a batterer will tell staff “this is all my wife’s fault,” “she’s the one who brought this on.”
Control/ Manipulation Often batterers will question, or challenge program rules or suggest exceptions to rules should be made of them. This is seen in examples of refusing to arrive or depart per requirements, bringing unauthorized individuals to visits, bringing gifts or food to visits which may be disallowed, attempting to take videos or photographs. Tearing up rules or throwing intake forms across room.
Attacking Parenting Skills Involving staff in apparent false allegations of child abuse against parent who has been abused, trying to use staff to call Abuse Registry. Makes disparaging remarks about mother, “you need to clean up better than mommy.”
Making Covert/ Overt Threats Program staff report incidents of batterers showing a weapons permit when asked for identification, driving around visitation site at time of scheduled visits but not coming into program as well as verbally threatening to harm staff, volunteers, judge, partner, etc. during visits. Law enforcement officers referred to programs have come for scheduled visits in full uniform wearing their weapons despite instructions to the contrary.
Involving Children During scheduled visitations, batterers may attempt to question children about their current living arrangements (particularly if they are staying at shelter or another undisclosed location); inquire about what their plans are, where they are attending school; or, may try and find out who the child’s mother is seeing. Additionally batterers may utilize visitation times as a vehicle to get children to convey messages back to other parent.
Stalking Following a parent who is leaving a program, recording information about parents car. One program reports two examples of cases when the perpetrator had custody. In one case he left with the child prior to his wife (non-custodial) but waited for her in a nearby parking lot. In another, a non-custodial mother picked up her child for a monitored exchange and was followed to a neighboring city by her abuser. Perpetrators may reveal stalking incidents during conviction with their children during visit Questions such as Where were you all last night? or Why weren’t you in school yesterday?
Financial Abuse/ Manipulation Refusing to pay for scheduled visits, not going to pay to see my kids. Paying in pennies or other small coins. Saying they will not bring food for visits because they’re paying child support to mother and she should make sure food is available for father’s visit.
Animal Abuse Batterers may inform child during visit that a beloved pet has died or had to be given away since the child was not longer in the home. One program reported a father bringing the child’s pet rabbit to the program knowing the child would not be able to take it back to the shelter where he was staying.
Physical Violence At least three murders of [WORD missing — Freudian slip?] have occurred on-site or in parking lots of supervised visitation programs in recent years. Other programs report murders or physical assaults by non-custodial parents off site but while family was utilizing services.
Suicide Visiting parent telling child and/or staff how depressed he is and how he might just end it all.

Not to mention, see Joyce Welch / Brian Tippe case, where the supervised visitation monitor was in a bestiality relationship (criminal!) with DOGS and a slave/master relationship (as the slave, i.e., fairly “deviant” behavior for someone involved with children, and around the field of domestic violence, which is itself characterized by inappropriate slave/master behaviors, only without the designated slave deriving (?) sexual enjoyment from the degraded status).  The mother was ordered supervised by a commissioner who was at the time on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too….

Guess under what banner I found that:

Strategies to Improve Supervised Visitation Services in Domestic Violence Cases

M. Sharon MaxwellLCSW, Ph.D.
Karen OehmeJ.D.

authors commissioned by

Barbara Flory, MSW, LFMT (or whatever) and 2003 at least SVN board member, wrote the above glowing recommendation of supervised visitation; Karen Oehme, here, chairs the FLorida Clearinghouse on Supervised Visitation.  They are talking about strategies to have less abuse and murder occurring around supervised visitation (no mention made of financial fraud, etc., although it’s been found repeatedly) — and not whether it’s a good or bad idea, based on the fact that murders and further abuse HAS occurred around it!

ACTUALLY, Familylawcourts.com has a page on the “AOC” and says it better than I do; it’s funny, but right:

2.  The Elkins Task Force, which was headed by the AOC supposedly to promote accountability and listening to children, was an expensive and expansive white wash.

How else to explain why the AOC commissioned a 50k research project to ask family court litigants questions for the entire state; and the results featured only 53 litigants and 83 AOC staff personnel?

3.  One lasting, inept brainchild of the Judicial Council, again working in conjunction with the AOC, was to decriminalize crime via a “Supervised Visitation,” form in which kidnapping becomes the more civilized “parental abduction.”

Thus, 12 years after the Judicial Council working in conjunction with the AOC, created the non-professional field, there remains no oversight. Which con artists have discovered.  Which explains how suspected pedophiles are now serving on the boards of some Supervised visitation agencies; and why Supervised visitation monitors are awarding custody to the suspected pedophiles.

As such, if the AOC wasn’t so damaging to the point of lethal, it would be listed as a sub-category to Comic Gold.

Is there anything where AOC excels?

Yes.  The AOC excels at wasting enormous amounts of taxpayer funds for slick, expensive conferences, most of which are designed to continue prohibiting access to any real justice in the courts, such as the one below.


(note:  I don’t agree with author in GPS issue, though).

She sarcastically notes:

Practice Hint:  Due to the increased number of custody exchange murders, we recommend attorneys request judges order any custody exchange to be made at the local police department.  Should a murder occur, not only is it likely the crime will be recorded on a number of video cameras in an around the area, but any number of police officers would already on hand to effect a quick arrest.  The video could later be used as part of a plea deal, which would save the state trial costs.

Actually, I experienced so-called “parental abduction” (call it what you will) AT a law enforcement station, after having asked (in vain) previously for supervised visitation or something to prevent this (as I recall the LONG case history).  Apparently the problem is I wasn’t willing to cut some deal with CPS and let my children go into foster care needlessly to get revenge on my ex.   So, they did nothing, knowing it would be off their plate and safely in family court anyhow.   This custody-switch kept the case going, which also (FYI) meant a significant delay in child support matters, probably resulting in a little interest accumulation (at least from program funds) on the side, too.  The possible profitable (except to the children) permutations are endless in this system.

I figured I’d just hop on over to Tennessee to look up this nice nonprofit I learned was incorporated there:  Surprise:

Search:       1-1 of 1
Search Name:  Starts With Contains
Control #:
Control # Entity Type Name Name Type Name Status Entity Filing Date Entity Status
000454811 NCORP SUPERVISED VISITATION NETWORK, INC. Entity Inactive 09/29/2003 Inactive – Terminated
000454811: Corporation Non-Profit – Domestic
Old Name:
Business Type:
Status: Inactive – Terminated Initial Filing: 09/29/2003
Formed in: Putnam County Delayed Effective Date:
Fiscal Year Close: June AR Due Date: 10/01/2007
Term of Duration: Perpetual Inactive Date: 01/11/2008
Principal Office: 2804 PARAN POINTE DR
Annual Report
Mailing Address:
AR Exempt: No
Public Benefit Corporation: Yes
Skip Navigation Links

Name Status Expires
  No Assumed Names Found…

WELL, they apparently kept it going about 5 years — with the exception of AFCC, that’s pretty average for nonprofits catering to therapeutic-jurisprudence professions in the courts, which is probably why new ones (such as COllaborative law practice) must constantly be created. ….  Maybe the moved to Florida… or just went extra-USA terrestrial…..

TypeDateImage #DetailTermination01/11/20086178-2677Articles of Dissolution01/11/20086178-2675Administrative Amendment12/05/20076164-2457Detail Notice of Determination12/03/2007ROLL 61612006 Annual Report Due 10/01/200612/19/20065902-1491Notice of Determination12/01/2006ROLL 58932005 Annual Report Due 10/01/200510/07/20055578-01582004 Annual Report Due 10/01/200409/14/20045233-08802003 Annual Report Due 04/01/200402/10/20045032-2914Detail Initial Filing09/29/20034922-0943

Registered as a Charity in Tennessee?

Financial Reports for Registered Charities

(I didn’t find out whether or not).

I THINk the first address listed as  c/o Nancy Fallows, who shows up as someone probably good at getting grants, and on the board of a substance-abuse-prevention group, “Putnam (County) Power of One

Nancy Fallows Secretary,
(Grant-Writing Sub-Committee Chair)
Tennessee Community Services Agency,
Upper Cumberland Director
1000 England Drive, Suite F,
Cookeville, TN 38501(work) 931-646-4087; (fax) 931-520-0080

Joe Nullet (also on Board, and the registered agent? in Florida for the TN corporation also) is Harvard, JFK School of Government, father of 3 boys, and:

and obviously someone who knows how to obtain funding for a program.  This one is selling educational curriculums, isn’t everyone these days?

Joe Nullet

Joe Nullet, a graduate of Harvard University, is the Executive Director of the Supervised Visitation Network, an international membership organization of professionals who provide supervised visitation and access services to families. Joe was also formerly the Executive Director of the Family Nurturing Center of Florida, *** an organization committed to creating a community of nurturing care for our children.

As recognized Trainer/Consultant for the Nurturing Parenting programs, Joe’s area of strength is in the administration, support, and successful implementation of the Nurturing Parenting programs. Since 2001, Joe has successfully obtained financial support from the Jaguars Foundation, the Community Foundation of Jacksonville, the Reinhold Foundation, the Rice Family Foundation, UPS, Publix, the Martin Foundation, and others for the implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs.

As a father of three beautiful boys, Joe is passionate about nurturing his family and the world in which they live. Joe is available to train your agency staff to facilitate the Nurturing Parenting programs or as a consultant to develop innovative strategies to foster community collaboration, solicit financial support, and manage the effective implementation of Nurturing Parenting programs within your organization and/or community.

Joe Nullet, Executive Director
Supervised Visitation Network

*** per ‘SUNBIZ.org” -a site I really appreciate where you can look up florida organizations — actually, this was incorporated in 1993 as “Family Visitation Center, Inc.” and in 2000 they did a name change (adding the “nurturing”) as we can see in 2001, Mr. Nullet helped them expand the concept, or at least get funding for doing so.     The group’s current address, 2759 Bartley Circle (same city) is apparently owned by the City of Jacksonville  (a community center) and listed with the courts, or taking business from them:

Family Nurturing Center of Florida
Supervised Visitation, Dependency and Family Law

2759 Bartley Circle
Jacksonville, FL 32207
(904) 389-4244
(904) 389-4225
Provides a multifaceted supervised visitation center for children to visit with their non-custodial parents when there have been allegations and/or confirmation of physical or sexual abuse, neglect, or domestic violence.
Services: Information and referral; Other
Victims Served: Child Victims of Physical Abuse; Child Victims of Sexual Abuse; Domestic Violence Victims
Counties Served: Duval, Clay, Nassau, Baker, St. Johns
Circuits Served: 4, 8, 7
Fee: Yessliding scale for Family Law clients.
Hours of Service: Please see website for hours of operation.
Web Site: http://www.fncflorida.org

That site shows them in the 2 primary businesses supported by A/V grants:  Parent Education and Supervised Visitation and yes, they are a nonprofit; their “For Parents” link hopefully points to the SVN, and has a hastily (or at least crookedly) scanned “handbook” coaching parents on how to pick the right type of visitation center, i.e., one of ours, listing the SVN at 1223 King Drive (although it’s not been there for a while…..)

FNC is proud to partner with a number of local service providers to offer comprehensive services to clients. We have relationships with each of the certified domestic violence centers within the Fourth Circuit, and we also partner with Family Foundations, Youth Crisis Center, and many others. If you have a question about additional resources which may benefit your clients, please contact us or you can conduct your own search using the 2-1-1 system.

Like Kids’ Turn (etc.) it is described as the 1993 brainchild of a judge — only this one, responding to complaints from parents with children in foster-care:

We opened in 1993 as the Family Visitation Center, the first of its kind in Florida. It was the brainchild of the Honorable Judge Dorothy Pate, who was moved to act after hearing frequent complaints from parents who were not being allowed to see their children who had been placed in foster care.


Representatives from the Department of Children, the Children’s Home Society and the Junior League of Jacksonville met with Judge Pate to discuss a new concept called “supervised visitation.” Since that meeting, we have expanded our agency to include three programs at four locations and changed our name to reflect this growing commitment to improving the lives of families throughout Northeast Florida.

(NoTE — that predates the 1996 welfare reform, the 1994 national fatherhood initiative and violence against women act).

GONE SOUTH — literally, to FLORIDA — or at least here’s another corporation by the same name, in the same city (Jacksonville) that decided to get started up around the time the Tennessee incorporation shut down (or was shut down):

Florida Non Profit Corporation
Filing Information
Document Number N07000010935
FEI/EIN Number 521831498
Date Filed 11/09/2007
State FL
Effective Date 11/15/2007
Principal Address
Changed 01/06/2010
Mailing Address

By the former address, yes, this is the same corporation (see files):

EIN# 521831498

IT’s purpose (see sunbiz.org if this doesn’t show, click on bottom link below Annual Reports) is fairly clear — business promotion and collaboration on how to obtain access visitation funding, basically:

Article III ” The specific purpose for which this corporation is organized” — “Provide a forum for networking and sharing of information

between CHILD ACCESS PROVIDERS and OTHER PROFESSIONALS.  Advocate for adequate public and private funding for Child access and visitation programs.”

Others at the first Jacksonville Address (1223 King STreet)  address include a window-washing service.  Now, 3995 Riverside Avenue, Jacksonville, FL appears to be a particular real estate group, “Bo Bridgeport Brokers“) which I only figured because google-mapping zooming in on the address contained that label.

Bo Bridgeport Brokers is the premier Commerical and Residential Real Estate Firm in Jacksonville Florida. We specialize in residential and commercial real 
3955 Riverside Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32205-3312
(904) 358-3955

It’s also listed in “Family and Child Services” in a VERMONT (how’s that for the other end of the east coast?) Child Support / Commission on Women office.  Cute:

  1. Family Division and Office of Child Support | Commission on Women

    women.vermont.gov/…/family-court-and-office-of-child-support – Cached

    1223 King Street JacksonvilleFL 32204 904-389-7800 http://www.svnetwork.net/ . SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a 

1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204

http://www.corporationwiki.com/Florida/Jacksonville/1223KingStJacks – Cached
1223 King St Jacksonville, FL 32204. Companies at this address: Vision Window Washing, Inc. Alzheimer’s Care, Inc. Supervised Visitation Network, Inc. 
As explained nicely on the VERMONT government site, after one reads about the child support contacts:

Family Division and Office of Child Support

Vermont Office of Child Support

http://dcf.vermont.gov/ocs/Provides free assistance to those paying and receiving child support. The office keeps track of child support payments, can help with getting a child support order, collects overdue payments, locates absent parents, helps change child support amounts, can help determine paternity, and offers help to child support payers

Vermont Parent Representation Center, Inc.
77 Charlotte Street
Burlington, Vermont 05401

An interdisciplinary team of an attorney, a social worker, and a peer navigator (a parent who has direct experience with child protective and foster care systems) represents parents at risk of experiencing the removal of their children into state custody and foster care or kin-care. A Community Action Team (CAT) works with the custodial parent to address issues that threaten the children’s safety to prevent a petition from being filed in court  (Family and Probate).

VPRC is a {{YET ANOTHER…..}} not-for-profit public interest law and policy organization. VPRC’s goals include:

To reduce the number of children removed from their families into state and other out-of-home custody; to shorten the length of stay in state and other out-of-home custody for children who have been removed, and to reduce the number of children re-entering state and other out-of-home custody after being reunified with their families.

This says nothing about “custody-dispute” Parental alienation situations, but I’d be surprised if they didn’t handle such things and get some grants or contracts to do so.

This is clearly more directed at CPS & Foster Care uses, but notice how SVN can springboard that into “custody dispute” or “estranged from the other parent” situations . . …


Supervised Visitation Network
1223 King Street
Jacksonville, FL 32204

SVN is a multi-national non-profit membership organization that is literally a network of agencies and individuals who are interested in assuring that children can have safe, conflict-free {{AFCC code language;  not ‘High-conflict”}} access to parents with whom they do not reside. Some of the children who need these services live in foster homes or with relatives. Some live with one parent who is estranged from the other.

Wonder what the percentages are.  Notice, it doesn’t even pretend to be a grass-roots organization, or even parent-originated.    “The “is-estranged” could be either, has a restraining order on because of criminal conduct, or is judged to be guilty by allegation — from a PAS-saturated official — of the “crime” of parental alienation.  See in New Hampshire, parent coordination association (and my posts on it) for HOW to allege parental alienation and cut the children off from their mothers, after obtaining parent coordinator status.

6. The City and County of San Francisco initially reduced our 1011 grant award by 10%, but the amount was re-instated in September, 2010 raising our contract award to the original $50,000. This funding is for our very specialized, Nonviolent Family Skills Program for Juveniles.

I presume they are probably meaning the year 2011; someone has a little data input trouble here…..    If the SF Courts ever pay off what it is SFTC has a lien for (see my other Kids’ Turns posts) perhaps they can hire a proofreader for their new website, and get their license back.  Oh, this may be a little difficult though, because so many SF Courtrooms are being closed, soon, for lack of funding, budget cutbacks, etc. . . . .   You know how it goes….

I think that MOST businesses and charities understand (as well as shouldn’t most attorneys who are going to be sometimes doing business with them, or incorporated themselves as an LLP) that one has to register as a nonprofit with the state, and also file annual reports with the secretary of state whether for-profit or not, if doing business in that state.  But here it is stated explicitly:

Florida Charity Nearly Ruined

Sun Coast Law Enforcement Charities (Sun Coast) is a police charity benefiting police officers and their families in several Florida counties. Recently, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (Department) served the charity’s president with a lawsuit.

Why? Because the charity failed to renew its registration with the Department, even though it had sent letters and made phone calls reminding the charity to do so. In Florida, any charity that asks for donations in the state must register with the department each year. It costs between $10 and $400, depending on how much money the charity raises. Sun Coast’s registration fee was $75.

The Department’s lawsuit wanted to impose a $10,000 fine against Sun Coast. Paying that fine would have ruined the charity. According to its IRS filings, the charity’s 2008 total revenue was only $11,000. Luckily it avoided the problem.

It explained to the Department that a former bookkeeper had ignored calls and letters from the Department. The Department took into consideration that Sun Coast had been registered since 2000 and kept up its renewals until the 2009 incident. In the end, Sun Coast paid a $1,000 fine and remains in operation.

Registration Laws

Many states are like Florida and require registration of charities. ArizonaConnecticutColorado, and Pennsylvania are good examples. The rules usually are different in each state, though. For example, in some states, a charity must register:

  • And pay a fee each year if it “does business” in the state
  • And pay a fee only the first year it “does business” in the state, but must submit financial and other records each year
  • Before it accepts donations, before it asks for or “solicits” donations, or both
  • By completing forms provided by the state, by submitting a copy of the charity’s IRS form, or both

(Courtesy “Charities.lawyers.com“)

Apparently being able to look it up on-line is new? http://www.800helpfla.com/socbus.html

Back to the Division of Consumer Services' Homepage

Solicitation of Contributions
Information for Businesses

The Solicitation of Contributions Act requires anyone who solicits donations from people in the State of Florida to register with the Department and renew annually. This applies to charitable organizations, sponsors, professional solicitors, as well as professional fundraising consultants. The Department collects registration fees and has authority to impose penalties for non-compliance. The Department provides financial disclosure regarding organizations on the online Gift Givers’ Guide or you can obtain information about a specific charity by calling our Consumer Assistance Call Center at 1-800-HELP-FLA (435-7352), or out of state 850-410-3800.

Gift Givers Guide

Looking at the SVN site, describing the backgrounds of its current Board of Directors, here’s a nice connection to “responsible fatherhood” if you don’t get it yet:

Robert B. Straus, DMH, JD

Cambridge, MA

A psychologist and lawyer was Senior Psychologist of the Family Service Clinic from 1982 to 1988, conducting custody and visitation evaluations for the Middlesex County Family Court. From 1988, he served frequently as Guardian ad Litem in high-conflict custody and access disputes.

In 1991, Dr. Straus started Meeting Place: Supervised Child Access Service, a program of The Guidance Center, Inc. in Cambridge, MA, providing a safe setting in which children in high-risk situations can visit parents with whom they are not living.

Entity Name Identification Number Old Identification Number Principal Office
Address, City, State, Zip, Country
GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE 042199861  000013371  5 SACRAMENTO ST., CAMBRIDGE, MA  02138  USA 

Some details about the organization, including its name change:

The exact name of the Nonprofit Corporation: GUIDANCE CENTER, INC., THE

The name was changed from:  CAMBRIDGE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCI on 9/17/1997

Mergered into :  RIVERSIDE COMMUNITY CARE, INC. on 8/21/2009

Entity Type:  Nonprofit Corporation
Identification Number: 042199861

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000013371

He is a founder of the Supervised Visitation Network. He was President of the Network in 1993-94, helped draft the Network’s Standards and Guidelines for practice, and has served several terms on the Board of Directors.

So maybe if I want to find what state it first incorporated in, I should go to Massachusetts?

From 1995 through 2000 he was Co-Chair of the Massachusetts Coalition for Supervised Visitation, and in that capacity worked with the Governor’s Commission on Responsible Fatherhood and the Supervised Visitation Task Force of the Probate and Family Court, helping draft the Guidelines for Court Practice for Supervised Visitation.

Dr. Straus has a private psychotherapy practice, working with couples and children, and remains the Program Consultant to Meeting Place.

Dr. Straus (psychologist/psychotherapist) published in 1994 (as cited in AFCC publication) on traumatized children in supervised visitation.  Maybe if the kids are so badly traumatized, they shouldn’t be there to start with?  Anyhow, this abstract for the cite:

Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

ARTICLE: Traumatized Children in Supervised Visitation: What Do They Need?

Authors’ Note:

This article was presented as a plenary paper at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, France, November 4-7, 1998.

April, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 135


Janet R. Johnston and Robert B. Straus


The purpose of supervised access, also known as supervised visitation and exchange services, is to provide a protected setting for parent-child contact when such contact presents risk following parental separation, child abuse, or neglect, or after an extended interruption of contact. There has been a remarkable growth in such services over the past two decades, in the United States and Canada, 1 as well as internationally. 2 Although there is a growing literature on the functioning of child access services (see, for example, Pearson & Thoennes, 1997; Straus & Alda, 1994)**, to date there has been little concentrated attention in the field on how better to respond to the vulnerable children who are the primary clients of visitation services. It seems likely that several factors have contributed to the relative invisibility of children’s individual and developmental needs in designing access programs. These factors include the urgency with which the needs of these distressed parents and their advocates call for the attention of decision makers and service providers, the fact that visitation orders (usually made in family courts where children lack their own voice) take precedence in defining how children are served, and, most important, the lacunae in clinical and research findings about the special needs of this population of children.

Whereas supervised access is used to provide supportive services and reunite parents with their children when there has not been trauma, the majority of the child clients of supervised visitation services have not been so fortunate. This article …

** of course there was even then a growing literature from certain sources on access services, particularly with the CRCKIDS.org organization on, and the nonprofit board-member multiple inter-relationships in place from the start.  Abstract is from “Lexis-Nexis


(Broken link from LexisNexis®)

Dr. Straus in Cambridge, “RSJ Corporation” filing (OLD ein# 043061365) corresponds with these dates, somewhat.

RSJ CORP. Summary Screen 
Help with this form

The exact name of the Domestic Profit Corporation: RSJ CORP.
Entity Type:  Domestic Profit Corporation
Identification Number: 043061365

Old Federal Employer Identification Number (Old FEIN):  000312860

Date of Organization in Massachusetts:  09/11/1989 Date of Revival:  05/29/2007
Date of Dissolution:  08/31/1998
Current Fiscal Month / Day: 12 / 31 Previous Fiscal Month / Day: 00 / 00  
The location of its principal office:

No. and Street:  22 BERKELEY STREET
City or Town: CAMBRIDGE State: MA   Zip: 02138 Country: USA

Supervised Visitation Access is not suitable for long-term, has been acknowledged (?) since 1999.  Therefore, I can see how if business is to keep coming there would need to be new customers.  THEORETICALLY a good bit of supervised visitation access will heal all relationships, reform perps of course (Except parentally alienating ones?) and lead to a reunified family.  (Alternately, see Warshak….).  OR, it could provide a nice excuse to terminate relationship with the offending parent, possibly the one most offended at (and/or paying for) the supervised visitation to start with.  Another Lexis-Nexis abstract, delivered in Paris again — here:

Copyright (c) 1999 Sage Publications, Inc.
Family and Conciliation Courts Review of AFCC

ARTICLE: Supervised Access: A Long-Term Solution?

Author’s Note: This article was originally presented at the First International Conference on Child Access Services, Paris, November 5, 1998.

October, 1999

37 Fam. & Concil. Cts. Rev. 478

Author:  Martha Bailey



Supervised access is ordered to develop, reestablish, or maintain a relationship between a child and a parent, or other relative, generally with the expectation that unsupervised access will at some point become possible. Some courts and commentators have said that supervised access is not appropriate as a long-term measure. Ontario Provincial Court Judge Norris Weisman wrote that supervised access is “a temporary and time-limited measure designed to resolve a parental impasse over access,” not “a long-term remedy.” 1 Lawyer Karen Oehme, cochair of the Family Visitation Program of Tallahassee, Florida, said, “Attorneys should realize that institutional supervised visitation is not a long-term solution in most family court cases, and that the programs should not be thought of as a substitute for addressing the underlying problems that resulted in the need for supervised visitation in the first place.” 2

In a 1992 case, the Ontario Court of Appeal also emphasized that supervised access should not be “a permanent feature of a child’s life” and decided to terminate access, rather than ordering supervised access, where it was not foreseeable that unsupervised access would ever be possible3 A year later, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia, in a case called Bieganski v. Bieganski, said: “Supervised access is not appropriate as a long term measure.” 4 In 1996, the Full Court of the Family Court of Australia clarified that the Bieganski decision did not mean that …


WELL, if one looks at the history and membership of the Children’s Rights Council (which does have a chapter in Paris, and the link I clicked seemed to indicate, since about 1999 — not that my French is very good.) and remember who active David Levy (also on board of supervised visitation network is) none of this is too surprising except that it’s not about time to make up some new terminology about now, because Collaborative Law is pretty well established, as is Parenting Coordination.    It’s recommended to do this before the U.S. goes bankrupt and the $$ is inflated into worthlessness and no longer the world’s reserve currency, which I can see why considering what we DO with it!


David Levy

David L. Levy, Esq. is a CRC co-founder and former CRC President. He has directed 16 CRC conferences, was editor of the 1993 book entitled “The Best Parents is Both Parents®”, and has recently published an eco-novel entitled “Revolt of the Animals.”

Michael Oddenino, member of the CRC's Board of Trustees

Michael L. Oddenino has been the CRC’s General Counsel since its inception in 1985.  He practices family law full time in Arcadia, CA, just outside Los Angeles.   He has written numerous amicus (friend of the court) briefs and journal articles on family law.  His CRC brief in the 1989 Michael H case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, where the court agreed with the CRC that never-married fathers were entitled to a hearing to determine visitation rights to their children, even if the child was born within a marriage of the mother to another man.

Margaret Wuwert, CRC's Chief Operating Officer

Margaret A. Wuwert, Chief Operating Officer, is a retired social worker and serves as Director of CRC of Northwest Ohio. Her agency is one of CRC’s largest chapters with eight Access Centers in Ohio, Michigan and Indiana.  In 2002, Ms. Wuwert was recognized by the Lucas County Domestic Relations Court for her untiring dedication and supportive access services to the children and families in the Toledo area.

Mark S,. Inzetta, member of CRC's Board of Trustees

Mark S. Inzetta, J.D. is the Senior Vice President and Associate General Counsel for Wendy’s International, Inc., based in Dublin, Ohio. Before the CRC, Mark served on the Ohio Child Support Guidelines Commission, the Supreme Court of Ohio’s Task Force on Family Law and Children, ***and Board of Directors of the Franklin County, Ohio Chapter of Court Appointed Special Advocates.

*** Lots of AFCC influence on that one, I think I blogged it.  To get input, they simply flew the task force out to Arizona (home to an AFCC organization) to sit on AFCC presentations; I may have even blogged that.  Given Ms. Wuwert, and others, I can see possibly why CRC shows up on the Indiana Child Support site.

Just to show how “totally” unrelated AFCC is from this SVN (that’s bouncing its corporation status from state to state?) here’s what’s scheduled for the October 2011 SVN conference, I guess tax-deductible for the SVN because it’s a regional training, and probably for attendees under education, and probably who knows what else.


“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families, Implications for Supervised Visitation”

Hyatt Regency Hotel Indianapolis, Indiana

October 26,2011

This One Day Institute will focus on the issues presented in Supervised Visitation when Domestic Violence is present. This Institute will provide information to help professionals who work with SV providers, and those who provide direct services, to understand how domestic violence may require changes to their services to respond to the complex dynamic involved.

Scheduled one day before the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) Regional Conference:

“Working with High Conflict and Violent Families: A Race with No Winners” at the Hyatt Regency.

For more information about the AFCC Conference, go HERE

(and you can see the great race-car graphics, too….)

I don’t know about that “no winners” part.  It seems like great retirement planning if you’re in the business, particularly if you have published something that could be marketed as “parent education” or how to work with flawed parents, or such .  . . . .

Cost: $125 for SVN Members, $150 for Non Members (Includes Breakfast and Lunch):

Register HERE

A rate of $135/night at the Hyatt Regency is available through the AFCC Conference: HERE


I think we should look at the current list of AFCC Board Membership, starting with Linda Fieldstone (of Florida), now President:  Is your judge on it?  [{**this obviously dates to 2011.  for updated list, see organization website — or one of their tax returns (NOT made available on organization website…}]

AFCC Board of Directors


Linda B. Fieldstone, MEd, Miami, FL

President Elect

Arnold T. Shienvold, PhD, Harrisburg, PA

Vice President

Nancy Ver Steegh, JD, MSW, St. Paul, MN


Richard L. Altman, JD, Napoleon, OH


Annette T. Burns, JD, Phoenix, AZ

Past President

Robert M. Smith, JD, MDiv, Windsor, CO

Hon. Peter Boshier, Wellington, New Zealand Hon. Diana Bryant, Melbourne, VIC, Australia Andrea Clark, MSW, St. Louis, MO patti cross, JD, Toronto, ON

Robin M. Deutsch, PhD, Boston, MA Hon. Dianna Gould-Saltman, Los Angeles, CA Hon. R. John Harper, Toronto, ON Grace M. Hawkins, MSW, Tucson, AZ Mindy F. Mitnick, EdM, MA, Edina, MN Hon. Graham R. Mullane, Newcastle, NSW, Australia Marsha Kline Pruett, PhD, MSL, Northampton, MA Matthew J. Sullivan, PhD, Palo Alto, CA Larry V. Swall, JD, Liberty, MO

AFCC Staff

Executive Director

Peter Salem, MA

Which reminds me, some time, to do a post or two on the Hofstra University (NY) connection to AFCC.

Associate Director

Leslye Hunter, MA, LMFT

Program Director

Candace Walker, CMP, CMM

Business and Administrative Director

Chris Shanahan, BA, CPA

Office Manager & Registrar

Dawn Holmes

Program Coordinator

Nola Risse-Connolly, BA

Program Coordinator

Erin Sommerfeld, BA

Administrative Assistant

Jessica Murdy, BS

AND IF YOU LIVE IN INDIANA, be comforted to know they have the violence/danger thing all under control:

Co-sponsored by the Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Judicial Center

I notice that the Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs (aka “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.)-related “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has fully enmeshed itself now with AFCC (and continuing to receive preventing violence discretionary grants, no doubt) and as such will be just about useless when it comes to objective critiques of the AFCC and its impact on our culture and the culture of divorce in re:  murder/suicides around exchange of children or the filing of protective orders (so to speak) (I’m referring to Loretta Frederick:  Go to TAGGS.hhs.gov and see if you can find the  name, or search my blog on the organizations it’ll make more sense):

4. Judicial Officers institute— interparental conflict and domestic Violence: structuring Parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse

The basic implication of “abuse” is danger to the abused, or if access to hurt the abused is cut off, attempts to hurt HER children instead.   The most common sense solution would be separation.  But that concept has an “irreconciliable difference” with the fathers’ rights and perpetual new professions contingents, so we need to create more tax exempt entities to confer and rehearse how to make these situations work, even if the idea is ridiculous.

You beat a person — you shouldn’t be around children.  GOT IT?  Why should everyone else pay an adult to be supervised in the presence of children rather than get that adult AWAY from children and let them deal with their life in an adult manner somewhere else.  This is called deterrence.

COMMON SENSE though, wouldn’t support the word “institute” which there seems to be always another one of …….

Research has documented that interparental conflict and violence have multiple negative effects on many aspects of parenting and family functioning and on children’s psychological functioning and dysregulation. It is also associated with multiple adjustment problems in children, including internalizing and externalizing problems, PTSD, sleep problems, and school adjustment problems and performance.

IT  meaning “interparental conflict and violence.”  Is conflict the same as violence?    VIOLENCE is directional, and just might have self-defense counter-moves.  Two can have conflict, but generally one starts the violence.  ACEStudy.org (Kaiser/CDC study, an old one, but a large and 10-years-long one) talked about adverse childhood events having these impacts, two of which such events included physical violence and sexual abuse.

Presenters in this institute will tie the latest research on [how to rename/reframe partner and child abuse] the impact of interparental conflict and domestic violence on children to the practical task of structuring parenting arrangements that account for the implications of abuse. As a result of this institute, participants will be better able to structure and evaluate parenting arrangements that account for the unique nature of the violence and conflict in the family and link the abuse to the parenting capacities of the parties.

Loretta M. Frederick, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project, Winona, MN

Hon. Denise McColley, Henry County Family Court, Napoleon, OH

E. Mark Cummings, PhD, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN

Pamela A. Hayman-Weaner, JD, Defiance, OH Gabrielle Davis, JD, Battered Women’s Justice Project,

Minneapolis, MN

And be sure not to miss this pre-conference institute cliff-hanger:

7. domesticabuse,co-Parentingand Parenting time

The rubric of utilizing multiple hypotheses is essential to ensure appropriate interventions, services and parenting plans while addressing any shifts in parent-child estrangement vs. alienation. This workshop will help participants grapple with the complex and sometimes changing dynamics of families in conflict, particularly where domestic abuse is alleged or identified. Various typologies of abusers, victims, and relationships will be examined. Presenters will explore how to conduct initial assessments while elucidating the importance of ongoing assessment and monitoring of any progress.

Amy Van Gunst, MA, Fountain Hill Center, Grand Rapids, MI

Randy Flood, MA, Men’s Resource Center at Fountain Hill, Grand Rapids, MI

Make sure to read aloud the portion in red 3 times fast.  Then cogitate on the concept of putting “abuse” and “parenting” in the same place at all.  Then think about whether you’d like to have people who speak like that to decide where your child lives, or influence others who do.

SUPERVISED VISITATION very linked in with the AFCC and with, at least the California Courts

  1. [PDF]



    File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
    of the Supervised Visitation Network (SVN) Standards Task Force (the “Task …. 1 TheSupervised Visitation Network acknowledges that the concept of both 

  2. California Courts: Self-Help Center: Families & Children: Custody 

    Jul 28, 2011 – Why can supervised visitation help in cases where there is or has been  and education requirements of the Supervised Visitation Network

WELL, that’s enough fun for one post….  Perhaps it will illustrate a few points for my next one, about the SF Courthouses closing down, but still there are ongoing grants to SFTC from a very interesting few sources….

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 4, 2018 at 6:33 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: