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

New “Go To” widget provides direct links for Blog Navigation. Top right just under the Archive (Calendar) as you can see.

That new page’s title and shortlink:

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area: (@February 2, 2018). (case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8rg”)

This post’s title and shortlink:

New Page Just Added, ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy… Personal Relevance to a Post-DV-Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event* by Ex-Batterer…” See Excerpt + Access Full Page Here.  (case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8yW”)

Pls. Click IMAGE to enlarge! (generally true for images in all my posts). This page found at a State of California California Judiciary Council website, but © 2018 Justice Education Society of BC (British Columbia, Canada) and its Books and Guides contents have a story to tell, a symptom of a much larger issue regarding family courts in both (and other) countries. Footnote on this page also references the top book on the list.

This post is about 5,100 words as published Feb. 4, 2018 (a Sunday evening). I will be back to add some material after regarding this “Families Change” image (shown again below larger) and better explain why – a probable explanation — its international (Canadian) context is showing up on a State of California Judiciary web page hawking certain types of books for parents  and an on-line “PAS” (Parenting After Separation) course which appears at least to be free.  Similar websites from the same Canadian charity as part of its “international outreach” are in other states, Ohio, Vermont, and elsewhere. Other post-publication revisions may include some re-arrangement for clarity after new images are added (a.k.a. “copyediting”). 

Between here and the next time you see this Q/A phrase, the “*” coming from the title as quoted above,

…I’ve added about 1,300 more words (incl. some quotes and image captions) showing who, specifically, has been pushing for unified family courts (“UFC” for short, not in general use but occasionally in this post) at the county (or province), state and national levels in BOTH the US and Canada, seen from miscellaneous (basic internet search of the phrase) official sources from 2002 to 2017). The post is still under 10,000 words and these are key points.

Next, beyond the “UFC” section just described, comes the earlier introduction to this post, dealing with the child-stealing topic (basic internet search of “felony child-stealing, California” has so LITTLE information, even my 2010 post was among the top five results; others were on criminal defense law firms) — and reminders about how the chameleon-like containers may change (here, through merging into another nonprofit), while a court-connected specific curriculum (Kids’ Turn), trademarked by successive nonprofits, continue to charge the public for both the classes as individuals, and the forums in which parents can be ordered to pay-up and attend their local “parental alienation early intervention” classes.   The built-in mentality behind such classes is that “family conflict” and “alienation” is worse than abuse and violence. It’s also a trademark of the originators’ key private associations formed over time to control the family law system.

All of the above being context and current news on the field, the primary purpose of this post as its title says, is to publicize the new page, so next,

and last, a “Footnote,” mostly annotated images on some Kids’ Turn curriculum (as merged into and now run by another organization) nonprofit, tax return, charitable registration, and corporate filings leaving a trail of crumbs, although not a very wide one, to what is actually taking place in “court-connected corporations, programming, and professionals” — and doing so mostly because we continue to allow this sort of subterranean commerce to go on under new names when older ones are “called out” and exposed.  This footnote also shows that the FAMILIESCHANGE.CA.GOV “Books and Publications” page took some descriptive measures to avoid identifying by name the “National Learning Program.”  That “helpful” list of Books on at government (California State) website provides no links to any books, and while naming publishers, omits publisher geographies.  It’s more a gesture than anything else — but that gesture has a clear program intent representing privately connected interests.

I hope to make a difference in a fraction of that activity, at least, from this source, this new year, 2018. I think it’s a racket, not a public service, and I already see it’s been making connections, for years, to be run outside the country should it get exposed too much INside.

And, on general principles of attempting to regionalize policies and operations for the world’s family courts, as controlled under unified leadership — not just “unified family courts” as already in process meaning, unified subject matter under single-county presiding-judge jurisdictions, as in (for example), as I’ve already blogged as far back as 2014…

~ ~ ~ Who’s been Pushing for Unified Family Courts, and Statewide Court Systems of which they and their built-in programming (such as ADR) would naturally be a significant part? ~ ~ ~

NYS Unified Court System (NYCourts’gov) Office of ADR is under Div Profess + COURT SERVICES under OFFICE of Court Admin (in Cal, that’d be AOC?)

This platform depends on marketing to the legal profession, specifically, family courts. Naturally, unified family courts under the dominant control of people already known to think in terms of using the courts to refer business to colleagues, would be ideal. (Avirat, Inc. (who owns and runs OFW, the digital platform/product) founding Kissoon family in Minnesota included a family lawyer).

The UFC concept therefore, has been around for a while. My new (Feb 2, 2018) page takes some time out to remind us this is happening with within federal agencies, within private philanthropy and with both in combination with each other.  This is wise to remember as the larger canvas on which any protests, reform movements to protect domestic violence or child abuse victims from harm perpetrated through, and under the jurisdiction of family court decision-making should be weighed.

In other words, it’s not just the Domestic Violence (Prevention/Advocacy/Services) field being consolidated and appropriated through specific, identifiable tactics and organizations..

If the “DV” field were actually more independent, and NOT so controlled, it might pose a larger challenge to the consolidation of the “Unified Family Courts” under control of people indoctrinated to reframe the concept of DV and Child Abuse as criminal behavior with regular consequences into, “the courts are overcrowded, and too many litigants don’t have lawyers — let us divert, outsource, ADR, treat, and refer — and promote our publications around entrance INTO and exit FROM any actual legal actions. I think this is an issue which has been bypassed, deliberately by many, and unconsciously as so coached, by many more — but which will continue to (fester and exhibit destructive symptoms – – – i.e., hurt people, and increase their and public costs) until addressed openly.  SOME REFERENCES FOLLOW:

(See here, a 2002 Administrative Office of the Courts (California)** commissioned project surveying the field) (Just found, I read the TOC and a few para. only):

From AIR, a California AOC-commissioned literature review, ca. 2002 — table of contents page.

**Unified Family Court Evaluation Literature Review | Administrative Office of the Courts Contract Number: 1001959 (see nearby link for full title page)

INTRO:  In August 2000, the Judicial Council of California presented a three-year operational plan designed to address the goals of its strategic plan of Leading Justice into the Future. The plan identifies the establishment of unified or coordinated family court systems as a high priority strategy related to the accomplishment two goals: improving the quality of justice and service to the public. The Judicial Council has allocated at least $1.3 million per year to a Unified Courts for Families Initiative facilitated by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) for implementation of this strategy

Or here, which appears to be some powerpoints from January 2011 (see next image) but as found (posted, uploaded) closer to July, 2015 at Purdue (Indiana), former? home of the famous (if you follow fatherhood funding) “Family Impact Seminar” series.  This presentation was however, it says, in Salt Lake City, Utah — and presented before the Center in question got its additional name from alumni donors Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff, to it. Ms. Babb is currently editor in chief of the AFCC/Hofstra University produced “Family Court Review,” and her co-director (?) Gloria Danziger also on the editorial board until ?2020. (Search the FCR at Hofstra for a list of editors and affiliations for each — there will be law schools, courts, psychologist/psychiatrist professionals, contacts at various universities — and not only from the USA as I recall).

Heck, here’s even a Canadian website (blog/forum) describing the same concept in 2014 and stating it had begun as far back as 1968 1976 in some places. Maybe that concept itself is an import — who knows? NOTE:  Canada’s corporations, I learned recently, have the option of registering “federally” for all provinces or provincially — a difference from here.  But look at the verbiage. (I provided an image, but also see below it for characteristics).

CFCJ (bilingual, French/English) “Canadian Forum on Civil Justice” blog article, 2014, on Unified Family Courts reads similar to many in the US, despite different government and justice systems. “Wonder how that happened…”

“Canadian Forum on Civil Justice | Forum canadien sur la justice civile” is (it says) a nonprofit formed in response to a 1996 Canadian Bar Association, ” Systems of Civil Justice Task Force Report” (98pp). The website’s link to this is broken; I couldn’t find it (on initial search of 96 results) on the CBA website. Wiki has a link (evidently from CFCJ), likewise broken. Plain internet search showed some libraries where it’s held (showing it was 98pp), but no on-line viewing… A few “googlebooks” also list it — but no preview. How about correcting “Access to Justice” by providing access to the document which engendered, it says, formation of this nonprofit? I’d bookmark CFCJ. Its board are highly-educated; take a look. How much education does it take to keep link on an “About Us” page on such a basic element of its own existence functional?

From this same Canadian website, a more recent interview by another judge (Hon. Thomas Cromwell), “Access to Justice: Interview with Justice George Czutrin, active in (family?) law since 1993 about the benefits of unified court systems, the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is referenced a few times, near the top, but as an additional resource, as if a neutral outsider.  Not mentioned — he’s been President of the Board of Directors, at least in 2003-2004. (see right sidebar, “Past Presidents” – a list that goes back to 1963, Roger Alton Pfaff, although the corporation in this form didn’t exist technically until 1975 (and Meyer Elkin was President 1976-1977).

Access to Justice: Interview with Justice George Czutrin,Monday, October 16, 2017
This article originally appeared on The Lawyer’s Daily on October 16, 2017 as part of Thomas Cromwell’s exclusive The Lawyer’s Daily column dedicated to access to civil and family justice. It is part one of a two-part interview with The Honourable Justice George Czutrin.Family law is a flash point for access to justice. Some jurisdictions report that as many as 70 per cent of family law litigants appear in court without legal representation. And with or without representation, the stress of legal proceedings adds to the burden of an already emotionally charged situation. The impact on children of conflict and delay in its resolution is hard to overestimate.

The Honourable Justice George Czutrin is a family law expert, a tireless worker for improvement in family law and the senior family judge of the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario. He has been a family law judge since 1993 and his dedication to the pursuit of improved family law justice is unsurpassed.

Justice Czutrin agreed to be interviewed for this column. This is part one of a two-part interview. I think that you will be impressed and encouraged by what he has to say.

TC — What is your role as senior family law judge? …

Improving access to justice and quality of justice, especially for self-represented litigants?  Integrating the courts with social services?

Along with the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ontario Court of Justice, we have sought the necessary approvals from the federal government to support immediate expansion of the Unified Family Court in Ontario to an additional eight Superior Court of Justice locations, which would bring Unified Family Courts to 50 per cent of Ontario’s population. At the same time, we have delivered a plan to the federal government to support expansion of the Unified Family Court to all Superior Court of Justice locations by 2025. These requests are also consistent with NAC [[National Action Committee, referenced earlier]] recommendations and we are hopeful that they will receive a positive response. We also run biannual educational conferences for Superior Court judges on pressing family law topics, including how best to work with high conflict families and how to handle complex financial issues.

Last year we also introduced a new annual child protection seminar in memory of our late colleague, Justice Heidi Polowin, who was one of our leaders in that very important area of the court’s work. These educational conferences are in addition to the programs that judges may attend from the National Judicial Institute (NJI) and other providers (e.g. the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts). …

…The Superior Court also continues to help run a family law student negotiation competition, the Walsh Family Law Negotiation Competition, which is held each spring along with a family law moot, under the umbrella of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Ontario chapter. These events have been running for three and five years respectively. This year we are thrilled that students will be participating from every law school in Ontario, including our newest law school in Thunder Bay.

Czutrin listed (bottom line) as 2004 AFCC ambassador.  (Suggest — post-it the list for handy reference): One of six for the year.  I also see in there Susan Carbon, former Director of the USDOJ/OVW, Loretta Frederick (typically speaking on DV issues, Battered Women’s Justice Project) and many others. Some are likely judges, others family lawyers, etc.

AFCC Ambassadors are members who are acknowledged for their often behind the scenes efforts in helping the association reach new audiences and expand its reach while exemplifying the collegial and collaborative spirit of AFCC membership.

He was the 2011 John E. VanDuzer Distinguished Service Award recipient, named in honor of a (Canadian) judge producing the first unified family court in Hamilton, Ontario, and AFCC’s first Canadian president in 1983.  This list goes back to 1990 and (of interest) contains only ONE listed organization (vs. single individuals) — granted in 1993:  National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ”)

The John E. VanDuzer Distinguished Service Award recognizes outstanding contributions and/or achievements by members of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts. The award is named for the late Justice John E. VanDuzer, who served as first Canadian president of AFCC in 1983. Throughout his career, Justice VanDuzer distinguished himself as a tireless advocate for children and families. Justice VanDuzer initiated the formation of the first integrated federal provincial family court, the Unified Family Court of Hamilton-Wentworth. See award information and criteria |
Submit a nomination online

And as 2003-2004 Board President, and helping further establish “parenting coordination” as a court-connected practice and program, Czutrin appointed an AFCC Task force on the topic.  A 2003 regional conference in St. Louis called for programs to be nominated, his hand-picked task force (starting with Barbara Babb — who’d just started UBaltimore School of Law “CFCC” referenced above a few years earlier — among them) then chose their winners, which were featured in the annual 2004 AFCC in “San Antone” (Texas).

The AFCC Court Services Task Force was appointed by AFCC President George Czutrin in 2003 to examine the challenges faced by contemporary court service agencies and to conduct a review of initiatives and best practices in service delivery. The Task Force held an open forum at the AFCC Regional Conference in St. Louis in November 2003 and then conducted a survey of family court service agencies to assess their challenges. Survey findings were presented at AFCC’s 41st Annual Conference in San Antonio in May 2004. To highlight successes in the field, the Task Force disseminated a call for nominations for exemplary family court-related programs. Task Force members selected 69 programs.  These programs were featured in the 2005 AFCC publication Exemplary Family Court Programs and Practices: Profiles of Innovative and Accountable Court-Connected Programs.

Announced (minus the co-author’s Jones Soderman’s name, or publisher) on AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr “Write On” section and, as I speak, being marketed in at least two countries via FamiliesChange.CA.gov along with 14 other books primarily written by AFCC members (which I suspect Jones-Soderman also is)

Thus, whenever ANY activist or innovative judge within this field (Canadian, United States, elsewhere) shows up promoting policies also separately and identifiably being promoted through AFCC Task Forces, Conferences, “Practice Models” and with amazing uniformity, under the names associated with their private, individual social and work positions ONLY, such as occurred here (even when repeatedly mentioning the AFCC in the interview AS if a neutral, not an involved, observer), such as showed up in an interview just last fall (Oct. 16, 2017)  (a Canadian website (blog/forum) Justice Czutrin interview ), it’s wise to check the associations. IN addition to learning what such justices want, it also reveals another practice — withholding relevant TO THE PUBLIC information while promoting the latest “innovations.” His long involvement with AFCC is tactfully omitted.  (I didn’t check the interviewer judge, which might also be wise).

Members also support each other socially, including when one gets married. (2006 AFCC News — again, just another search result-online) shows Czutrin on the Board of Directors Still, and conference committee, as well as celebrating the first marriage of an openly gay judge in Toronto to his partner, with other member attendees (two nearby and one related image of a book cover).

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..(case in point, my case overlaps with this time frame. I am a mother whose children were first stolen by, then retroactively “legitimatized” by rubber-stamping the event, after which retroactive reduction of child support arrears which, combined with dramatic (that event) following ONGOING (years of) disruption of my existing work life which up to then had been arranged with a view to and around our children’s immediate and long-term needs, and recently expressed schooling wishes, trashed economic independence as achieved in the normal way– building upon success, maintaining stable connections over time. … At least one AFCC professional in the many hearings that year has been identified, but more to the point, the mandatory mediation, a primary feature of AFCC’s earliest years, also factored in, previously, removing the protections obtained originally, which “softened up” the targeted parent for the “takedown.”)

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News, “Write on”). Quattrocchi here was co-author with Jill Jones Soderman. The publisher is named after her mediation center in AZ, Jones-Soderman’s (strange!) website FCVFC.org image nearby. Jones Soderman’s CV (MAJOR psychoanalytic focuse, BA – from Hofstra! –  in 1968, advanced degree from Touro University Internat’l in Cypress, CA) admits that this collaborative project (book) was to be distributed AFCC. Yet on her website is a link trashing AFCC as a fathers’ rights corrupt ring of judges (!), which seems to have been taken (no source given) from, probably, Liz Richards much earlier “NAFCJ.net” website which helped me first “crack the code” here. The book is also listed on FamiliesChange.ca.gov website, one of only 15 (but I’ll deal with that in separate post. //LGH Feb. 5, 2018

Below it (in the newsletter layout, same page; not here) is a reference coming up soon in my related post on that FamiliesChange.CA.gov web page (<==books/ publications link) run by the Justice Education Society of BC), I see Allison Quattrochi — one of two authors of a book on divorce on the list (Underneath the 2009 book shown above, by Mary Ellen Hannibal).

The other author was Jill Jones-Soderman (second image), but neither this nor any publisher is reflected in the 2006 AFCC Newsletter announcement. A quick search on Arizona Corporations Commission showed (link to a 4-page pdf I just printed describes the situation): AZ Articles of Organization for Family Mediation Ctr Publishing Co LLC (Dec 2 2004 stamped, 4pp) show Quattrochi only member, the RA, and previous owner of tradename Family Mediation Cen The trade name “Family Mediation Center” in Arizona currently shown as registered, as of 2015, to a Joy B. Borum, (<=LinkedIn) however. An about me descr. (for Borum) elsewhere mentions “former county supervisor” and emphasizes involvement in ACR (Association for Conflict Resolution) but not a word about AFCC. Her “Mediate.com” profile does — but only in very fine print, unlinked, and by acronym only (near the top). (contains link to the Mediation Center website, currently referencing herself only). Anyhow…

       ~ ~ ~ (moving on…) ~ ~ ~

Back to the Title (and subtitle) of this post:

*Why review the child-stealing event?  It came up in the blogging context.

It’s also an underlying factor in this entire blog as a dramatic event and time period in my life, however, talking about it again comes from references to an author who’d been writing on it in another context — as one of the curriculum designers of a parenting education class which has, it seems, multiple incarnations (for more see new Home/Front page and look for “Dorothy S. Huntington” or Kids’ Turn references). Dorothy Huntington (1980s) was quoted by a (psychologist from Indiana State) Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D., over a decade later and this information has been referenced by many in the international parental abduction contexts.

“felony child-stealing, California” (Google top 5 search results), taken & annotated Feb. 4, 2018. Click image to enlarge.

It also helps me to revisit topics covered years ago, having continued to study this field meanwhile, for hindsight or details I may have missed the first time when I knew less and because   the Internet and what’s (accessible) on it continually changes, another way more related information may surface on a revisit or search of the same topic again again.

As previously posted…CLICK IMAGE to enlarge

Not to mention, organizations sometimes change their names, or merge into others, as happened with one out of only two known “Kids Turn” organizations within California. The Northern California one merged into “SFCAPC” which then just last fall (Sept. 2017) changed its legal name to “Safe & Sound” — but continued to run Kids’ Turn Curriculum under that brand.  Court-ordered, sliding-scale fees, ranging up to as much as $1,000 for a session, and all..

CLICK IMAGE to enlarge (Calif OAG details simply show new org. name and refers to merger; my annotations reference the previously-existing “Kids Turn”)

(CLICK IMAGE to enlarge) As previously posted, annotated, from USPTO.gov search, showing the word mark “Kids’ Turn” formerly belong to a nonprofit by that name, but was then re-assigned to SF CAPC, which (other sources show) has since changed its name, obscuring its overt connection to another nationally networked nonprofit (National Children’s Alliance).

For example (Google results image to above? left) a recent search on “felony child-stealing, California” brought up NO reference from the law, but from three law firms (which appear to be criminal defense-oriented) and my own 2010 blog {{<==worth a re-visit! gives numbers of local children stolen by a relative (over 80)  in 2008, in just two nearby (to me) counties, and}} referencing Penal Code 278. One of other search results excerpts, as you can see by the image, even says it’s a “wobbler” and could be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony (but both under the penal code, and with associated sentence & fine).  As described in “Shouselaw” (first two of three website search results):

https://www.shouselaw.com/child-abduction.html

“Child stealing” is very closely related to Penal Code 207 PC California’s kidnapping law³. However kidnapping is considered a crime against the kidnapped person. Whereas child abduction or child stealing is also considered a crime against the parent of the abducted child.⁴

Child abduction doesn’t require that you move or transport the child, only that you intend to detain or conceal the child from his/her legal custodian.

Penalties  Penal Code 278 PC is a wobbler, which means that prosecutors may charge the offense as either a misdemeanor or a felony.  If convicted as a misdemeanor, you face up to one year in a county jail and a maximum $1,000 fine.  If convicted as a
felony, you face up to four years in the California state prison and a maximum $10,000 fine.⁵ You will also be required to reimburse the victim and/or prosecuting agency for any reasonable costs they incurred for attempting to locate and return the child.⁶

What this fails to mention is it could also simply not be charged at all, if diverted into a family law court, which has been designated to handle, apparently, multiple criminal events by minimizing them or coaching parents to instead “work it out” (“or else”…). This helps declutter DA’s offices and makes, apparently, for better office stats on cases they do prosecute and which go to trial..

Shouse Calif Law Group (who worked formerly under DA’s Offices) incl. namesake attorney (1997 Harvard Law School, passed Cal. Bar, Member #192617) (in 3 images).

Shouse Calif. Law Group, attorneys who worked previously under DA’s. Image #2

Shouse Calif. Law Group, attorneys who worked previously under DA’s. Image #3

If you look at the list of 11 attorneys, there is only 1 woman, and most (not all) had prior experience in a DA’s office, whether (as their bios collectively show), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Clara or Contra Costa.  They worked first as prosecutors (or one, as a police officer) with the district attorneys, then went into criminal defense.  Where this leaves individuals (children and parents) against whom such a crime (whether misdemeanor or felony) the option of persuading local law enforcement and/or police|law enforcement to follow through, or persuading the district attorney’s office, or the D.A., to take action.Unfortunately said offices in many locations are already aware of the easier option — divert it back into family court; they are busy, at times evidently, in fund-raising for more Family Justice Center grants…

Again, the child-stealing factor as personally relevant came up again not just as a critical turning point in my own (Post-DV-Intervention) life but as a blogger, while looking again at the amazing reincarnations of a certain parent-education class, and having found a book stating who were the original curriculum designers.  You can see this — at length — on the new Front/Home page.

While I haven’t posted this image elsewhere yet, I’d also like to post this visual (and related ones for a bit of its context) taken from a California Judicial Council page, referring parents (in California, presumably!) to “PAS.FamiliesChange” website which was originally set up by a Canadian (British Columbia) Society — meaning we, in a few different states within the USA, became apparently part of its international outreach page. (“PAS” in that url, at least so it seems, stands for “Parenting After Separation.”  Is the unique choice of words, which produces an acronym coincidentally matching (exactly) the “Parental Alienation Syndrome” over which so much verbiage has been exchanged, pro and con, a real coincidence, or more subliminal promotion of the same acronym? Who knows?)

This book by Mary Ellen Hannibal (here, “Mary Ellen Hannibal Marlowe”)**, it seems was written back in 2002, after having spent about five years with “Kids Turn” and is basically about it; it’s gone through a few editions, is now showing up, the author now with an additional last name — perhaps she married, perhaps it hadn’t been revealed earlier. (**Correction:  The puzzling extra name after the author’s wasn’t her new last name, but the publisher’s. Typically, a reference puts some punctuation between an author’s name and a publisher, but this website simply didn’t! The correct imprint name is Marlowe & Co.” or “Company.”) I’m discussing publishers of some of the books on this list separately (it’s a recurring theme I’ve noticed over years from this source, i.e., AFCC-connected authors).

Also, the lead-in paragraph to the Parenting After Separation | Resources | Books” (window frame reads Books and Guides for Parents | Parenting After Separation) section where this one is at the top, I counted  15 books for adults, including some repeats (more than one by the same authors).  Most of them (by a long shot, which I know some by familiarity, others through recent checks) are by AFCC members.  Another lead-in link to this list (on the same basic website) says, a general search may bring up over 5,000 names; here’s a link to some “Publications.”  But, feel free to check anywhere else also.  This paragraph is near the bottom of the (simplified) “Resources” page, right above the footer banner which reads “© 2018 Justice Education Society of BC”

Books & Guides
When we think of resources, we often focus on information. There is certainly plenty of that available. A search for the word divorce at a popular on-line bookstore yields over 5,000 titles. Before we look at a few of these titles though, consider that resources include both information and support.

Reading books about divorce and separation to your young children will help them see that they are not alone. You may also find that the books spark conversations which can help you answer questions and provide reassurance. Here is a list of publications that may help you deal with your family break up. You can find more publications online or at your local bookstore.

You can also find more publications online, at the library or at your local book store.

Top of the list.  I want to discuss the rest of that list and some significant (but not apparent to the casual reader’s eye) characteristics, IN ADDITION to the more obvious, having direct connections to a Canadian charity, despite being at a US public state court website… But these will either be footnoted here, or their own new post…

I opted for “on a separate post” to show the other of the 15 adult (vs. Teen or Children’s) books recommended, although with a disclaimer sandwiched in halfway down the website, on the above website.   My upcoming separate post on this is currently called:

The Missing Link, Barely Below the Surface at “Resource|Publications|Books’ page a PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov, where ‘CA,’ nominally, does stand for California, but… (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

The rest of that title, “…but the website is © a Canadian charity, the content, basically, mirrors agenda of US-based but emphatically “international” one (AFCC) and on a short-list of 15 books MOST AUTHORS are AFCC.”

The material is interesting, and if you’re still unaware of situations such as this taking place, it’s good to know. Is sponsorship of this (thrown-together, not proofread, or well edited, as that post will also show) website a line-item in our State Budget?

The “Kids’ Turn references | Dorothy Huntington (1980s) as quoted by a (psychologist from Indiana State) Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D. | topic (see paragraph near top of this post) also brought up the topic of how the international treaties (Hague Convention, Civil aspects of the UN’s CRC) may impact people trying to escape domestic violence by fleeing either FROM or back TO the USA.  People far better informed on this than myself have been writing about it, but one thing I have over time tried to stay up on is the activities of a family court association who, almost from its start, maintained and solicited its international connections, particularly with the UK and other Commonwealth nations.

So a current blogging context, as I’m continuing to discover those connections, also entails the growth, proliferation, and behaviors of certain UK mediation, ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) and other “Children in the Middle” “Voices in the Middle” entities as they connect — through sponsorship — with (a) law firms and (b) in at least one case (FamilyInitiative.org.UK), a predilection to forming religious organizations with exclusively male leadership.

For me to “page” something rather than “post” it shows designation as relevant over time, probably in summary form with supporting details.  That’s the case here.  Pages don’t appear automatically except in an obscure  section of the sidebar most won’t be perusing. (The sidebar as you can see is more than full of text, dozens of links, within or as their own separate lists, etc.). So sometimes I’ll post like this to provide the link and send out an announcement. This also announces automatically Tweets the existence of a new page because each new post also goes automatically out on Twitter, not just anyone who’s signed on to follow the blog.. 

So, what you’re reading within the red borders is the top portion of the new page. I corrected a few internal references to “this page” but don’t promise to have adjusted every pronoun within the excerpt to now refer to this post, which exists only to publicize it…

Depending on how complex it gets, I may publish the “subsidiary” page mentioned below before sending out this post. All of this comes in the general context of some restructuring of the blog appearance, and some renewed attention to reader convenience, although that’s not my priority. These are, to say the least, “inconvenient” truths and presenting them documented takes a lot of images, annotations, captions and explanations, which, strung out in a single blog page and littered with links — is probably not good PR.

Then again some of the more effective PR phrases are in fact, lousy analysis, and to say the least, puzzling coming from people who know better and have advanced degrees to show at least an ability to master certain terminologies in certain academic contexts, and other controlled situations.

We are not dealing, however, in the larger scope, with a controlled situation, but an “out-of-control” situation, in my opinion, when it comes to the blurring of lines between public institutions accountable to the public, and the private, nonprofit, and often internationally-connected sector, which seem to think otherwise, and that government should be accountable to that sector, as unified by privately determined issues.

One thing I’ve just not “got” yet is how in the heck can lawyers, which comes up here, can be so resistant to admitting, even after this information has been let out of the bag almost two decades ago (and in fact, more than), the reality of the federal incentives to influence custody outcomes, and selling this politically (White House Administration after administration, meaning whether Republican OR Democrat) as in the public interest, i.e., “welfare.”

I’ve over time had some detailed conversations with both men and women lawyers, including some very active in family court reform, and had to myself think deeply about the resistance to talking about this “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and “access and visitation” funding with a comprehension how it plays also into associations such as, for example, my favorite one to bitch about — the AFCC.  How can we have a fair discussion about what’s taking place in the courts without looking — birdseye view for an overview, timelines, AND back down at the street level, that is, to grantees and contractors, subcontractors making a (often a very nice) living off those grants.

I took another brief look at the timeline of Legal Momentum, and again confirmed their role in active support of VAWA, awareness of domestic violence (and child sexual abuse issues), yet somehow failure to mention enough searchable specific terms, to lead anyone to this:

TAGGS.hhs.gov — or “HMRF.ACF.gov” — or “Fatherhood.gov” — or such.

I also see very little mention of the pre-existing (by exactly ten years) 1984 FVPSA

(see new page for links and images).

The parent page, and its shortlink: LGH Top Picks, Themes, Tables of Contents, and Why My Gravatar is a Blue Jay taking Flight. (New Jan. 11, 2018).

I’ll probably continue using “Front” or “Home” page interchangeably. I’d call it a home page, but the blog domain calls it a front page.

For a reminder, the “parent page” to the one you’re reading now is also the new Front/Home page, from which you can access the “Posts” page where all posts will display, most recent on top (right-hand image).

New “Go To” widget provides direct links for Blog Navigation. Top right just under the Archive (Calendar) as you can see.

Since setting this up, I’ve also added — right under the Archives and current month’s Calendar —  a convenient “Go-To” widget with titles (active links to) for all three pages shown above plus another* to the top of right sidebar. That’s another way to access Current Posts page if you’re not on it, or Front Page, if you were browsing the posts and want to go back. (For how that looks, see nearby second image, left side). *(“New to Blog?…” a subset of new Home/Front page is mercifully short; basically just a list with links of “formerly sticky Top 10” posts. With some abstracts)

This The new page’s title, which will be repeated below mid-way {{therein, not on this post simply referring to it}}, is:

Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities. Subtitle: Personal Relevance to a Post-DV Intervention, Unprosecuted, Child-Stealing Event by Ex-Batterer case in the SF Bay Area: (@February 2, 2018). (case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8rg”)

There is a subsidiary page coming soon, more directly related to the first half of the title.

Reference to all this was getting complicated on the blog’s new Front (Home) page, but I still want to talk about it again.

In the intro here, I reference the consolidated control (first part of above title), but do not discuss at length or go (again) through documentation.  The main point of this page is in the Subtitle.

I documented in 2016 and 2017 much of the consolidated control topic for the larger statewide (“CADV” or “Coalition Against Domestic Violence”) organizations, those taking HHS grants, and the “Special Issue” or chosen “National Resource Centers“*

• [[*That’s a link  to U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 110 › § 10410, that is, 42 U.S. Code § 10410 from Legal Information Institute, or “LII” at law.cornell/edu/uscode (etc.).  Remember to read the “About LII” tab and any disclaimers on being the most recent version..]

as funded 1984ff under the “FVPSA” (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which was implemented — and this is key to understanding it — through the US Department of Health and Human Services which had just been formed (separated from HEW) only in 1980.   It took me a while to realize that the larger funding to key “DV  or FV (Family Violence) Prevention” groups I’d already been observing, and their felt presence on-line as other websites continually referred/linked readers, with personal messages to those who might be in abusive relationships or know someone who was, to them, was written into the funding law itself, specifically.  I posted this new (to me) information almost as soon as I saw it, having previously a general awareness acquired over time of how some of those groups were collaborating, operating, and having looked also at (sampled in detail) most of their tax returns.  This shows that by design, by law, greater control was centralized, if you will, regionally, NOT at the state level even with statewide organizations.

45 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) from Cornell’s “LII”

That last paragraph (in condensed form) will be repeated below because in between I talk generally about federal department (gov’t) and nonprofit (= the corporate, private sector) consolidation as an ongoing process and theme and as the larger environment within which the consolidated/coordinated, “state-wide-coalition-based” domestic (family) violence prevention financing and programming operates, as does also USDOJ-based VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) funding, which came up a decade later.

There are significant logical and special-interest problems with this overall model which reveal, I believe, a different overall agenda than that being openly advertised, which openly advertised rationale (for coordinated, centralized control of DV prevention systems) is basically justified as <>urgent problem-solving and <>conserving scarce federal / state / local governmental resources.

LGH Former posts on Consolidatn of DV Prevention Orgs (2017Feb-Mar) (There are more, however. Look for “FVPSA” in a post title.

42 U.S.C. 10401 (FVPSA) is itself Title III to Public Law shown at bottom. (per Cornell’s LII)

H.R. 1904 (which became public law in question), 1984

Self-explanatory, recommended read summary, incl. of Title III (which was the FVPSA) below on original site.

Feel free to browse my (especially 2017) Table of Contents titles for more posts on that situation.  I may include other specific earlier post titles and dates in the coming subsidiary page which deals with the existence of a well-designed situation (model, strategy, “business plan” if you will) about which there has been a collective silence on the part of (most) nonprofits organized, so say their websites, to stop or address the domestic violence issues, specifically regarding violence against women. Here are just a few, but not the ones on the FVSPA (nearby image, from Table of Contents)

While I say, “feminist leadership controls,” (<=meaning the verb, not plural noun), common sense says, for any nonprofit corporation, regardless of the cause, in effect the funders (or a lack of funders) actually control the nonprofit.  In this case (statewide DV Coalitions and National Resource Centers) this control was mostly the US Government; the feminist leadership running the various organizations in coordinated network with each others’ groups led their respective organizations or projects.  Because of that coordination and centralization, when the CENTRALIZED SYSTEM gets a key concept (or value, principle, or programming) seriously wrong — it has an amplified effect.

That’s why it’s not just someone else’s matter.  It’s a matter of basic government, and symptom of the system of tax receipts from employees + tax-exempt status.

This gets more than complex when the nonprofits appear to be formed by already collaborating major wealth in the first place.

How to tell one started truly at the grassroots from one pre-fabbed, pre-planned, and with an agenda which may or may not be revealed (to the public) as soon as possible?  In other words, when you’re actually dealing with a “front” group?

I have no formula, but can observe.  However, that observation is often in hindsight — particularly when some choose to start out as projects, or using fiscal agents, or keeping the revenues well under $50K (so as to avoid requirement to fill out a full tax return, allowing existence but filing of a Form 990-N instead). In other words, you can’t generally observe things before they show up observable, and I’m talking not just website, but also financials.

And that discrepancy puts the public at a disadvantage from the wealthiest sectors’ intent, so it’s said, on eradicating a series of bad things, tax-exempt and with each other, to bring about, as came up in one here, better ways to achieve massive social change. (In a jointly authored (with The California Endowment, a $3.4B assets foundation) study called “Redefining Expectations for Place-Based Philanthropy,” referenced below here, I discovered a nonprofit named simply “FSG” formed only in 2005, working with and serving “the big guys” (consulting), tax-exempt of course.

FSG logo.

FSG home page self-description. They help solve the complex problems,  by reimagining the systems and relationships that shape our (sic) world. (WHOSE world?) By this view, Having a multitude of private and public (990PF + 990-filing, or not-filing, as to just the USA domestic ones) foundations drawing, like magnets, resources (including workers, that is hiring employees) into their widely dispersed (overall, as a sector) spheres of control and exchange of funds for services, and away from the public’s (typically to reduce taxes, or based on beliefs of their efforts, or both) is supposedly not “part of the complex social problem,” although it certainly complicates accountability TO the public for use of public resources…

Prodding or drilling-down a little beyond the surface in many projects often hits the “watering” (funding stream) tables from common sources which may provide as valid an explanation for the few positive results shown in, for example, stopping this insane ongoing anger towards women as either women, or as unfairly advantaged each and every time some social service sector helps them, including helps them escape abusive control of their lives, and get on their own feet, safely, afterwards.

Reminder:We live in times when the emphasis on government service agencies, too, are focused on cross-departmental coordination and cooperation, at least within the executive branches (i.e., HHS, DOJ, DOE, DOL, etc.).  Similarly, and probably earlier, but you’d have to check, the largest philanthropies are also focusing on networking together, sometimes under their own selective umbrella organizations, to focus money on a chosen cause. Or this could be done with a single, extremely well-endowed foundation also.  The coordination is often focused on place, and also often focused on boys and men, and/or boys and men of color, especially.

• Open Societies Foundations to Join with 10 Philanthropies to Support Young Men of Color (from its website, June 5, 2014.  See next quote and a closing image from the article, which gives some scope of stakeholders, and some timelines:

etc….

Continued from two or three images posted above on the same topic. I’ll repost one of them (the “Charitable Details” excerpt page) here, as well as a few reminders:  the “Good Parenting Through Your Divorce” (“Based on the Kids’ Turn Workshop Program”) image below, which does acknowledge the “KT connection” is also (a 2009 version) being posted on what is effectively an international website, California’s “FamiliesChange.CA.Gov” as I showed above, but failing to divulge what ‘National Learning Program” was actually meant.

(Screenshot simply shows the California Courts/The Judicial Branch of California label on the FamiliesChange website which has already been established (or, go down to the page footer with © and read it, then look it up!) is a Canadian charity

Compare wording here to wording in earlier version of the same title by Mary Ellen Hannibal.

from one of Jeanne Ames’ obituaries (see Front page for longer excerpts and link).. “…in 1985 she left Family Court Services” (and went into private practice with her daughter) but in 1991 was still active in co-writing the California Custody Evaluation Manual. See also (out of chrono order) 1982 involvement with “World Conference of the Rights of Children” in SF…

This footnote is, yes, tangential, but I am making the point of what it might take to keep abreast of such changes. Again, we are dealing with a specific KIDS’ TURN curriculum and the NONPROFIT set up to run the programs, designed in larger part and certainly conceived of by AFCC members which also happened to be, as a group:

• A family court judge (Judge Ina Gyemant, now ret’d.).
• A long-time director? of family court services (Jeanne Ames) and significant figure historically in how it’s been run (according to her obituary)
• At least a few family law attorneys, whether as original or ongoing support (by memory, or see my new Front page to check, Jennifer Jackson and, helping to house it 1992ff for many years (apparently until the merger), Suzie S. Thorn (See Suzie S. Thorn Family Foundation” references on my New Front page.
• A PhD Psychologist, as I understand it — Dorothy S. Huntington (then working for an AFCC-affiliated, by subject matter, common rhetoric (“Family in Transition”) and founders, the Center for the Family in Transition (Corte Madera, CA).

Not to mention:

• An M.D. Psychiatrist (AFCC connection not known, but alignment seems clear enough), John M. Sikorski (see Front home page).

FOOTNOTE:  Kids Turn (SF) merges into pre-existing and much larger nonprofit + corporation (registered with both Sec of State and registry of Charitable Trusts), “SF CPAC” — creating two different charitable registrations and entries (each with its history details & documents) under one FEIN#, one SOS Entity#, and one (new) organization name, as of 2017.

SF CAPC = Child Abuse Prevention Center. In San Francisco, obviously.  Its most recent name is the last image below, not even yet reflected on a tax return.

However, a different source of records, the IRS and (therefore) searchable database of IRS returns, “990finder,” hasn’t yet caught up with this.While the new “Safe & Sound” has no problem admitting now that it’s re-branding (as any google search shows, and their main website), it’s a lot LESS clear UNLESS one was already following the organization Kids’ Turn (SF) that it had merged into the other one as of 2014.  Still less clear, again without some attention to the situation, is that Kids’ Turn essentially reflects AFCC agenda and personnel, from the start (meaning mid-1980s) and ongoing (I even known one of the (woman) judges — or perhaps by then it was a Commissioner — I stood in front of “back in the day” (after our “child-stealing, unprosecuted”) in the “year of hearings,” was at one point on a Kids’ Turn Board of Directors.

Correlating the various ID#s from three (or, when one includes also the USPTO.gov site, as I did above) four different sources and records can get tricky.  I’ve previously annotated some images, and am reposting some of them here. While I certainly cannot take credit for the merger out of existence of an organization which was around, quietly doing court-ordered, forced parent education services through the family courts and with the City and County of San Francisco, apparently, for two decades, with well-known family lawyers on the board (not just judges), I do note that the merger occurred AFTER I ran a serious of posts on the organization…including times it was temporarily “Delinquent” in filing, something at the time I thought was much more significant than, apparently, the state thinks it is, at least for small organizations.

~ ~ ~ I’m not going to narrate these images. Information in the form of names and types of ID#s are on there, a lot of it already annotated, IF you are able to mentally retain one set of information while looking at the next set, and remembering order of events, and source of the data. Repeating two images from above, and the rest, I had on file (DNR if most got posted — probably not) and am simply uploading now. If viewers are able to see the image “URLs” while loading them, which I’m not sure of, most contain a date of the screenshot.

CLICK IMAGE to enlarge (Calif OAG details simply show new org. name and refers to merger; my annotations reference the previously-existing “Kids Turn”)

This corresponds to similar, but NOT identical one above, also annotated. The chief differences it marked here in red: The registration# is different from the one that merged-out, and as you can see from this excerpt, the 2001 Assets and Revenues far larger.

Just FYI an earlier (2011 stamped) pre-merger Corporate filing (California Secretary of State) for Kids’ Turn showing among others Suzie Thorn, pardon me, Claire Barnes (see my Front Page for more info) as registered agent.

From 990finder, it’s not even yet time (dep. on fiscal year end) for the new tax return containing “Safe & Sound, Inc.” to be filed with the IRS, so here are more recent ones. You can see the size is far larger than (if you look it up) earlier Kids’ Turn nonprofits, reflecting probably larger scope of operation, essentially burying (except for search results?) a clear awareness that this KT programming continues under that organization. I found it, with the logos, on a specific Google search — NOT as readily visible clicking through the new website. (AS I recall, again / See for yourself…)

As shown, two charity registrations: One is “Merged out” the other “current” and the State level is ahead of the IRS level here (and, it seems, perhaps also on the USPTO.gov) on the name change.

(CLICK IMAGE to enlarge) As previously posted, annotated, from USPTO.gov search, showing the word mark “Kids’ Turn” formerly belong to a nonprofit by that name, but was then re-assigned to SF CAPC, which (other sources show) has since changed its name, obscuring its overt connection to another nationally networked nonprofit (National Children’s Alliance).

Obtained from California OAG/RCT “Verification” search, Details, uploaded document, regarding the entity surviving the merger, a name change date-stamped 9/26/2017 only (quite recent):