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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource|Publications|Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but …

with one comment

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).  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 [[Here, which is NOT the post you’re currently reading, but the one I copied this captioned image from…]] also references the top book on the list.

This continues from the most recent and what happened also to be my 750th post in this blog, dated Feb. 4, 2018.   It won’t take long on that post to see from some images on it where I’m picking it up at (not to mention the image with a bright yellow-highlit caption I just copied from there ===> > >) and a link I left there that reads about like this:

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands 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 today’s post’s title, “…but the website is © to a Canadian charity, and the content basically mirrors agenda of US-based but emphatically “international”  (AFCC). On a short list of 15 books for parents Most Authors are AFCC.”

I have been working on this post for a week and off-ramped two sections from it meanwhile.  In publishing it Feb. 10, 2018 in this form, because it’s time to do so, I still will be working on it in the following days.  Sections may be re-arranged to bring the original topic closer and  I have some material to add to the section on the book list’s self-published authors. Or that may be re-stated in a new post.

Originally, this was a simple, “cut-and-dry, document-the-recommended-books-and-their-authors’-affiliations” proposition, i.e., show the Missing Link, but on continuing to look closely at some of the ramifications to this situation, I chose instead to keep sections on two other states also working with the same Canadian charity, and detail them out. These sections talk about who funded the website project (for Vermont) and about the county domestic relations court + “location, location, location” for Ohio’s utilization of the same Canadian charity to design a website for its municipal court.  That website isn’t reading “FamiliesChange” with similar graphics, however its setting (Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Courts) has some forced parent education (“Divorce Seminar”) routine going, set by a Local Rule, and referring, in one of only two options provided, the seminar provider, ‘Option 2’ (Out of State or Spanish-speaking) refers to one of the featured authors and nonprofits on the FamiliesChange website.

The previous post (published Feb. 4, 2018) just dealt with the top book on the list, in some depth because the Kids’ Turn curriculum it featured (but didn’t openly name, on the FamiliesChange.ca.gov website) is so deeply embedded into the surrounding systems and, it seems, into the psyches of those running them, as somehow a great business [and court transformation] model.  I disagree, vehemently — but then again, I’m a domestic violence (and family court gauntlet) survivor — not a domestic violence advocate building my resume / career path by publishing and conferencing about how to better internationally coordinate and consolidate advocacy efforts (to be funded by public and private mega-sources, like US Executive Branch agencies and some of THE largest tax-exempt foundations, privately controlled, in the country, acting in concert).  Or doing the same running a nonprofit advocacy organization itself dependent on government (federal, state or local) grants, private funding from richer nonprofits (i.e., sub-grants), or forced consumption of products as program service revenues + compromise of principle in order to maintain that funding. Or feeding off that same economic biosphere as a subcontractor, i.e., public relations, software services etc.

Which, come to think of it, makes me wonder: if the US federal government as a superpower and in control (documented plenty on this blog — see Bentley Infrastructure 500!) of MOST of the global infrastructure (hard assets) and, let’s say, the top 50 richest tax-exempt foundations based off, most of them, decades of corporate, sometimes inherited wealth from multinational companies of all kinds got their heads together on STOPPING domestic violence, child abuse, and child-trafficking among the workers , employees, and low-income population dependent upon the above public/private combo for their livelihoods, don’t you think it would have happened by now?

It hasn’t, so just “MAYBE” there’s something wrong with the business + policymaking model (coordinate, consolidate, collaborate, centralize, propagandize about how wrong it is…) promoted in order to stop it.  Or maybe the present business + policymaking model isn’t the means to the noble, righteous, and humanitarian (just, equitable and sustainable though it may sound) end, but the end itself, beyond which lies another end we’d never consent to, if it were openly stated. 

Bentley Infrastructure 500 : The Bentley Infrastructure 500 is a ranking of the top owners of infrastructure around the world from both the public and private sectors that is published annually. The rankings make it possible to readily compare investment levels across types of infrastructure, regions of the world, and public and private organizations.

Bentley Systems has compiled the Bentley Infrastructure 500 to help global constituents appreciate and explore the magnitude of investment in infrastructure and the potential to continually increase the return on that investment. The BI 500 ’s value, at over USD 16.1 trillion, is about equal to the combined 2016 GDPs of China and Japan. Bentley is committed to increasing infrastructure investment returns through BIM advancements that enhance project delivery and asset performance.

{{I copied and posted this as a quote in black & white. On the Bentley Infrastructure 500 website, it seems to me every year the description font is getting fainter and fainter gray, but “don’t quote me on that.”}} Notice that they now (not formerly) separate US Civilian from Military, cutting the amount owned by the US down, while the second largest, ExxonMobil, is HQ-US, and the third, Shell Nederland B.V., HQ’d in the Netherlands, despite vast difference in geographic size of the two countries.  See nearby image.  That such a small, geographically and population-wise country could have a company within it  (if US Civilian & Military are separated) according to The Bentley 500 2017, the second largest on the planet infrastructure owner, measured in millions of USD, is itself a lesson in asset ownership, and control of MOST valuable assets by (a) governments and (b) certain types of corporations.   Miscellaneous FYI on comparisons:

Bentley 500’s #2 for 2017 (when the US, i.e., federal, govt. is split into two parts) is an energy, Oil & Gas company and privately owned. Ongoing thanks to Bloomberg (this snapshot) for its short company summaries.

http://www.ifitweremyhome.com/compare/US/NL | CIA WorldFactbook | “MapFights” (Netherlands superimposed on Calif, New Jersey, and it fits within Ohio), or even the Chicago Metropolitan area (the NL is not much larger!) or per NationMaster (chart comparing various stats — check out where they’re from, incl. CIA World Factbooks).  But Shell Nederland BV is under private control.

How Bentley just might know this is because it’s a software development company (“About” link at very bottom of page).

At its core, Bentley Systems is a software development company that supports the professional needs of those responsible for creating and managing the world’s infrastructure, including roadways, bridges, airports, skyscrapers, industrial and power plants as well as utility networks.  Bentley delivers solutions for the entire lifecycle of the infrastructure asset, tailored to the needs of the various professions – the engineers, architects, planners, contractors, fabricators, IT managers, operators and maintenance engineers – who will work on and work with that asset over its lifetime….

The company was founded and is run by what seems like exceptionally smart (and collectively focused) brothers (five mentioned — one joined his four brothers — but only four shown at top). Degrees in “Finances and decision software” (Wharton), advanced degrees (among the others) in electrical, chemical (PhD from California Institute of Technology), and mechanical engineering , several patents held, etc.  Started in the mid-1980s?  Definitely male-dominant (of 11 “Executive Cabinet” only 2 are women, in HR and a CIO). Anyhow…Corp. HQ is in Pennsylvania, with Office in Dublin Ireland, and another in Beijing, China.  Wikipedia says they “almost” went public (did an IPO) in 2002, but then didn’t — and in 2016, German Siemens invested about $130M incl $76M for a minority stake in the firm.  There have been many Acquisitions, and they also publish textbooks for their (target market professionals). Interesting situation…

Map of the Netherlands, north of & between Belgium and Germany  CIA.Gov… World Factbook”

(Pls. go to the website for an interactive version and for more detail on what was reported, and how (any disclaimers, what exactly was measured, etc.). What I like about this reference — it reminds us that governments DO own assets and infrastructures, as do corporations, and including both public and private (gov’t & corps) in the same list. Note the numbers above are listed in millions USD, so anything over 3 places (a thousand) in the Value column means, think “Billions — $293.1 Billion, $244.2Billion, etc.”


Whatever the motive, what we have right now is an intent to continue with the Family Courts, and having them handle domestic violence and child abuse (and other) cases, i.e. criminal events MOSTLY in the civil sector.  This typically doesn’t work effectively, resulting in repeat appearances in court, which is then used (in a vicious circle) to justify more out-sourcing, more centralizing (subject matter jurisdiction — “unified family courts”) AND as this page shows, increasingly to set in place digital guidance systems so the self-help family court litigants (that is, parents with children) don’t figure out what maze they’re trapped in, and who constructed it.  This both irritates the non-abusive divorcing parents, and harms the ones who are dealing with significantly abusive.  

Look carefully at two sections in this post below dealing with both Vermont and with the Cuyahoga County Ohio Domestic Relations Court policies (and, subsidiary to it, Garfield Heights Municipal Court website, also I learned designed by Justice Education Society (of B.C.).

Two state websites so far (one in California, one in Vermont) just truncate the part of the Canadian charity’s name which gives it a geography — initials representing a well-known province of the continental/North American USA’s northern neighbor, except if you’re in Alaska, and it’s more southeastern. Instead of “Justice Education Society of BC” (which it is), on the referring site it’s labeled only “Justice Education Society.”

We are going to talk about this!  I am, at least, and think you should too.  Don’t let it just slide by.  As someone who tends to pay attention to these things, and as it pertains to this blog’s subject matter, “Courts.Ca.Gov” in the “Children and Families in the Courts” (CFCC) pages especially, I see it’s a significant step in a certain long-term direction, now barely concealed. Its recent appearance seems to indicate a lessening of serious attempts to conceal the connections, which (it seems, properly) demonstrates confidence by those involved that the private control over the public institutions — the family court systems in key states — is now safely established, embedded, and perhaps beyond open challenge.

Which doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be! (challenged).


FYI, “PAS” in that url does not stand for “Parental Alienation Syndrome” although it seems to come to us from sources which do use that acronym and phrase continually and even hold conferences on it.  PAS there stands for “Parenting After Separation.”

I’m going to talk about this book list, mainly the part addressed to parents, which indicates other “goings-on” not to be ignored at the top judiciary of the largest court system in the country, last I heard, and one whose programs tend to spread to other states, with systems and associations already in place for this to take place, having been set up and cultivated for decades within and without government itself (that is to say, within private and public sectors).

~ ~ ~INTERNATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND EMPHASIS (even embedded in the motto) of “AFCC.” ~ ~ ~

[In very fine print at footer of home page] AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – the premier interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.  AFCC members include many of the leading practitioners, researchers, educators and policymakers in the family court arena. AFCC provides training and education, and does not license, certify or regulate the practice of its members.  © 2018 Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

It seems organized around the premise that “family conflict” needs to be resolved, stated in so many words.

Currently displaying workshops include one on an “Evidence-Informed Approach to Alienation” (or, on click through, “Parental Alienation,” coming up March, 2018, and conducted for relatively low costs by associate professor Michael Saini, Ph.D., apparently a young man in an endowed chair in “Law and Social Work” at the “Factor-Intewash Faculty, School of Social Work, University of Toronto” [[I think this should be discussed separately but if you click either link and read the interests, it’s a close match to terminology of this association and a notable allergy, despite a long list of interests in both above links, on using the word “domestic violence” or abuse.  He also apparently has been:

…He is the Co-Director of the Combined J.D. and M.S.W. program with the Faculty of Law at the University of Toronto and the Course Director of the 40-hour Foundations to Custody Evaluations with the Continuing Education Program at the University of Toronto. For the past 16 years, he has been conducting custody evaluations and assisting children’s counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, Ministry of the Attorney General in Ontario … (as well as AFCC Board of Directors, and on the editorial board of its mouthpiece, the Family Court Review).

(This link to that Office (for the province) quickly reveals, it does things differently than they are in the US). If he is paid for this service, it would appear he is simultaneously a public servant, a faculty member (endowed chair) and no doubt very much appreciated by this particular private association, below).  I just browsed Saini’s UToronto website (“PhD” Link above) and notice that, whether it’s Books, Chapters in Books, or Professional Publications or Presentations (all those categories shown), it would be a LOT shorter without the ones referencing AFCC or published by other known members, some of who seem to have taken him under their wing.

CyberdriveIllinois.com AFCC Search Results (cropped to Text)|“Applications for High Conflict Families, DV and Alienation, OHIO, 2007 AFCC-NCJFCJ Regional Training Conference** | NCSC-AFCC input to “Family Courts Resource Guide | NCSC

(Looking for an image of the organization’s logo already in my library.  The three “pdfs” there separated by a ” | ” are miscellaneous results culled from that search, for a general flavor of the association’s interests or activities..Notice the grouping of “High Conflict” “”Domestic Violence” and Alienation” together, thus diluting ( or it might be called “differentiating” what is and is not) domestic violence by calling some domestic violence something else.  The pdfs also have acronyms of organizations that work with it (NCSC and NCJFCJ),   etc.)

** re “Applications for High Conflict Families, DV and Alienation, OHIO, 2007 AFCC-NCJFCJ Regional Training Conference”  link above (take a look at the conference agenda/brochure).  This conference with NCJFCJ + AFCC has banners stating it’s their first joint conference.

Much was made on reports from the 2007 Wingspread Conference involving both these organizations, however, I show below [Joint Conferences section — and this was important enough to be off-ramped to a new post] that the collaborations and overlaps of personnel predated 2007 by at least a decade and more likely two.

Both those associations involve and feature membership of family court judges. Each has also at least one journal on the overlapping fields.  Neither association is likely to critique the existence of family courts as such, or truly confront, for example, AFCC’s documented negative attitudes towards single mothers [not among their colleagues] exhibiting signs of independence and self-sufficiency with their children, and towards full prosecution of domestic violence as a crime, and protection in the form of maintaining safe separation between perpetrator and targeted person/s, particularly not when it involves a father as the abuser. At that point it’s “supervised visitation” and treatments all over, and educating all involved, which of course is part of the business revenues.

When it comes to domestic violence, and I have some documentation below, their act was synchronized a decade or two earlier. On review, I believe the featured “conflicts on approach” of the 2007 Wingspread conference, which the summaries of it congratulated each other for overcoming, may have been skin deep, not in the mutual bloodstreams of the organizations. In other words, more show than reality.  By this time, other, non-aligned individuals, here and there, on-line – and some (not much) news coverage — were complaining about the harm done to domestic violence victims in the family courts was making SOME headlines, and some response or appearance of empathy towards the victims had to be demonstrated.. If the platforms for handling the issue were not maintained in the same hands, more uncomfortable truths might get out and jeopardize that “business as usual.”

AFCCnet.org, one of several events in a grid announcing them (M. Saini)

Event description and bio blurb of Michael Saini at AFCC website. Click image to enlarge.

Faculty page (tops a long list of publications, as expect for PhDs) at Factor-Intewash School of Social Work, University of Toronto. Notice “areas of interest”

AFCC, with all its various characteristics over time, is unabashedly and emphatically international in leadership and membership, although most chapters and activities SEEM to be in the USA.   It also has for years a known agenda relating towards the handling of domestic violence and child abuse (and how to avoid prosecution of the same), a predilection towards behavioral sciences, although to this day, there is still debate on whether some of them, however popular, are actually “science,” and ongoing efforts to restructure the judicial systems of involved countries based on allegations — typically scarcity of resources, and access to justice for self-represented litigants, i.e., poor people.


If you’re not a California reader, don’t tune out yet!

There is a trend to spread from this state Westward, but I see the Justice Education Society of BC, AND COURT LEADERSHIP WITHIN SOME jurisdictions in the US didn’t wait; already there’s a similar website (same theme, probably because same originating producer of the website) in Vermont:   http://vt.familieschange.org.  And a municipal court in the Cleveland, Ohio metro area (Cuyahoga County).

Justice Education Society of [British Columbia] handiwork in Vermont

Who helped fund the Vermont Version? See next annotated image or Read more about “Technology Initiative Grants.” from the LSC website.  I did…

The Legal Services Corporation (EIN#521039060, established in 1974 specifically to help the U.S. poor have better access to justice in civil matters) was Congressionally created and distributes most of its Congressional appropriations nationwide to different legal aid associations. FY2015 Form 990,* it received $387M and distributed most: $363M, which for a nonprofit isn’t unreasonable overhead. The “Technology Initiative Grant” description above omits the grantee’s name, but I did see *LSC’s $736.6K grant to the “Legal Services Law Line of VT in 2015. (“EIN# 031349316″)** [wrong#? see nearby table for 030349316 as that entity) || The issue I have with this situation is that LSC is mandated for US benefit — not Canadian, and not to help hawk books by an internationally-minded private association and its members with specific platform /private agenda which coordinates members in various public office to direct business towards professions its membership helped create, and force parents to consume every time they (just about) approach the court for divorce or custody matters. Let alone for matters involving abuse. || I spent enough time on the Vermont FamiliesChange website to locate referrals to Maine’s Kids First Center, and (AFCC) influence, minimizing the DV aspect in multiple ways and seeking centralized control of court-parent referrals.

Legal Services Corporation tax returns, and those of its 2001-formed support organization, Friends of The [LSC].

LSC is mostly funded by Congress and redistributes to various legal aid entities, whether statewide, metro region, county, or otherwise. Tax returns posted here to show size and for an excuse to post one excerpt, the tax-exempt purpose as stated on a recent tax return.  I do this in three images from its page 1 (top) page 2 (top) and page 9? (Part VIII, Revenues) top showing source of funding Click one, cursor or click again to see the next. It’s that MISSION statement which got to me as funding and collaborating with a foreign charity for development of a Vermont-based guideline for US Citizens.  In the self-help for litigants, informational website (links to or is linked to from the Families Change one, the focus is clearly on domestic violence cases being handled under the family law venue... (image shown below these 3).

“Every VT county has a courthouse with a family division.” … “There are no jury trials in family court… Instead, the presiding judge or magistrate makes the decision…” “…the family division determines how best to protect victims of domestic violence…”

Vermont sidebar stats from “Vermont.gov”

That RIGHT THERE may be in a nutshell why some people say domestic violence SHOULD be handled within family courts (avoids jury trials -as might happen in a criminal case) and many say it should NOT.

Not very good map (county lines not that clear) but from Vermont.gov of its county and town outlines (in what sensible world wouldn’t the county lines be in a different color, such as black?)  I counted about 13.  Total state population, only about 608K — that’s smaller than many metropolitan areas in the rest of the country!

EIN# 522309433 = FRIENDS of the Legal Services Corp, which explains my comment in caption above (written before I noticed this related organization) about how their overhead wasn’t that high.  “Friends of the” here absorbs it, holding title to a new building at 3333 K St. NW which it rents to LSC (and, at 2015 at least, 29% to an unrelated or private entity), and paying off the $12M tax-exempt bond used to pay it.  I also saw the initial (2001) tax return showing that Friends of the LSC started out with a $4,000,000 contribution from non-government source which apparently was leveraged to get the building, with real estate fees $539K. To this day (meaning FY2015, latest shown at 990finder), it only has one employee.

FRIENDS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION DC 2016 990 39 $11,818,466.00 52-2309433
FRIENDS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION DC 2015 990 34 $11,737,907.00 52-2309433
FRIENDS OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION DC 2014 990 30 $12,453,095.00 52-2309433

[These are tax returns from 990finder, I just omitted the table headings this time].

Which makes me wonder why the regular LSC isn’t required to use its assets to fund itself, instead of acquiring and holding $91M in various forms (see tax returns below, Part X and, if it’s referenced, Schedule D, for any “Other Assets / Liabilities” descriptions) instead of accepting close to $4M a year from the public, i.e., Government Grants, and per the website, this is a direct federal appropriation, part of the budget.

EIN# 521039060 = The Legal Services Corp

Legal Services Corporation DC 2016 990 81 $91,349,511.00 52-1039060
Legal Services Corporation DC 2015 990 79 $91,513,929.00 52-1039060
Legal Services Corporation DC 2014 990 166 $82,826,697.00 52-1039060

In the case of the Canadian-designed website aimed at family law self-help litigants and ending “*.org” but with  LSC funding distributed evidently to “Legal Services Law Line of Vermont,” I see that “Law Line” formed only in 1996, but only around 2007 recognized the larger Vermont Legal Aid (formed in 1966 and probably also an LSC grants recipient) on its tax returns as an related entity.

(Perhaps occupying the same street address and using similar websites, one referring to the other, and with the newer and smaller entity renting from the larger, older one, this was though wise. Yes, I checked tax returns and website of each.). Where that got interesting is how the relatively small, and I believe it’s generally considered politically progressive (see “Senator Bernie Sanders,” recent US Presidential candidate!), the handling of domestic violence issues is centralized within its family court division in the state, while it’s main referral is to a nonprofit in MAINE. I guess Vermont just doesn’t have anything adequate going “in-house” to handle running mandated? parent education course designed to prevent adversarial attitudes by parents towards each other which is how Maine’s “Kids First” describes it.


LSC is funded by Congressional Appropriations and redistributes it nationally mostly to legal aid or legal services nonprofits. This conference (in Louisiana; prev. yr’s was in Texas) was the 18th it says.

Oddly, the wrong EIN# (by one digit) was provided in the LSC grants listing.

LEGAL SERVICES LAW LINE OF VT INC 2016 990 39 $128,734 03-0349316
LEGAL SERVICES LAW LINE OF VT INC 2015 990 32 $82,086 03-0349316
LEGAL SERVICES LAW LINE OF VT INC 2014 990 34 $54,938 03-0349316

Website: www.LawLineVT.ORG Exec Dir. Sam Abel-Palmer (since 8/2016) [LinkedIn] before which Tom Garrett. Neither 2016 nor 2015 admits $736.6K gov’t grants (which essentially LSC would be, I believe), however it’s on a calendar year, and LSC is not. The website acknowledges it’s LSC-funded. This nonprofit, per the 990 form, was only formed in 1996 (vs. LSC’s 1974). I see from its tax return that “Vermont Legal Aid” is a (Sched-R) Related Tax-exempt entity, EIN#03-0219366, but historically (yes, I looked at tax returns back in time for both!) not acknowledged til about 2007/2009.  The former entity (Legal Services LawLine) leases from the latter (Vermont Legal Aid) but also does fund-raising for it, I see.

Vermont Legal Aid Inc 2016 990 41 $1,493,857 03-0219366
VERMONT LEGAL AID INC 2014 990 36 $1,524,530 03-0219366
Vermont Legal Aid Inc. 2015 990 38 $1,089,626 03-0219366

Website www.VtLegalAid.org (since 1966; larger).

Justice Education Society of [British Columbia] handiwork in a Cleveland Suburb (Garfield Heights Municipal Court website)

— and surrounding Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court’s “parent education” Rule 34 racket; typifying AFCC practices.

— and the deliberate submersion of domestic violence under the family (there, “Domestic Relations”) court control — WITH USDOJ/OVW approval, I learned after doing most of the look-ups (including an image gallery) below.  But that part’s story is for another day. ]   See “Justice Department Selects Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court as Domestic Violence Mentor  Court,“announcement this past November, 2017: 

(Click image to enlarge. Link to underlying article, click HERE (images don’t have active links. any PDF printouts generally do)

By “Justice Department” is meant, the US Department of Justice (its usual name) / Office on Violence Against Women.”  Image attached in case the link later expires or is moved to a less visible place.

Because of this discovery AFTER exploring the “Parent Education” link of this court and its “anomalies,” I did quick exploration of the “mentor court” situation and saw a named partner representing a combined DV & CAC (Child Advocacy Center) nonprofit,## a merger of operations.  The CAC centers, based on program/training entity National Children’s Alliance (legal domicile Alabama!!), which has taken under its wing certain policies (and the SF CAPC the former AFCC-member founded, administered (in effect, see recent pages and posts), aligned Kids Turn (SF) with its “early intervention parental alienation prevention” policy and subterranean tactics for perpetuating the curriculum (including internationally….), this topic should be further explored and publicized.  Incidentally, similar things have happened with local DV entities in my home area long ago.

Nov. 10, 2017 announcemt that Cuyahoga County DR Court chosen as mentor DV Court (for a clean copy, and the rest, click here).

## Just one image from the short 11/10/2017 (“for immediate release!”) announcement — as you can see it was released 18 days later. 11/28/2017 after or around Thanksgiving, under “News” on “domestic.CuyhogaCounty.us,” which partner (one among several in a public/private operation) I then found the website of, verifiably in the “National Children’s Alliance” program model, at least since its merger.


So, again, another “Justice Education Society of BC-involved” State (through a single municipal court near Cleveland) was OHIO. Here I don’t see a specific FamiliesChange.[County Name, State Name].gov or *.org image.  Apparently “GHMC.org” is the handiwork, which is NOT clearly divulged on the GHMC.org website.  I found it on a JES of BC website describing its “International / USA” projects (an image gallery below shows). Unique to this description, it appears the municipal court approached the charity for help.  What was the connecting factor (or who the personnel) to out-source to another COUNTRY, given our famous Silicon Valley and technology providers based here already available?

Two Wikipedia sidebar images nearby identify the county, and within it, Garfield Heights, within the larger US.

Another involved state was Ohio, and per Justice Education Society of BC (I’ll call it “JESBC” for short, which does the site), a  Municipal (not County) court outside Cleveland (NE Ohio), called Garfield Heights (but which had subject matter jurisdiction for several surrounding communities, per its map)  approached them, that is,  the Canadian charity for help with a site. To repeat: per JESBC in other words, a US magistrate (or court personnel) from OHIO figured it would be wise, a good idea, or legitimate to seek out a Canadian Charity (also taking government funds in Canada, which any one could see by looking it up) as a standard for helping poor people access justice — and streamlining the process electronically — in the US. Apparently one website for small claims was up and running by 2015 for that court.  However my concern is also, the next level up from this court would be Cuyahoga County, and its “Domestic Relations” court there is mainlining parent education course (in  just ONE type of services I looked at) to (1) a provider which isn’t specifically identified (though where to go take classes IS), OR, (2) a known AFCC-crony-style operation I’d previously looked up because its author was on FamiliesChange.CA.Gov book list, primarily.  When I say “looked up” that includes more than “just” going through the tax returns.

Assoc. with GreatLakesArt.com (Chris Wilson) but appears to be a map from a Lake Carriers Associat’n, part of a related links section of the artist’s web page.

Location of this State, County & Cleveland among the Great Lakes: Satellite and GeoPolitical (Showing Canadian Provinces, US States, and (fine print) cities — courtesy Lakeart.com/images and this one, “LCA” (Lake Carriers Association).  Cleveland is SW border, generally, of Lake Erie.  Chicago is on Lake Michigan.  Directly across Lake Erie from (Cleveland, Cuyahoga County, Garfield Heights, etc.) is Ontario as you can see.

Why it might matter, strategically?  See Great Lakes Megapolis (<=Wiki) studies as part of America 2050 project (studying Megapolis or “Megaregions” containing from 57-63M people):

America 2050 is a project of RPA” which project (**sic), says this inset is also (**Technically, grammatically an impossibility, unless it’s ALSO an entity) miraculously also a partner of “Transpor-tation for America,” whose website doesn’t describe itself either, although it does locate itself and has posted pictures of its Staff and a list of its Advisory Board. | | | PROJECTS aren’t PARTNERS! Sometimes a Project name may also correspond with a separately existing ENTITY name (Or dba of an existing ENTITY). But if not, the word is being mis-used, which is ALWAYS a derailment of the actual “persons” involved in said project. I note that Transportation For America is called a campaign, has a street address and staff but on its own website fails to disclose its: Legal business name, form of business, or (if nonprofit) any EIN#. It is not soliciting, that I can see, so …

The Great Lakes Megalopolis consists of the group of metropolitan areas in North America largely in the Great Lakes region and along the Saint Lawrence Seaway. It lies mainly within the Midwestern United States, but extends into western Pennsylvania and Upstate New York, as well as Southern Ontario and the southern part of Quebec in Canada. It is the largest and most populated megalopolis in North America. [some extra links in the Wiki removed for common terms]

(See “History of the concept”, same Wiki page), dating back to a French cartographer in the 1960s, and more recently attempts to update, referencing an America 2050 project (and nearby image of part of that section)  I assure you this is “real” and under way by the RPA (Regional Plan Association) in D.C. and it says, as part of a coalition with a “Transportation For America” campaign. (I trust readers are aware of the concept of planning associations, and that they work together, local, regional, national).

See Also http://www.america2050.org/great_lakes.html

Wikipedia on Great Lakes Megalopolis (notice involved entities, multiple governments and Economy statements. Largest City (right side caught part of an inset image) is Toronto.












Perhaps the LOCATION and ANTICIPATED RAPID POPULATION AND ECONOMIC GROWTH of this area may in part explain why the sudden interest..  (as my section title says, ”

Justice Education Society of [British Columbia] handiwork in a Cleveland Suburb (Garfield Heights Municipal Court website)

— and surrounding Cuyahoga County Domestic Relations Court’s “parent education” Rule 34 racket; typifying AFCC practices.

— and the deliberate submersion of domestic violence under the family (there, “Domestic Relations”) court control..

Really, it’s about population control…and, in my opinion, financial exploitation, esp. on the Parent Education front. …

which seems more like extortion than public service, particularly as exercised by a (Domestic Relations Division only?) “Rule 34” here — not that rules of court mandating parent education curricula as a condition of coming in front of a judge for custody issues, and then linking to in and out of state providers with a uniquely AFCC imprint is something new (previously noted in Kentucky, Pennsylvania on this blog; see “Kids First” as the calling card). It really IS a racket

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

[I see that my captions as typed in above, don’t display in slideshow format. Some are summarized in the next paragraph].

Above slideshow summarized: As I looked closer at the situation, from the Canadian Charity to the Garfield Heights Municipal Court, and up (as to subject matter jurisdiction) from there to the enclosing Cuyahoga County “Domestic Relations” Court, I saw (didn’t take long) a “Rule 34” mandating parent education courses to, just about anyone who twitches regarding custody or divorce (pre- or post-decree) and holds parents hostage to taking the course from a SINGLE on-line provider (unless they’re Spanish-speaking or a parent is out of state, which then cites to another one).  No take course and get a certificate AND complete a course evaluation too  == no can get even a hearing BUT that shouldn’t hold up if it’s the responding parent who doesn’t jump through the hoop fast enough. See image above with a “star” annotation and read the commentary (fine print).Where this gets interesting is while it was a “cinch” to locate the course for Spanish-speaking parents or out-of-town parents (provided by the “Center for Divorce Education,” featuring one of the two authors whose books show up — three times – in the California “Books” list) the SPECIFIED-BY-NAME single provider, “Education Network for Divorcing Families” I could not find as a trade name, a charity, or a business in Ohio.  I looked even at the IRS lists (which took a while) for this name — “nada.”  Maybe it’s a for-profit provides.  Something isn’t right about that situation either. (Some of the above slideshow indicates search for the named provider…). Because the lovely (sic) court website provides little detail either, who’s to know the difference?

I would like to know who was responsible for clearing that phrasing for Rule 34 (and failing to include with it a credible link to when it was instituted, which would be at least a clue) and on what basis which presiding judge (again, a date the rule was instituted would help — which has been omitted in the “Court Rules” summary linked to on the Domestic Relations Court website….

Click image to enlarge (showing June 1, 1994 effective date of the Divorce Seminar, Local Rule 34). My correction and (obviously) more comments.

Cuyahoga County Local Rules, Title VI sowing Rule 34, Rule 38, and others. I pointed to “Mediation” as well; it’s such a big part of the entire field of domestic relations.

UPDATING that last statement (and as noted in the “Rule 34 – Divorce Seminar” image’s caption in the above gallery of several (16) images, Comment about no effective date was wrong. It was shown on page footer (June 1, 1994) not captured in the screenshot. Image provided separately, below 2/11/2018 //LGH.

Nearby (ideally, above) are two screenprints (one shows from which “Special Proceedings” section of court rules it was taken, the other shows the footer, which wasn’t included in original screenprint in (it seems) my attempt to all the text on one image, but not too tiny to read.  The Effective date is listed as June 1, 1994.  NOTE:  “Parenting Coordination” (Rule 38) is Effective Date Nov. ??, 2014 – 20 years later… and this rule as written references AFCC Guidelines on it.  Overall website is “Domestic.CuyahogaCounty.US,” (not a traditional “*.gov” suffix)…


So all that’s just a taste of the situation, starting with the Justice Education Society of BC describing which US Courts it’s involved with so far, and how the one near Cleveland got started….


 ~ | ~ | ~ | ~ California’s Website and the Book List ~ | ~ | ~ | ~

This post focuses more on the books list from this website, however, on a california website which, unlike the above one, ends “*.gov” not ‘*.org.”

Who cares? Why even bring this up?  Well, take a look at this state courts website, where “Families Change” is:  ~>the only recommended resource that gets a graphic; ~>in pretty bright colors and childlike cartoon art; and ~>higher on the list than even supervised visitation, mediation or anything about domestic violence and custody?

Not to mention its two key words “Families Change” is also a message, imply natural evolution in life — and emphasis on group relationships, not individual rights and responsibilities before the law and the courts.

“Families Change,” the statement is of course a parallel, echo concept to the noun phrase (absent a verb) “Families in Transition,” a common phrase with many applications, but one specifically appropriated to form many nonprofits (or for-profit) under that name to conduct divorce, custody, and marriage-related business associated with the family law system. As I have repeatedly featured in my posts over time (see sidebar for list of “Top 10 Posts,” and the one on “Center for the Family in Transition).” Its (over)simplicity adds to its power. But what’s the real purpose?

See Footnote “FamiliesChange – the Phrase” at the bottom of this post. It’s relevant, the point should be made, but is subsidiary to the reason I started this post. And a bit more complex to explain.

Here’s a brief statement of my concern and protests over its use here, though.  This statement is also of course my opinion, though parts state absolute declarative sentence (i.e., “using the verb “is” followed by a negative-values-laden word like “cheap shot” or “propaganda,” and in places also just plain sarcastic.

ACTUALLY, (when it’s published) that statement will be found at: ‘Families Change,’ the Sentence, Just A More Emphatic (it has a verb!) New Variation on the Familiar “FIT” Tune, But “FamiliesChange.xx.GOV” and “xx.FamiliesChange.ORG” Turn up the Volume (for ‘xx’ insert a U.S. State Abbreviation – so far, it’s only two, I think…). (short-link ends “-8Cg”, started Feb. 10, 2018, removed from “The Missing Link” post…).


On main “Custody & Parenting Time (Visitation)” self-help page within COURTS.CA.Gov,

Which is the California Judicial Council website – – –

California State Judiciary website as shown now has an (almost) brand new, cartoon-like graphic (elsewhere, though not that easy to find, this seems to be since only 2016 or 2017). Notice the other sites are in more neutral, third-person terms, but this one is labeled “YOUR GUIDE,” taking to direct address. And, it’s not “MY GUIDE.” It’s a version of a Canadian guide…and as to the books list, a pretty slipshod effort, too (will be shown below).  

Slight image overlap with the one above shows that FamiliesChange graphic (1) is the only visual associated with a link on this page and (2) takes priority over the other issues listed here (incl. Custody Mediation, Supervised vistation and, “Custody and Domestic Violence,” MAJOR topics in which this judicial system with other states’ also has been involved for years.

– – –

The Book List

– – –


The book list: Many of the list are self-published, or published by nonprofits an author or co-author founded.

This post labels, documenting for the parent section only, for each title (author): <>obvious connection, or <>no obvious connection to the AFCC. I also look at the publishers, which has led to fascinating information on some nonprofits I hadn’t “met” yet and one author / book situation known to particularly take on the cause of “custody of children going to batterers and abusers” with a vengeance, and has a website, apparently quoting Liz Richards’ NAFCJ.net site from LONG ago, calling AFCC, essentially,

Fathers Rights and THEIR Corrupt Judicial Cronies

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 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 Families Change.ca.gov website, one of only 15. //LGH Feb. 5, 2018

— all the while knowing her own collaborative project was to be distributed by the AFCC.  While I’m noting this here under “fascinating information,” it’s not the main focus of this post. The next two paragraphs summarizing (in part only) are in different and lighter font color to indicate it’s a secondary topic on this post. The situation, overall, seems “crazy” and to have such a crazy situation make that list is also odd.  Why would it even make that list, only listing one of the two authors?

This collaborative project (book) is on the list. I mention this here because there IS a practice of targeting mothers in trouble already in the family courts, and under such rhetoric, getting their cases. If you’re one of these mothers, please finish reading this page, and wake up (if it hasn’t already happened).  Not everyone talking language which might resonate with your experience is actually on your side.  While I brought this up on the previous page in an image, having looked through that organization website at length, and found (on a separate website) the C.V. and attempted to track down the institutions from which degrees are claimed (back in the 1980s and one in the 2000s), it became quickly apparent, this is a more than “odd” situation.  It’s NOT the main focus of this post, however, I cannot ignore that this book is on the list, too.

This nearby image (“AFCC Members Write On”) showing Allison Quattrocchi, also on last post, references one of the two authors.  However, FamiliesChange.ca.gov books list reference the other, Jill Jones-Soderman.  In other books on the same list,  co-authors are listed.  Why would one (Quattrochi) show up in an AFCC newsletter (2006 – about the time of the project) as if sole author, but about ten years later on FamiliesChange.CA,  the other (Jones-Soderman) is given credit as if for sole authorship of the same book?  Either way, posting a website railing on the AFCC one page, then letting the same organization distribute your book (ref. to Jones-Soderman), which seems to be (from summaries) basically towing the organization line anyhow, and with a book whose co-author is known to be AFCC and (I believe my last post established this) who set up the trade name and LLC just in time to publish it (“Family Mediation Center” in Scottsdale, AZ) is sure odd behavior. (Someone else now owns at least that trade name, further confusing matters). 

From resume found at USWhistleblower.org, referencing AFCC to distribute collaborative project with Allison Quattrochi, the book which also made the “FamiliesChange.Ca.gov” (remembering this is a Canadian website!) list.

That takes a little more documentation (more images) which I’ll save for a more concentrated look;  enough links and images for the insatiably curious “right now” to look further if need be, are here and on the last post.

I spent about a half-day trying to make sense of the various descriptions and websites involving Jones-Soderman, although a certain craziness among the various websites was immediately sensed.  Among the puzzles were where was the institution at which the title “PhD” was obtained, or the MSHS…because its full name wasn’t spelled out.  Her background seems dominantly focused on psychoanalysis.

I am just not willing to go (back) down that rabbit hole today.  I did see at least a few places it ends up….not all reflected in another paragraph, which is even included here is to give just a taste, minus any possible (educated guesses, potential explanations) why, of how crazy “crazy” can look.

See Footnote: AFCC is Part of a Fathers’ Rights Corrupt Judicial Cronies Racket, but OK to distribute Our How to Talk to Your Children About Divorce Self-Published book, which (my) multiple website and organizations won’t exactly advertise…  The footnote includes some images (org. filings, tax return (headers only) in slide-show format.

What “Missing Link?”

The “missing link,” on this “Courts.CA.Gov,” self-help and viewer guiding, “FYI” website is  “missing” because it’s not acknowledged on the page, which my last post showed from several sources is typical behavior by the membership — and the “link” is to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc., which as a private association involving public civil servants (and others in public service or private practice to whom business can be and is referred by such civil servants in their public capacity) of moderate size, smallish memberships, but dominating a field it helped create and, having done this last century, continues to sponsor and create new fields and professionalize those, too.

Few acknowledge just how close a correspondence of a government promotion in even this book list matches both members (let alone viewpoints).   It has been so close for so long (although this is a blatant step in the same direction) that I dare anyone to document how the FAMILY LAW  (dealing with divorce, CUSTODY / VISITATION, CHILD SUPPORT, and by deliberate inclusion, SIGNIFICANT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, CHILD ABUSE AND OTHER CRIMINAL ISSUES (such as kidnapping, abduction, child-stealing, stalking, etc.)) differs at all in policy from that of the AFCC as declared decade after decade in its own newsletters, and at its own various conferences, as well as on the main website, and in joint conferences with others…

Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

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..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (@ “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images).  The Ford Foundation as a partial sponsor is a major symptom and symbol of this conference.


Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Susan Schechter lived 10 more years, until Feb. 4, 2004. A concise biography exists at Harvard University OASIS (Online Archival Search Information System) under this title, which show that her master’s degree was from University of Chicago, Jane Addams School of Social Work; her first book, 1982, and funding for that first book, as shown in the next image — which funding clearly overlaps with the same groups also focused, then and now, it seems, and in larger amounts, on furthering fatherhood promotion (responsible only, of course).

This excerpt from the Harvard OASIS summary of its Susan Schechter papers is heavily underlined mostly because, my having looked up so many of these organizations over time, the reality was beginning to sink in.  For a clean copy, use the link in the paragraph above.  I’ll include this information on a separate post also.

Click here for that web page.

Susan Schechter Papers from Harvard U OASIS (bio blurb only). She was active for decades and influential in the whole movement. Click image to enlarge image only. For a cleaner (un-annotated) view and much more information, click here. Nearby image has full title of the papers.

This topic continued on separate post, a title which starts “Joint Conferences with Others..” and case-sensitive short-link ending “-8C8” Link is active now, but becomes active AND accurate only after I get the post published.  It’s a good one…. (and much shorter…)



I also note that the list as shown on the web page:

  1. Puts ALL the burden on the readers to locate the books (no links given to books), giving incomplete information on most of the publishers.
  2. Publisher names are presented so incompletely that the first one, for several visits to this site, I initially thought was a new last name to the author!  Note: Complete business names in the US include a suffix of some sort:  “Inc.” “Corp.” “LLC” “Company,” etc.  Not so here — one-word descriptions seem to be good enought!! In other countries different suffixes apply (such as “Ltd.” or “Plc” or “S.A.”).  Completely ignoring the convention is unprofessional and basically says, completely unprofessional is good enough for the California public!
  3. Is inconsistent in style (some don’t even mention a publisher; some authors listed FirstName LastName, others LastName, FirstName). Some listings of a single book with two authors even have one FN LN and the other LN, FN (!) Some do, some do not have punctuation between author and publisher (etc.).
  4. As a list, is poorly defined:  Who compiled it, what criteria for compiling it were used, when compiled, etc.
  5. Overall has a cheap “slapped-up their” (turnkey website) appearance in general. Two links then a list — with no subtitle other than “BOOKS” or indicator?
  6. The titles within each section (Adults, Teens, Children) are in no apparent order — it’s neither by date, nor by author last name, nor by title.
  7. Not declared: What problems does it solve or needs does it meet?  Why these books and not others?
  • The lead-in (on FamiliesChange.CA.Gov) to this site says basically   “Well, you can sift through over 5,000 titles on books on divorce on-line or the county library, or here’s a shorter list”  (by recall; re-visiting the site and looking for this avenue into it, I didn’t see it).  Another avenue to access the page comes from the very, very bottom of the “Family Resources” page — underneath Youth Crisis and Domestic Violence hotlines (which I notice, are also pretty far down on the list.).

This is probably because two similar but not identical, versions of “Family Resources” pages exists, one minus the paragraph I was referring to.  One, through Home/Parents/ParentingGuide/Resources [page starts “California Courts”]  (left sidebar doesn’t break down resources by type) and the other through Home/Parenting After Separation/Resources.[From the page also showing the on-line course guide) Here, left sidebar reads:  “Resources” and under it: Family Resources, Books, Websites — three shortcuts/links to those pages] Perhaps I’ll footnote with images..

Said paragraph:

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

Four-image gallery below consists of: Header to that page and top of the list, the list (in two images), and closing image to confirm section-end (displays “Books for Teens,” the next category).  (Click first image, click or cursor to next ones, for larger size).  This is the Adults (although it’s not marked such) or “Parent” section at the top. https://pas.familieschange.ca.gov/resources/books  Other sections are marked, which is another page style inconsistency.

[Continuing…] Sched. A of Support lumps all $85,000 under “public support” while page 1 of the same return says $30,000 was public support and $55,000 “program service revenue” (i.e., fees for services) with Sched A having a Line2 for that amount left blank, etc.  FY2014’s looks still different and retroactively revised year 2012 record on “Sched A of Support” from $37K (where a Form 990-N could’ve been but apparently wasn’t, filed with the IRS — nor any full-length one showing up either) to $71K.  And so forth.  I see on one header a “Group Exemption No 3002” which would be interesting to follow up on — what GROUP?

Eventually (more time spent on NYS databases — both SOS and NYSCharities.com) eventually unearthed some more info, such timings, and that the same EIN# in 2012 was used for “The Family Resolution Center” which was a domestic LLC (not “nonprofit”) formed AFTER the 2007 incorporated “Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts, INC.” Meanwhile, the IRS website characterizes the tax-exempt entity as an LLC.  Between “Foundation,” “LLC” and “Inc.” I’d say the confusion might not be at the institutional level. I also note that the classy (at first glance) “275 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor, NYC” address is also a shared office/virtual-office address.  In other words, it’s probably for lease.  One tax return claimed $47,000 under “other expenses” as “occupancy,” but who knows? To date, I have seen only short-form 990EZs, which omits any numbering of staff.

…(THE ENTIRE “Footnotes” section, including one with a gallery of images, was mistakenly deleted here, sometimes Feb. 2/11/2018).

I need a break from this post!  But I’ll try and track it from prior revisions which, thankfully, WordPress keeps, at least periodically when I save and some on Autosave).  As I recall most had to do with the Quattrochi/Jones-Soderman co-authorship above, but in addition, several images at the very bottom of this post (on New Harbinger Publications / Praxis) of interest were also lost.  Those I can quickly replace!)

The original list of books:  https://pas.familieschange.ca.gov/resources/books. I’d been commenting on self-published.  Praxis is interesting because of its targeted audience (and note the reference to certified ACT trainings), however it’s the “Sister Company.”  The one in question was “New Harbinger,” and it’s based apparently in (FYI North, near the Berkeley border I believe) Oakland, California.

Praxis incorporated in 2013, and New Harbinger in 1982.  The two books (in adult section) from this publisher shown on that page are:

The book is for sale all over, new and used, with just a few citations (research gate), at least one from some AFCC members.  It’s on Ebay, Amazon, Amazon.UK, reviewed on BarnesandNoble, Googlebooks (“no ebook available) etc.  One description (in the context of selling it on-line) identifies some of the organizational/geographic home turfs:


About the Authors Elizabeth S.Thayer, Ph.D., is Vice-President and Cofounder of Beacon Behavioral Services, LLC (Avon, CT) and the P.E.A.C.E. Program (Parents Equally Allied to Co-parent Effectively), which is a specialized service for high-conflict divorced and divorcing parents. Jeffrey Zimmerman, Ph.D., is President and Cofounder of Beacon Behavioral Services, LLC (Avon, CT) and the P.E.A.C.E. They are both members of the American Psychological Association and Connecticut Psychological Association. Zimmerman is also a Diplomate and Founding Fellow of the American College of Advanced Practice Psychologists and is on the clinical faculty of the University of Connecticut Health Center

2 of 15 recommended books (for adults/parents) at PAS.FamiliesChange.ca.gov, a “© 2018 Justice Education Society of BC” website, are from PRAXIS’ “sister company,” New Harbinger Publications. Note all the trademarked “ACT® references, and subject targeted customers.

See NewHarbinger.com’s “sister company” Praxis Continuing Educ. & Training. (webshot shows street address of NHP and the links a general impression of its interests.

NHP (for short) Imprints (these are all listed): See NewHarbinger.com/About_Us and its “sister company” Praxis Continuing Educ. & Training. New Harbinger address is Shattuck Ave, Oakland Calif (=North Oakland, near the Berkeley border)

{Footnote, restored 2/12/2018}


++~~++ Footnote: AFCC is Part of a Fathers’ Rights Corrupt Judicial Cronies Racket, but OK to distribute Our How to Talk to Your Children About Divorce Self-Published book, which (my) multiple website and organizations won’t exactly advertise…I wrote (and added links) first, but am showing it here as if a quote, to “sequester” the seeming insanity.  Remember — why would a personality like this, with a book (I make no evaluation on the book — have only seen its cover and not read it) be on a recommended (with disclaimer, we don’t endorse them) website within Courts.CA.Gov? Do the Canadians collaborating with the California courts on the FamiliesChange.___.gov pages take any responsibility for not screening the uploaded material (which seems duplicated from one state’s website to another), or is “if it’s mostly by AFCC members, that’s good enough for me!” the standard?

I did (thanks, “IRS Exempt Org. Select Check“!) find an EIN#208977871 for Soderman’s “Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts, LLC” (per 990-finder; actual return doesn’t include the complete name for lack of space…), and that a electronic 990-N for 2016 [only] was filed (statement claims revenues were under $50K) and, this 2011 990EZ (hand-scrawled and no other people referenced, although the corresponding website refers to “our staff” etc.) showing beginning of year cash was $100 and end of year $0.00. FY2013’s is typed and a little more organized — but internally inconsistent, as well as not exactly credible (received exactly, $85,000 and spent, exactly, $85,000, with beginning and end of year (that’s a “balance statement” showing exactly and only $50.).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

[Continuing…] Sched. A of Support lumps all $85,000 under “public support” while page 1 of the same return says $30,000 was public support and $55,000 “program service revenue” (i.e., fees for services) with Sched A having a Line2 for that amount left blank, etc.  FY2014’s looks still different and retroactively revised year 2012 record on “Sched A of Support” from $37K (where a Form 990-N could’ve been but apparently wasn’t, filed with the IRS — nor any full-length one showing up either) to $71K.  And so forth.  I see on one header a “Group Exemption No 3002” which would be interesting to follow up on — what GROUP?
Eventually (more time spent on NYS databases — both SOS and NYSCharities.com) eventually unearthed some more info, such timings, and that the same EIN# in 2012 was used for “The Family Resolution Center” which was a domestic LLC (not “nonprofit”) formed AFTER the 2007 incorporated “Foundation for Child Victims of the Family Courts, INC.” Meanwhile, the IRS website characterizes the tax-exempt entity as an LLC.  Between “Foundation,” “LLC” and “Inc.” I’d say the confusion might not be at the institutional level. I also note that the classy (at first glance) “275 Madison Avenue, 6th Floor, NYC” address is also a shared office/virtual-office address.  In other words, it’s probably for lease.  One tax return claimed $47,000 under “other expenses” as “occupancy,” but who knows? To date, I have seen only short-form 990EZs, which omits any numbering of staff.

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

February 10, 2018 at 10:03 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    February 11, 2018 at 8:56 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: