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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for November 2018

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes the Private Enterprise Entrenched in the Family Law Associations, Courts, and their various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC. Family Court Judges Can Mandate Parents to Subscribe to this Electronic Platform [WRITTEN Jan. 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018].

leave a comment »

A(nother) RICO Case? Rapid Proliferation, International Expansion of Avirat, Inc.’s OurFamilyWizard® Exposes New Levels of Existing Private Enterprise Entrenched and Innate to the Family Law: Bar Associations, Courts, Judicial Trainings, and Various Nonprofits, starting with the AFCC [WRITTEN Jan. 14, 2018; PUBLISHED Nov. 24, 2018]. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8pp”  This is a SHORT post!)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per Minnesota’s Business Entity Search portal

I’ll repeat subtitle and that first paragraph after my update section, next.  FYI, not too much post is below the update & lead-in text.  I think it makes enough points for now.


Nov. 24, 2018 note:  See also my Jan. 2018-restructured home page (just “FamilyCourtMatters.org”) (scroll down pretty far) for more images on this conference and paragraphs on OurFamilyWizard® | Between January and now I was busy maintaining housing, several relocations within just a few months, and (finally) fleeing California w| only what fit in my car thanks to a kind offer to couch-surf (briefly!) and obtaining housing in another state and time zone spring/summer/fall 2018. I have now signed a lease and am back onto posting and Tweeting on these matters and reporting as I can and as I see them, on so-called new developments, most of them predictable with the directions the field has been expanding for several decades. Most are simply new labels with a tweak for the same old practices — and agenda.

 

NOV. 2018 “Update” PARAGRAPHS with TWO IMAGE GALLERIES

This topic is always timely but came up again in context of seeing on Twitter (yet) another disturbing scenario involving “One Mom’s Battle” where the [OMB] legal filing existed briefly as a nonprofit but never (under that name) obtained an IRS# that IRS website shows, yet the website is still up hawking wares and, in a rather devious attempt to distract from the term “parental alienation,” substitute instead “DV by Proxy” but continue to focus on psychological not legal terms


Dec. 5, 2018 (after publication), I took some time to sound off, impromptu, on what looks like a deceptive usage here of “DV by proxy,” and “buyer beware” even if that means, buying (believing, re-publicizing and echoing) the concept.  Do you really know what it represents?

This section (these paragraphs in light-blue background) is a call to exercise common sense and pay attention to details, notice what does and does not fit with declared agenda.   In exchange for your sociomedia referrals or re-tweeting/posting (etc.) attention, demand that people behind an entity, or turning their stories into books and hitting the conference/coaching circuits alongside family court-associated professional fields (law, psychology, judges), consistently comply with state codes regulating registration of nonprofit — or for-profit — business entities, and with the IRC , i.e., federal income tax code requirements for corporate or business entity exemption from it.  Or say why they couldn’t/didn’t.

We COULD put a stop to the ‘BS’ by refusing to disseminate it.  That’s a personal commitment to just not be used any more! Women in particular should know what I mean…Show more self-respect and self-discipline; do your homework!

Let me say that again, for current or formerly battered mothers — fathers is a different situation because unlike as for mothers, there is still a government website and related programming “Fatherhood.gov” — using the term “DV” doesn’t by definition mean those promoting (selling or helping other sell) this new phrasing are empathetically aware that the use of “parental alienation” can distract from domestic violence, i.e., including physical assault & battery behavior by an intimate partner, spouse (live-in or “estranged” after protective order was filed).  At first glance, it may seem to by using the two letters “DV” or the two words “domestic violence.”

Not everyone talking about “domestic violence” or working in the field (and certainly not all foundations backing organizations) are against domestic violence and for prosecuting it where found instead of pointing fingers and devising new jargon (names)  (like “alienators”) for those reporting it!  If you have been so assaulted, and are now fighting to retain contact with your children, not having engaged in criminal activity yourself or facing a legitimate accusation of having engaged in such criminal activity — not all people talking about DV and campaigning it are your friends!

That also goes for not all people campaigning to reform the family courts are righteously indignant AND transparent to you and the public about their stated agenda. I say, develop accounting literacy, do some basic background checks (where possible, i.e., if it’s a nonprofit or claims to be a business entity, there should be a footprint and trail of filings) and compare what’s found with the proclamations.  Those checks often reveal through basic deductive process (including process of elimination as being forthcoming and honest in general) what an ultimate goal would be.  Sometimes it takes time and attention to various “players” and their constant reference to each other (and refusal to reference any evidence or anyone  calling attention to said evidence, which counter the basis for the intended “solutions”)  ….

“Domestic Violence” is a field of practice now; the word “advocates” is commonly used.  People have invested their lives in the philosophy of whoever’s been hiring them (sometimes low pay, sometimes high pay) to work in the nonprofits — or volunteer, NOT aware of the larger economic picture — at service provision level.  This field has been drastically impacted by diversion of prosecution and cases into “family court” and miscellaneous (though organized in conferences still) intervention programming.   It is a career path for many – -not, usually if ever, battered women and their children (or men, or sexual and family molestation survivors, etc.).    Those who have made it such a career path have seen fit to NOT report openly on in how many ways government already funds the “opposition” (I’m referring to 1996 Welfare Reform and the years leading up to it… USA) also. Essentially, this is a sporting event, gender-based, and with rigged outcomes.

It’s time to find out who is backing which sides and for how much — now, and planned in the future.  Then compare that to what is in the future for survivors plowing through the family court / child support / retaliation for having sought child support / seeking safety (etc.) gauntlets.  How many of these are then going back and making a living in the same field? Is there any way, reasonably, that 50 – 75% of these parents could or should? (No…).  But others are, or sure are trying hard (case in point, One Mom’s Battle) and not all are playing “by the rules,” that is rules applying to corporate registrations and commerce, or where claiming nonprofit status and seeking donations, online — to the IRS and state-level qualifications for doing so.

I have a post comparing this to dog-fighting and cock-fighting.  Done in prisons, it’s outrageous when discovered.  Done on a massive scale by our own federal government, followed through down to state and local, with private entities egging ’em on (and subcontracting, feeding off the conflict and confusion) — it’s “business as usual.”

IT’s NOT!  It’s an attempt to apply the words “domestic violence” to “parental alienation.”  This is the next logical step in decriminalizing (i.e, undermining criminal statutes nationwide) and switching the accusing terminology “DV by proxy” to the reporting person.  Just read the websites carefully, and “for God’s sake!” (and/or your kids’ and the public’s), get a grasp on how those two words relate to funding streams to both state entities and nonprofits (worldwide, but I’m most familiar with the US system — and that’s by way of US Dept of HHS under 1984 FVPSA (Family Violence Prevention and Services Act) which is under “CAPTA” (Child Abuse Prevention AND TREATMENT Act) and by way of US DOJ “Office of Violence Against Women.”  Both streams seem to incorporate fathers’ rights groups and, some, fathers’ rights funding too..  JUST BECAUSE IT SAYS “DV” on the label doesn’t mean it (or the speaker or organization) is taking a stand against criminal felony or misdemeanor acts and patterns of activity.  

The concept is to control, centralize, and standardize responses to domestic violence from the federal level, using the weight of available money (or obtaining more) for agency behavioral change.  It’s a FIELD — just as “Fatherhood” is also a field.  Now, which one is better funded and by how much?  I’ve looked — have you?  [[comments between these two lines added Dec 5, 2018//LGH]]


(BACK TO MORE SPECIFICS AS IN THE POST TITLE):

The gallery (six images) just below is from California Secretary of State, Office of Attorney General and (one image) IRS: standard places to look for any California-domiciled entity.  The website remains up but the registration is gone — leaving it unclear (so far) who, REALLY, is doing business – legally — under this name, or if not, why the misleading website remains up.

Meanwhile seeing the “Educate Your Judge” and promotion of “OurFamilyWizard®” links at the top of OneMomsBattle.com prompted me to at least finally post this, and continue seeking to warn ALL concerned to do basic due diligence before assuming based on either gender, expressed empathy, or allegedly shared personal family court/custody experiences whose interests are being promoted.

I included the Tweet thread [http://bit.ly/2r0BzX8] which got me again wondering how is it that so many Moms actually ARE seemingly aware of at least the existence {if not the methods or stated agenda} of “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” and its significance to their children’s lives (and their own) — while year after year so many of the professionals working with each other and sometimes (as in Tina Swithin’s example here) victorious survivors of family court nightmares manage to barely reference it — while promoting other solutions, jargon and selling stuff under mysterious or barely-registered, and changing entities.

(Dec. 5, 2018 related question)… Why should women aware of AFCC continue promoting the products, services, jargon, and purposes of the family court professionals — and/or survivors associating with them — who are so intent on NOT mentioning AFCC?  When it’s OUR lives, time, case histories, stories; our time and attention are valuable commodities to these family-court associated professionals and survivor-speaker-author-consulting-coaching survivors.  Why give it away indiscriminately?  Have more self-respect and awareness of your personal value as members of this demographic (i.e., survivors, mothers, fathers…)..

The image gallery (nine images) just below shows: my recent search of the term “DV by Proxy quickly led to OneMom’sBattle (which had been quoted in a Tweet); my subsequently (heavily) annotated images from the website, and as I recall a link-through or another phrase search result exemplifying that “ALL PR is GOOD PR” allowing Amy J.L. Baker to argue with Leadership Council’s Joy Silberg over usage — while both of them (and I’m sure those involved in OMB website and promotions surely must know too) know full well that AFCC exists — but continue to play the “don’t name it game.” Amy Baker’s 2012 article (in the gallery) responds, it says, to a 2009 Leadership Council article (hard to find, but it was at “TheLizLibrary” (LizKates) well-known to many of us over the years in this field.  Which brings up despite what an extensive library it is (!) how it, too, barely/RARELY references the organization AFCC as having ANYthing to do with parental alienation promotion, tactics, and antidotes.  Then I also take into account that Ms. Kates is also a family lawyer.

At this point, others will have to do the work they haven’t been.



WHERE JANUARY 2018 POST STARTED (and remains unchanged below, except I added tags before publishing)

Subtitle: Avirat’s Financial Success (2001ff) is built and still relies for promotion upon Family Court Judges Mandating Parents to Subscribe, and Continued Jurisdiction over Domestic Violence, so-called “High-Conflict” Divorce, Custody and Child Support cases.

Avirat, Inc. incorporated only in 2001, but now lists offices in Minnesota and London, while at least another privately controlled corporation by the same name (and at same address) dealing with “Global” registered recently 2016/2017 in Minnesota, per its Business Entity Search details.


Here, the subtitle is an important part of the topic. I am summarizing what I had to, literally, bite my tongue from speaking out substantially more about, when discussing the 2017 Boston 54th Annual Association of Family and Conciliation Courts Conference, which on its “sponsors” and “collaborating associations” page listed OurFamilyWizard as the only “Diamond” sponsor — whatever level of donations that represents.  (See large, colorful and/or annotated images below)

Meanwhile, and I did blog this recently in the context of “Reunification Camps,” a 55th Annual Conference is scheduled for 2018, highlighting some members’ involvement with the high-profile Jaycee Dugard Abduction that took place, actually (the recovery of Jaycee and her two daughters from NON-family abduction a full generation  — 18 years — before; she was about 11 years old only!!) and “reunification” therapy and camps, some involving horses.

I already posted on this and have been discussing “reunification” situations, but here’s a reminder image.

It turns out, that the therapist Rebecca Bailey (from N. California) of “Transitioning Families” (the term trademarked years before, and the LLC finally registered only in 2016 — to be voluntarily dissolved in 2017, AFTER (not before) which the area in which the horses were held was destroyed by wildfires in the area.  Northern California was on fire.
Read the rest of this entry »

Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings [drafted Feb. published Nov. 11, 2018]

leave a comment »

This re-post of data from an earlier one gives a look in the public interest at some of the organizations and program labels where tax receipts are going — at least a fraction of them as reported about five years ago…

Its awkward title, Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings, [shortlink ends “-8E2”; started Feb. 15, 2018] stems from my desire to update a much earlier one, named:

Another Reason (Besides Its Innate Irrationality) to Shelve the “National Healthy Marriage” Movement: It’s Running Out of Acronyms…. [Case-sensitive short-link ends “-Zh.” First published Jan 11, 2012; last previously edited Nov. 23, 2013; Current edit (primarily formatting and checking for expired links, incl. to logos) is Feb. 15, 2018].

IT’S NOW NOV. 2018.  I have a number of reasons for publishing it (finally) now, which I don’t feel like explaining yet, however (for a clue) recent Twitter is active with reports on “reunification” services in California’s SF Bay Area (and, “strangely” (given no mention of the AFCC with its 400-strong Ontario chapter is made in the report), also children exposed to it in Canada), particularly “Family Bridges.”  (“No Oversight for Programs Advertising They Reconnect Children with Alienated Parents” (NBCBayArea.com, the “bit.ly” shortlink ends “2yQrCzL”)

The “to the contrary” (or at least another) expert quoted, Linda Gottlieb, who runs “Turning Point” program (similar idea) it turns out has prior connections to the Minuchin Center for the Family (see Salvador Minuchin, who with other authors including Bernard Guerney, wrote “Families of the Slums” in 1967, and became famous for “Structural Family Therapy”).  Bernard Guerney shows up as marriage/family curriculum provider, and I caught this back in 2012, care of “NIRE” — National Institute of Relationship Enhancement®  See above link for more information; but I discovered this (and much more about how “PAS-entrenched Gottlieb is and with whom conferencing recently, as well as a look at the gradual decline in revenues at the Minuchin Family Center) with some basic background looks.  It had grabbed my attention long ago, but not in the reunification of alienated families contexts.

Other than this explanation and the next captioned image, this post (nice and short at under 3,500 words even with the table below) is published as it was last Feb. 2018..  Also be aware that the HHS table links probably no longer work as TAGGS.HHS.gov changed its database technology & user interface, it seems, back in 2013 (the post was drafted in 2012)…

Bernard Guerney of NIRE (screenprint from my 2012 post on “running out of acronyms” for marriage curricula.. Screenprint taken Nov 11, 2018. Click image above to enlarge if necessary


. . .

THIS POST REPRODUCES a 108-row advanced search report** of the Dept. of Health & Human Services Database (in its former configuration***) “TAGGS.hhs.gov,” which I last ran Nov.  2013, apparently with the filter “Grantee Name” [=organizations or part of a gov’t. entities] contained the word “Marriage.”  
** Advanced Search allows user to select which columns display in the report.  ***In TAGGS’ new configuration, only 25 results per page, unfortunately, will ever display.

Image #1

Image #2

(Newsletter banner)

WHY DO THIS NOW?

One of the featured organizations on my 2011 (!) post showed up again, still running its classes, I guess, as published 2016 Winter edition of the Maryland Social Worker, which also featured a nice spread on the Family Transitions: Issues, Solutions and Policies Conference” article (Image#1).

In calling attention to that organization (NIRE®) Image #2), I remembered having posted on it, and related ones, years ago.

Looking up the older post and attempting a cleanup, I found the software got stuck — perhaps because of how the table below (taken directly from TAGGS.HHS.gov at the time), being fairly large (108 rows) came with so many extraneous excess codes,  

[[My latest post, “Families Change: The Sentence..” comments on the conference and its presence in the newsletter in more detail]].

Full title w/ shortlink of that post:

Whatever the reason (possibly also my computer / device, or internet access where I was doing this) it just got stuck.  This post was short enough (esp. without the table) and worth current readers taking another look at it, so I moved that table off-blog, used “global replace” on a text document to clean it up, and put it back here onto WordPress on a fresh post.

Disclaimer: These are still 2013 search results and don’t update for the interim years — and is just a snapshot of what was occurring back in 2011, with a 2013 (I saw) re-run at some point.

Excess formatting codes from TAGGS.hhs.gov Tables, for those who may have dared to copy them for personal study. Makes one wonder who designed it…


In light of imminent and current major restructuring of tax law and allegedly social services to the nation (see recent headline news), it might be time to “get vocal” on this type of activity: before cutting, say, “Food Stamps” for the hungry or needy, how about cutting the pork from this programming for the greedy and self-righteous? Take these 501©3s and others on the same funding stream off taxpayer subsidy, where they have been through this PRWORA-era, 1996ff, grants stream.


As the saying goes, “garbage (rationale, reasoning, justification) in, garbage out.”  Congress (that’s who votes on the Budgets, right?): Quit dumping on the public at its own expense through this funding stream and calling the “for the good of the people!” (i.e., healthy communities, healthy marriages, and so forth).  The rest of us: let’s describe what’s happening more specifically and more accurately using terms those who distribute the grants are already well aware of, but just not using so openly when selling the proprietary programs, or when  preaching it’s time to cut back “services.”

These are services?  Look at the table (and check out the 2011 post too!).


After the first images (how the earlier post began), here, I’m just reproducing one of the tables; the longest one near the bottom. I still recommend readers here return to and read the original post.  It pre-dates coverage by the Tables of Contents by over a year and was written just under two years into my research for the blog (I started about March, 2009…).


It also, in opening statement, reflects my natural (bodily) gut responses to realizing what had been taking place politically and policy-wise while many women in my situation were dealing with surviving a relationship that involved battering, with (our) young children in the home.

Some called that “marriage.” Technically speaking, maybe, but I think other words would better characterize it.  However such words are frowned upon almost the moment separate has taken place, in the courts.  The “protection” switch is flipped off and the courts’ and associated professionals ceaseless demands survivors just “pretend” it didn’t happen and focus instead on better cooperating “for the children” with former abuser… is flipped on.

Which doesn’t take long to recognize, however, recognizing whose policy it was takes a little more study!

Remember that each grantee in the “organization” column is supposed to have a legal business incorporation, if a 501©3 (tax-exempt) file Forms 990 or 990PF as required — faithfully AND accurately, and make them available somehow for  public inspection.  They are supposed to have proper EIN#s (whether for-profit or not-for profit) and the data entered OUGHT to represent accurately the real business name of grantee.

This table appears to have been a search on any grantee with the word “marriage” in its name, but I cannot say for sure so many years ago. It is alphabetical by organization name.  Just notice the organization name.  Also, not all “CFDA” numbers are “93086,” the one assigned specifically to HMRF funding.  CFDA#s are defined at TAGGS.HHS.Gov and probably also at “Grants.gov” (searchable) for more information.

Not all marriage/fatherhood grantees, obviously, would have the word “marriage in their business names (NIRE® certainly doesn’t), but it is symptomatic of alignment of purposes between the (mostly, I’ll bet) nonprofits and the programming.

Several of the grantees I have previously looked up (meaning, their tax returns and most likely corporate filings) and may have posted, so am not repeating that information here

 

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: