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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Women Judges still form Funky-filing Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later)

leave a comment »

Women Judges still form (funky-filing) Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later) (short-link ends “-9YW” and about 10,000 words long. Post written May 20-25, 2019, updated May 26).


I’m publishing this post “as-is” because one cannot squish too much documentation into one place.  There are more things I could say or links include, but this post “as is” says plenty.

I like to triple-check statements; there are one or two I haven’t yet, regarding research done six years ago.  In double- and triple-checking, more information and more understanding of the existing connections comes into focus for me as a blogger, which I then naturally want to reference or summarize.

Without a more direct, immediate, known (and prospectively more interactive) audience for this blog, I cannot put more days into it.

Most people I know do NOT go around reading business entity filings and tax returns — I do.  I do it ALL THE TIME.  Over time this has also developed a general, mental database of key organizations, awareness (generally) of how they tend to spin off over time, or sometimes I can catch a new one as it’s forming, or has just formed.

The issue, however, is with whom to talk about it.  Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations are generally already committed to their ongoing operations; those not involved and often not local (as the networks are coordinated nationally and at times internationally) in my experience (and with current connections) either not alert enough to even acknowledge the importance of  reading business entity filings and tax returns as indicators of the values of the organization’s leadership, or are overwhelmed possibly with their own court cases involving still-minor children.

Those who’ve aged out if not already aligned with the (usual) family court reform group loose (or tight) coalitions tend to want their own lives back, or just not to be bothered.  Those who haven’t directly experienced this firsthand (which is to say, those “on the sidelines”) generally seem to fall along the usual religious (religious or not), political (left or right persuasion) dividing lines and not about to cross them seriously, either.

Those involved, even if as volunteers or volunteer board members, in the networked organizations in many cases, (specifically, as mentioned on this post, as mentioned on most in the blog), will be also judges, or retired judges — and other court-connected professionals continuing to push programming put in effect in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, first decade of 2000s, and now in the second decade of the 2000s fast approaching its end. These programs will also be pushed, promoted and if possible perpetuated, regardless of which political party is in power, or who is U.S. President.  It’s an ECONOMIC matter.

I could post more tax returns or charitable, corporate registrations on this post as simple links (without the images).  I especially could post EVEN more on the connection between the “woman-judge-formed nonprofit” and “MACSA,” and recent findings on the (very much related) background and filing habits of the local (county) fatherhood collaborative, which I have seen and saved much of it as computer files or images, but it will not all fit in a single post.  The connections between MACSA, the nonprofit, and the county probation department (and with it, under “fatherhood collaboratives” also county-based) speak loudly as to the origins of that nonprofit.

(MACSA = Mexican American Community Services Association: Bay Area News Group March 6, 2014 article describes its woes, most of them involving improper handling of financials, IRS-revoked nonprofit status for non-filing (with the local DA’s office having seized its paperwork possibly related).  Notice the years..)

I have one or two statements I’d like to, and will try to, triple-check (specifically the fiscal agent connection between the DVIC and DVCC referenced below), but as a reminder, no matter how formal it may “feel,” a blog is an INformal medium, and I am a volunteer investigative blogger all these years.  Last year I left one state and relocated to another for a fresh start, which requires major energy still, and I’m recently, technically speaking, a senior, and have always been a mother, whether or not permitted to function as one over the years.


MACSA (The Mexican American Community Services Agency) existed 1966-2013 | CalEntity C0512046, Status ‘Dissolved’ per California Secretary of State’s Business Entity Search, re-checked in May 2019

The situations I’m speaking of in this post are typical, present multiple red flags, and should be noted, and watched.  It may take some time to become familiar with the setup, the terminology and where to look filings up, but that can be learned, and look-ups, up to a certain point, can be done.

I think the blog’s limits structurally on how it can deliver what I see needs to be delivered, is reaching its boundaries and think constantly about what other communication and message-delivery options exist that I could remain involved in — or find an ethically and intellectually (diligent fact-checker) responsible person or group of people to delegate them to.  //LGH May 25, 2019.

Originally, my purpose on this post was to preserve the text and story within a sidebar widget on this topic; administratively I needed it removed from the bottom right sidebar.  That text is below, in a narrower column, and beneath it a few footnotes from my substantial (extensive / long) updates on the top.

These topics are still relevant, and this is in part a re-statement of them (followed by the preserved text).

(Above image gallery:  I found a MACSA EIN# 941635200 from the IRS which also noted it was revoked in 2012. I see three tax returns from FY2007-2009 showing several million dollars’ worth of assets. It eventually registered as a charity in California; the “Details” page are full of demands for missing or incomplete information, and notices of ITS (Intent To Suspend). To view, you can repeat the search, or (for a snapshot as of several years past “Revoked” status, click “MACSA California Registry of Charitable Trusts | Details“~~>MACSA (TheMexicanAmericanCommunityServicesAgency) CalEntity 512046, EIN#941635200 CalifOAG Charity (Status ‘Revoked’ 2014ff) Details (RelatedDox Links Still Active) @ 2019May link added  5/26/2019. Note:  for pdfs (vs. plain images) on this blog, you must first click the link to see page with blog & post title and beneath it a small blank page icon, then click on the pdf icon to load the document.  Bonus Attached Info: When pdfs are printouts of California Registry of Charitable Trust “Details” (any entity), scroll down below ‘Schedule” to the bottom of the resulting document: any links under “Related Documents” for the filing entity should still be viewable by clocking on them.) (The California OAG RCT of course at any time may change how it loads or the user interface on this database in which case some of the above notations may not apply).

The latest charity renewal for MACSA (for FYE 2008) shows that about HALF its $10M revenues were from government sources.  It was status “Revoked” since 2014 (as a California Charity) and as a tax-exempt organization, 2012 — however as late as June 2017 (see colorful image above) it was being positively referenced in association with a Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative — from a University of Texas-Austin, LBJ School of Public Affairs, Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) in a “Policy Brief.”  That colorfully annotated image and link to it above comes up again soon, below.)

This post references Santa Clara County “Domestic Violence Intervention Collaborative” (<~~DVIC is a nonprofit | “DVCC” is a named “Coordinating Council” under the county’s “Office of Women’s Policy” (OWP created in 1998)) and through it, at that level one of just two ex-judges* I just featured in the last post, Classic AFCC Combos, Collaborations, and Commonalities (Ret’d California Judge/Consultant Leonard P. Edwards, Texas Supreme Court Justice Debra H. Lehrmann) and What’s WITH Middletown, Connecticut? . *He’s ex-judge because he’s retired, she’s ex-judge now only because a state supreme court justice, is no longer called “judge.

That nonprofit DVIC wasn’t the main focus of this post but arose in connection with another nonprofit, referenced in the title which I am now reminded (through revisiting) originally framed its reason for existing as family violence prevention, too.

The relationship of the DVIC (nonprofit) to the DVCC (coordinating council) is a little complicated.  I think that the DVIC was the fiscal agent for the DVCC, although with one being county-office-associated and the other not, that doesn’t even make sense.

The concept of “coordinating councils” isn’t complex, but I wonder how well the significance is generally understood; they’ve been around in reference to different subject matters, and when it comes to “DV” seem to take on a specific flavor.

The post title alone doesn’t reflect also how Judge Edwards’ “consultancy” was at the highest state level, but the post does. Before retirement in Santa Clara County, and again, he was and probably still is active in at least three very controlling and significant membership associations — AFCC, NCJFCJ and (as to child welfare), NACC.

That retired Judge Leonard P. Edwards founded the Santa Clara County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council (DVCC) is stated in this glowing commendation from California CASA Association mentioned among other accomplishments: he was also the first juvenile court judge to receive a special award from (yet another nonprofit, PRIVATE, association, the “NCSC”) in 2004, as the NCJFCJ’s publication reminded readers in 2005 when reprinting a 1992 article from Judge Edwards on “the Role of the Juvenile Court Judge.”

NCSC = National Center on State Courts is not the major focus here, but I’ve posted on it (June 30, 2017, split off from Oct., 2014, “Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?) and often call attention to it.

For (links to, and) a bit more, what types of networked activities NCSC and its then (DNK if still now) President Mary McQueen has been undertaking recently (past 5-10 years), such as recommending leadership by “loosely coupled groups” like hospitals or universities, rather than as in heirarchal forms found more typically in government or private corporate situations  (2013 Executive Conference on “Governance the Final Frontier”), and/or to see where else the NCJFCJ‘s 79th Annual Conference in Monterey California (June, 2016) was being advertised — such as on a website already supported by US taxpayers via HHS Grant #90FH0003 — and which non-NCJFCJ-member could attend (early registration) for only $895.

Among topics to be discussed at NCJFCJ’s alleged 79th Annual Conference were handling of (“Enhancing Judicial Skills in”) domestic violence cases… see Footnote “Very Brief Reminder on WhoIs  NCSC, the National Center on State Courts” at the bottom of this post.  The relevance here is the close, friendly bond when it comes to family law, too, to the NCJFCJ.

Before getting into “AFCC, NCJFCJ, and NACC” and under which of them this particular judge might have become so eager to form a county-based “coordinating council” addressing the subject matter, specifically, of domestic violence — I think it’s time to post (separately) on those terms, again.  Upcoming (in an ideal world….) post I’ve called:

Mix-n-Match, Mis-understood Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives | The Organizations using them | Which Branch(es) of Gov’t Controlling them… (shortlink ends “-9ZS”) (Started May 24, 2019)

For example: RESOURCE CENTER” and “CLEARINGHOUSE.” Also in this post:  QIC — “Quality Improvement Center.” | “Coordinating Council” | “Collaborative” | “Commission” — common usage, various meanings:  See “council.”  | “Council”

The acronyms AFCC, NCJFCJ and NACC all refer to nonprofit corporations under each of their (respective) state jurisdiction’s laws and all required to file Forms 990 with the IRS (legal domiciles, Illinois, Nevada, and Colorado, respectively.  Each of them also claims how long they’ve existed.  Of these only NACC (<~~which says, “1977”) seems most accurate in self-description; without further explanation their organization website just do not offer, the others seem off by decades, which to me reflects on overall integrity and honesty.

AFCC claims legal domicile Wisconsin on its IRS tax returns, apparently, falsely judging by how it IS registered in Illinois and is NOT in Wisconsin, according to their respective public-access, state-run databases, which is a qualifying statement relying on the accuracy of those databases).

NCJFCJ lists a few “related organizations” on its IRS Form.  AFCC does not, but has chapters. NACC’s status in Colorado is “current.”  Its (badly faded, see nearby yellow-highlitimage) articles of incorporation, under “III,” state original purpose as:

NACC articles of organization, posted on Colorado Secretary of State database, viewed May 25, 2019. The yellow background color is a function of my browser’s highlighting; original is black on white.

Face sheet shows full name of “NACC” and that its status is current (viewed May 25, 2019)

(a) To provide self-training and self-education for attorneys, guardians ad litem and others, who act as advocates on behalf of children; to support the regulation of legal professionals and others who act in court and similar formal proceedings to ensure that such representation is of adequate quality; and to support the position of children through amicus curiae and consultation and advice in any manner and through any activity not in conflict with the laws of the State of Colorado and of the United States of America or of any state where such activities are being conducted.

(b) To do everything necessary, proper, possible, advisable or convenient for accomplishment of the foregoing general purpose and all of the things incidental to and connected therewith which are permitted to organizations [subject to Section 501©3 of the Internal Revenue Code]…

Looking up those original articles, a scanned image, you can also see its original (just a few) incorporators and initial directors:

Donald C. Bross, J.D., Ph.D. (from Colorado CLE) and from University of Colorado-Denver, a more extensive background of both the individual, his relationship to the Kempe Center and founder of “ISPCAN” (International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect).  He represented children in court for over ten years, and

Don graduated with high distinction from Dartmouth College, was awarded a National Institutes of Mental Health Traineeship in Medical Sociology at the University of Wisconsin, receiving his M.S.  and later his PhD for research on the reporting of sexually transmitted disease by private physicians, published in AJPH

I should also remind us that NACC’s goal is to have a well-trained lawyer for “every child and family involved with the court system is well-represented by a [well-trained] lawyer” — and that while dependency, child welfare proceedings is implied, it by no means says or is limited to this.  See August 2018 five-year (2019-2023) strategic plan statement; notice (from nearby image) the last few paragraphs about how many people need to be “holistically” involved with children.

NACC mission & Vision Statement (Aug. 2018, viewed May, 2019), notice final paragraph and sentences.

ALL three organizations seem to have been formed in the 1970s, although AFCC claims 1963, and NCJFCJ claims its  “vital and important work of NCJFCJ began in 1937,” and (implied in the description) that it’s been around for “80 years” something I just haven’t been able to verify.

Can you?  NCJFCJ’s Form 990 tax returns posted (Pg. 1, Header, Part “L”) reads year founded 1975, and the link to “Articles of Incorporation & Amendments” shows nothing with a date or time stamp that far back, nor does the corporate (business entities) records at the Nevada State level.  From 1975 to 2019 = (25 + 19) = 44 years out of the 80 claimed!  44 is more than half of 80, so NCJFCJ’s website would seem to have more than doubled its alleged historic age.  BUT, if enough judges agree on it, it must be right — right?

The vital and important work of the NCJFCJ began in 1937 when a group of judges came together looking to improve the effectiveness of the nation’s juvenile courts. And over the past 80 years, the NCJFCJ has** sought to address the myriad of issues in juvenile and family justice courts, among them: (etc.) [https://www.ncjfcj.org/about, viewed again May 24, 2019]

**Just a reminder:  this is an organization of judges, many formerly practicing lawyers.  How likely is it that none of them would be aware when, actually, the NCJFCJ began (was incorporated or registered in any way within the state of Nevada, where it is now) and so be “off” by a few decades but also know how to avoid calling attention to this so as to not really be legally liable for such false statements?

What are the chances that those leading this 501©3 have no idea what it means to incorporate, or to previously exist as an unincorporated association or in some other form and state it plainly for the public?  Not to mention that UNincorporated associations and trusts are (incidentally) harder to find for the average person.

Similarly, as I have pointed out before often enough on this post, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services grants TAGGS.HHS.Gov database doesn’t even properly NAME this organization (the words “and Family” are omitted over the years I checked it).  (See FOOTNOTE “NCJFCJ since 1937 — “past 80 years” — REALLY?  IF SO).

The “DVCC” concept in this county seems to be one of Judge Edwards’ legacies. “Champions of Children” awards are named after this judge.

(AFCC + NCJFCJ) + (NCJFCJ + “Futures”) ℅ Public/Private Backing (esp public) = Fathers First.

AFCC (smaller than NCJFCJ, which receives more direct public funding) collaborates often and has conferenced and trained alongside NCJFCJ.   Meanwhile, NCJFCJ has its influence DEEP into domestic violence prevention — and of course, “treatment” — through its placement on the government-funded networks right alongside Futures without Violence (formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund) which I have also made clear on this blog over the years, has — for years — been operating to mainstream “father-engagement” as key to domestic violence prevention.

While this month revisiting just a few, smaller organizations for this post  with the word “Collaborative” or “Council” and/or nice-sounding values like “Peaceful” or “Violence” (or “Child Abuse”) Prevention in their business names and their current status (registered voluntarily on time, or late and only under duress; stayed current or not, etc.) I’d already featured and called out in 2013, it was again driven home that to me the judge’s gender isn’t particularly an indicator of what is considered “domestic violence prevention.” And male judges’ participation in things named “DV prevention” isn’t particularly, either.

“Coordinating Councils” exist in all kinds of policy subject matters and as deliberately independent bodies seeking to “coordinate” policy across jurisdictions or across the public/private divide, as a deliberate tactic** (“professionalization”) of systems transformation.  Whatever the preceding nouns or noun phrases (Domestic Violence, Juvenile Justice).  See my right sidebar, near top on centralized control of the DV Advocacy Field (Page, published Feb. 2018) which explains this system, laying out (and linking to) authorizing legislation.  Recommended Reading!!

On that page I also referenced the OJJDP (Office) and the CCJJDP (Coordinating Council, same subject matter).

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention” (CCJDP) (Link is to  <~~NCJRS.gov abstract [ID=269831 of 4-page fact-sheet ).  I found a 1995 NCJRS reference to this having been created in 1992(?) to centralize and effect a “national children’s agenda.”  In 1994 (through VAWA) an attempt to further nationalize a domestic violence against women (as opposed to, supposedly) “Family Violence Prevention”) agenda, failing to call attention — to this day, still! — to the role of privatize judicial/behavioral health-focused societies like AFCC, but commending, for example, the NCJFCJ.

[Apart from identifiers, tags, and citations, this is the entire Abstract text:]

The Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act establishes the CCJJDP as an independent body within the executive branch of the Federal Government. The Council’s primary functions are to coordinate all Federal juvenile delinquency prevention programs, all Federal programs and activities that detain or care for unaccompanied juveniles, and all Federal programs relating to missing and exploited children. The 1992 amendments broadened the Council’s responsibilities to include coordination with State and local programs. Recent Council discussions reflect a desire to address critical program issues between Federal programs and State and local communities and to build funding partnerships with national organizations concerned with juvenile justice and delinquency prevention. During the initial meeting of the Coordinating Council, the Attorney General’s call for a “national agenda for children” received unanimous support. The development of a National Juvenile Justice Action Plan, supporting State and local efforts to comprehensively address the needs of the Nation’s children, is the Council’s response to this challenge. The Action Plan focuses on critical areas that demand immediate Federal, State, and local attention. It advocates adoption of eight priority objectives designed to prevent and control delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system. These objectives are outlined, along with the implementation plan. CCJJDP members are listed.

We are also seeing attempts now to nationalize a family court reform agenda spearheaded by groups not calling attention to driving elements in the family courts (AFCC, federal AND private incentives, etc.).

IF I went backwards now FIVE decades in the USA (even than the legislation authorizing the OJJDP which created the CJJDP, being mid-1970s, represents), that brings us to about mid-1960s; the 1960s civil rights movement and more than one assassinated leaders, the assassination of a U.S. President who wanted to stop the war in Viet Nam (and was favorable towards increased civil rights) — and his brother, then attorney general and potential contender for the President — and as to social welfare policies,, the 1965 Moynihan Report calling for a national policy and action plan on The Negro Family” to depose the “pathological” female-headed households and replace it for the more normal patriarchal model.  Posted often on it herein, easily searchable, and its mentality is bred into (if not “inbred with”) current USA Social Security Act programming, still (see “Ron Haskins”)…


None of leadership (creators and perpetuators) of the situations already called out seems to have developed a consciousness about accountability meanwhile.  And with judges and county and family-court-connected officials involved..

BOTH categories are framing it (this is now established social policy) as more opportunities to run fatherhood programs, regardless of judicial gender, and program name on the outside. The power structure tends to center at the county government level (for setting up local “administrators) but the policies are being set nationally.  It’s basically perpetuating and expanding on existing power bases.  A council is set up advising or under county government, with related nonprofits (varying degrees of visibility and leadership overlap).

Ask (yourself, while viewing the websites and filings) the right, very basic questions and see the usual “M-I-A” answers, still invisible in these examples in 2019. After the “Hmm..” think about the possible “Why?”

Why would there be — all in Santa Clara County California — two or three separate “collaboratives” or “councils” (both county-level and with associated nonprofits, i.e., private corporations) set up named after these three causes: Domestic  or Family Violence prevention (nonprofit with the word “collaborative in its name w/ associated Council), Fatherhood Promotion (a nonprofit with the word “collaborative” in its name),** and Child Abuse Prevention (“Council” underneath County government: I just found recently)?

**Who or what is (ah, make that “was”) SCCFC (alternate: SCCF/MIC) (officially, by May 2019, an FTB-suspended California business entity and never-registered# charity incorporated only in 2013) comes up often below, but at this time see also, if you would, this June, 2017 Policy Brief B.032.0617 from the Center for Family and Child Research Partnership(“CFRP”) at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at University of Texas-Austin.    [[#although it should have!]]

(Open link then let your viewing device search “Santa Clara.”  This county’s “Fatherhood Collaborative” is referenced under “Local Initiatives,” a category underneath other sub-sections Federal, State and Direct Services, i.e., using the “search” function is faster than scrolling down..)

(CFRP at UTexas-Austin: I’ve posted and Tweeted on it, search “Cynthia J. Osborne” or “CFRP”).  Reading the top of that link would be helpful too; its title is:  “Federal, State, and Local Efforts Supporting Father Involvement.” (Usually the word “involved” or “involvement” is followed by some sort of qualifying or circumstance-limiting phrase, like “involved with ____ or involved in ____”. Leaving the phrase open-ended basically leaves the possibilities of in what previously existing ‘fields of practice’ (or life) application of the coordinated training, consulting, curriculum-running and conference-circuiting, essentially endless.  It becomes a virtually endless market niche which will continue to attract participants due to the public funding and already-e.xisting networks — 20 years after Welfare Reform at about the time of that policy brief (1996-2016, Policy Brief, June 2017).

That fatherhood collaborative also comes up in reference with another community organization “MACSA” (written out), which comes up in this post, as having close connection to the “woman-judge-formed nonprofit.”

  California and Texas …

are large states; California in the huge Ninth Circuit (see map), and Texas in the geographically large (though only involving Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi) the Fifth District (out of 12 + the Federal = 13 total). (Brief “US Courts.gov About“)

What goes on in both states, and in that Ninth District, can and often does affect the rest of the country, as I was reminded again the other day on learning that the elitist American Inns of Court  Foundation, Inc., system came out of the Ninth District ℅ a committed, life-long Mormon Judge, J. Clifford Wallace (<~bio from “fedbar.org”) and was it just so happened, piloted (in the USA at least) in Utah at Brigham Young University before being incorporated (as per the Judicial Conference on which also just so happened that Justice Wallace was also an Executive Committee member, it seems). See my recent post.

Using the word Funky I’m sure dates me.  Ask me if I care…

Post title was true in 2013, still true now.  What’s more, some of the nonprofits and their county-council connections formed then, since, and earlier (funky-filing or not) are still around and running the same types of programs.

Not noticing or talking about them doesn’t mean they somehow went away or never existed, although one of those I blogged since tried to make like it didn’t exist (a fiscal agent was involved, until that fiscal agent MACSA was caught in suspicion of embezzlement) but continue putting Dads into personal, social, informal interactions with Judges while they (very likely) had open family court or other criminal cases.

The woman-judge-formed organization I ran across and looked up in the context of other interests (in late 2013, keep reading below) is still around and, its website says, still operating similar programs, active per the IRS, active per the California Secretary of State but at this time “Delinquent” according to the California Office of Attorney General’s office (which regulates Charitable Trusts and maintains a registry of them), probably for failing to file the most recent “RRFs” (annual renewal forms), a one-pager (unless the “government funds received?” or any other question got a “Yes,”  in case which it might be two pages or more to name which agencies, or otherwise explain a yes answer).  One has to also (if revenues are over a certain amount) include a filing fee.  It’s not hard to stay current in that regard IF you want to:

“Building Peaceful Families.”#  (See also, not that it’s still operational) “Santa Clara County Fatherhood/Male Involvement Collaborative” (SCCFMIC) referring in part to Clear Credit Exchange## (not that IT’s still operational in either California*  or Nevada**)

Male involvement and conferences for Dads appears to be how it’s “Building Peaceful Families.”  The articles of incorporation (as found on Sec. of State and Office of Attorney General sites both) say, however, it incorporated (in 2005) to prevent family violence.  This gets odd when the DVIC was also formed at the same time by a male judge Santa Clara County Judge under the County’s Department of Women’s Affairs, also to prevent domestic violence. Both judges’ background has been in Santa Clara County, too..

#For short here — it comes up a lot! “BPF”

##(See BPF Board of Directors member at-large pictured in nearby image (viewed 2019) from BPF website, (BPF Board (‘Hazel Valera Bio | bpf-2019’) also cites SFCCF/MIC, Obama LifetimeAchievmt (Points of Light) award, etc + CLEAR CREDIT EXCHANGE (fact-check!) also note in charge of “Men’s Programs,” SCCFMIC and Clear Credit Exchange). {pdf labeled before I fact-checked, after which, I did…//LGH}

*Filed once in 2007 and not once since ** *Filed in 2006,  permanently revoked by 2009/2011 or so after first, officers (incl. Ms. Valera), then commercial registered agent (apparently not Ms. Valera) resigned.

Building Peaceful Families website Board of Directors, May 20, 2019, see also Women Judges Still Form (Funky-filing) nonprofits … Santa Clara County, CA.. draft post holds the removed text (and surrounding updates) in order to save widget contents from Nov. 2013.

BPF was founded by Judge Sharon Chatman (<~~profile/bio blurb from Trellis.law is relevant here**)) and is still run (per their board) mostly by women, although NOT ONE Full-size Form 990 or even Form 990EZ seems to exist under its EIN#753238774, which the State of California at least does provide.  In the context of not one visible EIN# (which is legal if the entity indeed, as a Form 990-N filing declares, never made more than $50K revenues), not much to discuss or view.

Of the only three men on board (See image, accessed today) two with the last name Hernandez (Albert H., Jesse H.) and the legal counsel JaiDadlani whose LinkedIn (<~~) is clear that two years before joining to both work and volunteer at “Building Peaceful Families” he was also volunteering with the SCCFMIC, that is, the Santa Clara County Male Fatherhood/Involvement Collaborative. The legal counsel (more below) LinkedIn contains seven bullets reflecting his recent work as Principal Attorney (JD in 2009 from Lincoln University School of Law).

These two accomplishments (particularly) concern me some when it comes to Building Peaceful Families in combo with Fatherhood involvements:

• Represented Landlords and Master Tenants in Unlawful Detainer cases. Cases ranging from simple move out agreements to complex litigation for unsafe living conditions involving minors.
• Defended individuals against the issuance of restraining orders ranging from allegations of assault on a minor, elder abuse, and sexual abuse in the workforce.

(**Interesting that Judge Chatman was appointed in 2000 by Governor Gray Davis (1998-2003, Democrat), only the second governor in US history to be recalled through popular vote, to be replaced by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger(!), possibly because of anti-immigration Prop. 187). Note comments on presiding over Family Law Courts and supervising the county’s three domestic violence courts. And, “…Chatman has served as a faculty member for the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence (NIJDV.org) [See “Partners” page:  It’s Futures, NCJFCJ + the USDOJ/OVW(!)) and the National Institute on Fatherhood, Visitation, and Domestic Violence (whose??)

(See circled title to right. Although the word order slightly different, logically this is probably the one referenced at TrellisLaw.com’s Judge Sharon Chatman bio, esp. as the NIJDV.org one also referenced also involved “Futures w/o Violence”

(In this geographic context (SF Bay Area), and seeing as I found the exact institute name there, apparently “Futures without Violence” (SF, Boston, D.C.).  NOW I’m mad because I contacted Futures (not going by that name then) for help around the same time, and attended a conference while in shock from the family law system.  I was (naturally) not invited (among the about 20 supervised visitation providers or partner agency) Fw/oV (and under USDOJ/OVW “Safe Havens” grant) apparently helped get to Boston to give their feedback on the institute….I’ll FOOTNOTE it…) 

Women Judges still form Funky-filing Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later)

(Judge Chatman, as a Superior Court Judge this one is still presiding over murder trials.  (ABC7 News, April 2019)** My comments on this page refer to the domestic violence and fatherhood grants situation, the relationship of this judge to the nonprofit she founded, and its choice of partners (and legal counsel who’s also citing to a local fatherhood collaborative which never registered as a charity and didn’t stay incorporated….).  **This recent article is about a man accused of killing his co-worker of only a few days; he said he was framed.

My administrative dashboard showing the text widget I’m about to remove (and its place among various parts of blog sidebar, which has become so long it’s unwieldly. Annotated 2019, but see also earlier (Nov 1 2013) related post “What’s with Women Judges…?” (“-22j”) AND May 20, 2019 draft postI’m adding this image to, which holds the removed text (and surrounding updates) in order to save widget contents [short-link ending “-9YW”]

Yes they are, but I’m only showing these again now so as to take information off a long blog sidebar but still keep it available to others.  That’s why today’s title was designed to match that information, contained in a “Text Widget,” and a related post I’d written at the time quoting only parts of the widget.  See image to right showing  (in collapsed, “place-holder” label display) where this information formerly was stored.

Some parts of the story it recounts are now history (a mother involved has moved on with her life) but not all. The professionals, the organizations referenced in it, and the practices represented by it are still around.  My informal drill-down procedure still holds relevance:  you cannot see these things without looking at them, and some “not what it seems to be” things (situations) are buried in the missing connections between Donate pages, Partner Pages, Violence Prevention Rhetoric and the frequent use of even a county name where a county may not be directly involved, to add credibility.
Some things are buried deliberately.  We should get and stay aware at least in a very basic level, where and how, typically, the circuitry running from public to private sources, especially in these examples, when it comes to family court matters overlaps with public safety and public (individual family) solvency.   In certain types of situations or in the care of certain types of individuals in authority (like judges, like judges involved in multiple private membership organizations), that circuitry predictably will not connect properly.  You CAN see it coming by seeing how it came previously.  The goal is to stop the predictable disconnects by continuing to call them out / publicize it!

This version title:Women Judges still form (funky-filing) Nonprofits to Run Fatherhood Programs | Men Judges still form Countywide DVCC’s + Obfuscate the Funding. Santa Clara County, CA (Six Years Later) (short-link ends “-9YW” and (see next paragraph) about, 4,000 words long.  Post written May 20, 2019).You should know, while it’s interesting, this post is me saving one widget I’m removing from the blog sidebar because it wastes time every time I hit “SAVE DRAFT” and have to scroll up from the bottom of a very blank editing screen.Sidebar Widget full title was:”What’s with Women Judges Forming Nonprofits to run Fatherhood Programs?  Is it about the Dads or is it about Imminent Embezzlement Scandals?”

(You can guess, correctly, that one of these was associated with an imminent embezzlement scandal.  As I recall (without checking back more specifically) the association was when said woman judge (not really an individual on my radar) had opted to use a larger organization (MACSA) for a fiscal agent.  The widget talks about much more than just the above title, however.

I had a related post at the time, but not a post that simply contained the entire text (and all its links) from that text widget). It had to be done.  Doing it, I have to label it, and as usual, will talk about something else/related on my mind at the time before getting to a basic COPY, PASTE & CUT.  The “SOMETHING ELSE” is the current state of an AFCC-friendly little spider ensconced with direct ties (through a person and through Jan. 2015 (taking effect) little change in the Family Law Code helping certain AFCC-friendly providers better dominate a certain field, or try to.

ALTHOUGH … “California Association of Professional Supervised Visitation Providers” still “is.


Meaning, as an organization, it’s active and current with the Attorney General’s Office and even the Secretary of State (which states require filing some very simple paperwork on time, and paying (nominal) associated fees, on time), two characteristics that certainly: simultaneously active and current in both capacities, is certainly not typical of this organization, or similar ones.  The “resources” on its website certainly aren’t.  They are, in fact, truly odd.

A post (and some well-placed letters to state executives) ought to be written based on my review just yesterday (May 19, 2019) of an organization I’d also checked several years ago — still marked active/current, the same AFCC “operative” still employed at the California Judicial Council, and the same federal grants stream (administered here, it seems, through sub-grants or more locally) is still around.

As of 2016, one filing even admits that the “barely-there” nonprofit’s actual equipment is “Out of State” and that equipment was basically, computer, cell phone, and other gear for running people through trainings to qualify to get paid in a field within the state.

I had to publish another page to back up some recent work (it’d been written in January 2018) yesterday and on seeing a reference to this organization on it, re-checked the filing status and for updates on the website.  It’s a “you’re kidding — right?” status.  Except that, apparently the organization is correct in that most people don’t get around to looking..  Possibly other (inter)national crises have so stressed beyond normal stresses, when the looking-it-up habit wasn’t yet engrained, it’s just not enough CASH FLOW to merit real attention.

Except that its condition really is a symptom of an existing problem, leaks in an accounting process with plumbing up to the state, federal and (as pertains to this one at least) across national borders.

“SUPERVISED VISITATION SUCKs (any family’s resources and life energies),” ANYHOW!

The nonprofit CASVSP existence relates to an entire field not designed for abusive parents being turned on non-abusive parents through re-framing definitions of what is and is not abuse….  And this form of re-framing facilitates extortion, on a case-by-case basis, arbitrarily  — of both fathers and mothers.  Often switching from one to the other.  It puts strangers ALL OVER parent/child interactions for reporting and monitoring purposes in other words, it’s an invasive practice.  It can be used as a weapon, and has been.

I’ll footnote it on this post.  “Continued on Footnote “CAVSVP and California Office of Attorney General (and California Judicial Council) — WHAT?? SERIOUSLY?”

The longer title to this post:

When Women Judges form Fathers’ Rights Nonprofits** (and, Santa Clara County CA, an AFCC/NCJFCJ/AFCC Judge Leonard P. Edwards Set Up the Coordinated Responses to DV)


The previous reference: how I said it in 2013, supplementing a long piece on the sidebar:

What’s with Women Judges forming Nonprofits to run Fatherhood Programs? ….

 (… is it about the Dads? Or is it about Imminent Embezzlement Scams”

[The question arose from my comments after following up on one of them; occasioned by a public debate at the time in which Lundy Bancroft scolded at battered mother for attacking a protective mother (who was helping promote his books without his having to registered his own entity to report income on sales, and to network with battered mothers, etc.).

At the time I’d read the case docket, had communications with the woman accused of attacking another mom — does this sound like a man doing “divide and conquer” and put a check on independent mothers yet?  — while I happened to know at the time he was also heavily involved in fathers’ perspectives and conferencing among fathers’ groups himself — something which he wasn’t exactly advertising while selling books and services to battered mothers, including on how to heal from abuse.

As usual, getting ready to respond, I did another search (talking, 2013), discovered Mr. Bancroft having recently presented at another conference, looked up others in this conference (including some well known and identified as fathers’ rights-focused) and happened to notice a woman judge “Building Friendly Families” and followed up on THAT.

What’s with Women Judges forming Nonprofits to run Fatherhood Programs? ….

2019 Update

(This, 6,900 word-post was published Nov 1, 2013.  Its short-link ends “-22j.” It supplements a discussion on the VERY bottom right sidebar of my blog, which sidebar is so long it’s getting in the way of my editing process.  I decided this widget (under the above title) could go, but seemed to remember having moved it or a version of it off-side-bar long ago, and so went looking.  And, here we are!)

Having discovered it wasn’t an exact replica, I made a new post to save an exact replica. Broken links and all.  Don’t miss the CASVSP footnote below, however, which is new commentary.

Between two lines of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ is the copied text, saved FYI about a page in the history of some open conflict among what some claim is “THE” protective mothers’ group, indicating some are also claiming a sort of proprietary ownership of the same.

Widget Title:  “What’s with Women Judges Forming Nonprofits to run Fatherhood Programs?  Is it about the Dads or is it about Imminent Embezzlement Scandals?”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (table width tripled in this version, but no text changed, unless I decide to later replace any broken links discovered)~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is a tale of Building Peaceful Families (“BPF”)(incorporated 1/3/2005), Healing and Hope (posted 7/28/2013, hover cursor for the content), Domestic Violence Intervention Coalition {“DVIC”) Inc. 1/21/2005 [compare with “BPF” date] (this is actually a California Corporation (i.e., BUSINESS) set up as a fiscal agent (?) to handle the monies from the activities of the Council — which appears to be an advisory agency under the Office of Women’s Policy, i.e. part of government. ) the site is advertising: Engaging, Motivating and Inspiring Men: the next step in Domestic Violence Prevention (10/2011 [18th annual. Do the math] conference run by DVIC [that corp]. and selling DVIResources with keynote speakers Lundy Bancroft and Jerry Tello),; and a tale of Mr. Bancroft’s alter ego organization (or is it?) Protective Mothers International (not incorporated yet? Apparently not in Florida anyhow; that’s the search site) but still has co-founders, apparently). A search for the Activist Woman the ‘Healing and Hope” post is protecting, shows “The National Organization for the Respect of Motherhood, Inc.” was incorporated 12/18/2012 by a person under LegalZoom from Glendale, CA (Florida-California??) under Ms. Levinson and two others. However, that was quickly dissolved when they never (ever) filed an annual report… Nevertheless, let’s protect the mothers internationally (and engage and inspire the fathers).

PMA Blog “About” states:

“Janice along with Lundy Bancroft co-founded Protective Mothers Alliance International in April of 2009. *** Since then PMA has acquired more than 50 state chapter leaders in 30 states and several countries world wide. They have started a PMA blog talk radio show dealing with the many issues that involve the continued abuse by fathers through the family court system. Featured guests on the blog talk radio show are professional advocates in the movement** with a special spot light on giving protective mothers a platform to tell their story.

[[;**I believe Mr. Bancroft, wherever he is these days, calls it the mothers’ movements, when not schmoozing, fraternizing and inspiring those guys from the fathers’ movement. Does Janice know? Does she approve?]]

[[Finally found it — NOT anywhere on the PMA actual site (and I sure went looking, too) — but in 2009 under Lundy’s BLOG called “healing and hope.” Look an early — June, 16, 2009 — post, “Introducing the Protective Mothers’ Alliance.”

Guess where checks can be (or at least then were) made out to, to support the brand-new PMA? CPPA!

More information about the Protective Mothers Alliance is available at my website, LundyBancroft.com, including our mission statement and principles, with an explanation of how you can start a group in your area and how to reach us. PMA is open to protective mothers and their allies. We have specific projects for children who were harmed by the actions of family courts when they were growing up, called “Hear Us Now,” and for men who want to be active for justice for protective mothers, called “Fathers and Step-Fathers for Protective Parenting”.

Mothers themselves will be the key leading force in bringing about safety for women and children post-separation##, and in changing the way family courts handle child custody disputes involving abusers. PMA looks forward to your support. Contributions can be made out to “California Protective Parents Association” (our fiscal sponsor) with “Protective Mothers Alliance” written on the memo line, and sent to CPPA, P.O. Box 15284, Sacramento, CA 95815-0284.

###except when the audience is men, in which case, it’s men who are going to be the leading force, apparently….

OK, let’s get this straight: PMA is a donor-directed “fund” of CPPA (which has no money — see below, or look yourself). However, to learn MORE about PMA, go to lundybancroft.com (which I have just done, site ends notably *.COM, “Prevention, Response and Healing for Domestic Abuse [not “violence”?] and Child Maltreatment [not abuse?]” and see he has been running healing retreats for women, “The Life That Awaits You: Healing after an Abusive Relationship,” led by (yours truly, LB) Retreat fee, incl. meals and lodging: ” $385- $460, sliding scale. Maximum size 22 people.”

Resources for the “Male Allies” includes the multi-million-dollar SF nonprofit “Family Violence Prevention Fund” obviously this website hasn’t been updated much since 2010, when they got a new name.

[To my shame, I didn’t find the CPPA connection until Nov. 2013, I was distracted by the “Florida” location of Ms. Janice…not that this wasn’t possibly intentional. The phone contact (941-822-5592) listed is from Sarasota, FL it seems. Here’s another “tell your story disaster story site providing that #… It WAS, sounds like, a disaster story…It’s from a California chapter of PMA about a Michigan custody case. Hover cursor or click to read the PMA salespitches (plural) at the bottom of the report.

ANYHOW, funny what such sites will NOT talk about, but now more of us ARE — find this type of material on any solicitation to contact PMA!

I’m just wondering how it’s possible to have so many chapters, donations available for a Florida-Telephone# (but not registered as itself to do business in Florida) to PMA, which is actually advertising for a *.com for Mr. Bancroft. How many other “not really incorporated” alliances, and how much of the donations and fees for PMA are run through CPPA, if any, then? Or is CPPA simply the networking connection for these sales connections?]

Here’s CPPA Corporate registration in California in the Sacramento (State capital) area…


Charity# 114556 (Calif) EIN# 943341470. This organization is hardly funded — it’s not shown over $25K (revenues) except years 2002, 2003, 2004 (for which NO RRFs are showing as there should be). No tax returns for those more prosperous years either, only for 2009, 2010, none for 2011. The RRF for year 2010-2011 is signed by Connie Valentine, Fiscal Officer.

The only tax return showing with SOME information (about what they do, although this organization is well-known, and well-loved, to many noncustodial and/or battered mothers), statement 3 (Program service accomplishments):


NOT MENTIONED ON THEIR TAX RETURNS (though known to many mothers) — that CPPA is along with DVLEAP and “National Court Watch” a co-sponsor (at least now, 2013) of “Battered Mother’s Custody Conference” (existed 2003-2013, and exceptionally notable for suppressing overall information about — what I and some others blog and write on, and had to because CPPA and their many friends wouldn’t listen to!!! CPPA leadership often on the podium at BMCC, it seems….

One major attraction CPPA is to many trainers and advocacy groups appears to be the collection and assembly of email lists of distressed parents (particularly mothers) and then sending out of multiple alerts telling them what to do, and who to blurt the story to, which rally to attend, etc. etc.

Back to what the “PMA” blogsite tells us, not including who’s their fiscal agent, or at least was originally!

Janice and Lundy have started a PMA bi-monthly news letter which is another vehicle for education and exposure about family court corruption. Janice continues to move forward full force in shining the light on the truth about the many problems that children and protective mothers face in family court.”

Sure. Except about the things I’ve been blogging on since 2009, which I know Janice also knows about (I’ve told her, and a number of the converts / recruits/ recruiters,Chapter Leaders excuse me, members of this “tight team for change.” That includes sending charts of TAGGS, etc., too. See 10/19/2010 post , “ “My High Conflict with Promoting National Alliances” — apparently the Squabbling had already begun then” (hover cursor for comments), and on there a link and comments about (and on) the TimesUp! post “Protective Mothers’ Movement Needs Unity” (Barry Goldstein 10/2010). Then, he wrote: “A few short years ago, the protective mothers’ movement consisted only of many protective mothers victimized by a broken custody court system and a few professionals willing to risk their careers or at least their earning capacity to help them. This was the state of our movement when Mo Hannah started the Battered Mothers Custody Conference.”

WHOSE movement???
…It is easy to feel discouraged when we continue to hear the kinds of tragic miscarriages of justice … safe, protective mothers are denied any meaningful relationship with their children based on the outdated and discredited practices routinely used by custody courts and biased professionals…” [yes, with Mr. Goldstein it’s always, they need better practices (see our new book, here?) and it’s never the access/visitation grants or anything to do with federal incentives, and all that….”The NCADV created a child custody track at its recent national conference, provided a plenary session devoted to child custody issues and have done everything we have asked” [yep. I’ll bet they didn’t ask to stop those grants, either!!] “. . . .after 27 years of working against domestic violence, I believe I may have a unique experience and perspective that could be helpful in avoiding divisions that can only help abuser groups.”

(my comment there was deleted, so I put one back in…)

Well, given this new information, I”m going to hazard a guess that actually PMA is more likely, as well as and along with CPPA, a vehicle for the distribution of private, court-related information from women with OPEN custody cases, and a way to potentially, given the cross-associations, get that information into the hands of the opposing side. POTENTIALLY, is all I’m saying. Could be way off there. Or right-on. Who’s to say?

So, speaking of the above, and adding to all this peacefulness and let’s get along, healing, hopeful, nice stuff — let’s add to the mix a bit of “to the contrary” material from:

one former battered mother who lost contact with her daughter through this system with, God bless her, a won’t-stop loudmouth (Claudine Dombrowski) and social media skills, and responds to her own excommunication (within two days, looks like) in Reply to Lundy Bancroft. Change is Here. Lead, Follow, or Get out of the Way. Human Rights. Which, FYI inspired the lookup that found this stuff and inspired the post. We all have our different styles, but Mr. Bancroft, unbattered and not a mother, lecturing Claudine Dombrowski, badly battered, and lost custody of her daughter, on her TONE? No can do. I went to respond, look up, and found Santa Clara activities, above… But last summer, Claudine wrote: (excerpts)

. . .
Lundy Bancroft was like the only source for moms like me. the criminal injustices to myself and my daughter it made no sense, Bancroft gave validation, why does he do that, the batterer as parent, it was all we had. we (the mothers) terrified, ordered by the courts via the abuser and the new found court whores to remain silent, to take the beatings to take blame for everything and even things that did not happen. maddening

“I lost my child. Who helped me? No one. Did Bancroft help? no. Did NOW help? no Did DV orgs help? no.
Who did help?? MOTHERS. Mothers like myself, living in fear, jumping through impossible hoops to just Hold our chil;d again to just hold safely our only mission, our children.””Lundy is a psych. and we all now are beginning to learn the damages done by the psych industry.

Lundy as a psych elected to be paid by the county to TREAT batterers, E.G. Batterers Intervention, alternative to Battering, we all know that — Non remedy but ‘feel good guaranteed creation of roles and groups that do not need to exist.

[Interjection: 9/2010 commentary from his blog on the ideal batterers’ intervention group, for society to show they are serious about stopping abuse — would be two to three years, 2-3 times a week. [hover cursor]. I think this reveals about where it’s coming from — run more classes and therapy, behavioral change, trainings, etc. — right?]]

(Claudine writes: )Ok so back to Lundy and his job of teaching batterer intervention groups. He began to notice a pattern, with the abusers, the hatred, the use of the mothers children, hence, Lundys books.
at that time amazing!!…..There is no legal venue or resources through Lundy or PMA, any time a mother asks for his expert assistance or resources for legal the mothers are quickly shut out ignored. there is nothing there but a fee to join a demand for court records [??]], for his personal use in writing more books, plays doing more speaking, his expert and leadership makes him the typical god. because I say so. still has he or PMA helped any mother?
. .. .Four years ago. [=2009].. Janice began to threaten moms, demanded that any association with any other group or entity was not allowed . . .In all these years Lundy stays quiet. quietly profiting off his work of the sufferings of battered mothers and her children. Never does he take a stand with anything that would HELP legally politically,

Then the one time he does, he choose to do the unthinkable– public damnation of a battered mother. You did not hurt me Lundy, you hurt so many mothers who feel like you beat them the worst.
you were behind the scenes told by countless mothers the issues with Janice — you ignored them. “

So that’s when I went looking, found these other corps, and attempted to tell CD (I don’t hang in the same circles).And another, (ditto) me (“Let’s Get Honest” will do for now)– who continues to say, “STEP ONE is to find, and read, the tax returns, and watch the money fly away– or shift quickly from one to another when one’s about to be “outed.”This pattern of filing, or forgetting to file, and comparing one with another — is not only interesting, I do believe it’s a character indicator.So, this little mini-history, with is characters, corps, and county-connections, also tells us (all) what the domestic violence intervention movement is doing, as opposed to what it’s preaching, these days — and by “these days,” I do mean, now. Overall, “We are not amused,” it’s hardly a laughing matter — but this one does have an entertainment factor to it. It’s a “whodathunkit?!” situation, and an indicator of how gullible the public truly is.IDEA: Legislatively Require ALL current sitting judges AND retired judges to post RIGHT ON THE *.gov website — ANY AND ALL nonprofits they have formed, along with the EIN#s. You’d be shocked.. Also, enough of them lie (fail to disclose) that there has to be some way to look such things up, too!(continued on 11/1/2013 post. Or check it out yourself).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 
FOOTNOTES SECTION.  Footnotes are often things I just find interesting, though they are also of course going to be related to the main post.

Footnote “CAVSVP and California Office of Attorney General (and California Judicial Council) — WHAT?? SERIOUSLY?”(Continued comments….)

It does seem odd how women in power (whether judges, lawyers, custody evaluators, psychs of other sorts or — re-checked another truly odd nonprofit formed by several women in 2010 to coordinate statewide supervised visitation service professional providers in California (it took five years to get the law changed to specify only two types of providers  — PAID, which meant PROFESSIONAL which by definition meant HAS BEEN TRAINED BY JUDICIAL-COUNCIL-ENDORSED PROVIDER ~~ after which this tax-exempt association which all along had an EIN# had had been receiving some (initial seems to be about $20K) revenues ~~ on being prodded, often, by the Attorney General’s Office, finally registered as a charity and (after several more requests) begrudgingly filed missing reports 2010-2016 and even (on reprimand) completed some of them.

It just so happened that this field (professional supervised visitation provider) was without regulation in the state (other than having to sit through CJC-endorsed trainings) and so complaints aren’t really pertinent — for example, the Bureau of Consumer Affairs wasn’t exactly going to follow up — no certifications or licenses are involved.

Oh yes, and it just also so happened that the chosen training provider (still) in a field known to be supported by access visitation grants (which in California come straight TO the California Judicial Council) are being provided by (long-time AFCC + Civil Servant (CJC employee) in charge of those Access and Visitation grants, and previously (probably still?) involved with the SVN (Supervised Visitation Network), and previously involved also with the USDOJ/OVW or Safe Havens projects (which also has supervised visitation funding) in a technical-consulting kind of way — is Shelly LaBotte.  Still.

I clicked through (one of my own pages) to the “CAVSVP” the other day and, literally, went through all of its posted information at the Attorney-General’s Office.  The tax returns in combination with the annual renewals (called “RRFs”) which have to report government funding — are a joke.  I mean, they are apparently being taken seriously, but why is still unclear.One of the individuals mentioned over the (few) years it’s been around is a known name in the DV field; and as I looked it up, see other high connections with much better funded foundations (like, $64 million assets in the SF Area) and credits/ties to Clinton Administration, OJJDP posts.Yet her name was on some BS like the CAVSVP tax returns and association.  I wish I had others willing to undertake this type of work and write it up — we could make some headway in credibility gaps on which entire infrastructures rest.  We might even get some of it cleaned up.

# # # #

FOOTNOTE Legal Counsel at Building Peaceful Families | Lincoln Law School/ & University, (in San Jose) not ABA-accredited due to its target population (evening students), and California’s (Again, in 2019) Historically LOW Bar Exam Passage Rate.

(The comment about Lincoln Law School came from the LinkedIn of this attorney originally trained in another field, and Wikipedia’s comments on why the ABA didn’t certify it.

Separately and an hour or so earlier, I also realized this LinkedIn claims volunteer experience at “Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative” as well as at Building Peaceful Families.

Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative (check Secretary of State, try to find an EIN# (I couldn’t) and California Office of Attorney General’s Charitable Registry of Trusts — it never registered.  It was FTB Suspended (confirmed from two sources) some time after 2016, probably not long after 2017 because the SOS requires now filing statements in ODD years — and there’s none for 2017.

I spent more time looking through SCCFatherhood.org website and links attached to it (many were dead ends) in part because it’s listed among the dozen or so logos showing partnership with BPF.  Etc.).(BPF, as I’m saying above, isn’t the most “forthright” nonprofit around due to belated (5 years late) actual filing, and in its wording (from the very start, including founding documents) concealing that its “Family Violence Prevention” methodology was father-focused/male-engagement and “all about Dads” basically.  … I also note that it was formed in 2005, the same year the “Deficit Reduction Act” version of Welfare Reform was passed, making the $150M a year federal funding under “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” (CFDA#93086) from HHS, ℅ (legally authorized under) what was previously called “PRWORA” (1996 version of the Social Security Act of 1934)…. It was reasonably known that the fathers’ rights movement existed, had political backers, and was already showing HHS-funding involvement.).

So I went to Cal Bar Member Licensee Lookup for Mr. Dadlani, and found The Recorder’s article en route (nearby search results):

May 17, 2019, The Recorder, “Nearly 7 in 10 flunked California’s February 2019 Bar Exam

Only 31.4% of would-be attorneys passed California’s February 2019 bar exam, marking the second-lowest pass rate on the notoriously difficult test in 35 years, according to figuresreleased by the state bar Friday night.

The success rate was 4.1 percentage points higher than the historically low pass rate of 27.3% recorded in February 2018 …

it’s a Federal Multi-State Bar Exam, but apparently a pass score for California is also the nation’s second highest.  Still — that’s pretty abysmal…

California’s high failure rate is sure to add new fuel to efforts to lower the score required by the state bar to pass the exam, a figure known as the cut score. At a legislative hearing in Sacramento this week, L. Song Richardson, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, argued that the second-highest-in-the-nation passing score delays otherwise qualified law graduates from entering the profession and hampers efforts to diversify the bar’s membership.

Mr. Dadlani is licensed and shows employment at Druva, Inc. in Sunnyvale, Cal.  He passed the bar in 2010, so I’m glad to hear was not involved in that five-year downhill slide in passage rates for the bar in this state.  However two organizations cited in his LinkedIn (which work with each other also — see “Partners” link at Building Peaceful Families) are not staying current in their filings, and the one running fatherhood programs has never (that I can see) in the past 14 years filed its own tax return — only Forms 990-N (electronic statement that revenues do not exceed a certain limit).  And it was founded by a judge who is still a judge (!).
Druva, Inc. “Private Company Information” From Bloomberg.com (a snapshot.  Read Bloomberg’s statement on its own sources).(California Business registration shows a Delaware (“Foreign Stock”) organization, line of work “software,” which registered to do business in California in 2011 (showing entity principal office in Irving TX) and is status current, as of March 2019, i.e., also as I speak).

Druva, Inc

Druva Inc. provides cloud-based data protection and governance solutions for various organizations. The company offers inSync and Phoenix solutions in the areas of end-user data protection solutions, such as user data backup and restore, mobile workforce data protection, device refresh and OS migration, secure enterprise mobility, ediscovery enablement, and proactive compliance; Druva Cloud Platform that provides a unified control plane for data management services across endpoint, server, and cloud application data; and infrastructure data protection solutions, including cloud backup for remote offices and cloud backup for virtualized data centers, cloud-based disaster recovery, and data protection modernization. Its inSync solutions are available on the Salesforce AppExchange. The company serves life sciences, government, high tech, manufacturing, consulting, and education industries. Druva Inc. was founded in 2007 and is headquartered in Sunnyvale, California. It has locations in London, United Kingdom; Pune, India; and Singapore.

# # # #

FOOTNOTE “NCJFCJ since 1937 — “past 80 years” — REALLY?  IF SO:

IF IT WAS SO, FUNCTIONAL SINCE 1937, I note that 1939 is key year in restructuring federal government under the “Reorganization Act of 1939 under FDR’s New Deal,” (see my sidebar, CongressionalTimeline.org (short statement) or SSA.gov on this) and shortly after other major turning points in U.S. history, (history.state.gov, 1937-1945) one affecting social services, another the U.S. currency (the 1933 “gold grab” and fixing the price of gold afterwards), and the start of World War II we later became officially involved in….

# # # #

Footnote Very Brief Reminder on WhoIs  NCSC, the National Center on State Courts,NCSC = National Center on State Courts is not the major focus here, but I’ve posted on it (June 30, 2017, split off from Oct., 2014, “Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?) and often call attention to it. In 1983 (alone?) NCSC also served as secretariat to the AFCC. Recent visits to NCJFCJ shows the NCSC is involved in a Family Court Initiative project.  They are mutually supportive, it seems.  It also comes up as a main topic in (Sept. 21, 2017) “Governance the Final Frontier” referring to an Executive Conference (so-sponsored by Harvard, NCSC, the SJI (State Justice Institute) and BJA (the US Federal Government’s Bureau of Justice Assistance), with attention to NCSC president Mary McQueen.  That post is colorful (many images and explanations) and has substantial information on NCJFCJ and DV organizations too.  Full title:  “Governance the Final Frontier (NCSC © 2013). This Harvard-Kennedy-School-of-Gov’t.-based EXECUTIVE SESSION Detail includes reference to an SF BAY Area Nonprofit APIAHF, which had 2013 spinoff API-GBV (Symptoms: DV Solutions are Mainstreamed, Well-Heeled, and Often Reluctant (or at least slow) to “Come Out” as Separate Entities.)We should be able to talk in public, freely, about each and all of these organizations as individual entities AND about their interrelationships.  We should be able to and want to talk about them in words more objective than their own collectively positive and mutually-reinforcing public relationship postings.  MOST of them are fairly recent (last 50 years or so) creations.   We should be able to point to and look at their:  tax returns, degree of public backing, and collective impact upon representative government under actual jurisdictions where people live.  Without even common, natural, and public awareness of their existence, and even basic classifications of any entity as public or private (and if private, how much is it functioning independently; how many judges, lawyers, district attorneys, governors, or other (essentially) public servants on the public payroll are functioning in the private arena to regionalize operations?)

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: