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

“By Now We Should Know!” (Impromptu Re-cap of Key Players addressing [how to handle] Domestic Violence especially as it impacts Family Courts) (Apr 28 ~> June 22, 2019).  (short-link ending “-9NU,” post drafted as insert to “More Perspectives” in late April, under 4,000 words, for starters…). (now exactly 6,000 words; latest revisions for clarity and extra links, 6/23/2019).

re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)

This post (that you’re reading now) prepares people for another post, already written, which asks a hard, “what-if” rhetorical question.  I hope readers on considering that (coming post’s) rhetorical question have the integrity to consider where they may have been radically mis-led about the real purposes of family court reform/fix/correct movements.  Even though it may be embarrassing, confronting, or disturbing.

IF I COULD FIGURE THIS OUT 2006-2010, especially (and subsequently)…

If I could figure this out with what I was going through 2006 through 2010 especially (and subsequently) under the related conditions post-DV, post-overnight-custody-switch and all kinds of family betrayal, amid professional livelihood destruction, repeated stalking over the years, and at this point it seems about every other year, another lawsuit of some sort — when I don’t have the ongoing income to predict a future at times more than a half year, or a quarter-year in advance — then I know other, more consistently employed and less family-court-plagued individuals, including professionals such as lawyers, psychologists, law professors, psychology professors, state court administrators, and politicians could have chosen, IF not in on it, to figure it out and, for mutual public benefit and “out of the goodness in their hearts” share it.

And share it not just among the mutual professional circles within court-connected and cause-related [abuse prevention, etc.] fields, but also with the people they are charged to help, while dealing with the issues named and as reflected in the respective organization’s business names (i.e., “Family” or “Battered Women” or “Violence Prevention” etc.)…

What’s more, outside the professionals, there are plenty of women (and men) who have been in my situation who could’ve figured out and reported (blogged! spoken consistently) about the same things I did as just a human being with (I admit) at most times — some times a lot harder to access than others — access to the internet and (eventually) a laptop so that access wasn’t limited to library hours and time limits (where I lived, generally maximum 1 to 2 hours at a stretch)… And common sense enough to pay attention! 

“BY NOW, WE SHOULD KNOW!”

In fact (looking for a certain reference to include just before publishing this post), about a year ago, I see I went through it again last spring (May, 2018), even though at that time I was being gradually pushed out of temporary housing, and within just two or three months of having to flee the state:

Post title: How Relevant is AFCC — and Who, UNLIKE many ‘Crisis in (or ‘Enhance/Reform’) the Courts’ groups and associated professionals who won’t, in public or on-line — Acknowledges Its Existence and Significance? (started May 7, 2018) (Case-sensitive shortlink ending “-91l”; that’s two numbers, as in the year “1991” and a lower-case “L”) (Posting “as-is” about 5,680 words on Mothers’ Day (USA) May 13.  Subject to later updates for clarity and/or towards bottom of the post).

(I was also active on Twitter today with more links, documentation and as ever, reminder of terms in use in current fatherhood policy, particularly as involves Temple University-housed, Center for Policy Research-organized “FRPN.org” (also previously posted herein).  http://bitl.ly/2KVQHOi) {{<~~may be multi-Tweet/ a thread; see the whole thread if so and I tend to have attachments (media) to Tweets to explain them}}

This post will illustrate both those who won’t (while talking on the same topics) and those who, obviously do acknowledge AFCC when presenting at its conferences or listed among its ongoing board of directors or other activist members (i.e., on individual C.V.s)

That post has has some typos I see but its contents are still relevant.  Some emphases added.

I even found a post written almost exactly EIGHT years ago, featuring the general operations and co-operations among key organizations.  It doesn’t drill-down tax returns so much, but it does show tendencies and business relationships among them (reference, background, cream-colored, inside green borders added one day post-publication here);

Post Title with shortlink and enclosed comments added June, 2019. Post written eight years earlier.(This post came up in a search and I needed to add a “Read-More” link anyway).

See Gilder-Lehman Center at Yale or his NYT Obituary April, 2019. Undated photo.

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011]

[WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link here ends in just two characters, probably because it’s so early in this blog:  “-K7”].  As first published, about 10,800 words, incl. any & all quotes, image captions, tables, etc. //LGH June 23, 2019]

On review of this post, I see that perhaps the final ⅓ is quoting (at length) three sources on Irish Slavery, including “Tangled Roots’ “Barbadosed: Africans and Irish in Barbados” (2008, I think) from GLC.Yale.Edu, a center originally inspired when businessmen/history buffs G&L heard lectures by a Yale history professor David Brion Davis, who I now see died this past April after a long, productive life:”Prizewinning Historian of Slavery Dies at 92” NYT April, 2019.

Professor Davis wrote or edited 16 books, but paramount were the three that examined the moral challenges and contradictions of slavery and their centrality in American and Atlantic history. ~~|~~The first, “The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture” (1966), won a Pulitzer Prize and was a National Book Award finalist. The second, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823” (1975), won the National Book Award as well as the Bancroft Prize, one of the most prestigious in the study of American history. ~~|~~The last book of the trilogy, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation,” was published in 2014 as Professor Davis approached 90. It won the National Book Critics Circle Award…~~|~~President Barack Obama presented Professor Davis with a National Humanities Medal in 2014 for “reshaping our understanding of history,” as the citation said. ~~|~~The fundamental problem of slavery, Professor Davis wrote, “lay not in its cruelty or exploitation, but in the underlying conception of man as a conveyable possession with no more autonomy of will and consciousness than a domestic animal.”                                                          [ “~~|~~” = para. break omitted]

I was (and still am) pretty irritated at the exclusionary practices of the above-named groups in deciding how to solve “family” problems involving abuse; see concluding paragraph.  And there are many parallels between abuse and slavery.

Most of the July, 2011, post deals with and quotes the entities its title names (starting with the OVW as part of the US DOJ, the associated “entity” here is the U.S. federal government (with DOJ under its Executive, not Legal or Judicial Branch, despite the word “Justice” in the Department name); all other “entities” referenced are either nonprofits, or projects of them)..

I don’t know how many “re-caps” and reminders it’s going to take to sink in….or what it’ll take, but I write (in part) because I know for some, it’s not reminder — it’s news.  On hearing this news, some decisions might need to be made (unless you’re OK continuing to “float” and becoming a “floater” when it comes to effective strategy, or even figuring out what’s going on…. “just go with the closest flow that sounds friendly…  or go against the closest hostile currents around, and hope that’s got some real impact, makes a splash, makes a difference (etc.)….).

(Impromptu re-cap, with attention to the key players addressing “DV” aspect hitting family courts.)

By now people should also be aware of to what extent and HOW the “sleeper organization” Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”), working often in tandem with the better-known “National Council of Juvenile and Family Courts (“NCJFCJ”)## all but runs the family court system as we know it today …  

(I’m referring to in the USA, while aware of a longstanding intention to align practices across country lines, not to mention through private association influence as has already been taking place, across state lines.)

This Impromptu Recap isn’t going to post tax returns or extensive documentation, which are spread throughout the blog and searchable on it (or search even post titles throughout the blog). For the most part here, although there are some links and images, I’m going to just say it.

(Previously posted image shows where FCR was (at the time) on Hofstra University [NY, Private] website and what they’re looking for).

Some (many?) AFCC members are highly activist [writing, publishing, presenting on the conference circuit, training, teaching, consulting, etc.] and highly placed (up to the state level of government and internationally conferencing) and emphasize judicial and family court trainings at all levels; both organizations publish at least one major journal (AFCC’s is the Family Court Review).Possibly Journal #17441617 (from the url). Images from April 2019 edition below.

By now we should also know –despite failure to properly report on this from many organizations and people over the past few decades — that a key feature of AFCC is promotion of the “Parental Alienation” and “High Conflict” jargon, and endorsement of increase and expansion of court-connected programming and even “professions” — such as parent coordination, supervised visitation (an outgrowth of the child abuse and dependency courts), batterers’ intervention, court-connected mediation (mandatory), mandatory parent education classes, and so forth. The emphasis is on community referrals to therapy, and control/standardization of training for inclusion on court-mandated or offered.

(Below, five-image slideshow, taken from Wiley’s page for Family Court Review, April, 2019, show its Editor-in-Chief, Barbara Babb, a lead article with Marsha Kline Pruett (with her spouse Kyle, into fatherhood studies and in promotion), and (without referencing anyone’s geographies or positions on the abstract page) Michael Saini, from Canada, positive follow-up and feedback on the Overcoming Barriers Reunification Camps, which have been making mainstream media news in last few years as adult children begin reporting, not to mention distraught parents witnessing them carted off in the middle of the night, etc.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

It’s also fair summary to say (according to AFCC’s long-standing “About Us/History page”) that among its key purposes is bringing more behavioral health scientists and language (terminology; “new words”) into the legal field; this remains a priority and a characterization of the membership.

Those behavioral health experts with assistance from activist members already in power and a variety of means, have helped set up and perpetuate/sustain a private business enterprise in created professions run through and from the family courts (among other places). (Look for “Task Forces” and “Practice Guidelines” “Model Practices” which may indicate a profession being created, or a move to take (training, standards) control of one already practiced. In order to create a profession, one sometimes needs to invent words for it: see “parent coordination” or “parenting coordination.” The membership organizations, conferences, trainings, individual members’ websites (etc.) resonate together to help bring it to pass (as if a natural or grassroots solution to problems in the family courts, or in life…).

Except that this also seems to characterize so much of federal policy (especially within a burgeoning department of Health and Human Services) I’d say that essentially it looks** like and probably is widespread and pervasive racketeering.  Use of public resources for private profits with select, self-referencing and self-credentialing sets of practitioners (using pre-existing or obtained Ph.D.s and Psy.D.s, as well as many more who have nothing of the sort, but can buy into the system sitting through trainings and getting on referral lists for use from local courts).   (** Further disclaimer:  I’m not a lawyer or prosecutor (public servant), and there’s no licensed profession, that I’m aware of, which’d make my opinion “expert” opinion.  That said, it “RICO” is about the best conceptual description I can find to characterize the networks I’m talking about here).

##For this example, I’m not naming several other AFCC-collaborating organizations, like NACC.  Earlier posts in this blog have.

NCJFCJ’s main journal seems to be “Juvenile and Family Court Journal,” also published by Wiley. I’ve read more of the organization’s conference materials, including some with AFCC, others with the San Francisco-based “Futures without Violence” (formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund) which functions in a parallel level with NCJFCJ on specified “resource centers” nationwide) and NCJFCJ’s tax returns than articles (am not a subscriber).  There are obvious areas of subject matter overlap with the smaller AFCC, and some which AFCC does not deal with.  There is also some membership overlap, in the leadership, including among some of the judges. One key difference you may see is in the organization names:  “NCJFCJ” calls itself “National” — while AFCC features its internationality.

NCJFCJ name itself references JUDGES only.  AFCC, referencing a certain type of COURTS, is not limited to the legal profession, or to judges among its key leadership; it in fact features this.  Just take a look at the advanced degrees listed on the boards of directors.

(Next two images my link is to the first image/Overview):

Between AFCC and NCJFCJ, the latter receives more direct HHS grants and is larger.  NCJFCJ claims to have been around longer — since 1939.  I’ve only found NCJFCJ incorporation since the 1970s (close to when AFCC also –finally, under duress and some spotlight for functioning initially unincorporated right out of a Los Angeles County (family) courthouse — incorporated: in Illinois) but there may be another explanation for why (such as revision of Nevada’s code.  Ferreting out NCJFCJ’s very earliest corporate registration is just not my top priority.  I know it exists now and is active now). I also know that HHS grants to this entity do not and for years have not used its full, legal entity name, but instead read “National Council of Juvenile Court Judges.” In other words, omitting the two words “and Family” representing the full acronym NCJFCJ.

People ought to know that.  They ALSO ought to know that, when it comes to domestic violence issues, from a federal perspective there are certain key, legally described and designated “resource centers” (legislation regarding federal financial supports), and which ones.  You don’t need to be a lawyer to simply read the law and be aware of the types of centers described and that they are to be funded, and then, separately match that up with their actual business names (all are private corporations, all are also tax-exempt).  I believe my sidebar widget “Current Posts” has a link to my listing of these.

Recently (within VERY recent years, or possibly months), on Twitter, some accounts are featuring criticisms, memes, graphics, and content negatively featuring AFCC — without pointing to its network companions or collaborating (programmatically aligned, with overlapping membership) organizations.  It does not operate in a vacuum!  Because NCJFCJ IS one of them, any follow-up on NCJFCJ (from either grantee status (HHS or DOJ) or from even its own conference materials and self-reports) shows that it’s also a designated FAMILY violence “Resource Center.”

Clearly some alignment of AFCC’s perspective is likely to affect interpretation of “violence prevention” policy!.  By recall (off-hand recitation) these centers are:

~>NCJFCJ (University of Reno, Nevada) along with ~>PCADV (I believe it’s in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania), ~>Futures without Violence (San Francisco, California), ~>Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (“DAIP” in Duluth, Minnesota), and (I believe the Texas component is) the Texas Family Violence Council & “National Domestic Violence Hotline” (24-hour, 1-800-799-SAFE) are funded through Congressional appropriations under the 1984-passed Family Violence Prevention and Services Act (FVPSA), administered through the U.S. Department of HHS.  There is another one or two I do not remember by name just now (relating to Tribal Councils).  As you can see, these resource centers are distributed across the country:  East Coast (basically) Midwest, South, and West Coast and not one per state.  By definition then, policy and resource “clearinghouse” style website is being set for anyone not in those states, from outside the state.

~ ~ ~ ~ >{{These may change periodically.  If I notice changes before publication will revise the above paragraph…}}

The overall theme is “functionalism” which undermines direct representation.  Certain things are forfeited for the sake of declared needs or urgencies, and states forfeit their influence and rights for the sake of the designated problem.  The source of power is thus gradually shifted with help from federal government away from state governments into private hands, including to private entities whose board members (as to NCJFCJ at least) are public servants.

Having realized (through looking up its tax returns) that the smaller (possibly the smallest one) “DAIP” also primarily dependent on government funding for its operations, also closely associated with Ellen Pence (d. 2012) and “the Duluth Model” (the website is duluthmodel.org) is promoting, as its title implies, PROGRAMS — especially supervised visitation, access and exchanges, and batterers interventions, as well as “coordinated community response” basically translated as “train everyone.”

I have shown elsewhere on this blog, but anyone could also look (again, read tax returns, pay attention to networked organizations) how the entity now called Battered Women’s Justice Project, Inc. (“BWJP,”  Sept. 2011 in Minnesota) was, in fact, before incorporation (around the time Ellen Pence died) and being spun off into its own actual entity, the major project — cost-wise — of “DAIP.”  This can be seen on “Program Service Accomplishments” pages of DAIP’s IRS returns.

Some of us custodially-challenged mothers noticing such things have also noticed how for many years, and well before that BWJP spinoff, certain people were presenting at AFCC conferences as speaking for domestic violence field and for (see the name) “Battered Women,” under the name BWJP — thus (intentionally) concealing and avoiding more direct reference to “DAIP” and with that submersion of identity, also discouraging any closer look at who, in fact, these presenters, attorneys, spokespersons for battered women IN COLLABORATION WITH AFCC, in fact were.

IF YOU CONSIDER what AFCC and (the more recent) BWJP (and, still DAIP) have in common — it includes endorsement of the continual trainings and treatments of an entire community with a view towards transformation (behavior modification).  This includes custody and access exchanges (not simple complete separation for safety); supervised visitation (of course), batterers intervention services (for both men and women), and becoming the technical consultants and advisors for the issue of domestic violence.  That priority goes back to at least the 1980s (DAIP incorporated in 1980).

The constant training, treatments, and assumption that co-parenting is the norm and should be accommodated through “safe exchanges.”  Thus supporting and promoting an entire “supervised visitation” industry and network) was “bred into” the handling of abuse.  That all this is probably compatible with incorporation of “healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood” about which few, if any, of such DV organizations speak — is sequestered and handled away from where any mother or battered women would be likely to notice, understand, or report / protest.

Go look at the resource center organization’s websites still today; it’s rarely mentioned: connecting fathers’ rights funding (through PRWORA) and priorities saturating domestic violence advocacy.  [Search “Ed Gondolf,” or “Barbara J. Hart” on this blog; I also have tweeted (annotated details on attached images) how this decision was arrived at in a strategy meeting in a cabin the middle of the woods in winter with a token battered woman, and where DAIP’s perspective (Ellen Pence) was versus the more feminist Barbara J. Hart’s and, with her, the bottom line that treatment of batterers was a bottom-line requirement].  I’d already deduced this, but remember it being the first time I saw a documented admission, in writing, of the principle.][Perhaps I can find and include a link to the Tweet where I brought it up]

It seems to be a professional, collegial agreement to maintain a “code of silence” on information which is reasonably mutually known and has been for at least a decade or two by professionals active on both sides of the “gender-focused” policy debate here.

(Previously posted, among DV representatives and BIP providers, as narrated here, I see, by Jeffrey Edleson, which would put it in, I believe, the 1990s… {Correction. See nearby quote; also see my May, 2018, post “How Relevant is AFCC…” where this is taken from (para. added to today’s June 22, 2019 post also}  Anything NOT in black and white is my annotation of one sort or another.//LGH (Previously annotated).

(See caption on similarly annotated image, nearby. Previously posted)//LGH June 22, 2019

(2019June22:  Link to an earlier (January 6, 2019?) Tweet, my account; see also the attachments with some very fine-print annotations (mine).  It also shows interconnections of various professionals, and one in particular (I’ll enlarge here) the account, by Barbara J. Hart, of how differences were, somewhat, smoothed over between the feminists (but, with Ed Gondolf and an insistence on “Batterers Intevention Programs”) and, on the other hand, Ellen Pence and the DAIP perspective.
(For a clean copy of the speech from which two heavily colored (annotated) images above are shown (and were also attached on a Twitter), see link.  Link to its originating post in nearby image caption, it’s also the one I mentioned near the top of this page:  “How Relevant is AFCC  and Who …. Acknowledges Its Existence and Significance?”

• Or see Barbara Hart’s November 1, 2017 speech at the “Miles to Go” BISC-MI conference which reveals even more than I’d already picked up about her (and colleagues, incl. other lawyers listed here active in the national “DV advocacy” issues) early-on decisions to incorporate diversionary, behavioral modification programs such as “Batterers Intervention” (and supervised visitation, coordinated community response, etc.) solutions… It’s a short-read, under 2,000 words.

FYI, I’m not translating the acronyms in the above paragraphs. (BISC-MI, DAIP, etc.) They are searchable; they’re on this blog, and they matter, as do the individuals’ names (although Ellen Pence is no longer alive, at least two organizations she co-founded still are).

In addition to the 1984-FVPSA (under 1970s “CAPTA” Act, USA)-designated, HHS-funding administered (likely also US DOJ funding) resource centers there are the statewide DV coalitions (every state has one, every state receives funding; See also U.S. territories) which historically are smaller in size (fewer assets as measured by $$) and, by designation of Congress, that is enacted into law, receive lesser funding although this lesser funding is then further distributed (through grantmaking) to sub-grantee member organizations within each state.

These are also historically the ones more likely to be providing direct services to battered women (and, to a degree men) and their children, such as shelters, pro bono access to lawyers for orders of protection, accompanying to court, and so forth. I have posted on these and posted and tweeted their names.

Through the designated “statewide coalition” DV recipient, funds filter down to specific shelters across the state.  (Deduced from some of the “CADV organizations’ tax returns, Schedule of Grantees; the grantees may also be members electing the boards of directors.  See individual states for examples).

In other words, the statewide coalitions against domestic violence are a conduit for federal funds direct to the receiving nonprofits and whether or not there is an available bed — and how long any person may stay in them, and under what conditions.  These issues are then being essentially controlled at FEDERAL policy level, at the state level through PRIVATE organizations, both determining  whether or not individual safe houses are financed.

[Parts (not all) of next section were added June 23, one day post-publication]

When I separated from abuse many years ago, I did not receive direct services (support group, understand my rights, help filling out legal forms to go with my declaration, and I was also accompanied to court — once) from the statewide coalition. (I later learned California has a rather large one; several mergers took place over the years), but a local one.  This local one is now a lead agency (last I looked) within a ‘Family Justice Center,” a phenomenon started only around 2003, with startup funding from the Justice Department and approval of then-President George W. Bush as a great model. (I disagree…)

California in addition has a national resource center Futures without Violence which has kept busy compromising and building assets and relationships at the federal level for international causes, including acquisition of property, incorporation of father-engagement (MANY years ago and every since) and how lead “partner” in another blending of previously, I suppose “fragmented” agencies which must be reframed under the newly refined theme centered around trauma — not justice.  With its own website, it’s called a QIC (Quality Improvement Center).  Don’t let the pretty pictures, and bright yellow color detract from doing appropriate drill-downs on organizations involved and/or the Advisory Board: https://dvchildwelfare.org.

(Futures without Violence, formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund, under Esta Soler (for most of its existence is EIN# is 943110973 and has two related taxable as corporation or trust and one ‘disregarded’ entities (See its Schedule R). All have the word “Praesidio” in the name, all are real-estate in purpose, and a chunk of its total gross assets of over $40M are “Other Investments,” i.e., in those entities, i.e., in that real estate.  Its most recent return available to read (at the state charity) is currently labeled “Renewal” and unlike other years, combines two forms (RRF and IRS Form 990) in one upload.

Complete document here; the 3 images just show some of my notes on $$ discrepancies, and Fw|o Violence’s unusual habit of claiming sub-awards rec’d through other entities as “government grants.”  Make a note of some of the other entities and where they are. Futures w|o Violence (EIN#943110973 in SF) FY2017 RRF + Form 990 under ‘RENEWAL’ (YE DEC, latest available from Cal OAG RCT @22Jun2019) 55pp (actually, 23June). (This is a pdf; a second click on blank page icon probably needed to view). Gives a glimpse of the DV funds from both HHS and DOJ and collaboration, incl. some from Georgia.  Futures certainly knows about AFCC, directly and through their long-term collaboration with NCJFCJ.

Go visit the website and see how much reference of AFCC (or marriage/fatherhood and access/visitation grants) it makes, if any, although there’s a correlation between what AFCC promotes and what those grants promote.

Their prosperity took off (see Charitable registry) especially after incorporating responsible fatherhood programming into their media campaigns and trainings, ca. 2006, when $150M more HMRF grants were authorized by the US HHS under the umbrella of Welfare Reform’s Marriage/Fatherhood programming. Current projects link up in particular with Latino interests (Georgia organization Caminar Latino working with Casa de Esperanza (MN), etc.)

Image “Clean Copy” correction – I see I grabbed, instead, a page of grants FROM Futures without Violence (Schedule I) on their tax return, not a clean copy of Page 2 which I’d marked up (a screenshot of, not on original pdf).  It does show, however, that Futures granted out $134K to NCJFCJ after receiving (first image, pg2 of the RRF on the long (55-pger) pdf I linked to above) over $200K from it.

Clean(er) copy of just one year’s list of gov’t grants rec’d by Futures w/o Violence 2017 (YEDec). Their FY2018RRF (just a short form) (w/ Form 990) was due April 2019; judging by this last (rec’d Aug. 2018) maybe we’ll see one in a month or two?

Note:  RRFs don’t require showing amounts granted; I wish they did.  They’re not a full-accountability solution of any sort, just an indicator.  I’m wondering why Futures did this time; maybe took the list from another report they produced…

In other words, both private nonprofits (“Futures,” home base California, and NCJFCJ, home base Nevada) are taking federal government grants from at least two federal government Executive Branch departments: of HHS and DOJ (I didn’t show NCJFCJ doing this, but you can check — they routinely do…) and, it seems, trading them back and forth between each other, this year, in relatively large amounts.. Futures, above, by (it seems) characterizing its own received sub-awards as actually government grants (not private) shows itself receiving larger government backing than it does (directly) which seems to build credibility and make it look less like a private collaboration with some government help. Not my biggest concern about the organization, just a detail which came up this round.

I just looked through 2017’s figures (not their financial statements, but the above two forms).

(Searchable on the State of California Charity Registration Verification page — helpful as the RRFs show which government agencies are granting (though not how much for each), and uploaded Forms 990 (on Part VIII, “Statement of Revenues” after year 2008; before year 2008, this is shown on page 1 of a return, except any return marked “Form 990EZ) show total amount of government grants (not “contracts”) at least, as compared to private financing, for a general idea.)

On https://dvchildwelfare.org: Enjoy the photos, then get down to business (looking them up!).  I see one individual (Advisory Board) listed in connection with the Harvard Center on the Developing Child.   Some on the Advisory Board have geography indicated in their names, others do now.  Faced with such a list, I usually go first for identifying the ones without a listed geography in the name.

[END, Parts (not all) of [above] section added June 23, one day post-publication]

Many women leaving abusive relationships do not, or cannot, flee to shelters and enroll in their programs.  They may just have to flee period. But if children are involved, they often can’t flee far for long — and can’t flee effectively to a truly safe distance because of family policies and laws.  The family courts thus help negate, undermine and undo basic protection from violence through complete separation while public declaration continues that our country is highly concerned about it . . . in favor of training and treating as many people as possible about the field and proper paternal/maternal behaviors.

Most objectionable, in my opinion (and this is opinion) is to have men increasingly dominate the field of “violence against women” while framing it also as a health issue more than a legal (criminal assault) issue.  Jeffrey Edleson** (and Oliver Williams) out of University of Minnesota are prominent in this field, neither is a lawyer, both have doctorates and have been working in major public universities in Schools of Social Work.  Edleson/Schechter’s (Susan Schechter has also died since) “Greenbook” published by NCJFCJ in 1999 became the basis of a “Greenbook Initiative” with pilot demonstration projects run upon the nation, and targeting, primarily family court handling of abuse (and child “maltreatment”).

**Edleson was there for 29 years? but is now back at his alma mater, UC Berkeley School of Social Work — as its Dean, last I looked… I see an article from last August, 2018, that he’s planning to step down “Next year” (as of last year). I also see from his current “Projects” that he’s working on the Hague Domestic Violence Project (AT UCBerkeley Goldmann School of Social Work), and I’ve noticed (for years) that along with other DV leadership personnel from the USA, they are, it seems, increasingly interested in developing the international professional connections.  Perhaps as word gets out here about “the great coverup” for United States women and children of exactly how the HHS Marriage/Fatherhood funding, as saturating and literally, infiltrating the (centralized/controlled – in good part by

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/… FINAL_Abbott_dv_amicus_brief.pdf accessed 6/22/2019.

men, too) domestic violence industry over here.

(On the Hague DV Project sidebar, I see again involvement of DVLEAP, which never loses an opportunity to promote other DV organizations when filing an Amicus Brief — friends which fail to report on the role AFCC has played over the decades in setting the state for protective (sic) nonabusive mothers to be accused of estranging or alienating fathers, when the men have been abusive — or to lose an opportunity when family members (children, mothers) die to further push the cause — WITHOUT reference to the HHS/ACF/OFA funding of marriage/fatherhood and access visitation grants as JUST PERHAPS a factor in custody decisionmaking…

This one (Appendix C) quotes, besides DVLEAP, “BWJP (of DAIP in MN is acknowledged), NNEDV, NCADV (a barely-there Denver entity claiming legal domicile in Colorado on its tax returns, when its legal domicile is in fact on the West Coast (OR or WA, forget which state), and which also does not report on the massive HHS funding of fatherhood through welfare reform. Nor (I’ve looked often) does another Amicus Curiae reference, “Legal Momentum.”

I do not mean to minimize the work of Joan Meier.  But I cannot excuse failure for so many years, operating so close to Washington D.C. (IN it, at George Washington University!) to report that which it’s clear she, and other colleagues knows about well enough: the role of the U.S. federal agencies in perpetrating harm to mothers fleeing abuse while simultaneously funding domestic violence agencies which make sure NOT to tell them about this — even when DV nonprofits are now running responsible fatherhood classes…

MASSIVE betrayal on the domestic front; you’d better well establish a back door “exit” about what a great contribution it’s been to, essentially, run a two-pronged gender war, federally funded, and ensure women and children do not, actually, get to escape their abusers LOCALLY, but retain concern for them doing so INTERNATIONALLY.

It’s not that the Hague project isn’t important, or doesn’t raise a key issue.  It’s the issues (such as the contribution of groups like AFCC, or NCJFCJ, that Edleson’s career has been boosted significantly by, as publishing the Greenbook, and more) that are not publicized because the media has been co-opted and conditioned to see it from the “health” (Social Services) perspective and ensure perpetuation of certain court-connected and public-backed professions…

Can’t explain it all here.  If you want to talk about it, drop a comment on this post.

re: Jeffrey Edleson, Aug. 2018 in “DailyCal”, School of Social Welfare Dean announces plan to step down next year” (mentioned 29 years at UMN and 7 back here at UCBerkeley)

THAT should also be basic knowledge because it’s significant.  I’ve blogged it plenty here (use the “search field” and or use “tags” for Greenbook or NCJFCJ or even Edleson).

I mention these “basics” of the field as to “domestic violence” or “family violence prevention” because, in similar fashion (except better funded) there are also organized networks — federally funded — of marriage/fatherhood promotional websites and centers, organizations, etc.

WHY SHOULDN’T WOMEN CONSIDERING WHETHER OR HOW TO LEAVE ABUSE BE MADE AWARE OF THESE CONNECTIONS AND INFLUENCES?

THE STATEWIDE “DV” COALITIONS (WHO ARE INVOLVED) ARE NOT OPENLY ADMITTING THE NATURE, EXTENT AND THEIR OWN PARTICIPATION IN “MENGAGEMENT”  AS STANDARD “DV PREVENTION” — NOR ARE CLASSIC FAMILY COURT REFORM MOVEMENTS  such as “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative” (older), “Stop Abuse Campaign” (a nonprofit, featuring related personnel); for about a decade “Battered Mothers Custody Conference” didn’t talk about it while promoting the names, books, ideology and nonprofit organizations from East and West Coast to traumatized mothers in the fights of their lives.

In conclusion

I have concluded that sales pre-empts ethics in these situations, and that a target market of distressed, angry, often impoverished long-term (through both the DV and the subsequent court proceedings) and at many points confused or traumatized WOMEN (mothers) was just too tempting —  or just considered expendable.