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

Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA [Published Sept. 16, 2019] (“-b4j”, about 8,600 words with footnotes).  [Over one dozen tags, only added Oct. 2.  This post covers key important basics influencing family courts’ purposes & principles]

(Top part — discussion.  Mostly prose, my writing.  If you want the individual professors’ organizations’ or advocates’ names, more pictures, and links, scroll down!  Based on the original word count above, I added about 2,200 words, including those long titles to connecting posts, so that’s not too far.  Tags for this post are shown on the previous (“Builders”) one.  Publishing as-is, without extensive copyediting and without apology. . //LGH Sept. 16.)

This post continues from the bottom of:

For the immediate context of that discussion, go to the very bottom of that post, which has a link to here. Handling the Blueprints/Builders topic above brought up the topics, and specific university centers, psychologists, and nonprofit government-advising institutions (i.e., Brookings Institution, in the USA) engaged in facilitating the usurpation.  I’d also brought up (quoted) an article on the “Transnational Ruling Class, … or Anglo-American Establishment” referring to the historic close, friendly, relations between the RIIA (London) and the CFR (USA). I searched those two terms as symbolic of the ongoing, functional undermining/ bypassing of local (i.e., within national boundaries) representative government in “developed” countries.  There’s a direct connection to the family law practices through, Tavistock Relationships (<~~that Wiki, while flagged, is still informative in this context), formerly Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, but also through historic development of the “psych” fields in Europe, what’s now the UK, Canada, the USA and globally. Particularly psychoanalysis (Freud & following) traditions are troubling when entrenched in government practices.

There, I had referenced and quoted:

This undermining of jurisdiction and the effectiveness of geopolitical (national, and within the USA, state, borders) process through perpetually-created crises has been taking place for at least a century, (For example, on the RIIA-CFR topic: Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy pp 189-214,CFR-RIIA Interconnections: A Transnational Ruling Class, Liberal Atlantic Community or Anglo-American Establishment? by Inderjeet Parmar, (“Chatham House” referring to the RIIA factor).

My post title here is generic but the original, specific details on this post cover common recent themes and situations in my blogging.  If I were to list them, I’d say:  “Psychologists and other Patriarchs, and their habitat: university centers” and then simply name specific ones, calling attention to in which countries they  were, the specific (i.e., Michael Lamb, Nicholas J. Cummings, Milton H. Erikson) professionals’ spheres of current and recent operation (also relevant here) and who mentored them, and how (Byron R. McCandless, Frieda Fromm Reichman) — which was the “new to me” part of this post, meaning, it’s not just a re-hash of material I’ve already said, posted, or otherwise covered.  There is much review, but it’s not just review!

Also, who mentored those mentors, for example, such as Kurt Lewin, at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station (1933-1945) he ran after emigration from Nazi Germany, and how it influenced funding and directions in American psychology.  I’ve also included reminders about what scope of studies are involved in the Princeton-Brookings-Columbia (and now University of Cambridge) connections, as well as the patriarchy behind “Fragile Families” research, ongoing…  Just look for the more colorful parts of this post….

FYI: To think you can handle the women’s rights or “domestic (or family) violence (or abuse) prevention” field as somehow separate from all that is mistaken.  They are two arms off the same tree trunk. and tap root. The important thing (in my opinion) is locating the root system, its nutrients, and in which direction its growing. Both arms off the same trunk want to treat  and train as many people as possible, coordinate and saturate government with their knowledge, and, to the extent possible depending on just how gullible or vulnerable the public is, pretend the other arm doesn’t exist.   In addition, they want to get to ALL children as they are being born for proper rearing, and are using “violence prevention” or, alternately, “fatherhood promotion” or “evidence-based child development” (etc.) rationale for doing this.

I am also Tweeting on this, as it comes up (i.e., most days) along similar lines though of course mostly focused on this subject matter.

IF neither the UK and Canada has, as the USA does (however effective is another question, but we do have) any requirement to disclose their respective charities’ (tax-exempt entities’) tax returns — NOT the same as financial statements, audited or otherwise — that the public, theoretically, anyone with [un-censored by their own government] access to the internet regardless of national origin (it’s on the internet, in other words) could look up and look at, and learn from over time (and specifically as to individual tax-exempt entities which are required to file) then it’s quite possible this might only be dismantled and comprehended from the USA point of view.

Unless there is some parallel in other countries for developing an understanding and perspective of how their own government revenues are collected, disbursed, and most important — accounted for (invested).  (See “Walter Burien” (currently out of Arizona) for more and concise summaries of this type of information on CAFRs, he says, reporting on it since 1989. He has a mailing list and while emails are rare (i.e., your inbox won’t be cluttered with solicitations), when they come they are very effective communication).

“Unfortunately,” groups here have been so busy ensuring, particularly when it comes to children, families, child welfare, domestic violence prevention (i.e., treatment for both victims and perpetrators:  treatment for ALL), that the thought of looking up with a view to understanding tax returns, let alone CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports for government entities) or (audited financial statements, where possible, for private companies) is rare:  some reporters may do it; most people do not. It’s not easy to present visually, and when I do, I often get the response, “speak normal language” “dumb it down…” etc. It IS another language, but it’s the language involved in handling populations and running governments. We’d best learn some of it!

Failure to look up is not only irresponsible (when dealing with or promoting any organization — or volunteering for it!) it’s also negligent citizenship, in that only looking FOR them where they should be provided shows (where provided): if current, if complete, if filled out honestly, or if even filed.  Unfortunately, the databases showing this are often privately controlled and error-prone.  BUT, it still opens eyes to a different way of comprehending any organization AS an organization, than the pro/con public relations (cause-based) point of view.

However, I’ve found that the more I look at other country’s systems (specifically those two, Canada and the UK (England and Wales, separately Scotland at times) — I haven’t got that much into others’, for lack of being four people who never sleep) the better I understand what’s been tried over here first and having found to be an utter fiasco is then (seemingly) imported back to the UK and Canada for use upon their own people.  Especially practices when it comes to the family courts.  The former colonies now the United States of America,  I guess is a nice proving-ground…and some people seem to wish we were colonies again.  Maybe always have been, in some ways….

As to the USA, and some tactics now common in welfare circles — some of these were first tested out in sub-Saharan Africa, and I’m thinking specifically what’s now South Africa and Namibia and involved, at times, genocide or attempts at it, the model for concentration camps (pre-Hitler) and the treatment of some humans as less than human and attempts to justify it scientifically (i.e., phrenology, eugenics, etc.).  I have blogged this here and on “Cold,Hard.Fact$” at length, earlier. Look for “From Transvaal to TANF” or articles on the Chronicle of Namibia, Cecil Rhodes, Rhodes Scholarships, Shark Island, and so forth.  Or my post on the separate but unequal education system designed to raise literate-enough workers to serve the existing power structure. (“Hewers of Food”) which has definite parallels in education systems here. It’s a long, bloody, racists AND sexist history and is turning out to be also in the USA, when it comes to 1996 welfare reform’s impact on protection from family violence.

I have read that our system was based on the British NHS with “behavior modification” at the top of most lists.  You might also want to consider why “Voices for Children” (a blog run by father-focused “FamilyInitiative” and the various family law associations in the UK are so enamored of practitioners (sic) from the USA, esp. ones with AFCC connections. To be a “practitioner” requires a stream of clients on which to practice.  Where do they come from, and who guarantees continuity of such streams of clients to practice upon?

NONE of the above is good news for most people, but I am talking about the specialty fields involved in population control and how to entertain (and flatter) the masses with notions of justice and “choice” en route to slavery, again and still.

Among the people most cognizant of what it takes to enslave are those now enslaved.  When it comes to domestic violence survivors, somehow we are the ones to be sold the greatest hope of reform and assurances “we’re on it!” because of the existence of programs by that name. Hmm.

Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA (Started Sept. 14, 2019) (“-b4j”).

Most specifically, unlike the House of Representatives which, while not that representative of the overall population (certainly not as to gender, nor as to religious diversity, nor race), still has an overall concept of tying a representative to a home jurisdiction, with access by those in that jurisdiction through their state representatives to the state legislatures, through the Congressional ones to the US Congress, and so forth — the newly created (you’ll see!) family court venues are “represented” instead by those with vested (financial) interests in how they are operated, and by the “shadow” government sprung up by civil servant functional names — as to some organizations.

In other parts, they are simply expanding the clout and involvement of a basically state-supported field of practice with identified origins in the practice of war and its consequences… i.e., mental health specialists treating trauma and violence, orphans, widows, veterans, etc. had plenty to practice on after World Wars I and II specifically…and by this, yes, I do refer to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, which has recently further solidified ties to a separate state (agency?) reporting to the Ministry of Justice, effectively controlling at least England and Wales’ private family courts {CAFCASS.  See Sept. 2019 posts and top two Sticky posts, or Twitter//LGH, 11 September 2019}

This connection is in addition to international connections through university centers (I’ve already identified repeatedly in this blog:  see “Future of Children” references, among others (such as having a Cambridge University psychology professor now head of an APA (American Psychological Association) journal blending Psychology, Public Policy and the Law..

(Search of media library, previously posted, captions from any original posting).  Three images (from cellphone, swipe left to see the other two; at least know there are three):

At this time, Professor Lamb was President of Division 7, “Developmental Psychology” of the American Psychological Association (“APA”) whose motto, predictably, is “Advancing psychology to benefit society and improve people’s lives.”  The division is clearly interested in young and adolescent children:

Of this division, for non-membership contact, viewers are now (I don’t monitor, so don’t know for how long) directed to Professor Sonja P. Brubacher at Deakin University/School of Psychology in Australia. (LinkedIn shows that address is at least a year and a half out of date) (Read for details, click on the NICHDProtocol.com; she’s been a trainer in it since 2014, which also brings up a connection (at least in part) to Lamb. She did spend a couple of years in the USA, not many…).

The awards specified for this division, however, are named after G. Stanley Hall (for senior scholars) and Boyd R. McCandless (1915-1975; <~that’s a Google books search result; see “Footnote BRMcC“**) (for young ‘uns) and an “Outstanding Dissertation” for new Ph.D.s.  Click more on the Div. 7 website (incl. the “About” button to see more named (recent) awards (Mavis Hetherington, Mary Ainsworth, incl. for mid-career professionals).

Ash, M. G. (1992). Cultural contexts and scientific change in psychology: Kurt Lewin in Iowa. American Psychologist, 47(2), 198-207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.47.2.198

---

Kurt Lewin’s scientific biography after his 1933 emigration from Nazi Germany and his move to the US exhibits a complex mix of continuity and change. In his work at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station between 1935 and 1944, Lewin tried to recreate the scientific microculture that had formed around him in Berlin. In the process, he converted biography into theory, adapting to current cultural concerns, to then-prevailing research styles, and to changing institutional and funding networks in American psychology. However, despite their considerable impact at the time, the later reception of Lewin’s ideas and methods by American psychologists was ambivalent. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

And from the University of Iowa, College of Liberal Arts, “Dept. of Psychological & Brain Sciences” (“psychology.uiowa.edu”) (up now, but it says, taken from a 1991 history; see nearby image also):

Department History — The Iowa Tradition

The Psychology Laboratory of the University of Iowa was started in 1887 and dedicated in 1890. Like the six American laboratories that preceded it and those that followed, the Iowa laboratory was an expression of a specific historical event and a general philosophical idea. The event, of course, was the founding by Wilhelm Wundt of the Psychology Laboratory at the University of Leipzig in 1879. The philosophical idea, expressed in a variety of ways by numerous philosophers and scientists, was that if the methods of natural science could be applied to psychology, a level of understanding of the human mind and human action would be achieved that would approach our comprehension of physical, chemical, and biological phenomena.

The Psychology Laboratory at the University of Iowa owes its birth to the efforts of George T. W. Patrick, a graduate of the University of Iowa, who received his doctorate at Johns Hopkins University under G. Stanley Hall, who had previously studied both with Wundt and William James. The founding of the Department of Psychology, however, is due to the efforts of Carl Seashore, who was hired by Patrick with the charge of developing a topnotch department of psychology. Seashore received his doctorate at Yale University in 1895 under Edward W. Scripture, also a student of Wundt’s. …

Shortly after his arrival at Iowa in the late 1930s, Kenneth W. Spence became Head of the Department of Psychology. In addition to Spence, the arrival of Kurt Lewin at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station and the philosopher Gustav Bergmann, created an atmosphere at Iowa in the early 1940s that placed psychology at the cutting edge of theoretical advances that would, it was hoped, transform psychology into a sophisticated natural science.

The key dream merchant for graduate psychology students at Iowa was Spence. These dreams emerged from his collaborative efforts with his mentor at Yale, Clark L. Hull, to create the Hull-Spence theory of conditioning and learning. Over a 26-year span at Iowa, Spence directed an amazing total of 72 doctoral theses    (etc.  emphases added)

One more reminder on Kurt Lewin (who influenced Boyd R. McCandless, whose name comes up in association with Michael E. Lamb, who has my attention mostly because of his known involvement with key U.S. individuals who have — successfully! — persuaded our government (that is, Congress) to set up and sustain a field of practice actually called “fatherhood” and pay people, to research, network, publish and train “practitioners.”  I just happen to be a mother. Naturally, this is likely to have an impact — with the weight of the U.S. Congress behind it — at the local level.

KURT LEWIN (2015), www’goodtherapy’org|famous-psychologists|kurt-lewin’html ~~Screen Shot 2019-08-18

This is from GoodTherapy.net under “famous psychologists” on Kurt Lewin Biography  I’m posting an image, but that’s not the whole page.  The group dynamics, theory of change, and which universities were involved still matter:

Any reminders of where the development of this field came from (such as, Germany) and when (where in the USA) as well as how (the expanding APA continuing to set up various divisions) I feel is good to keep in mind, generally speaking, when thinking about the family courts as we now experience them. There have been major wars.  This comes with consequences.  William James, G. Stanley Hall, Clark Hull, Kurt Lewin, William Wundt, (along with Freud and the parallel but separate legacy of names leading towards the psychoanalysis as a practice and how these then blended together with key professors and professionals in position to wield some influence)… Should be, generally, kept in mind.

An APA website search-function, “Michael E. Lamb” kicked out 103 references, the first one referencing the above publication.  Picking the second search result (because I’d already read the first one), “APA honors Psychology’s stars” (an August, 2015, APA conference in Toronto announcing awards), I found he had two: notice for which:

From the American side, Princeton/ Brookings Institution (which has through who runs it, direct connections to the major welfare reform movement of 1996 — and the lead up to it, the following redirection of public funds to private nonprofits engaged in the legislative purposes:  promoting two-parent families, “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and, apparently to better make this happen OUTSIDE the family courts (then being established, though not in all 50 states or territories), “access and visitation” grants — to states, not people — funding the specific types of services that, coincidentally (?) AFCC specialized in at that time, and more since.  Meanwhile in the 1980s, the push to make mediation (one of those services) mandatory to anyone bothering the local courts with safety issues or such, minor children involved mandatory — which succeeded — had primed the setup.

The short version of getting from “Princeton” to U Cambridge/Michael Lamb” (Psychol.Cam.AC.UK) is by way of https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/about/partners (see the bottom link).  For those more familiar with AFCC authors or names, the third image below “In the News” shows several such names, next to the Future of Children personnel (Sarah McLanahan, Irwin Garfinkel (Columbia and — FYI — they’re married) and (same image) Ron Haskins & Isabel Sawhill.

(Similar blog Media Library search of “Brookings”):

This executive snapshot is from Bloomberg.com (viewed 8-8-2017) click image to for link. I didn’t confirm this is the same person as on the Bendheim-Thoman Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton, but sounds like a reasonable assumption… [Leon Lowenstein Fndtn (EIN# 136015951) 990PFs table included in this 8/8/2017 post) (Website says establ. 1941, that they don’t take ANY unsolicited grant requests, and grantees only visible via a password.  There’s a paragraph, a street address, a “contact us form, and that’s about it!) {{previously posted by me on FCM, Aug 19, 2017?}}

Fine print at the top showing donor or honoree: “The Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing” in the Woodrow Wilson School of International Affairs at Princeton University (with the “Office of Population Research” as it says).  It’s from here (with participation of Brookings Institution) that “the Future of Children” has a publication voice. CRCW at Princeton mirrors the terminology of that at Columbia and shows involved personnel (with known affiliations (Board of Directors) with other institutions. {{Previously Posted by me April 17, 2017, with the caption seen here. That page probably different by now. Find and bookmark it! I mean the from the Princeton.edu website!!//LGH 8-18-2019]]

From the top, referencing “the Builders” themes.

These “family courts” clearly aren’t working for too many; aren’t protecting children, preventing women and children, men, and among the above, sometimes innocent bystanders, literally, sometimes responding police officers (i.e., to a “domestic disturbance” or a public attack — it’s happened — upon an ex-wife), and at times also extended family members, or new partners’ parents.  People are getting hurt, even murdered around this phenomenon.

Movements are also being built to fix or enhance them.

That’s where I take issue, having run the gauntlet myself and dealt with several leaders of organizations fronting for, “spearheading” or whatever else you may call (perhaps a more feminine/less phallic verb might apply), this movement in more than one state and, it’s come to my attention, now more than one country. So I want this information ON the table — not “tabled” as in, put in the “to be shredded” file.

Princeton University now displays (on a drop-down list) 20 centers.  The one I just showed above has radically changed its appearance as you can see here: https://wws.princeton.edu/departments/bendheim-thoman-center-research-child-wellbeing. Whether it’s changed its purposes and character while retaining the same leadership, I can’t say.

That’s the “Woodrow Wilson School (at Princeton) access; see CRCW.Princeton.edu for the restructured (some basic themes and color schemes retained) website.  Click on “Future of Children” for a brief summary, click a second time to get to the full-orange-on-white large-print version…

Meanwhile here’s a “Fatherhood.gov” website referencing this Bendheim-Thoman center in 2003. This field has been up and running for decades now and seems to coincide judging by the decades with the continued promotions of family courts under state jurisdiction.  From that summary (National Baseline Report 2003 on surveys conducted 1998-2000), the pdf is at: https://fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/sites/fragilefamilies/files/nationalreport.pdf

So, I ran across a single document from Ohio summarizing the “history of family courts” as summarized by a “feasibility study” in 1997.  I’m going to show and tell, and have already marked up the images. SOME of this is my prior turf from having previously researched, over time, things “Ohio” from several different angles, as well as, several of the “national organizations’ referenced in it as cooperatively drafting “proposed family court model legislation” as far back as 1959 — yet by 1980, fewer than 13 states were known to have started them up.

WRITTEN RECENTLY, IMPORTED FROM PARTS OF:

(Restating the three parts of that post, I expanded upon the “Builders” theme in the preview, as well as upon the concept of “blueprints” which I’d raised in the text).

Two (originally was three) section titles,

1. “Preliminary Chat (Health System Flush with Cash),”  2. “If it was built, there was a plan.”

These builders over the decades promoted and with visibly coordinated efforts pushed through not only specialized family  (and conciliation) courts or divisions (*i.e., states reorganized their courts) and “services” (i.e., “Family Court Services”) and involved judges administratively set up at times related specialized courts or dockets — even regional “high-conflict” courts, fathering courts, child support courts — but also established and guaranteed funding (see “administrative rulings by presiding judges” at, for example, a local level) some of the professions to go with them. It seems to me, judging by the AFCC’s self-accounts this started with local (county-based, in the USA) counseling for divorcing parents, eventually by the 1970s, morphing into county-based (with the courts as referral centers) court-appointed mediation, and eventually, successfully making mediation mandatory (at least in California) in the 1980s — and boasting about it.

All along the way, the same “builder” organizations including membership organizations where the members cover a variety of civil servant posts, like: judges, legislators, district attorneys (USA local/county-based term) and others stayed active ALSO in training and setting and distributing among their membership and other organizations, “model guidelines” and practices for such issues as domestic violence and child abuse, and other criminal behavior, as well as some which wasn’t necessarily overtly criminal but was still harmful and dangerous.  

The professions particularly being lobbied for in this case — as the USA was heading towards legitimizing no-fault divorce (again, 1970 in California) — included a heavy load of psychologists (psychologists getting their PhDs or PsyDs from independent schools or colleges in the field, seems (quoting Nicholas J. Cummings)** to have been jumpstarted in the late 1960s.  

California School of Professional Psychology (“CSPP”) was one (now absorbed into Alliant International University in San Diego, from which we get — “for better or for worse” projects (trade names) such as “IVAT” (Institute for Violence, Abuse and Trauma, (Robert Geffner) and associated “Journal of Child Custody” (<~~See Editorial Board, which has a number of AFCC members alongside a number (at least two) well-known Family Court Reform” activist spokespeople), basically controlled by the same few individuals with the psychology emphasis.  

MINI-SECTION added Post-Publication:  Journal of Child Custody & IVAT

[End, additional Mini-Section, Post-Publication, added 9/18/2019]

As with real blueprints, which became obsolete (says that Wiki) around 1990, besides the generic use of the word, for (road, building,etc.) construction before 1990, where the records may still be on blueprints, it’s “prohibitively expensive” for them to be transformed into digital.

What about the pre-1990s build-up to the formation of family courts; what about pre-internet access to records of the nonprofits involved in lobbying for this?

The traditional term “blueprint” continues to be used informally to refer to various types of image. Practicing engineers, architects, and drafters just call them “drawings” or “prints”.

Many of the original paper blueprints are archived since they are still in use. In many situations their conversion to digital form is prohibitively expensive. Most buildings and roads constructed before c. 1990 will only have paper blueprints, not digital. These originals have significant importance to the repair and alteration of constructions still in use, e.g. bridges, buildings, sewer systems, roads, railroads, etc., and sometimes in legal matters concerning the determination of, for example, property boundaries, or who owns (and/or is responsible for) a boundary wall.

These self-declared (family court) builders are still around and active (internationally), sometimes calling themselves reformers also (in a sort of split-persona stance, so it seems).  If other (?) advocates’ and family court reformers’ intent is to engage and counter them internationally on their various problematic theories, philosophies, and professionals’ (such as judges, custody evaluators, etc.) beliefs about, say, child abuse or domestic violence — or men, or women — perHAPS one place to start might be to acknowledge in public, then if needed, challenge the blueprint/s.

I just found — and eventually got a year for (1997) an Ohio “Family Court Feasibility Study“** conducted by the NCJFCJ, but commissioned or sponsored by the Ohio Supreme Court and the Ohio DHS. Notably, this was right after 1996 welfare reform. **(That link is from “supremeCourtOhio.gov” after I first ran across it, absent any year, at: SCONET.State.OH.US (labeled “The Supreme Court of Ohio & The Ohio Judicial System” but, as you can see, the domain name ends “*.us” not “*.gov”. Having then gotten to the Ohio Supreme Court publications page, I browsed, and it didn’t take long to see other related publications (more recent), such as one displaying the “Safe & Together” (David Mandel) connection).

The 1997 Ohio Family Court Feasibility Study begins:

The Family Court Feasibility Study, sponsored collectively by the Supreme Court of Ohio, the Governor’s Task Force on the Investigation and Prosecution of Child Abuse and Child Sexual Abuse Cases (hereinafter referred to as the Governor’s Task Force), and the Ohio Department of Human Services (DHS), is a natural step in the evolution of Ohio’s concern for families that find themselves interacting with the State’s system of courts and the law.

This “natural step” seems to have had significant prodding from specific organizations over time, all of them known to be very “prodding” in nature, and with some history of working together on similar issues, promoting local passage of agreed-upon legislation after regional or national private collaborations on the same (roundtables, etc.)….No mention here of other related situations of national significance — such as welfare reform which had just passed….

While this (single source (but in two links) validates my statement that family courts (a) were not nationwide even as late as the 1990s and (b) were in many ways pushed through by specific private associations, I cannot say too much here because (given what I also know of the Ohio situation, including its fatherhood commission, its recent profiteering out of Cuyahoga County OH (through forced-consumption parenting courses run on-line by at least one nonprofit based in Oregon (Jack Arbuthnot, Donald Gordon; I posted), the history of the Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives (also in Ohio) which presumably still exists), it’s so upsetting.  Maybe later, after a personal time-out!

~ ~ ~