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

POST TITLE: ‘We Must Have a Stomach for the Details and Willingness to Look at the Numbers…’ (Orig. Jan. 2018 on LGH Front Page | Updated, Supplemented & Published Sept. 30, 2019). (shortlink ending “-aYW”, length:  about 7,500 words)

“…As These Situations** Continue to ‘Morph,’ ‘Evolve’ (and Expand)  Our Collective Stomach for Noticing the Details WILL Impact Our Collective Level of Freedom (LGH Front Page, Sept. 5, 2019).”

THIS POST is an OFF-RAMP with INTRO, REVIEW and INTERNAL CONNECTIONS TO EARLIER WRITINGS.  I moved a short section with details on a specific parent education/anti-parental alienation curriculum targeting parents, a section written probably in January 2018, from my Front Page to this new post.  That starts several paragraphs below, under:

“**These Situations” as referenced in post title:”

This post is also exhortation and some paragraphs are in second person: direct address, not third-person, descriptions.  The direct address tends to draw of my experience on-line (admittedly limited, but I have been blogging a long time, and Tweeting, at times more intensely, several years, commenting on others blogs, on-line journals, formerly more active in forums, etc.  So there is a basis for that subjective “grow up!” commentary).  As usual, it’s subject to further revision and I’ll likely move the “Read More” link up higher after a few days or a week. //LGH.

It shows a drill-down, related posts previously posted on the topic (and the main organization featured) and some tactics used in concealing the money trail originators were and still are so eager to access, that is, forced-consumption of behavioral modification classes as a market niche feeding off public institutions — often through judicial order to start, followed by attempts to then legislate it into practice, and involving the family courts.

Those who came up with these concepts were “insiders” obviously aware which federal funding streams were most likely to support it before it hit the public conscience, as they have continued to this day.  Family courts and anything dealing with young children (and young children’s parents) were always a target population.

Talk about reforming family courts because of their corrupt, flawed, broken, or unsafe status decision-making is beside the point until the infrastructure — basic financial details, gatekeepers, and To/From sources of revenue — is exposed.  There’s a movement and attempts to get parents (especially mothers) to self-identify as “dumb” by re-tweeting, posting, circulating references to numbers without any surrounding context on social media.  Circulating such things without fact-checking, or demanding more specifics from the source IS dumb; it shows gullibility and puts a “for-sale” sign on the promoters.

How hard it is to respond with a “Sez Who” or “When?” instead of mindlessly RT-ing or re-Posting? As a group, are “we” really so co-dependent on others’ approval that asking that is a new group dynamic? That’s cult-like behavior, and encourages more of the same.  If you’re going to engage in such behavior, then quit complaining when your kids are taken by others of similar behavior intent to program them unfairly against you, for profit or just for fun and spite.  It’s time to grow up and expect others around you, for continued associations, to start doing the same.  Adulthood can be contagious, but it’s not time-free or a free ride mentally.  If it’s not put together FOR YOU as an engaging story, then your attention wanders?  …. 

(Moving on,…): The goal of centralized control of not just the system, but also reform of the system mimicks specific business models becoming popular around the same time, but developed earlier (i.e., I call it the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan model:  University Center (for credibility and citations), Bain (a consulting company with strong political — and Harvard/Boston connections) and “Bridgespan” representing the philanthropic (i.e., nonprofit niche) consulting. I don’t care if people call it something else, just that they get a glimpse of it by sticking their OWN heads into some of the documents which aren’t 100% spin, advertising, and vague, and quit making excuses for not doing so.  Learn to chew on the information and spit out what’s roughage, not real substance.

Look if an abuser continues to tell you you’re stupid, can’t do anything, incompetent, as an excuse for hiding his (or her) financials within a household, while engaging in theft, threats, bullying, and other forms of violence, would you know that’s wrong?  So what’s the big difference when the same behaviors occur on macro-economic and micro-economic sectors too?

Develop a stomach for the details now; it’s already late in this game, and understanding it really does help.

HERE, I wrote and inserted three inset (boxed sections with bulleted lists and hyperlinks) listing connecting to other posts to This post introduction and off-ramped section:  In order, these insets are:

• KIDS’ TURN POSTS (in Introduction), and
• HEALTH SYSTEMS FLUSH WITH CASH prior posts
• PARENTAL KIDNAPPING posts, because they overlaps with KIDS’ TURN creators,..

…KIDS’ TURN Creators who just so happen to have strong connections to the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) which also has maintained throughout high interested in convening, conferencing, and coordinating internationally, at least in Commonwealth (and some European) countries how to run their own programming through what increasingly looks like a privatized court system run internationally also, parallel to the public ones, but with different standards (and more conflicts of interest built in).  While this is now more out in the open (see my Twitter threads on CAFCASS, AFCC, and NCJFCJ and the involvement of private UK famous foundations such as Nuffield, Leverhulme, etc.) it’s always been there as I was reminded in revisiting some of the earliest posts.

If you’re unfamiliar with “KIDS’ TURN” specifically as started in California, by looking at this understand that it stands in for “Parent Education Psych-Educational Re- (or De-)Programming,” was sold as an antidote or vaccination against “parental alienation” (which sold well in certain quarter obviously), it was a FRANCHISE operating through Nonprofits, and its founders being highly positioned within the state-level court systems (i.e., AFCC had staff members at the California Judicial Council AOC/CFCC as well as consulting retired judges, other judges etc. working throughout the system for many years), PARENT EDUCATION was in California one of only three limited purposes for those Access/Visitation Grants, and it in general represents a developed field, specialized, and intentionally “vertical” monopoly, self-sustaining once up and running.

Whether or not the classes successfully turned kids’ heads or immunized them against “parental alienation” isn’t the issue.  Setting up the business operations was, and still is.  Getting on the “community referrals” list at local courts, organizing it over larger geography for referrals (particularly to AFCC membership) and setting up the direct ability for donors to the private nonprofits to, potentially, bribe a judge with an open case before them also on the board (or staff) of said nonprofits. 

It has crossed my mind more than once that my coming out of nowhere as an unknown blogger in 2011 to showing some of the “Kids’ Turn” board members, court contracts, and set-up may have had something to do with its eventually going underground (as shown below on this post, which I’ve had up almost two years now in part).  I certainly don’t know for sure, but I do know my posting at the time was intentional, and that imitation operations under slightly different names can be seen in other states.

At the post bottom (short) section (tan background) comments briefly on how databases I’ve used since starting this blog at times change, or change hands.  This complicates tracking programming over time.  Generally, I find it really hard (without a letter-writing campaign or multiple subscriptions to databases which may or may not have this information) to get information pre-dating this century.  That’s a problem when so many key organizations running program started in the 1970s (some) 1980s (many more) and even 1990s (still more, especially the kind dependent on massive public grants to exist):

• PUBLIC (GOVT-OWNED) AND PRIVATE DATABASES ALSO CHANGE, EVOLVE, ARE BOUGHT & SOLD.

While that’s obvious, it’s also significant, but I don’t have much to say other than point it out, this time.

The post is exhortation and show and tell, and also that I’ve been saying this for years now, under MY banner:  “Let’s Get HONEST.” That’s a group effort, not a solo effort.  Getting honest I find more than getting “even” (unlikely), or even some form of imaginary revenge without consideration about who might already be counting on that motive to move ALL system even further away from accountability.

The stomach for details and willingness to look at the numbers are basic survival skills and essential to safeguard against, essentially, crooks who know how to play both the words and the numbers to access public resources and sell policy.  There is no substitute for the conceptual understanding of whether or not, and if not, how, books can be cooked, tales spun, and how a legitimate cause, so stated, so often masks fake advocacy by simply withholding and failing to operate “above-board” when the operations involve public funds.

Some private organizations don’t need, except enough to justify tax-exempt status and don’t directly take public funds; they are privately funded but target the public institutions we still support.  Read enough tax returns and you’ll see many of these also pay cities, counties, school districts, and/or universities (both public and private) to run pilots of their coordinated (or, proprietary) causes which eventually, most people will be subjected to and pay for through taxation.

More can always be done as there is always more to research and because organizations tend to “evolve” constantly in this sector, but my main concern is how few people seem to be even starting to look such things up, admit they exist, and after admitting they exist, speak of them in terms of what they are as much as what they’re doing.

“What they are” individually, if it’s an “entity” is going to be either public or private; if private, it may be a whether a nonprofit taking mostly government funding, mostly or only private funding, or some of both, or a part of government itself.  It is where the two sectors connect, start mimicking each other in project and purpose names that the support for them — which comes from the public “purse” in many ways, and should be taken personally if squandered, lost, or misappropriated.

When you start reading tax returns (which should happen soon if it hasn’t, including — try it on for size — some really big ones: just look at the categories, browse for general understanding) it should not take too long to run across private foundations which are, systematically, directly grantsing funds to government  entities across jurisdiction lines (i.e., in-state, out-of-state from wherever the foundation is registered) to promote or test private-purpose programming.

It’s rarely a one-way or interest-free street, the “commerce” (information, capacity-building, Social Science R&D, etc.) between private and government functions.

I have reminded readers many times, quoting both government (NIH) and private (company history, etc.) websites, and specifically in a recent post, that the US DHHS system is now, 21st century (and starting at least as far back as the 3rd quarter of the 20th) “A Health System Flush With Cash” through both welfare reform (1996) and tobacco class litigation settlements (1998). Besides those two major sources of revenue streams, in at least California (and I’ll bet some other states), additional money coming through add-on cigarette taxes (Prop 10, setting up the “First 5 state & county-based network named “California Children and Families First.”  This system exists in both government entity form AND in almost identically organized and named 501©3 forms, that is private nonprofit too).

HEALTH SYSTEMS FLUSH WITH CASH prior posts:

Some of my more recent posts on this Welfare/Tobacco Revenues convergence.

• Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements + Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Published Sept. 18].  (Shortlink ending “-aaH,” and (unbelievably) under 5,000 words)
• An earlier one on similar topic:  A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’ (1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts) ((Begun Early June; Publ. Aug. 7, 2019) post short-link ends “-a6m.”  Currently 5,200 words, having just been shortened (split), but this one is still a bit complex. Following the funds has been made complex. Last update, Sunday, August 11, 2019.

Annotated image of Tags for my Sept. 18, 2019, post “Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again?…” [“-aaH’] which title picks up from an Aug. 7, 2019 one “Health Systems Flush w/ Cash Because Smoking Causes Cancer” [“-a6m”] Tags are from blog administrator’s view. These normally appear at the bottom of each post, where they exist, with a tan background and only commas separating one from another. I picked this view because they are easier to distinguish here. NB includes The Frameworks Institute and DevelopingChild.Harvard.Edu (by the center’s public name)

I knew this but even I was still surprised to see how blatantly some organizations admit to it. See the tags for the September post (nearby image) as an indicator (I was also Tweeting on this yesterday, Sept. 28… and plan to stay on it… as the same companies often continue to keep coming up).

Overall it’s the “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan” model, which is my shorthand, after discovering it, for consulting turning towards the nonprofit sector after having already successfully developed a name in the for-profit sector, and yes, it is closely associated with Harvard.

This model was being developed (look into it yourself if in question; look at the history of “Bridgespan”) around the turn of this century when, as I’m pointing out here now, almost twenty years later, both welfare reform and the Tobacco Class-Action Litigation (i.e., Master Settlement Agreement) was taking place.  Massive shifts in government, not just business, were taking place.

I have begun to see and post also how in the USA (and some parallels in the UK), towards the end of the 20th century, and facilitated by the arrival of the Internet itself as delivering downloadable curricula, long-distance webinars, and (with even faster-speed, higher-capacity networks for universities and certain research institutions, which I also brought up on this blog (see “CENIC”) when found one visiting it), the development and enactment of family court divisions*** with already vested interests well-positioned to mandate consumption of their own court-connected services.

(***propounding, pushing through, state by state, and one state taking proposed “model legislation” put forth by specifically identifiable nonprofits) (search Ohio Family Court Feasibility Study” (1997, Ohio Supreme Court-commissioned; it is available on their website and I have posted recently).

“**These Situations” as referenced in post title:

**”THESE SITUATIONS” illustrated below as previously and colorfully published for more than a year on my front page here refers more specifically to the evolving of a nonprofit named after a mandatory parent-education curriculum, “Kids’ Turn”into San Francisco Child Abuse and Prevention Council” (SF CAPC, itself part of a national network) which quickly became “Safe & Sound” where the corporate/business registration at the state level hadn’t even caught up with the organization’s name change yet — while similar or identical “parent education” was being run under that name by other nonprofits also. 

It seems to still a “going concern” and business enterprise….under the umbrella of “parent education” and as psycho-educational antidote to parental alienation, presumably (sliding scale:  how much do you earn?)…run by nonprofit of course.  

By merging into an organization known more for child abuse prevention than strictly family court strife around custody and visitation, it also cleverly links the theme of parental alienation with the theme of child abuse and in effect its board/prior owners effectively ended the money trail for the non-surviving organization (which had been on the radar of a number of investigative blogger mothers, including myself).

First, I moved under 1,000 words of paragraphs from the long home page to this post, then, from a different portion of that page, a heavily annotated screenprint and several images with captions, narratives, etc., documenting the “evolution” of a psycho-educational curriculum forced upon parents approaching the family courts for custody modification orders and started back (San Francisco version) in 1989, or (San Diego version) mid-1990s, about 1997 as I recall.  

The San Diego version still exists under its original name; the San Francisco version — after I  began blogging it heavily and sarcastically in a series of posts*** — then merged with another organization which subsequently changed its name.  The same curriculum, or a curriculum by the same name, is likely still being run by other nonprofits out of state; I did find a few in 2018.

SOME of those “Kids’ Turn” posts

(this inset list may be expanded after publishing.  Earlier posts often need formatting clean-up (some formats didn’t translate well during a later blog update, and as a self-taught blogger, in earlier years the table and quote formats often need some cleanup for easier reading.

I want the list included because I really did “get” the connections that early in my blogging (if not earlier), yet somehow showing and talking about it now to parents (men or women) meets frequent dismissal or searching for someone else to put together a story for them.  It doens’t work that way — you have to LOOK and THINK ABOUT what you see, get SOME basic vocabulary to describe how money moves from one system to another, and take some time to look for the records describing it, which then builds a basic knowledge set for the next time you need to look up another organization in the same category:  public or private; within the USA or outside it.

Unfortunately it seems like “pulling teeth” to get an admission that federal grants to grantees CAN be tracked by looking up the grantees and, where found, calling them and their programs what they are.  In other words, a matter of some of the most basic “follow the money” terminology. I don’t want to be the constant intermediary — I want YOU to look and develop (if not there already) some common sense about what you are seeing.  To look is challenging, because it may up-end current explanations for the outcomes making the headline news and (with further attention) will also expose the derail/distract/deny type of movement-building which wants to bypass showing “commoners” anything coherent and connected to supporting data.

May and June 2011 were very productive times, I saw also a series (at least three parts) on Parenting Coordination as a way to coach professionals to call out “parental alienation,” I also took on the One-Stop Justice Shop (Family Justice Center phenomena), and some of the DV apparatus (key organizations known to be working with AFCC, separately from the other DV organizations which seem (i.e. act) just so confounded about how the philosophy of “parental alienation” just keeps coming up…

2011 Posts and other earlier ones may be reviewed through Archives function (pick one month at a time).  Formatting isn’t so pretty on most of them, though…

The subject matter of “Kids’ Turn” overlaps with the subject of “Parental Kidnapping” (international and otherwise) in part because such kidnapping is also alienating, but mostly, here, because of common authors — even though not well-known in either fields it seems — in both… The author in question was working for an AFCC-style (run longterm in N. California by a known AFCC activist, frequently quoted throughout publications, still)….

PARENTAL KIDNAPPING posts, because they overlaps with KIDS’ TURN creators,..

In [now] two SEPARATE off-ramped posts about “Families in transition Because of Parental Kidnapping” I referenced (and did some lookups of Dorothy Huntington, as quoted by Nancy Faulkner.  For a reminder (I was reminded while editing the front page) that Dorothy Huntington (double-check in 2019!!) had been one of the originals involved in the Kids’ Turn curriculum design.  As I recall… And she also was working for or for a project at a Northern California (Bay Area) nonprofit known to be associated with (have been originally founded and many board members are also members of) AFCC (the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts).

• Post: Families In Transition due to Parental Kidnapping | An archaeological dig on who quotes whom (Canadian CRC, Nancy Faulkner, Dorothy Huntington, ‘Parental Alienation’): [LGH Frontpage Subsection #3 Sept. 4, 2019, Publ. Sept. 19]. (short-link ends “-aWh” about 8,000 words).
• & writing that, this Post “If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and the Hague Convention fit in? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* The (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham)” [Published** Sept. 21, 2019] (short-link ends: “psBXH-b8j” (exactly 777 words because it exists only to publish and link to two related subjects, some historic, some more “current events” both in system changes and in media coverage of the family court system).…exists to publicize this PAGE, recently re-published (had been held long-term in status “Pending”) with updates:If Parental Kidnapping (Domestic or International) is ALWAYS Child Abuse, Where do the UN CRC and the Hague Convention fit in? (D. Huntington then ℅ AFCC-related* The (Judith Wallerstein) Center for the Family In Transition, M.W. Agopian, N. Faulkner (1999), Merle H. Weiner (2000, Fordham), published as a page Sept. 19, 2019, this PAGE’s short-link ends “PsBXH-8q5“)
• Shortlinks, after the “http://wp.me/” final /  on WordPress ARE case-sensitive, and “PsBXH” means Page, “psBXH” means Post.  I have to assume from process of deduction that either the “BXH” alone or the BXH with either of those two combinations, means, this blog. Of the above three items, all contain some detail and text, but as I recall, the Page has more.

//LGH.

These situations continue to “morph” and evolve, and expand over time as and because they are intended to.  These “situations” affect governmental policy at the federal, state, metro-regional, and individual county levels as they have for years.  They involve partnerships, understandings (written or unwritten) and movement of funds between and among the private for-profit sector, the private NOT-for-profit (i.e., tax-exempt, and for which, often though not always, donations to that sector also represent tax-deduction for the donors) with provision of government services — blending social services with family court services.

From this example you may see how private associations organize and network to constantly promote their colleagues products and services, which products (as a byproduct of services) can be and are force-fed to the public whenever and wherever a family court judge, or administrative judge with authority to set local rules (etc.) mandates it.

In other words, when a presiding or administrative judge over a certain area (usually a county) requires by court rule, ALL individuals approaching the court for remedies to consume curricula, as this example (and others I’ve blogged) show, which may not even originate within the state — or the country!  This is sold as policy (to the extent legislative consent may be required) as in the public interest under conditions pretty close to extortion given the other options available. It also doing so uses public funds in public institutions to promote practices that the FEW wish ALL to consent to, or be forced to consent to.

How this happens is fascinating, basic information ALL people should be aware of and “be/ware:”

~ It relates to how much freedom, privacy, choice, and ability to exercise personal judgment and initiative exists now.

~ It relates also to people not being able to exercise personal choice in how to engage in basic life activities involving human reproduction (i.e., having kids!) themselves, their partners/spouses (staying or leaving them), their children, and what role individuals may be able to continue playing in their children’s lives before they become adults.

~ It also relates to where on the spectrum criminal behavior by individuals towards others they are related to (by marriage, parenthood, or by blood) is categorized within law.

If I’d seen more coherent and substantial writing on these matters over the years, I might have backed off some on personal energies put into this blog.  But I haven’t seen that type of substantial, coherent and consistent reporting on these matters.  Reporting and teaching on these subjects has been sporadic, and it has been more often journalistic style, or soliciting memberships or donations to some advocacy group — or individual “stories” to tell justifying the cause.

I have seen some consistent, substantial, reporting, some of it incoherent (specifics in mind) in addition to illogical; the other more internally coherent and consistent in academic style — IF you don’t look too closely — but which manages to omit such major elements, it has to be described as strangely incomplete.  One wonders why the elephant in the room cannot be talked about.

Reporting on the problems surrounding “Family Court Matters,” issues such as divorce, child support, visitation, and high-lethality, dangerous scenarios around domestic violence and child abuse (including child sexual abuse) — which even references that private enterprise entrenched in the courts and social service systems might even BE the problem (and names specifics in such a way they might be recognized in other settings) still goes through phases and investigations often stops short of showing how the elements of networked organizations connect, or what are primary vehicles (structures) by which they do so.

I not only stay on it, but also report obvious (if one pays attention) practices of putting roadblocks into obtaining information on participating private enterprise within those court, i.e., disconnecting the dots on the money trail.

If that assessment is wrong, then show me someone else who, as a routine, expects others, average people, to identify and follow through on the tax returns of court-connected corporations, pay attention to their evolution in status, name, and size over time, notice when they’re habitually delinquent, call out (publish in posts like this one) falsehoods agreed upon among those operating or referring business (such as establishing systems, dockets or even separate “courts” which by design can steer more cases) to them, apparently, in sponsored conferences such as the one featured below.

Or show me who provides an alternate narrative accounting for the elements missing in the typical ones — but a narrative well-documented from what’s available to someone of my status, i.e., someone able to do the drill-downs, but without academic institutional connections or access to the range of on-line journals that might provide (except where these have been voluntarily made available, such as through “digitalcommons” and otherwise) discussing the fate of “commoners” i.e., those who are deliberately excluded from such exchanges, roundtables, councils, and so forth. I.e., someone not currently a professor, professor emeritus, graduate student, or even college student.  I went to college first, established a work and professional life in the field, THEN married and had children later; and I wasn’t working in academia.  I don’t remember ever having been interested in doing so, either.

We must have the stomach for the details and a willingness to look at numbers as relevant, labels as critical, and to where appropriate challenge arguments presented by those with a trail of degrees (or just one or two major ones:  PhD, J.D.) behind their names (which sometimes turn out to be just certifications, trainings they’ve sat through; other times, they are without question from Ivy League, well-respected institutions) not based on our social position, but based on the merits (logic) of the argument.

Having a decade or more of publications and/or recommendations from friends and colleagues is obviously an achievement, BUT this should also be considered in light of at least (1) the sponsors of those professionals (including government grants from HHS, USDOJ, etc.), and (2) how many of the recommendations and mutual cites are from private societies or associations the speakers/writers have joined to promote mutual business interests. And THAT light can’t be shed on such situations without looking into that type of information:  whether on an individual’s c.v. (grants are usually listed in certain fields), who funds or has endowed the center (or, nonprofit, or both) under which they are publishing, and how many un-acknowledged private memberships do they hold in common.

Which is where the habit of failing to admit to levels of AFCC involvement often comes in, as does directing public attention away from it when the media reports on family court or family violence medias, citing judges, mediators, psychologists, custody evaluators, supervised visitation providers, or reunification program providers.

Basically, don’t hold your breath for mainstream media to opt to report on the most important aspects of family court operations, even in “breaking investigative series.”  I say that having witnessed them over a decade and periodically broached the topic with some of the reporters, tweeted and posted about it, etc.

(BELOW HERE IS TEXT, LINKS, AND IMAGES MOVED FROM MY HOME PAGE IN SEPT. 2019)

RE: THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF POSTS (and PAGES):  EXAMPLE:  “Safe & Sound | Kid’s Turn“

My images often have added comments one or two ways — they may be annotated (look for the extra color, arrows, rectangles, ovals and, often, fine-print comments added to the image itself) — then I may add captions.  The added captions showing underneath a specific image may have their links to that image, or to elsewhere.

Here’s an extreme (heavily annotated AND has a superimposed image) example referring to one organization merged into another, which then changed its name and has continued running expensive court-connected parent education programs under the new name.

The heavily annotated image is of a search results page from the US Patent and Trademark Office.

The name which formerly identified said network (shown as second owner in the trademark image, apparently as of about 2006) as part of a nationally known and well-organized (with “parent” corporation) network of interconnected nonprofits, on which I have both recent posts and a new page, was changed as recently as September 2017 (I write late January 2018), with a new name that conceals that connection.

Meanwhile, it is running classes targeted (see trademarks “Goods & Services”) to (a) children of separating or divorcing parents, and (b) to such parents.  Next to that I’ll show images of the new curriculum as claimed by the newly-renamed organization’s with logo (1st clean image), and then a listing of recent classes (2nd clean image) — although this hasn’t even shown up yet in the state Business or Charitable Registry pages (!!) and (3) the sliding scales shown costs for such (based on parent household incomes!) ranging from $102 to $1.2K (that’s over $1,000!!), and among other places, are run out of San Francisco State University.  Note: It looks like the USPTO trademark hasn’t caught up with the namechange yet, either… (Safe & Sound Organization website reflecting these classes).

USPTO.gov search for Kid’s Turn trademark, heavily annotated and with superimposed image of the curriculum as currently run by Safe and Sound (formerly SF Child Abuse Prevention Center).

Logo and description (in faint gray font; but read it anyway!)

Recent schedule of classes run (SF Bay Area) under organization that only changed its legal business name in late Sept. 2017), per state databases (SOS and RCT)

Sliding Scale breakpoints for Kids’ Turn curriculum fee hikes. Note: this is one of the most expensive areas in the country to live. NO parent with household income under $30K in the area should be charged that minimum to sit through a class originally concocted by family law judge, family lawyer, a UCSF Psychiatrist (I learned), and for purpose perfectly aligned with organization agenda of a private judges’ ~ lawyers’ ~ mediators’ ~ other mental health (Psy.D., PhD in psychology) etc. private association, none of which professions are exactly financially “strapped.” This (racket) has been going on since the late 1980s, at least as pertains to this parent education curriculum.. it is also taking place internationally, as shown below [on this new home page for FamilyCourtMatters.org].

ANOTHER SECTION OFF-RAMPED FROM THE MAIN BLOG FRONT PAGE (as of 9/5/2019; probably put on there Jan. 2018).  I mention “foundationcenter.org” but their website will now redirect to “Candid.org.”  Candid appears to the rebranding of Foundation Center’s (EIN# shows at the bottom of Candid’s footer, white font on black background) after it bought “Guidestar,” which entity I’ve previously posted went earlier under a different name, “Philanthropic Research” or similar…)