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

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

Archive for October 2019

Sort and Label: Parent(ing) Coordination,#1 | Parental Alienation, #2 | and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, #3. Which is Source, Which Conduit and Which (Leading-Edge) Content? [About 1,500 words, Publ. Oct. 27, 2019].

leave a comment »

Post title: Sort and Label: Parent(ing) Coordination,#1 | Parental Alienation, #2 | and Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, #3. Which is Source, Which Conduit and Which (Leading-Edge) Content? [About 1,500 words, Publ. Oct. 27, 2019].

(Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-bsg“). Added images and a bit of text to go with are at the bottom, expanding upon a link to “Families Moving Forward” (with at least two professionals also being AFCC-Ontario board members) near the top, copyedited for clarity, so now about 3,000 words. Oct. 28).

“Label & Sort” might be  a better word order, hard to sort without familiarity with the things being sorted.  My concern in these fields is that rote repetition seems to substitute for observation, a focus more on the promotion than the understanding of what’s been promoted (again, pro/or con when it comes to “Parental Alienation.”)

It may seem easier to just quote a catch-phrase than consciously remember what category it belongs in, as encouraged by most websites promoting any cause (including websites arguing against, here PAS) which tend to downplay their own business identities, locations, and with it, age and size.  I showed an example recently in the “Annual Report” financial section (just one page with two piecharts and some VERY fine print, showing Revenues and Expenses only, no Assets and Liabilities) of the “London Family Court Clinic” in Ontario Canada. But we ought to distinguish between an advertising campaign, who’s been sponsoring it, and how it’s disseminated.  These campaigns are now central to social services, health services, and “family court services..”

But, when and where any group in a field of interest, like this one, is “sketchy” and evasive on exactly who or what it is (not “who they are” and listing a board of directors or “our team” who may be volunteers but have interests in related businesses being promoted) (…even after a website phrase saying, perhaps, “we are a nonprofit” or (USA) a 501©3 nonprofit organization… I still ask myself “where are the financials? even when there, what do they contain?” and then go look for them.

You’d be surprised how some of the largest entities around present their own tax returns or audited financial statements.

Then in the pro/con PAS, there are the amazing, flexible and evolving “university center” non-entities… (not the topic of this post)


There’s a “shell game” being played with our lives, our public resources, in and around our courts. I say “our” because it’s played on an international level with local “applications” but not exactly local representation at the international level where collaborations take place.

In this shell game, one shell (label) is frequently not even on the table The audience is asked to guess, gamble, pick a side and place its bets pro/con #1 and #2 without awareness on #3.  I aim to correct that.

Awareness of #3 exposes that there IS a major, broad-based, macroeconomic game being played and who’s been playing it and indicates potentially which one.  Awareness of #3 (and follow through) provides a backdrop and leadership character indicator of those involved in this game —  not necessarily competence in their respective chosen fields, but character and level of ethics for participating in this game for a living.

Read the rest of this entry »

Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated "C.Psych"  and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).

with one comment

Just so you know:  This post has many large BIG pictures with pretty springtimebright colors, even a few cartoons, directors’ head-shots in circle’d cutouts and is possibly even shorter than its title.  

I’m as tired of the word-games / name-changes as anyone else, but not too tired to make fun of a few of them such as the ongoing attempts to use graphics, including pie-charts  with tiny numbers, and half the facts to coverup conflicts of interest and erect barriers to seeing the financials (even as posted under a link labeled “Financials”) followed by a lot of name-dropping (parts of Canadian government and specific foundations that are behind it).

POST TITLE: Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated “C.Psych”  and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).  (… “-bkw”)

This one is about 7,500 words, after I did “just a bit more” look-up and added that information to the top of the post (and more updates, reformatting Oct. 20).

LONDON FAMILY COURT CLINIC INCORPORATED

Digging for information:

Basic Website: https://www.lfcc.on.ca  Motto: “Professional Services for Families in Court”

Directors:   Daniel T. Ashbourne, C. Psych, Kimberly C. Smith, C. Psych, Joyce Radford, C. Psych.

(No JD’s or accountants?)

LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website. Read the legend for the categories. Fees for services and “All other revenue” under which they’d be included (dark green) only 20.8% or about 1/5th. What kind of assets are accumulated? Doesn’t show.

(Bio snapshots of each from web page shown in 21-image series below).

Is it a Court, or a Clinic? Well, Canadian Charities Search Site has it as a charity (private entity), effective date 1977 (not 1974), Fiscal Year ending March 31, and a pie-chart (differing from the one shown by the organization on where its revenues come from by category (Remember: not US$)

LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website

 


 

Originators, per its “About Us/History” page,## which holds just three short, “link-less” paragraphs to cover over forty years (##an image provided below also):

Judge Maurice H. Genest, “mustered a small group of local professionals” to start “family court clinic” modeled after one in Toronto — but where to get the money?  Oh… the Ministry of Health… .

Read the rest of this entry »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London,CR Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?)

leave a comment »

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) (1974?) (Short-link ends “-aPz”.  Started Aug. 26, 2019, published Oct. 17 with notice of more images to be added Oct. 18, or 19th, about 7,500 words (as of format-check Nov. 3, 2019)) 

Title Correction & bonus update comments: I originally labeled post as though the final name, “London Family Court Clinic” was claiming a trademark ().  I think I may have mis-read the fine print (“1974”) in their logo and til further notice am correcting it now for all occurrences in this post.  I cannot correct it easily as posted to Twitter without losing any associated thread, which am not willing to do. If I were to be more consistent, I’d also add the acronym (which is reflected on its url) for the London Family Court Clinic, “LFCC.”

I also learned eventually (by reading; the usual way!) that this “family court clinic” (in fact, a private entity) had a temporary name change to something else and only reverted back to [LFCC] about 2014.  The temporary name change to something else closely resembled the “CFCC” pattern shown in both California  (California Judicial Council/AOC/CFCC) and in a center at the University of Baltimore (part of public university system in Maryland), originally with the acronym “CFCC” but now with some major donors’ names prefacing it, i.e., “Sara and Neil Meyerhoff” [CFCC].  BOTH public sectors (California’s highest ruling body of the state’s courts and Maryland’s law school center under direction of Barbara Babb (and last I looked also Gloria Danziger) involve AFCC professionals as employees and in positions of authority.  As does, at least now,  I found out, the London Family Court Clinic, also.//LGH Oct. 18.

I started exploring this as a result of some follow-ups from Twitter involving the same (old, same old) Family Court Reform cronies (<~definition |”crony” & “crone,” both from<~etymonline):**  which eventually led to my hearing about the Collective Letter of Concern to WHO on the classification of Parental Alienation” which I then blogged my concern about on August 28.***

(**I feel the term applies, and while plenty of men are involved or involved as self-described feminists and there only to defend innocent protective mothers, when it comes to the logic of the movement, the phrase “Old Wives’ Tales”## comes to mind, no matter how much language like “empirical” or “clinical” is flung about, or how many footnotes.  ##With the exception that some “old wives’ tales” in fact may hold unrecognized truth.  I actually look up footnotes…  So, if you want to argue, submit a comment; I’m up for it!)

London Ontario Canada (geographic showing nearby US States, bodies of water) ~~(url in window frame at top) viewed 2019Aug26). This image also appears in Aug. 28, 2019, post, “My Concerns about …Collective Letter of Concern to WHO about… parental alienation.” Pls. Notice where Boston is (latitude) related to London Ontario. The “CaringDads™ program from London, Ontario, Canada showed up within one year (2001 – 2002) in EmergeDV.com based in Massachusetts, showing coordinated interests, cross-border USA/Canada.

***In fact, please go there first; it springboards into this post and gives a context for my concern about this whole “coordinated community response” situation — and I’m a survivor of domestic violence in the home, or a “formerly battered mother” if you want to get technical. This movement is supposed too HELP women like myself, whether in Canada, USA, or the UK, but instead it’s simply continuing to facilitate the entrenched interests, including AFCC domination of themes regarding the response to domestic violence within the family courts. As you’ll see….

MY Concerns about the July 21, 2019, Collective Memo of Concern to WHO about (‘What else?’ – parental alienation!) [Aug. 28, 2019]  (shortlink ends “-aSg” and this is indeed shorter, at about 3,500 words.  After Aug. 29 update, now still under 6,000 words)…

Here, at about 3,000 words (section in black-background, multi-colored frames below), I could’ve published this post and almost did, Oct. 11, 2019, evening.  No single post is ever a complete expose, but this one at just 3,000 words already conveyed many key, basic realities on who runs the domestic violence field in at least two North American countries, raising BIG questions about which country is really dominating the other, or if neither, why the “urge to merge” and execute the merger privately before the public catches on to what they’ve lost.

I could’ve published it at just 3,000 words last night (Oct. 11), but in taking a quick review of just one of the websites involved (for the London Family Court Clinic) I saw overt acknowledgement of it being run by a person with long “AFCC” connections.  So I took the screen shots (~>software terminology, not mine) and decided to add them as a ‘Hidden Out in Open’ visual exhibit, with some labeling, to the bottom of this post before publishing — which I knew would probably quickly double its size.

What I saw quickly on visiting and exploring even partway down the above websites was how the power to confuse and disorganize readers’ understanding is mathematically increased by the number of networked organizations, broken links, and misleading program, entity, committee or “centre” names

Habitually withholding proper identifiers (public or private? entity or non-entity?  If private entity, for-profit or not for-profit) facilitates  replacement of proper identification by a collective “storytelling” about the amorphous collaboration’s (whatever it may be named at the time) own origins.

Substituting simplistic summaries for proper (honest, accurate, open) self-identifiers undermines a viewing population’s (composed of individuals) options to judge for themselves one of THE most important things individuals ought to be able to judge — is this movement, collaboration, or group conflict-of-interest free?  And, if local to any individual’s home (residential, citizenship) jurisdiction, how can what funds that entity (whether public or private) be tracked back to my own taxation and support of that jurisdiction? IF I really knew, would I consent to this as wise, commonsense, or in the public welfare?  IF I really knew, what would individual elected officials’ private interests, if any, be in the business model (overall) proposed?

“How representative is it, really?”


In these circumstances, you don’t get to the truth unless you dig, and forcing you to dig is a form of harassment/obstruction and waste of time — the public’s time who will be funding these.

Read the rest of this entry »

Read (with the goal of understanding!) Our Own Government’s Independent Agency Annual Financial Reports (at least parts with texts and colorful graphs) and “learn stuff.” Like NSF’s Brain Initiative, Its Big Ten Ideas, and Domestic|Foreign, Public|Private Revenue Sources. I just did…(Published Oct. 16, 2019)

leave a comment »

This post is:

The National Science Foundation (“NSF,” 1950ff, under President Truman) history ties in closely to Vannevar Bush. So does the history of Abt Associates (1965ff) as it intersects with Raytheon.  In many ways the history of the NSF illuminates the history of the United States in the 20th Century.  You can’t understand much of where we are now, and why, without some acquaintance with it.

BRAINInitiative.NIH.Gov (Google the term; many web domains will come up describing it, and President Obama’s 2013 launch of parts of it!).


The NSF website has a nice version, but this enthusiastic short summary is from Research! America, a nonprofit I also researched because of its involvement with (and dependency on) the buildup of the HHS and NIH especially as promoted Mary Lasker, and because of other certain Brain Institutes (as I recall) funded by, well, rich people….

Any history of the NSF will mention how it arose after World War II and in the early years, USA was caught off guard by Russia in the “Space Race.”  “What’s it to me?” (Keep reading…)

I have a short post on Abt Associates who, possibly because of its data-crunching ability, like many companies formerly involved in U.S. government military contract, found purposes in both consumer electronics AND continued dealings with the might of the U.S. government built up for and during wartime as turned to “health, education, and welfare” purposes (1953-1980) thereafter, at least that “health” part called “Health and Human Services” — the largest grant-making department.  Other groups  (like MDRC or the Urban Institute) would run the social science R&D on poor people and certain types of consulting agencies would then analyze and write up the projects — like Mathematica Policy Research, MEF Associates, and Abt Associates.

Some companies, also specializing heavily in federal contracts and consulting, seem to have managed to both get grants to run the projects AND be on the evaluation teams (I’m thinking of ICF International which got so wealthy doing this it continued acquiring other companies and now is a multinational for-profit (i.e., global) corporation.  Its advice was sought during the 2000 Greenbook Initiative on Overlap of Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence, with participation from (then-called) Family Violence Prevention Fund, which has also since gotten fairly fat on contracts and grants — and become a real estate investor in the San Francisco Presidio, too. (Searchable on this blot).

My recent, short, Abt Associates post:


Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends. “-abD” only 3,000 words)[Devex.com is a media platform for this industry; Abt Associates also has (or at one point had) advisory board member on its board].

Read the rest of this entry »

Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, at first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].

leave a comment »

Abt Associates, Inc. (1965ff, first in Cambridge, Mass.), Social Research + Evaluation Validating the Social Science R&D ℅ (per Devex.com) that $2B Global Development Industry [Started June 25, 2019, updates Sept. 29, Publ. Oct 10].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends.  “-abD” only 3,000 words)

[Devex.com is a media platform for this industry; Abt Associates also has (or at one point had) advisory board member on its board].

Devex.Com self-definition of their platform referencing the market niche for the $200B industry  (viewed 6-24-2019)

Offices as you can see in Washington, D.C., Barcelona, Spain and in Manila, the Philippines.

In very fine print from the very bottom of (most?) pages.

Devex is the media platform for the global development community.

A social enterprise, we connect and inform 1 million development, health, humanitarian, and sustainability professionals through news, business intelligence, and funding & career opportunities so you can do more good for more people. We invite you to join us.

[[Its “Terms of Use” statement as of today is labeled version Feb. 2, 2012, and gives more understanding of the purposes, esp. under 4) DISCLAIMERS [first five paragraphs], and at the bottom UNDER “10) MISCELLANEOUS, h) “CISG Not Apply. The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply.]]


Abt Associates is probably not the largest of its kind, but its niche and types of work it does is typical of those who derive federal, private, and state-sponsored business operations from evaluating social science R&D run upon the poor of, well, to start with, the United States, and eventually (or tested there first) applied internationally too: see the words “international” or “global” and the word “development” in goods & services descriptions.  By virtue of using this word, implied contribution of at least SOMEONE’s home government is implied.

In the UK:  “DID”  the USA:  USAID, etc.  By definition it is likely to be public/private in nature, even when individual projects may be primarily private:  Their sources of revenues often comes from pre-existing government funding understood to be ongoing through the power of taxation.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: