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.

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.

Having dug enough times it becomes clear that what’s on the topsoil, ISN’T the truth — not the basic structural elements.  Without repeated digs, you have little to compare it with, as far as any understanding of those elements and accounting (versus descriptive, issues-based) labels for them.  That’s why looking oneself, exhausting or not, instead of settling for “story-telling” is so important.

The “coordinated community response” model is really designed to derail financial accountability TO the public which supports that response in whole and in its parts, and is then, many of the public, also run through its programs to be monitored, measured, profiled (records filed away), and punishments or rewards for fitting the ideal parent profile meted out over time.

That is, while it’s sold as a great thing, in fact it’s a bad thing from the standpoint of “accountability”  — the one thing the model is actually talking about.  Only the focus is allegedly on keeping OTHERS accountability (particularly “batterers” and law enforcement) not themselves.  What I see, however, is people well-aware of the “theory of change” activities and utilizing them to ensure an endless source of trainings for all in on that business cycle, knowing that there’s going to be likewise an endless source of people (population) who can be put through them.

It doesn’t take too long, digging for, going after that basic “who’s who and what’s what” (whether it’s government or private interests, an accounting-based understanding) to realize that you — the readers, viewers, and ideally passive consumers of this way of doing (family court, domestic violence prevention, etc.) government — are supposed to maintain and retain a completely different concept of what’s taking place than what actually HAS been taking and is continuing to take place.

Not being privy to the ordinary names and basic identified categories (proper labeling) of who is involved, and exactly who and what inspired the set up of the various entities and non-entities with overlapping names clouding their accountability types you (we, viewers, the public, most people) are intended to passively absorb and continue consenting to it all throughout.


I raised this topic before in my June, 2019, post, and am continuing the alert to this issue here. Nearby image just shows text from that post; title & link in next inset. //LGH Oct. 18, 2019.

Mix’ n Match Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations Use Them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund Them…(June 16, 2019) (Short-link ending “-9ZS.”  About 15,000 words; about a third of them subject to “sudden post-publication re-allocation”).  (By definition, almost, any post this length needs about one-third, one-half or even two-thirds moved elsewhere!  We’ll see!  Tags to be added within 48 hours, I want to make sure tags naming nonprofits include any related EIN#s).  THIS POST ALSO HAS A SECTION (as I recall) on the two underlined items:  DevelopingChild.Harvard.edu (NOT an entity) and FrameWorks Institute, Inc. (a nonprofit entity) and some of the background to both, and as (?) relates to a certain Canadian Foundation employing FrameWorks…//LGH Oct. 18, 2019 comments

(A chunk of text, my writing, from:) Mix’ n Match Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations Use Them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund Them…(June 16, 2019) (Short-link ending “-9ZS.”  Post is about 15,000 words and introduces among other things (as I discovered while writing it) ‘DVChildWelfare.org’ another Futures w/o Violence-headed partnership blending programs from two previously developed fields, one of which I already know at least within the USA to be already heavily featuring “fatherhood-engagement” programming (the ‘Child Abuse Prevention’ field)… LGH comments Oct. 18, 2019


Back to Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic™ (1974?) (Although all three posts — the other two mentioned above and this one — are closely related)…

In practice, the “Coordinated Community Response” model seeks to undermine and replace from within (with an unaware public) basic rule of law and representative self-government with government by the elites based on an arrogant presumption of knowing what’s best for all, and less-than-genuine efforts to sell this as “community-based” and somehow more representative than it actually is, to deflect opposition before it might develop were they more open, upfront, and honest about the back-door coordination of private interests among all parties.

To the extent problems with this way of doing business surface — and they have been — the pre-planned “solutions” are to exacerbate the situation — expand the private interests at public expense, further derail investigations of accountability for government itself, and meanwhile forcing more people to deal with increasingly aggressive usurpation of their own privacy and right to exist or even make basic, personal life decisions for themselves (or their children) independently of the total system from anywhere within it.

Derailments, mis-labelings, and naming private organizations (for-profit or not-for-profit) after public entities as if they had the same authority and accountability as those public entities whose referrals are their collective lifeblood, are not necessary to open, honest, and accountable to those it governs, government. These coordinated labeling, naming, and organizing behaviors resemble a hidden “plantation” mentality — attempts to keep most people illiterate as to how the place is run, except designated overseers, whose position depends on keeping secrets, especially as to the operating plans.  This also divides the people’s loyalties.   OPEN plantations are a little harder to get away with these days; we know in places they still do, but we are talking macro-economic (global) scale with attempts to establish, incrementally, the same ideology in slightly different formats, especially within so-called “developed” nations.

Overall, I find it offensive, troubling, and disgusting. And intriguing.

And worth blogging: as I see it, I try to call it out to remove the ignorance excuse

for this “coercively-controlling,” macro-economic planned financial abuse of power.

Power allegedly received by consent (to varying degrees) from those governed, in any jurisdiction.

“Government by social engineering” is unacceptable, but it’s what we have, and the longer it continues, the more social engineering is to be expected.

MAKING MAPS: FOR EXAMPLE: If you have ever in daily life seen surveyors at work:  they have instruments, they take readings; they record them, and these are no doubt translated into maps and records for others, some are public record; they are used for buying and selling real estate or access to it, planning infrastructure or developments, or just, generally, keeping track of things.

When it comes to keeping track of the revenues, expenses, and collective holdings of either an entire nation’s public investments (income-producing assets) or any more local (Canada:  Province, or I guess municipality:  US:  State, county, etc.) entity’s holdings, you first have to know what is its legal name in order to find its finances.  One of the first “sort and select” categories to ask, and the most important one for any (responsible) citizen, is whether that entity is PUBLIC (part of government itself) or PRIVATE (as legally registered UNDER the government itself).

I.e., the real map of any movement — and government operations — can be seen by its finances.  I will show on the bottom part of this post, under or as part of the “visual exhibit” how the London Family Court Clinic’s “Financials” page is anything but a token, last-page, half-hearted gestures towards showing them.  It shows Revenues and Expenses ONLY in a pie chart, with needlessly small print, which only represents one year’s worth.

In fact, here it is (for  year 2017-2018 only, from the website): I added two more images to show that this indeed is the only “financials” presented and that it’s the last page before final (medium-blue background with white text sections).  What kind of financial statement is even close to complete without reporting its total assets and liabilities?

This is like tossing candy, or a few coins, to a spectator crowd to keep them temporarily occupied with less meaningful information and hopefully, not look for the real substance!

There is no statement of accrual-based accounting showing its assets and liabilities continuously (up to the present statement’s date) from the start of its existence as an entity — which was, it says, in 1974! But large thumbnail portraits of the leadership and a whole lot of blank white space throughout the (colorful) website (with low-contrast:  light gray — body text, mostly)..

Note well:  AFCC claims to have started in 1963, but corporate records in the US show it also didn’t start until (I don’t have it memorized), the present entity (“the mother ship” not individual chapters) 1970 or 1975 in Illinois.  Its own IRS returns STILL don’t acknowledge the Illinois legal domicile but claim (tell the IRS) it’s Wisconsin — which, it isn’t.  Wisconsin does NOT show its registration there, Illinois DOES show its registration on their database (for what both state-maintained databases may be and are worth: I’d say, more than Peter Salem (Exec. Director since 2002) or before him Ann Milne (up til then)’s words.

So, assuming the London Family Court Clinic, (Inc.?), while (still run I’ll show) and probably originally conceived by AFCC members, was by contrast, honest about its start date of 1974 — that’s roughly in the same era, and predates key domestic violence organizations in the USA (which are mostly dated to late 1970s and 1980, or later).  It does however, show close correspondence also with USA’s “Family Support Act” of 1975 and several other concurrent events of national importance, no doubt the importance of which didn’t escape Canadians or Americans involved in the divorce custody conciliation and mediation movements. Searchable on this blog: “AFCC — and the USA — by the decades” (or vice versa. It’s an extended footnote on a post or page)


Meanwhile, I’ve not been idle researching, reading, or writing about some of these issues, which may explain (I hope!) some of the anger and indignation expressed in the about-1,000-word “Intro” here added Oct. 12.

For example, I know that reviewing the origins and attempting a drill-down on the Battered Mothers Testimony Project of Massachusetts was getting under my skin, as a survivor of this system which I know so derailed my children’s lives and compromised their education, earning capacity, social network building, and opportunity to continue being raised during those years around people of enough ethical integrity even willing to comply with existing family court orders and refrain from committing what they reasonably knew to be violations of the state penal code  and who knew and respected their individual long-suits (academically, personally) and supported them.  [Personal expression/details of what I’m indignant at — in our case, though stated generally — deleted here.]


…or whether functionally, instead, an elite cohort of commonly-organized judicial organizations, along with those who helped set up the family courts in the first place (in the USA), is seeking and gradually succeeding in a single goal, to collectively dominate both USA and Canada, eventually Mexico, without question Australia, New Zealand, the British Isles (UK) and Europe through controlling MOST of its population, and particularly the women and mothers who (as in the animal kingdom) will often fight to the death to protect their young, and unless distracted, divided, and diverted, also know how to collaborate with each other around common goals, as (we women and mothers) historically have known to do, for survival, at least within local territories, tribes, and — yes, social classes.

Perhaps more of Africa isn’t on this cohort’s map because dominance there already established in the previous at least two to three (1600s – 1900s) centuries more brutally by the European powers and the British.  This may in fact where the predecessors of this cohort (i.e., those already in power generally) practice such techniques for later exportation on “developed” countries which need to be taken down if they get too “uppity” about their own legal, civil, or basic human rights while their natural and financial resources are being commandeered and exploited.


Now, in the name of “human rights” and having appealed to WHO, the “Family Court Reform” movement continues representing itself as if the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is a minor factor not worth bringing up, generally, in:

  • seeking (USA) a House Resolution to increase Child Safety (H.Con.Res.72)
  • academic debates across many journals, several of them run by US membership but published now in the UK (Taylor & Francis, “an Informa business,” SAGE has long-time been international, a recent trend towards AFCC individuals publishing under the Oxford University Press label, etc.)
  • a letter to WHO protesting the inclusion of “PAS” as a disease,

and endless testimony before individual state Congresses and legislative task forces (I’m thinking currently of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Maryland, and likely something going on in Massachusetts too,

…although I recently posted/tweeted on how the 2002 “Battered Mothers Testimony Project” at Wellesley College (like “Harvard,” in Massachusetts) (specifically at a non-entity, untraceable “Wellesley Centers for Women” within the college, soliciting now through “GiveCampus” crowdfunding going after already flush educational institutions (Wellesley’s endowment is over $2.5 billion, and naturally all assets are not held under just one nonprofit entity)…

Some of the same individuals founding, running, and training others to administer and expand these artificially created fields to be public-private sustained, and the professionals conferencing around them and citing each other in public debates on:  domestic violence, parental alienation, coercive control, and custody decision-making, etc. — internationally — can be seen through both the BMTP 20 years ago, and the history of the London Ontario, Canada setups I document in this post drafted August 26, 2019, in part after viewing that Collective Letter of Concern to WHO (July, 2019) and posting on it.

The movement response to “woman abuse” “domestic abuse” “violence against women” or “domestic violence” in Canada and the US strangely echoes across our shared border (South for Canada, North for the USA not including Alaska, Hawaii and territories), despite different constitutions — major differences in international alliances and treaties signed or not signed — different place of religion in the national sphere, differences in the granting or NOT granting of overt titles of nobility, and different arrangement of, now that they’re here, I’m finding out gradually, of subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts.  In the US (“Separation of Powers,” limits on the Federal government vs. the states allegedly), the family courts are NOT under state jurisdiction.

What is the purpose of HAVING nation-based laws for protection of citizens’ individual rights when internationally-aligned interests seek to alter that standard in favor of their own standards not obtained, speaking in the USA at least, through representative government, or even in good-faith attempts to honor its standards?  Such as setting conferences in places the normal person cannot reach, private roundtables, and while in control of resources supplied in part from our own taxation to support governments, allegedly for our own mutual (public) welfare?

These individuals in association with each other (AFCC being just one of several, but a key one) want that changed in all but name, and with it, the rights of women under those family courts — rather than addressing why we have such private courts in the first place….and while trying HARD to get them all “Unified” cross-border, cross-jurisdiction, and install a self-appointing, self-perpetuating cliche of “specially trained” judges and their (mental health, family law, court administrators and ABOVE ALL, “mediator” cronies) to get rid of the impact of criminal law, and be able to direct it at will towards non-compliant individuals based on their (cronies’) immunity or quasi-immunity status….

…And get the public to accept this as the new “normal” in all countries based on the nightmare alternative — anarchy as towards “violence against women.”  

…Which, it seems we already have fifty years later anyhow…. ***

***(I write, as you know if you read this blog, as an American (USA citizen, born here), mother, survivor of in-home battering (1990s) in the name of Jesus Christ (basically a blasphemous excuse, if you’re even half-scripture literate), and having not just experienced, but also investigated, the set-up, to the extent I can, court-connected organizations, and cash flow (macro, at points, micro) systems federal to private, private to federal (to run their favored pilot programs), federal to state, state to sub-grantees, and how networks of nonprofits evolve and, conveniently at times, merge/submerge, disappear, or incubate under others, then spin-off fully-funded and staffed as if a “new kid on the block” initiative when it’s more of the same…only more so.

WRITTEN AUGUST 26, 2019, WITH A BIT OF COPYEDITING, OTHERWISE INTACT (color scheme: white on black w/ red outer border, yellow, black, inside, and aqua (blue-green) innermost border). THIS SECTION JUST BEGINS TO INTRODUCE SOME “ANOMALIES” In LABELING.


BELOW THAT, MY FOLLOW-UP, SEE NEXT HEADING, “WRITTEN OCT. 12, 2019” (in different color scheme, “black on white” identifies it easily), which will have more images (possibly an image gallery)…//LGH.


PREVIEW:

A Program is not a Partner.

(Explaining that reference): Below, I quote description of a program (batterers’ intervention/ changing men’s behavior to a more feminist perspective), with a clear “train the trainers” global business model run through courts and other agencies (and how to get this to happen is described under its “FAQs”) referring to itself as a “we.”  An “it” is not a “we.”  Let’s keep the difference between persons whether natural, flesh and blood, or legal/corporate — which means, a registered ENTITY or at least identified trade name or, if it applies, fiscal agent) — persons.  I.e., “Michelangelo’s David.”  “David” is the name of the statue named after a legendary Biblical character (particularly when shown with the head of Goliath in hand); Michelangelo, the sculptor.  Then for any product or creation (including set up to provide services) there are the commissioners — where the money comes from.

In order to understand where the money comes from (when governments are involved) and goes TO (when entities are involved, whether other levels of government (i.e., federal to more local) or private, i.e., nonprofits) an entity needs to be identified, and the place where records of transactions are kept — i.e., the accounts of both government and the receiving entity (whether of grants or of contracts).

That’s complex enough when naming conventions don’t place further obstacles.  

Here, naming conventions HAVE placed obstacles, which is a questionable practice.  I have read elsewhere admitted as philanthropic practice when partnering with government to get public consent behind initiatives (around “Alberta Wellness Initiative” and “The Frameworks Institute” etc. I posted it within last few months; the information is some details not intended for the wider public but still available on-line) of naming foundations after purposes rather than their (often famous) founders’ last names.).  Basically, if your intent is to locate and assure fiscal accountability before policies or programmings run rampant and start colliding with civil and legal rights, or hurting people, odd naming conventions are hurdles to overcome in that race.

However, if your intent is that most people CANNOT locate and assure fiscal accountability, given that most people fund government itself (government entities, plural as it applies) through taxation and being charged for services when they get up, go out the door, go to work, get paychecks, return from work, drop off kids anywhere other than at relatives (if cannot afford to stay home and care for them while young), BUY things, incorporate, (do business), MARRY, DIVORCE, or seek protection from the courts…  then THIS TYPE of naming convention is ideally suited for throwing up smokescreens to that accountability. These smokescreens then create privacy for a self-selecting private interests to operate with less interference from the messy, rights-demanding, “ignorant” public who, really, just don’t know what’s good for them or their kids — like the private interests declare they do, instead.

I say, because I believe:  We should consider “overcoming” (those) “barriers” to assure more responsible government. By “We” I mean, “the people” governed.  When too many of us have been compromised or paid off/bought-out/embedded in a non-accountable system, this divides the population even more than we already have been divided over the years, either “naturally” (by choice) or artificially (by policy in prior years, i.e., racism, sexism, and by class, typically based on judgments about race and sex to start with, not to mention religion).


Coordinated Community Responses can embed idiocy (for-profit operating how often not-for-profit?) as well as common sense.  Which is it here?

When, the Feminist Perspective ends up continuing to endorse Engaging Dads Everywhere as THE All-Purpose Solution to VAWC (violence against women AND children) — the intervention originators, and sponsoring psychologists, counsellors, therapists and (so it seems) the referring Ministry of Justice, law enforcement, and judges are convinced, somehow it is — I’m saying, there’s a method to the idiocy.  Because professionalized training of EVERYONE EVERYWHERE (all-purpose) IS an idiotic conception.

Unless the purpose is to oppress and coercively control an entire population except those who are in the position to control the resources of the population. In other words, unless the purpose is more sinister than genuinely altruistic.

Unless you understand it as the business model and want to get involved (see “facilitator trainings for “CaringDads” and an endless variety of programming that can people can be run through, or grasp at for help when in danger) in which case, don’t let on — it’s simply genius at work. A business model set up before the battered women’s movement was even fully up and running in the 1970s.

POST TITLE again:

Exploring “Coordinated Community Response” | London, Ontario, Canada’s CREVAWC (1992), LCCEWA (1981), London Family Court Clinic™ (1974?) (ends “-aPz”.  Started Aug. 26, 2019)

“VENI, VIDI, BUT NOT YET VICI.”

 

I’ve conquered some, not all barriers to understanding WHO IS one of the elements in the following network (as described below), but not to locating records in a foreign country’s reporting system, of the funding through the years.  I did find its registration as a charity, which is not made clear in the presentation).

Altogether, the closer I look, the more the involved entity (London Family Court Clinic) is beginning to resemble a version of the activities and purposes of the AFCC as we know it today.  What I think will be hard for most readers to grasp because it’s daunting to shake loose from “denial” mode — the level of obstacles to basic accountability through such network is itself oppressive.  I think most people are resistant (and have certainly noticed this over the years) to comprehend that what we like to think of so positively as a force for good in society (in more than one country) in fact may be the opposite.

My primary basis for saying this is that forces for good don’t use illicit means to this extent, and seek to deceive the larger public about their own true nature, while concealing vast opportunities for and probably exercise of “RICO” (a criminal element within the advocacy grouping) at a massive (global) scale.  This is NOT heading in a good place overall, even if there are more laws against domestic violence than there used to be, and more awareness of it.   What we need to be more aware of, and are decades behind (most people) in perceiving, from what I can tell, because the information isn’t disseminated and systematically promoted is how our own governments operate: that is, on what accounting bases (plural), and from there, acknowledging because we see them how many chasms of accountability exist… because those “chasms of accountability”  where the criminals and opportunists will congregate, if not set up in the firs place, and thus seek to not ever get caught and reported, or prosecuted.  This allows for easier “fleecing” than through continual application of overt force which might lead to too much civil rioting, boycotting, orthe public figuring out how to straighten it up, thus disrupting of the existing easier cash flow.

The longer these “chasms of accountability” while pretending to producing the opposite continue, the more profits to be shared around, and people who become dependent, if not addicted, to the lifestyles enabled by fleecing (as a domestic livestock to be utilized, until their usefulness expires, with ways to shorten the lifespan as needed) the public at large.


When I saw the level of central control of dispersed networks (i.e., “Coordinated Community Response”) in London Ontario (see post title) I knew I’d have to publish it with some sort of “user’s guide.”

A different language distinguishes public from private sectors, with passing reference to leadership in the domestic violence (feminist version) field USA and Canada, not to mention attention to who (besides Peter Jaffe, Ph.D., which is I hope by now already known) in on this business model propagation has maintained long-term affiliation if not active membershipo  with the (primarily but not exclusively USA-based) Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Without perception of the business model, and at least some mental recognition of key names involved (i.e., some people publish a LOT on this), one will be in constant “clueless” mode (thinking one is NOT clueless, while being essentially so), untangling right from wrong and caught up in arguments which — see my recent posts [@ Aug. 26, 2019], see my basic themes of this blog — not even asking the most basic questions, not challenging unspoken and unproven critical assumptions and so never getting to the bottom of the issues involved.


I’ll pick this up from where it was natural to start explaining it (except for interruption to flow of an already long post) and where, if I had a class committed to XX hours of listening (or, a seminar presentation with a specific timeframe) I’d just give the handouts, maybe some flashcards, and outright narrate it.

This is a sort of “reverse archaeological” dig on an existing network where those describing their own programs neglect to distinguish between private entity and government agency, and deliberately (so it seems) camouflage the private as public through words used in legal or trademarked business names.

Why should an American (US Citizen, mother, woman) etc. even have to do this?  Why would I even bother?

Well, I have living children, and they and others who will live longer than me (i’m getting older now) deserve an alternate field guide with complete vocabulary — which calling something repeatedly “London Family Court Clinic” is not… It may not even be a clinic, and it does not appear to be a “family court” but instead a service provider for the same.  If I were more familiar with Canadian business and charitable registries (have looked SOME, but am certainly no expert) I’d start there– but the thing is, the websites characterizing themselves could’ve adopted a simple standard which makes this clear up front.

Instead, they are MUCH more concerned about directing (on-line) traffic and selling product and services (even if such services have been pre-funded by government or others)…

 


CREVAWC = A centre which began (‘was founded’) as a collaborative venture spurred in response to a federal study on (VAW) triggered by the 1989 murder of 14 women at a specific school (“Ecole”) in Montreal. As described in the website which doesn’t contain the letters CREVAWC:

The Centre for Research & Education on Violence Against Women & Children (CREVAWC) was founded in 1992 as a collaborative venture between The University of Western OntarioFanshawe College and the London Coordinating Committee to End Women Abuse. The Centre was established in response to a federal study on the problem of violence against women, triggered by the 1989 murder of 14 women at École Polytechnique in Montreal.

CREVAWC joined the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario in 2001.

Now do you see where the acronym “LCCEWA” in my post title comes from? — “London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse”

 

Where was it before, and how does a “collaborative venture” join anything?  Does this refer to website hosting, faculty salaries, or what?  I do know that once I looked at the London Coordinating Committee (and the networking) I instantly (sic) understood the Ellen Pence (USA, “The Duluth Model,” etc.) concept of “Coordinated Community Response” meaning — NETWORKED.  She has studied institutional ethnography, it’s said, in Toronto (Ontario, Canada).

This quote explains that it’s a network of 35 member organizations.  Somehow, although the collaborative venture CREVAWC is WITH the London Coordinating Committee, it’s also one of the 35 members.  Simply clicking on the website (done extensively before I wrote this post), something you also could do (attention to details and some awareness of the decades over which the battered women’s / shelter/ domestic violence prevention (and, LATER?) family courts were developed might help.  “London” here obvious refers to a jurisdiction within Ontario, Canada — not the world-famous “City of” in the United Kingdom, specifically, in England:

The London Coordinating Committee to End Woman Abuse ** has over 35 member organizations. And we are here to help you – one step at a time – to move forward and reclaim your life.

**LCCEWA for short, here at least (and unlike ‘CREVAWC’s website (“LearnToEndAbuse”) those letters are actually in the website URL)

I also see from the history (on that link) that one of the conditions of a Ministry Grant for an already existing women’s shelter (1978) was the development of an advisory committee, as well as (that early on!) police and probation officers establishing (what we might call now, USA, “batterers’ intervention” treatment or classes — “encouraging men” to change their ways, i.e., stop beating up on women…

Following the opening of Women’s Community House in June 1978, there was an increased need for expanded and coordinated services to victims of woman abuse.

Prior to having options to escape abuse, presumably women were just dealing with it on their own, or fleeing as they could — if they could.  So a 1980 grant was awarded with strings attached — involve these types of people (advisory committee) and the 1981, resulting report, built into it (keep reading) counselling for men to change….

Simultaneously almost, in the United States of America (but not too far a drive geographically — look at your maps! — in Northern Minnesota (Duluth borders a Great Lake which borders Canada) a nonprofit called (now) “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” was co-founded by Ellen Pence and (then a state rep?) Michael Paymar, also pushing “Coordinated Community Response” which theme has NEVER been chnaged in the US response to DV while building the field, either.  It may have been challenged that I’m not aware of, but it hasn’t been changed.  USDOJ Grants continue to flow to train STOP grantees…  They come in different demographic/geographic flavors for slightly different targeted communities, but the operating structure is the same:  TRAIN, TREAT, SUPERVISE, TRADEMARK CURRICULUM, SHARE ACROSS POLITICAL BORDERS (Jurisdictions), GO INTERNATIONAL IF POSSIBLE AND AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.

And be sure to incorporate batterers’ intervention throughout and thus share “feminist” leadership with male leadership from that developed field, a stepchild of the abuse prevention field.


The next question I had (reading this) was, who and what was the “London Family Court Clinic” (gov’t or private) and how long had it been around.

In 1980, the Solicitor General awarded a research grant to the London Family Court Clinic for a research project to determine the effectiveness of the criminal justice system’s response to woman abuse in London. A requirement of the grant was the development of an advisory committee to manage the study and analyze the research. In response to this invitation, the LCCEWA was born. Community professionals representing the Police, Probation and Parole, Women’s Community House, representatives from the Criminal Justice system, and others, came together to exchange information, address significant service gaps and lack of coordination, and to identify common challenges in order to advocate for systemic legislative change. ….

 

When there’s a public grant to anything with the words “Court” let alone the word “Clinic” in it, the question arises — public or private?  In this case, it would seem to be a private organization itself started before the Women’s Resource Center (and all this business of the 1980s) — in 1974.   In other words, the word referring to a part of government became part of a business name which was already by then taking referrals (it seems) from the courts.

‘London Family Court Clinic (est. 1974) | Professional Services for Families in Court’ (logo with motto viewed Aug 26, 2019) context, CREVAWC and LCCEWA (Canada)

So, from what I see in that paragraph, a research grant to the London Family Court Clinic to study the CRIMINAL justice response to violence against women (early 1980s) entailed putting representatives from the CRIMINAL Justice system on the advisory committee… with the result, we want “systemic legislative change.”

[[Next paragraph describes the encouragement to arrest in all suspected cases of rape and assault.  After that paragraph..]]

In addition, in order to adopt more responsive and comprehensive responses to woman abuse, in 1982, two London Probation and Parole officers – Roger Newell and Trevor Jones – established a men’s counselling service, now known as Changing Ways, a crucial program that challenged men to take responsibility for their abusive behaviour.

Sounds great, on the surface.  Now, under the (dark-brown website background) “LCCEWA.ca” “Links,” there are about 4 shelters, almost a dozen “Counselling and Support Services for Men” (listed first), including some for the London Family Court Clinic (one has a typo in the link, easily fixed:  a “,” where it should be a “.”)

Among the :Counselling and Support Services for Men,” is an (incorrect now) link to “CaringDads” (<~that seems to be an updated one; there was no redirect; I just searched for it). As is easily seen, there’s facilitator training, it’s trademarked, and it (per that “About” page) was an intervention dating from 2001 and with description referencing some of its originators.  I’m quoting two-plus paragraphs from the top of the page (intro) and towards the bottom of it (originators taking credit for it) and the last two paragraphs at the bottom, which name names and professions.  The next-to-last paragraph states the rationale.

Since our start in 2001, the Caring Dads intervention program** has been firmly situated within the realm of gender-based violence, and, indeed, within the framework of gender equality in general. There are unquestionably very clear connections between violence against women on one hand, and children’s experience of violence, whether as victims or witnesses, on the other.

Global estimates published by the WHO indicate that one in three (35%) of women worldwide have experienced either physical and/or sexual intimate partner violence or non-partner sexual violence in their lifetime [1]. We know that young children are frequently present when this violence happens or live in households where it takes place. An alarming statistic published by the US Department of Justice indicates that 1 in 15 children are exposed to intimate partner violence every single year, and that in 90% of those cases children are eyewitnesses to this violence [2].

In Canada there are over 100,000 substantiated child maltreatment investigations every year, with over half involving fathers as perpetrators [3]

(from the bottom of “CaringDads™ “About” page):

…When we put this information together, we see numerous advantages to changing practice to better include fathers in efforts to enhance the safety and well-being of their children including the potential to improve father-child relationships, offer an additional route to ending violence against women, model accountability, address fathers’ potential use of abuse in other relationships and with other children and opportunity to monitor and contain risk from fathers during follow-up from the child protection and justice systems.

The Caring Dads program was specifically designed from the premise that violence against women and violence against children are intricately intertwined, and that these two issues both can and should be addressed together. The program was developed by Katreena Scott (Ph.D. Clinical Psychology), Claire Crooks (Ph.D. Clinical Psychology), Tim Kelly (Executive Director of Changing Ways), and Karen Francis (Ph.D. Clinical Psychology), in collaboration with child protective services, batterer intervention programs, children’s mental health agencies, women’s advocates, centres for children and families involved in the justice system, family resource agencies and probation and parole services.

(Claire Crooks being AFCC)

and this one, again under “”LCCEWA.ca” “Links,” category  (right under “shelters” and “hotlines,” “Counselling and Support Services for Men

www.lfcc.on,ca (London Family Court Clinic – parenting coordination after separation & divorce)

…(replace the “,” with a “.” to get to the actual site.  Note: this doesn’t link directly to “parenting coordination” but to the generic website.  The same link occurs under the (about twice or three times the size) “Counseling and Resources for Women and Children” list below.

 

MISC. BLOG APPEARANCE incidentals: reverse color scheme above: I specify color scheme (usually lighter background, darker print, border color varies) by just typing in the html for every post.

On inserting borders for this one, I mistakenly reversed the specs (black background), then added the white font, to see the words, and decided to go with it. This complicates showing links (too little contrast), however for now I’ll add yellow font-color each time so they show up). It’s a little harder to execute because the cursor’s harder to see while typing, but it can be done.

I recently tried more than one color/thickness border for some variety, shown here too.  Anyone might want to change the interior decorating after looking at the same “wallpaper” and border trim for ten years … //LGH

WRITTEN OCT> 12, 2019 — FOLLOW-UP on ONE OF THE ABOVE ENTITIES, THE ONE STARTED IN 1974 and its “FINANCIALS” which are definitely NOT financial statements, independently audited. I do not know what the status is of Canandian entities’ requirements to produce and publish on request tax returns reflecting their (Canadian equivalent of any IRS-exempt “501©” status) as we have in the US. If there IS no such requirement, no wonder US entities and their leading professionals from “back when” were intent on getting OUTSIDE of the very system most United States Citizens are subject to individually — or else — and which our taxation (“INCOME taxes mostly”) continue to support, for which we also ought to have proper accountability. Perhaps years of being more subjects than citizens (while both) has accustomed some populations to NOT expecting their philanthropic sector — as well as their public (government) sectors to actually cough up independently audited financial reports, especially when their primary business entails dealing with government itself, i.e., taking grants from it.


While too many US citizens don’t get around to this (or realize how tricky it is to get our hands on sufficient documentation and accountability), which is itself basically abdicating on a basic duty of responsible “citizenhood” (not to be confused with “healthy marriage” or “responsible fatherhood” activities), the potential still exists “on the books” and ways to get our hands (really, eyes) on SOME of this information also does.


Understanding that we do have this privilege may, I hope, alleviate some MISunderstanding of my indigation at the poor showing of “London Family Court Clinic” here. I realize there plenty of US-based entities no better, and will continue to post on this (Have one in mind dealing with a university-connected, early-childhood-focused, nonprofit in North Carolina “up next” to post, as a classic example of derailment of readers from locating the money trail through exact entity names, where an IRS form requires these be divulged.


It’s a big deal to withhold such information on public resources held in trust, so it’s said, for public benefit, while (in this example below) helping set up personal psychological profiles of anyone who comes near a family court in the province of Ontario.


[I DECIDED TO PUBLISH THIS “AS-IS” SO FAR AND COME BACK WITHIN 24-48 HOURS TO ADD THE IMAGES REFERENCED NEAR THE TOP OF THE POST.  PART OF THIS DECISION RELATES TO ACCESS FOR WORKSPACE & WIFI SIMULTANEOUSLY.  “I’LL BE BACK”…”//LGH 17Oct2019]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: