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.

Arizona! (Career AFCC Academics’ Self-Disclosure Habits, Home Habitats/Economic Niches, cont’d.) [Started Nov. 13, 2019, Publ. only Jan. 3, 2020].

leave a comment »


This is: Arizona! (Career AFCC Academics’ Self-Disclosure Habits, Home Habitats/Economic Niches, cont’d.) [Started Nov. 13, 2019, Publ. only Jan. 3, 2020].. (short-link ends “-bAu,” under 5,000 words, with Extended Footnote Just a Few PRWORA-Explaining Posts from my Blog,” about 6,700 words, and an added comment near the top, around 7,000. I found some incomplete sentences and so am copyediting it post-publication Jan. 6).

[At some point, an obvious typo at the end of the title made its way onto the post:  Year “2010” for “2020,” and a different, odd ending for the title as copied into the post just above. Both places now corrected as I just noticed it//LGH Jan 21, 2020]


As 2019 entered its last two days, I wanted to post any remaining “In the Pipeline, Arizona” posts promised in November, although my head was into different subject matter by then as relating to my blogging, USA and global current-events, and personal life perspective (long-term goals haven’t changed; short-term options have).  Out of many drafts, this one just under 5,000 words and speaking plainly seemed viable..//LGH


THIS POST IS FOLLOW-UP with PRACTICAL ADVICE:  LOOK IT UP FIRST.  UNDERSTAND WHO YOU’RE DEALING WITH OR SEEING QUOTED MAY TALK EMPATHETIC/SINCERE (ABOUT HARM TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM “DOMESTIC[1] VIOLENCE [2]. etc. [3])**

** [1,2,3] Added to here to highlight the variety of terms.  Terms vary by country, proprietary terms, and type of government funding sources, AND  they also evolve with the speed of collective dissemination as they have been for decades.  That “evolution” is also its own roadmap...for those who read the signposts and notice who’s erecting [publishing] them… to who’s co-opted the public-square conversations** and are (plural) in no mood to relinquish those strongholds. (**Basically, through access to funding for media propagation and sponsored chairs and/or research at universities; in various professional journals named by subject matter, etc.)

[1] Domestic, Family, Intimate Partner.  [2] Violence, Abuse, “Maltreatment”; increasingly specialized terms such as [3] Coercive Control, Justifiable Estrangement (vs. parental alienation),  or DV by Proxy.

When you follow the entities (and maintain some awareness of which specific “professionals” (whether in practice, public office, or academia) belong to which ones) which have built wonderful venues (financial/access to real estate infrastructure and administrative/operational resources) for private-value propagation at public expense, it’s easier to see changes in motion.

Understanding that the family courts themselves and the programs run through them represent a built infrastructure, in individual counties, states (US) provinces (Canada, Australia) and in some places, countries. The “Public/Private Enterprise” is key to success:  Private individual resistance to “harmful practices within it” isn’t enough to breach those built walls.  The public leverage — at least in the USA — comes from governments’ dependence on all our tax receipts to fund the ongoing debt, leaving other resources already available (collectively through government operations at all levels) to, as they have been, self-fund.**

**Those last two sentences referring to realities that only reading the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (“CAFRs”) can really drive home, but those CAFRs give fantastic overview — at any level, understanding all levels interact with other levels of government — of the relationship of individuals to our (respective) country/countries (if dual citizenship) effective “coercive control” of our lives.//LGH Jan. 6, 2020.

This post also contains preliminary info on the Flinn Foundation which later posts may handle in more detail, as a supporter (with another private foundation in Arizona) of the “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior at the University of Arizona.”

Why I was looking at Arizona psychologists and people talking, “Brain and Behavior” — I suggest, take a look at the post this came from:Blurring Boundaries Between: Nations, Sacred and Secular, Public and Private; Continually Infusing More Social Science into (=Diluting) Law. For example ℅ Nuffield Fndt’n, or Oxford Univ. Press’s ‘International Journal of Family Law, Policy and Social Science’ (Nov. 8, 2019).” (short-link ending ‘-bxq’).

Right after publishing a post (Blurring Boundaries…, short-link ending “-bxq“,) I found myself looking for “just one more” fine-print reference associated with Robert Dingwall’s reference to divorce mediation, which find inspired this post.  I hope writing this follow-up on that “find” will be a quick task, but still it’s going to entail providing (or describing) a number of screen prints showing word-counts on just two LONG documents to make its point.  [<==Just quoting this post, further down as first drafted//LGH Dec. 30, 2019]

I will repeat this paragraph and link (with shortened title) near bottom of this post. “Blurred Boundaries” takes a larger view but ties it to current people, organizations, trusts, and a specific academic journal, with USA advisors from Arizona.  I’ll bet many readers were unaware of some of the (global) connections involved so deeply embedded with those fighting for ‘family values’ in the ‘family courts’… You’ll see if you read that post…(one contains the word “Pontifical”)…Food for thought…

Another quick quote from this post, below:

Personally, I found it amusing, but not so funny as to miss the opportunity to make my point:  UNLESS YOU CHECK, You’ll NEVER KNOW how often authors who are constantly quoting other AFCC authors are themselves AFCC.


The FLINN FOUNDATION 2009 ARTICLE not the main point of this post.  Flinn.org has a lot of promotional information, but (as I show below) somehow forgot (??) or neglected, or simply chose not to post its own financials (either Forms 990 or independently audited financial statements), communicating the basic message to the public aware that such things exist,  “Let the hunt for even the most basic info begin, you ignorant commoners!”.... by the time you’ve found and understood it, we’ll be well-embedded and OWN parts of your own public universities…. for your own good, of course…. or ask us directly for it, thereby revealing who wants to know..”

(I said this below and showed some of the obstacles to even the most basic look-up):

As the Flinn Foundation website I saw doesn’t post its own EIN#, any Forms 990 (or any audited financial statements), readers will have to identify (by connecting the dots, not by generic assumptions) which EIN# is meant by the website not posting it:   For example, if the tax returns shows the same website…that’s a start, but more than one EIN# is often associated with a single website when there are (Schedule-R for Forms 990) related entities…


An eight-tweet thread November 8 with media attachments foreshadowed a post on just two major documents by a single AFCC author, emphasizing the need for the public — these professionals won’t do it, obviously — who may be reading, concerned, and active on social media about the general topic of “intimate partner violence” (or abuse or varieties thereof) as handled IN the family court system to pay closer attention to the sponsoring entities.  People concerned about the family court system should understand the private organizations collectively running it, although they tend to do so as civil servants, former civil servants, and steering public resources in their privately-determined directions (also once in positions of power seeking to get state (and/or federal: USA) legislation “tweaked” or revised to their personal advantage, advertised skillfully as “in the public interest.”

With such a good example of the “On/Off” disclosure behavior of just one [Arizona-based AFCC] professional psychologist which, when in the “off” position paints a false (missing key colors) picture of a problem debated often at public expense, I wanted to again demonstrate how this harms the demographic the same express concern about, while claiming concern for fairness, justice, good practice, and protecting the same demographic….

The harm is in the absence of points of reference in the overall literature (sic) on the topic reports which are intended to influence policy. Once you start noticing how often acknowledgement of “AFCC” as a commonality between speakers, presenters, authors, professors, and practitioners debating — usually each other — on some aspect of (see [1, 2, or 3] above… it’s hard to miss with each new occurrence.  This type of censorship and casual omission of that relevant information needs to be “outed” by common people.

Academics it seems can’t afford to: the information impacts the infrastructure of their own careers.  Lawyers won’t; psychologists won’t, typically judges won’t in most contexts, but will in SOME contexts, including in conferences held overseas (to whichever jurisdiction is being discussed), out of state, and through “failure to mention” are, according to these experts when expounding, supposedly not that important.  Except when extra credits for collaboration are sought and needed.  [[para. added. Jan. 6, 2020]].


Once standing on my soap box, I am going to “sound off” on the topic, on which I have both knowledge, networked experience, and personal experience over time and some practice in following up to obtain the missing data when I see it missing.  I do this as a “layperson” not degreed in the fields, not an academic, lawyer, and not personally involved with any nonprofit seeking to reform the family courts, ride the conference circuits to sell my (or others’) books, or any nonprofit taking federal grants to write up more reports which settle nothing after taking hand-picked pilot sites and stating their conclusions on the latest social experiments on “how family courts handle domestic violence.”

I MAY get to the above point (forming a company to hawk a book, travel to promote it and speak personally at conferences), but I know MOST women (and men) cannot do this safely or practically while they have minor children and pending litigation, which can and does last years.

Doing so also can result in gag orders or compromise their personal cases already in trouble.  I have written, generally, about topics which do not require revealing one’s personal case numbers, parties’ names and personal judges, custody evaluators, etc.  and which as such should not be subject to improper “gagging” to protect minor children — because the information comes from places available on-line through basic, common-sense searches available without expensive journal subscriptions or membership fees in professional associations which may publish them.

I’m thinking to present the “sound-off” after first publishing what prompted it, in a separate post.

//LGH Nov. 13, 2019.


Below here REPRESENTS AT WHAT POINT I COPIED THE EXISTING POST WITH INTENT TO SPLIT IT IN TWO.  EXISTING POST DIDN’T YET HAVE THE SCREENPRINTS I WAS TALKING ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE.  NOW THAT I’VE PUBLISHED THE OTHER POST, WHICH IS RATHER LONG, I’M DELETING MOST (NOT ALL) MATERIAL FROM THIS ONE WHICH DUPLICATES THAT JUST PUBLISHED. AS A RESULT THIS POST ENDS ABRUPTLY.


(@LetUsGetHonest Nov8, Tweet…280384:  start at the top; thread is also embedded as as footnote near the bottom of this post).  I saw that Twitter wasn’t best/designed for laying this content out systematically — annotated screenprints are necessary,  but felt a short post could.

Two other Twitter threads I posted November 9, these ones responding to others’ retweets, again emphasized “do the drill-down” but also touch on these topics… “Some things you just need to become familiar with…”

  • (@LetUsGetHonest Nov9,Tweet…238979):  Some things you just need to become familiar w/ (whether or not IN the USA), ONE of wh/ is how battered mothers losing custody has been exploited, since when, BY WHOM, HOW (Censor/derailmt/Trawl4Trauma) & for WHAT? Fame,ego,$$,FedGrants.”

and

  • (@LetUsGetHonest Nov9, Tweet ..857984): Ever Play”FindThe501c”? I do daily. WHY: info RT’d,reported,comes thru named media platforms. Specialty websites (,,…) {are} often run by tax-exempts /nonprofits who must file<~ in USA most also do IRS tax returns/990s or 990PFs & (someX) AUDITED FS Check’EmOut.

Seeing this new information (Nov. 8 tweet) and following through on two websites referenced in the above two Nov. 9 indiscriminate (?) retweets reinforced my understanding of how valuable and, in the long run, efficient it is to maintain an simple, ongoing policy:  find-the-501© (entity), and in so doing discover any websites without corresponding entities; identifying that website, any entity, and those promoters’ niches in the family court-connected ecosystem.

A gut instinct develops over time; mine proved right when (above), up front, I felt that “parentingnewsnetwork.com” was not a registered nonprofit or for-profit entity:  in fact I’d met and conversed over time with at least one of the website’s promoters, and read her complex case history, she was also a battered mother from Kansas.

In finding the article quoted, or even that website, I had to go to “Wayback Machine (InternetArchives).  I see a nice-looking website which came out just in time to promote the work and books of an AFCC-concealing, PRWORA-ignoring group of professionals and a few associated organizations whose collective impact has set women back, I’d say, at least two decades in comprehending this system.  Some “advocacy” that is! (not referring to the battered woman, but those professionals and organizations who piggybacked on that distress and outrage for private purposes– including covering up AFCC and PRWORA.

[[See Footnote, added just before posting in 2020):  JUST A FEW PRWORA-explaining posts from this blog]]


This recent follow-up (the Arizona-related and the other two) also reinforced my frustration with people tolerating or participating, routinely and systematically in obscuring from common understanding HOW the “family court” “abuse prevention” “domestic violence” system is organized and in particular of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ (“AFCC”) function within this larger system and its members behaviors, characteristic of the same system.

AFCC is not “legal domicile Wisconsin” as reported on its tax return, but Illinois. It keeps a low profile fiscally (not a large organization) but seeks international power and collaborations to alter judicial systems and with it, impact populations in several different countries. This is characterized  in the self-description as “improving the lives…”  and “resolving conflict.”  There are many things it may seem or posture being which it simply is not.  One of those is representative of “the people’s will” or primarily altruistic in agenda. It functions like a cult and seeks out power and influence, then coordinates to pull strings for ITS — not OUR (grassroots)– agenda.

I believe the original inspiration of comparing one author’s (a) withholding and (b) featuring AFCC affiliation is a prime example of the dilemma of taking ANY of the AFCC policies or its members activities at face value or seriously… except as a serious risk to transparency, accountability and ethics within the courts and related justice/human services within government.  (

 

DECLARATION (for this post):

We can all make a difference by: doing the drill-downs, becoming aware of and exposing (publicizing) the role AFCC has played in:

<>with a few other private-interest associations AND help from what’s now the US DHHS, forming and administering the family courts and

<>diluting the handling of domestic violence (through promoting mediation and other created professions as if in the public interest, when in fact it’s a private, special-interest field closely connected to AFCC’s membership and one of the earliest professions pushed by it after no-fault divorce broke ground in California in 1970.


It took only about one decade to get mediation mandatory in California (1981), and the debate on how to handle domestic violence situations through mediation hasn’t stopped since. Accepting a single unified lobbyist nonprofit body to speak for the mediators has been documented in this blog (among my earliest posts).**

Now what AFCC wants for the USA is a system mimicking the “Single Family Court Jurisdiction (recent development in the UK), characterized as “Unified Family Courts.”  One center historically dedicated to this operates within a law school (University of Baltimore School of Law, which university is part of the Maryland state public university system). It goes almost without saying, that an intention that these courts should be ruled by the professionals with most background and experience in such courts which have been prepared and established in selected jurisdictions (often metropolitan) presided over by AFCC members.**

AFCC members also seem to want Parent Coordination internationalized and mandated where possible (as happened in so many jurisdictions with mediation).**

Pros and cons will continue being debated, often at public expense, by and among AFCC members throughout a career and mentoring new graduates or even undergraduates into the same perspectives, heavily promoting behavioral and mental health fields across sectors (universities, in journals, through nonprofits).**

**I have been blogging and tweeting these points and examples of them as I find them over the years except that “single family court jurisdiction” in the UK is a new understanding for me, and apparently dates to about 2014 although obviously family proceedings (i.e., divorce, custody and visitation) matters have been going on much longer.  Readers are encouraged to look this up themselves; I will respond with links to individual comments requesting them.  On reading about “single family court jurisdiction” I quickly realized its many parallels (and consequences if implemented) to the existing “Unified Family Courts” already in some counties, for example Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania.

We should also clearly identify by grantee organization names when they come up the public resources (federal funds made available per U.S. Congress) of the domestic violence industry and understand it’s NOT about to “out” either the fathers’ rights (Federally funded) participation in their own campaigns — or AFCC as a nonprofit…  OK to admit awareness of NCJFCJ?  Yes.  Of AFCC? Typically, No.

DO THEY KNOW ABOUT AFCC?  I can’t speak for newer generations of mentees, but overall. Yes.

See my sidebar featured post on this topic (Consolidated control of DV industry USA).

(Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminist Leadership Refusing to Identify, by Name and Financing, The Opposition Entities.…”Page (parent Page= my Front Page) short-link ending “PsBXH-8rg”). (<~last character is a small “g” as in “gorgeous.”)  See nearby image from that sidebar widget.  I revise widget text from time to time, so the image may not be (isn’t) the most recent version seen on sidebar now. But it has the same link.):

<~~I should split off the bottom third of this “Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy” page (which contains a drill-down on certain media, at a time I was calling bloggers and individual parents to pay more attention to media (who owns the ones whose articles they’re posting/reblogging, often indiscriminately, in this field), but I haven’t yet.  Maybe soon; or maybe not.  //LGH Dec. 30, 2019


Individually, AFCC members continue to alternate cleverly concealing connections to it in some contexts, while featuring it in others.  Connections to it are always relevant, so concealing awareness of these connections, in one’s own writings or in those one chooses to feature (whether supporting OR arguing against) is always misleading.  When you are reading extensive material by professionals (i.e., may have a Ph.D., Ed.D., J.D., or lesser degrees (masters level or other) but career-long involvement in the family courts or court administration) who ARE loyal AFCC but don’t mention it in that material, you are reading material designed to distract and deceive as to the neutrality and actual loyalties of those writing.

Whether or not the rhetoric (at first glance) may resonate with “violence prevention” or concern and empathy for adults and children injured — or even for those recently, or killed in this context, the primary loyalty is to the family court system, as designed and administered, primarily, by the activist AFCC leadership.


I understand that some people have so many credits over decades-long careers, they may not cite all of them (remembering again that “AFCC” does trainings but is not a regulatory body for any single professions, nor is it a law school, a school of psychology, or even a college.  It’s a 501©3 with chapters and the chapters aren’t even “related tax-exempt organizations” within the USA. If it were, omission might be one thing.  Nor is it a major employer, so omission of it in some bio blurb summarizing “work history” would seem understandable.

No one in his or her forties, fifties, or sixties (or thereafter) would be expected to list every job held since high school or even since obtaining an undergraduate degree (assuming one was).

BUT professionals being cited on topics IN the family courts who are involved any private society/nonprofit/tax-exempt corporation/association set up and specifically focused ON the family courts, which AFCC is, ought to acknowledge this on their “bio blurbs” at all times.   Many such members don’t.


This post illustrates, again, with fresh examples, how one effective place to look first when any of these topics surface (that is, when professionals or academics debate them) is where the authors, debaters, AND the authors referenced (Bibliographies, footnotes, and — because this field entails family courts — which family courts in an “pilot” study “just so happen” to have been historically dominated by AFCC judges and policies.

Court employees, professors, judges, consultants, family lawyers can be AFCC.  

Specific mandated curricula (i.e., divorce education or parent education) can be controlled by AFCC members.

Created professions are being internationally promoted primarily by AFCC itself (example:  parenting coordination) and favored by it before each new one can be churned out (before PC:  mediation, supervised visitation, batterers intervention)…..

Only by consistently identifying the level of involvement or commitment to this cult-like organization in the individuals holding forth on those topics can you, as a reader, be alerted to where the discussion actually conceals that (known) involvement.

What Examples in this Post ILLUSTRATE:

This post drives home to what extent if AFCC members didn’t collaborate originally in setting up the entire profession and rhetoric of “domestic violence” itself (which I wouldn’t go so far to say … yet….) its members and policies without question (i.e., identifiably) over the decades have sought to commandeer that conversation** even when it may LOOK like the professionals involved are in fact promoting “feminist” or anti-abuse causes.

**The so-called feminist and battered women’s advocates (by now also being their own federally-funded industry (in the US– and it seems Canada too/ See LCCEWA, CREVAWC, London Family Court Clinic, Inc. in  Ontario, Canada main source of revenues) have condoned this. Continually arguing pro/con in journals and on their own nonprofits’ (where it applies) websites and on social media, the entire time never really challenged the existence of the family courts they reasonably know are being run by AFCC by outing its historic involvement is basically enabling behavior.

I discovered this both progressively and “investigatively” over time; a more recent follow-up on the global/gender focus of the “Battered Mothers Testimony Project” run out of a highly privileged, elite and historically all-women East-coast (USA) college, Wellesley.  The core funding of the Wellelesy Centers for Women (two which merged) seems rooted in psychological/mental health perspective and among its leading professionals. See my right sidebar.

How could a center focused on global women’s issues in a college with similar focus (see Madeline Albright center there also) afford to expose the travesty for Americans (USA) of Welfare Reform’s (1996 PRWORA) “fatherhood.gov” (my shorthand for the entire collectivist, family-values driven mentality) funding streams targeting single mothers as a negative social pathology and (within the “child support” Title IV-D) promoting “alternative decision-making” programming — like mediation, parenting coordination, supervised visitation, batterers intervention programming — all building this “mental health/population control” collectivist state-funded “treatment for all” superstructure piece by piece) afford to say it’s wrong because it runs counter to the concept of equal rights under the LAW as INDIVIDUAL HUMAN BEINGS?

The debate about handling domestic abuse IN divorce mediation now more than three decades old!  Those controlling the media platforms aren’t about to switch perspectives voluntarily.

I believe (battered and/or protective mothers, particularly) can put some of the brakes on this historic family court “coup” by just refusing to offer their stories and tragedies to nonprofits, public media, professionals, or anyone else who historically has participated in and shows ANY hint of continuing to intend to coverup the existence and impact of AFCC (as collaborating with NCJFCJ, known to be a key player in the “DV” field) within family courts.

But mothers I believe will not have the insight or understanding WHY this is so important without following the money and understanding the concept of nonprofits AS nonprofits, and in just how many places this non-representative, chameleon-linke and not even complying with state corporate and charitable or (in some aspects) IRS regulations for non-profits.  In short, it considers itself “above the law” while flying “below the radar” far too often.  Typical cult and private-interest behaviors…



In a document from 2011 report (from a 2007 NIJ grant) I found recently and show below, I am reminded again of how I myself was deceived (starting in the early 2000s) initially deluded for precious years, while in litigation into thinking that others’ acknowledging the drawbacks of this practice would somehow matter once our case was in the family courts. All that’s necessary is to strategically OMIT key points of reference which might illustrate that another entire framework of understanding exists, which might be the actual “reigning paradigm” while the experts argue pro/con re: their favorite topics.

After drafting this post, and while looking for that link again, I ran across a 1997 one, similarly phrased, also NIJ-funded (a 1993 NIJ grant) which was even more overtly “AFCC..” But it starts with, again, “Some things you just need to become familiar with…”

If we’d only noticed in time to do something about it, and warn others, even if it was too late for our own family court cases, as it was for mine.


Right after publishing a post (Blurring Boundaries…, short-link ending “-bxq”,) I found myself looking for “just one more” fine-print reference associated with Robert Dingwall’s reference to divorce mediation, which find inspired this post.  I hope writing this follow-up on that “find” will be a quick task, but still it’s going to entail providing (or describing) a number of screen prints showing word-counts on just two LONG documents to make its point.

One of those documents is a (typically) long c.v. of a career AFCC academic (field:  psychology) from Arizona. Friday’s (Nov. 8, 2019) post also featured an Arizona-based professional “overseas editor” (a psychologist but who also got a J.D. from UC Berkeley) — Professor Ira Mark Ellman, J.D.  at Arizona State University; today’s (Nov. 11, 2019) is Connie J.A. Beck, Ph.D., from University of Arizona. Beck’s 1999 Ph.D. was “Dual Major in Clinical Psychology and in Psychology, Policy & Law” with specific references (at least twice) to Bruce D. Sales, Ph.D., J.D. (J.D. Northwestern University School of Law in 1973).

Although Beck’s name was not so familiar to me as many other activist AFCC more directly involved with the family courts (or law schools), it did have a familiar ring, as did the language of the document which led me to then look up the lead author faculty page and resume (“curriculum vitae” or c.v.) linked to it.

I was also interested in that she was in Arizona, and that at the time of the 2007 document I found listed as in the associated School of Mind, Brain and Behavior within the University of Arizona (which turns out to be possibly less than ten years old) as a collaboratively funded naming trend within the field (i.e., integrating psychology more and more with neuroscience, which through common word-association tends to build credibility for psychology as more “scientific” over time)

Beck’s references to colleagues or friends in Indiana which came up and is acknowledged on her faculty page is also interesting, as some of them from Indiana in the NIJ document references are also known AFCC (activist) authors, among other obvious connections to Indiana.


RELATED, FOR FURTHER STUDY:  The Flinn Foundation in Arizona

In reading more about that “Mind Brain and Behavior” school (an article from 2009) another foundation came up (“the Flinn Foundation” / “Flinn.org”) which talked about attempting to make Arizona a “go-to” place for biomedical sciences.  Fellowships and $30K startup organization help are being awarded which will be administered by the state association for promotion of the industry (AzBio, “Arizona BioIndustry Association”).

Building Arizona as a global center for research and commercialization in the biosciences and a leader in such areas as precision medicine.

This information is easily searchable by anyone who chooses to simply key in the name of the school and read search results, with even more background available once someone decides (when it comes to reading information about any tax-exempt foundation) to then follow through with the available information and (ideally) eventually get to the organization’s financials, with attention to also where its wealth (i.e., if  a foundation is still named after founders, what line of business were they in?).

A FEW LEADS ON FLINN’s FINANCIALS: (Candid.org,Search 990s, ideally by EIN# after a name search to first locate the EIN#. Look for Flinn Foundation’s public filings (tax returns) and see if any related entities…) See nearby images of search form. I receive an “insecure” message with each search… It’s probably this one: EIN# 860421476 (Form 990PF YE Dec. 2017)

Candid.org’s “Flinn Foundation” Namesearch results, Image only shows the first 6, (= 2 largest total assets orgs, 3 yrs’ worth each = six rows), out of 18 total). TINYURL Link to FY2017 for the ‘Flinn Foundation’ in AZ: tinyurl.com/FLINN-AZ990PF2017-ein860421476. See LGH post Nov 11, 2019, ending “-bzx”

Candid.org 990-finder (Annotated) showing EIN# Drop-down option | SShot 2019-11-11

There are several different “Flinn Foundations” of varying sizes (the largest, about one-quarter billion dollars Total (gross) Assets ($226M) is in Arizona.

Preliminary name search results here show results in Arizona (the largest by far), Michigan (next largest/$66M), then Pennsylvania ($16M, ‘Negley Flinn) also Georgia (a ‘Family Foundation’ apparently being closed down, most assets moved to Donor Advised Fund managed by Charles Schwab in San Francisco) and two in Illinois (“Scientific” in the name, but maintaining assets at $0.00, another “Patrick and Robyn Flinn, assets $1.5M and decreasing over last three years).  One observable characteristic, where search results show the last three years’ results, is that most organization’s ‘Total Assets” field show substantial increases; where they do not, a closer look likely shows intent, whether assets being moved (as in Georgia’s), or just a choice by their managers.


As the Flinn foundation website I saw doesn’t post its own EIN#, any Forms 990 (or any audited financial statements), readers will have to identify (by connecting the dots, not by generic assumptions) which EIN# is meant by the website not posting it:   For example, if the tax returns shows the same website…that’s a start, but more than one EIN# is often associated with a single website when there are (Schedule-R for Forms 990) related entities.

This post doesn’t handle that information, but I mention here as an indicator of direction of public/private financing and that this financing will often be directly to state (or private) universities, whose financials I believe it’s fair to say, most people don’t get around to thinking about or looking at.  Yet we all support them financially through, at a minimum, federal government (i.e., primarily through U.S.(i.e., federal) income tax receipts).  “Perhaps” more attention should be given to how accountable private influence (‘philanthropic’) on universities is affecting public institutions:  schools, courts, juvenile justice, domestic violence, and pharmaceutical corporations’ access to vulnerable populations, etc.

~ ~ ~

I’m picking on Dr. Beck today as lead author (among five on the piece) and also because of the associated resume which is in such contrast to the 2011 document I found (US DOJ-funded) when it comes to admitting just how much the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts played a role in both.


ALSO: Dr. Beck seems to have worked or been mentored with (I need to re-check resume for which) a Bruce D. Sales at Arizona, so I looked him up; a Sage publication website bio blurb was hard to grab (pop-up messages wouldn’t close, kept demanding my location.. which is NOTheirB), but noticed he moved to Indiana University in 2009.  His degrees date to the 1960s and 1970s, and I believe are relevant:  See footnote “Bruce D. Sales” below… on Blurring Boundaries post, and certain associations (both universities and professional societies) with also a note on his academic background, both which decade — which puts it in a historical context in development of the divorce and family court venues and larger civil rights / women’s rights / fathers’ rights movements (1960s, 70s, 80s, and 90s) USA.


Personally, I found it amusing, but not so funny as to miss the opportunity to make my point:  UNLESS YOU CHECK, You’ll NEVER KNOW how often authors who are constantly quoting other AFCC authors are themselves AFCC.

AFCC is not the only (from my perspective) problem organization around, but its membership seem to know when to stay mute and when to come out of the closet about their involvement.  AFCC has been characterized as helping create the family courts — with others of course — across the USA, and in general, I’d have to say, does not represent “the good guys” in most family court proceedings in any country, and particularly not in this one, the USA… but people have every right to sign up for as many nonprofit associations as they want to promote their created fields and cite them on resumes to build “creds.”


Here’s the reference I was looking for, which comes from Dingwall’s website (shown below).  That link is a Google search.  I never did find that exact article….irrelevant for this post, for now…

(D. Greatbatch and R. Dingwall) ‘The marginalization of domestic violence in divorce mediation’, International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 1999, 13; 2: 17490.

Just read the top of yesterday’s post (Blurring Boundaries…, short-link ending “-bxq”) for context; I’ve coped some of it html form (i.e., not as a screenprint) inset below.

[FROM HERE TO END OF THIS POST DUPLICATED MATERIAL JUST PUBLISHED 11/25 AND SO NOT INCLUDED HERE]..

TO GO BACK TO THE TOP OF THIS POST, CLICK ON ITS TITLE: Arizona! (Career AFCC Academics’ Self-Disclosure Habits, Home Habitats/Economic Niches, cont’d.) [Started Nov. 13, 2019, Publ. only Jan. 3, 2020]. (short-link ends “-bAu”)

Or keep reading (I did a quick search on the administrator’s dashboard.  These ones made the cut; some also explain — in relation to this — key domestic violence organizations and how that system is organized (privatized, regionalized — special issue organizations get more money — but centralized at the state level (the “CADV” (Coalitions Against Domestic Violence) system.  Key to this system is — while availing themselves to embed responsible fatherhood funding  and causes — failing to inform intended clients (or the public, who might be viewing the websites) about the true extent, longevity (funded “since when” and by which federal agencies) of fathers’ rights (essentially) programming based on social science poverty-theories dating back at least to the 1960s and seeking, ideally, to turn the clock back before then, as regards women & mothers…

EXTENDED FOOTNOTE:

“Just a Few PRWORA-Explaining Posts from my Blog”:

From near the top of that post:

[Post-publication: An extended footnote adds about 4,000 words referencing BWJP, the Wellstone promotion of supervised visitation (both quotes and news articles, as is well-known this progressive Senator, his wife, his daughter, three staff and two pilots were killed suddenly — about 15 years ago — during a small plane crash.  He’d been on the way to debate his opponent for an anticipated competitive fight for his third term.  However, an identifiable incorporation of acceptance for continued, but modified (i.e. “supervised”) exchanges in passive acceptance (and silent assent to AFCC policies while presenting at their 2000 conference on alienation, access and attachment with special emphasis on the first issues) effectively “headed off at the pass: any open, informed discussion on another possibility which better preserved safety — NO forced contact where abuse has been identified. By separating dangerous from not-dangerous parenting situations, this also would clear the path for fairer handling of non-abusive fathers’ issues.]

It originates in making references of these topics as analogies for the situation I am most deeply concerned about, the macro-economic, system-wide practice of the same power blocs setting up artificial, high-stakes and sometimes life-and-death conflicts especially between men and women overall, and between individual men and women who are mothers and fathers of children in common, while demanding the public fund both sides (the public as taxpayers and through other service consumption of governmental business enterprises, including accessing the courts, registering vehicles yearly, marriage licenses even, continues to pay “up front”)


Many men and women can handle themselves without hurting or destroying each other economically or physically, and not all men and women, on divorcing, use their children as pawns or take them as hostages.  But WHEN some do, it seems to be “game time” for others. It’s “show time.”  All can be manipulated, and the longer the conflict goes on, the higher the bills,  the more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public), the higher the stakes and the greater the risks of those personally involved — yet these concessions are often described as the intended methodologies to change the outcome.

See nearby image of that post’s labels (tags), a screenprint from the bottom of the published post.

(Filename only): LGH|FCM Post 2017Dec17 (-8a8) (AlsoRefs to (-62M, 2017Mar6 for the CADVs) ~~Tags, as added 2020Jan3 Fri..

I just added them now (two-plus years late) because I see it has an extended footnote on some of the key DV organizations’ collaborating with the AFCC; noting also the Wellstones’ (the late Senator Paul and his wife Sheila’s) involvement and the promotion throughout of supervised visitation, and presenting (year 2000?) at AFCC alongside well-known and still-active/ well-known “responsible fatherhood” policy-activist professor, Ronald Mincy, Ph.D. (Columbia University).

This post is full of links (including to one from March 6, 2017 (short-link ending “-62M”), outlining USA’s DV statewide coalitions and under what “CFDAs” (Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance) they are funded. (Note: What was “CFDA.gov” as I understand it is now at “Assistance.gov”), images, and discussions, many of which explain key parts of PRWORA affecting the family courts.

Over the years I also learned more and more (through reading…) how very early in the DV movement, the incorporation (insistence) on maintaining “Batterers Intervention Programming” was engrained and accepted.  Effectively, this also entrenches behavioral modification for ALL POSSIBLE:  direct victims, perps, and/or children as witnesses (or direct victims), thus… obviously — more work for behavioral modification professionals, and more surveys, datas, RCTs (“Randomized Controlled Trials”) to be written up on “what works best..” In this manner, continued work is guaranteed for social scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, trauma-experts, lawyers (of course), and the family courts’ ecological niche of nonprofits contracting with the courts (the counties) or private parties, and running the certifications, conferences (etc.) and “CEUs” for the same.

That AFCC membership also is heavily represented among those professions and activities supported especially by the access and visitation grants’ “supported program” targets AND the fatherhood curricula providers (religious or secular, some conservative, some progressive) “must be coincidence…”  Yep, no foresight, planning, or “perpetual outsourcing/privatized to tax-exempts by design” was involved there at the highest levels….and (keep repeating if you want to continue believing (kidding yourself) this AFTER becoming aware of (a) AFCC as an entity (and its various members’ nonprofits as they interact with family courts internationally); and (b) USA’s 1996 Major restructuring of welfare, that round called “PRWORA” and subsequent reauthorizations or extensions with different and unique names…)

No, taken as a whole this is not pre-planned “legalized” RICO

(Itself an oxymoron because RICO refers to that which is corrupt, involves racketeering, and by definition is criminal: so how could it be both RICO and Legal?). 

Speaking of intervention programming and the art and practice (it’s not “science”!) of behavioral modification…

I learned recently that the term “PAIP” (Partner Abuse Intervention Program or “Professionals”) is coming in to use, resulting in (predictably) certifications for it, preferable or as distinguished from “BIP.” (Batterers Intervention Program).  I learned the acronym “PAIP” from social media after becoming aware of domestic violence prevention/shelter organization in Tarrant County Texas.   The alternative language for “Batterers Intervention” found under the heading “Reformative Services” — a short paragraph explaining:

…In order to address all sides of domestic violence, SafeHaven provides its only fee-based service, the Partner Abuse Intervention Program  (PAIP).  PAIP provides** psychoeducational services to offenders through a state accredited and evidence-based program.

How INaccurate and internally inconsistent can just two sentences be, while found under the website menu “services”?  Quick comments follow; and it has to do with both vocabulary and common sense. (it’s also inconsistent with hyphens (no hyphen “psycho-educational” and none “state-accredited” but one for “evidence-based.”  Minor details(?)  but in such a short description, perhaps a bit more care could’ve been taken.

(** No it doesn’t!  It cannot: “A Program is not a PERSON” (or provider, or entity).  They just finished saying it’s a service; so whoever is, eventually, paid for the services, provides the “psycho-educational services,” notably NOT identified in this paragraph, which by this mis-statement also distracts from any leads, or leaving any helpful clues to how those payees/providers might be found.

The second sentence again references “program.”  So the two sentences rambled from SafeHaven Provides a Service, PAIP, while PAIP provides service to offenders through an (un-named) program.”  Most likely, SafeHaven of Tarrant County, Inc. provides either the place and/or the employees or subcontractors to run PAIP classes.  While this is possibly just some less than clear writing, it’s also obviously not intended to specify responsibility.  Nor does the website (link shown above) post its financials, but I did find and Tweet them last night (Jan. 2, 2020)…

***NB: it doesn’t say “State of Texas,” and I wonder if it was or was the one I found being certified in Illinois.).

I wonder if organizations which can’t distinguish between a program, a person, and a service are fully qualified to teach “offenders” (not “batterers”) the difference between right and wrong…

That “BIPP” remains a subsidized (by federal/state grants and at times court-ordered attendee fees) is witnessed by the continuing conferences of “BISC-MI” and their various participants from across the United States.  The BISC-MI Coalition dates back to JUST BEFORE Welfare Reform (to about 1993) has some religious origins as to its founder and is something to maintain an awareness of, for those concerned about this field.

My position — throughout — is opposition.  Like “supervised visitation” I think it’s a “cop-out” — and diminishes the definition of abuse and domestic violence throughout.  Because it’s been in place since at least the early 1980s, the likelihood of its going away any time soon is small, but that’s still no reason for the public (who funds this through taxation) to be ignorant of the topic or the field!

Here’s another 2017 extended post on PRWORA and boy, does it show some of the size and diversity of interests in this topic and all the associated Social Science fascination with RCTs, as practiced by university-aligned and collaboratively funded nonprofits, some of the larger ones around are detailed in here:

Post Title (as published): The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].

What would you call this post?  After reading, if you have a better title, comment and tell me.  Until then, in full, it’s:

To go back to the top of this post you’re now viewing, click on its title: Arizona! (Career AFCC Academics’ Self-Disclosure Habits, Home Habitats/Economic Niches, cont’d.) [Started Nov. 13, 2019, Publ. only Jan. 3, 2020]. (short-link ends “-bAu,”)

I may come back to this after publishing my first post of 2020, here.//LGH!

Written by Let's Get Honest

January 3, 2020 at 7:25 pm

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: